Embrace the backlight?

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).

B

Ben C

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
One of the frustrations I think every bird photographer can relate to is the difficulty of photographing colorful birds in a dark forest with a bright sky behind them. I'm often tempted to crank up my exposure compensation and let the sky go white to ensure I have enough detail in the shadows to pull out the colors in post. That was my intent when shooting this rufous-tailed jacamar, a very colorful species that was one of my target birds on a recent trip to Belize. However, in looking at this shot, I think it may work better as a silhouette. I have made no edits to this image other than a slight crop. I like the way the silhouette emphasizes the long, thin biil and the bird's cute little potbelly, and I also like how the window in the vegetation frames the bird. But it's still a busy scene with all the leaves and vines and I'm not totally convinced that it works, or that it's even a keeper. I'd appreciate hearing from others on this board as to what you think. Thanks.

20230618_Belize (Z8)_0202.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
I like the silhouette. Gives it a serene mysterious feeling. I find the blob of dark on the left foreground especially distracting, unbalancing the overall image, so I think I'd be cropping and maybe using the remove tool to simplify the image. I like the out of focus parts in the background, gives a sense of place.
 
Member's gallery
Thanks for the feedback Bill. Do you mean the dark edge on the left? I can see where cropping in a little tighter would help simplify. I’ll have to give that a try when I get home tonight.
 
Member's gallery
If this were my shot it would be deleted. I would keep it for the personal memory but it does absolutely nothing for me as a presentable image .Sometimes you just have to enjoy the moment. From what you have said it is a beautiful colorful little bird. Thats what the shot should emphasize
 
Member's gallery
Silhouette is a technique typically used to isolate a subject. IMO there is just too much going on here. But if you're determined to save it from the bin at a minimum I'd suggest converting it to B/W and doing some cropping and a bunch of cloning of the spiderweb of branches.
 
Member's gallery
I agree with the other comments. The bird is very small in the frame and lacks a clean enough background for the silhouette to work.

I do think it's a good technique to use. I try to look for both extremes - front light or back lighting. In this case, it's just sky behind the bird. I'm looking for nice colors such as foliage or an orange sky, and rimlight around the edges of the subject. My use case is often with shorebirds, and in such a scenario I may have 2-3 hours of nothing but backlit birds.
 
Member's gallery
I would also have deleted it - My reasons being:
1. The image is too busy for the bird to stand out as a silhouette
2. The stance of the bird is not ideal for a silhouette
3. The bird is too small in the frame to crop nicely to isolate the bird
If I kept it - it would be to learn from it. Nothing wrong with your though process - thats where one starts - but you grow from there
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
EricBowles said:
I agree with the other comments. The bird is very small in the frame and lacks a clean enough background for the silhouette to work.

I do think it's a good technique to use. I try to look for both extremes - front light or back lighting. In this case, it's just sky behind the bird. I'm looking for nice colors such as foliage or an orange sky, and rimlight around the edges of the subject. My use case is often with shorebirds, and in such a scenario I may have 2-3 hours of nothing but backlit birds.
Click to expand...
Appreciate the feedback and constructive criticism. I think you all have crystallized what I didn't like about the image, which is basically everything other than the outline of the bird itself. Off it goes.
 
Member's gallery
I go with W. Eugene Smith who said he used available light - or any damn light that is available. A touch of fill flash can work wonders with birds in the shadows and it is far better solution than simply adjusting the EV and blowing out the background.
 
Member's gallery
Was traveling light so I did not bring my flash and Better Beamer, but I agree it would have been useful in this situation.
 
Member's gallery
In low light situations very little output is needed from the flash and I often use a SB-800 (and no Better Beamer) in Manual mode at 1/32 and it is all that is needed.

My SB-800 speedlights weigh about 16 ounces with 4 AA batteries and so not a hardship to manage in a camera bag. I have been using mine since 2004 and they have been trouble free and very reliable. The only better flash units have been my Quantum Qflash but with their power pack they are much too heavy to consider for use in the field.
 
Member's gallery
I certainly share your frustration in trying to deal with birds against the sky in the rain forest. For me, I only use silhouette type pictures if the bird I am attempting to display has a shape that is unmistakable-you do not need details or colors to ID the bird. I also find that my most effective silhouettes were designed to be that way from the beginning; ie, I took them originally to be silhouettes, not just salvage shots. The Jacmar certainly qualifies as an easily IDed bird from the proper silhouette but I agree with Elsa-this is not the shot to use that approach.
 
Member's gallery
I like a good silhouette, but I think there are too many blotchy leaves, etc. to make it a good silhouette. I would go nuts trying to make it work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top