I'm interested in learning peoples' views on the main criteria for good to exceptional wildlife environmental images, including birds.
Criteria for good wildlife environmental images
- Thread starter seh
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
Huge topic, but I'd just say it comes down to showing some surrounding environment that itself is well shot and doesn't completely distract from the main subject or better yet complements the main subject.
IOW,
- Subject still large enough in the frame unless you're really going for a figures on a landscape approach where the point of the image isn't so much wildlife as landscape
- Background and surroundings are themselves well shot and don't have a lot of distractions like blown out patches or out of focus foreground branches or other things that pull the viewer's eyes away from the subject.
- A composition that works for the subject, its pose and the surrounding environment which in itself is a huge topic.
Basically does including more environment help tell more of a story and is that surrounding environment and background itself well shot or is it full of distracting elements.
I almost feel like the main criteria is that you'll know a good environmental shot when you see it. There are so many variables with both the subject and the surroundings that I'm not sure any set of criteria can really be applied in each case. As an example, we usually would say that the background and surroundings shouldn't distract from the animal, but sometimes the very fact that the animal does not stand out shows the amazing natural camouflage that the subject has. Very bight and colorful flowers around an animal might, again, be "distracting" to the subject, but it shows the beauty of the natural surroundings.
Just my dos centavos.
Just my dos centavos.
Calson
Well-known member
Shots that show the animal in its natural environment is key. This shows in the images of Art Wolfe and Thomas Mangelsen and Frans Lanting to mention a few. All three show images with excellent composition and placement of the subject(s) in the frame. All demonstrate patience in getting close enough for the images they want instead of relying on high lens image magnification.
David Yarrow's elephant images show a strong sense of the graphic elements and actually work well as black and white pictures which is very rare with wildlife photos.
raptor photo
Well-known member
Good placement in the frame is key, and the subject needs to have contrast with the environment. The environment needs to be 'clean' and not distracting. Lastly, the environment has to tell you something "marsh", or "mountain" or "city" or "forest". If the environment is not anything specific, I'd rather go for a portrait of the animal.
This photo of mine is one that IMO, covers all of these needs.
This photo of mine is one that IMO, covers all of these needs.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
I’ve tried to be more aware of environmental aspects in the last few years. Getting away from “in your face” close ups has been the main hurdle (although I still like to do it).
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Nature Files
Active member
Not enough focal length = environmental shot.
No but seriously, I think Steve Mattheis does some nice environmental shots with his 400mm around the Jackson Hole area. Check out some of his YouTube video for inspiration.
No but seriously, I think Steve Mattheis does some nice environmental shots with his 400mm around the Jackson Hole area. Check out some of his YouTube video for inspiration.
In my opinion, a good wildlife environmental shot is one that would make a good landscape photo even if the animal was not in the picture. Adding an aniimal makes a good photo even better.
Here is a great one from our resident alpine ibex photographer: https://bcgforums.com/threads/ibex-walk-above-the-lake.30145/
Here is a great one from our resident alpine ibex photographer: https://bcgforums.com/threads/ibex-walk-above-the-lake.30145/
David Berry
🇦🇺 Australia 🦘
Seh…
My suggestion is to look to this forum's images, rather than those of the 'masters'.
Our latest images are just a click away and are constantly changing. Look at them critically: which qualify as 'environmental'; is there a clear 'best' among the environmental images; perhaps most importantly, did the animal's environment include more than vegetation and terrain?
Here's a link to my choice of the best environmental photo among BCG's current (second week of January 2024) latest images :
… David
Ronny, may I include your image here (as well as the link to it)?
I think there will be as many suggestions and opinions as there are people who will respond. It comes down to is it a good photograph or not.
Once the basics of composition, exposure, focus are taken care of, I would say some criteria are:
1) does the photograph connect with the viewer? (is there some quality of it that keeps a person looking).
2) The photo should tell some story about where the creature lives. does the photo suggest anything about the creature's struggle for survival (i.e. an osprey diving into the water, a bird hanging for seeds, a deer along the edge of the woods etc.). The more of the story that is I the photo the better.
3) The photo should stir some emotion (joy, anger, empathy, sympathy, love, contentment, whatever but art should have an emotional connection.
I guess at the end of the day, it is art and what is and isn't art is largely in the eye of the beholder.
Jeff
Once the basics of composition, exposure, focus are taken care of, I would say some criteria are:
1) does the photograph connect with the viewer? (is there some quality of it that keeps a person looking).
2) The photo should tell some story about where the creature lives. does the photo suggest anything about the creature's struggle for survival (i.e. an osprey diving into the water, a bird hanging for seeds, a deer along the edge of the woods etc.). The more of the story that is I the photo the better.
3) The photo should stir some emotion (joy, anger, empathy, sympathy, love, contentment, whatever but art should have an emotional connection.
I guess at the end of the day, it is art and what is and isn't art is largely in the eye of the beholder.
Jeff
The “environmental” part of this question from Scott has 2 interpretations. I think he is referring to the natural habitat of the species being photographed. And, to how much of the image or total picture should the surroundings play a part. If you ask five wildlife photographers you will likely get five different answers. For me (personally), there needs to be a supporting and connecting surrounding that is habitat consistent and correct for the critter. When shot too tight, our wildlife images become hi-def renderings of identification photos found in wildlife guides.
I confess that I get caught up in this myself. I’ve blown many opportunities to tie a species to a natural setting by shooting too tight. An anhinga on the Negro River in Costa Rica comes to mind….. a snake neck bird on a stick was the resulting disappointment. The jungle river bank could have made the image a really good picture.
40 odd years ago I caught a special exhibit at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC. called “American Light”. A painting called “Twilight in the Wilderness” by Frederick Church left a lasting impression. There were elk in this impossibly beautiful scene that simply took the air out of the room. I wanted to do this with a camera.
The other side of the “environmental coin” would deal with issues affecting the future survival of the species we love to support and photograph….
I confess that I get caught up in this myself. I’ve blown many opportunities to tie a species to a natural setting by shooting too tight. An anhinga on the Negro River in Costa Rica comes to mind….. a snake neck bird on a stick was the resulting disappointment. The jungle river bank could have made the image a really good picture.
40 odd years ago I caught a special exhibit at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC. called “American Light”. A painting called “Twilight in the Wilderness” by Frederick Church left a lasting impression. There were elk in this impossibly beautiful scene that simply took the air out of the room. I wanted to do this with a camera.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
The other side of the “environmental coin” would deal with issues affecting the future survival of the species we love to support and photograph….
Thank you both. The ibex image is stunning, and I must have missed it earlier while travelling. Also love the bearded tits.
Well said WoodyI almost feel like the main criteria is that you'll know a good environmental shot when you see it. There are so many variables with both the subject and the surroundings that I'm not sure any set of criteria can really be applied in each case. As an example, we usually would say that the background and surroundings shouldn't distract from the animal, but sometimes the very fact that the animal does not stand out shows the amazing natural camouflage that the subject has. Very bight and colorful flowers around an animal might, again, be "distracting" to the subject, but it shows the beauty of the natural surroundings.
Just my dos centavos.
Thanks, I'll take a look. I'm cuurently focal length deprived. Had the 200-500 but sold it given the weight (and my ageNot enough focal length = environmental shot.
No but seriously, I think Steve Mattheis does some nice environmental shots with his 400mm around the Jackson Hole area. Check out some of his YouTube video for inspiration.
). Have been debating options since then.I agree with @MrFotoFool ! What an amazing shot and example. Thanks for bringing that photo up in the discussion and kudos to the photographer!
To me an animal environmental shot is one where I can see where, and perhaps, how the animal lives. The animal is in the shot but the larger perspective makes it environmental. I think it's a close up shot if there is only a little bit of space around the animal. I think both of these shots show what I consider an environmental shot.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Nice shots, I agree. The animal's story is well shown in a good wildlife/env shot. I love this kind of photography. The wind-blown texture of the snow and the penguin's climb really show how they live in their environment.