Is Background Bokeh really necessary in Wildlife Photography.

[Viathelens]

With all the movement towards the mirrorless glass these days coming out at 4.5 to 8 does that mean that bokeh is a thing of the past? With the exception of spending over 14,000 on up on a lens. I love my 600 f4 however the new glass is very much out of my reach these days. Just curious how the majority of people felt about it.

When I first read your question I have to admit I was a bit stumped so I waited to see what others said. I was not sure if you were referring in some way to actual bokeh or simply to a blurred background. Bokeh is the "aesthetic quality of the blur produced in out-of-focus parts of an image." There can be good or not-so-good bokeh, but the entire image can still be blurred, and yes a wider aperture can create a softer blur.

I could be splitting hairs but there are differences in bokeh. Some people have expressed displeasure with the quality of the bokeh of the 500PF lens when water sparkles, it can be a bit harsh in quality but the quality of the overall blur in other areas can be fine. I don't think shooting with the intent of a blurred background will go out of style just as shooting with the intent of a sharp background will not go out of style. And, I have to admit, I'm still a bit stumped by the question but it must be only me.

I love to shoot to isolate my subject, i.e., a blurred background, but sometimes I do shoot to include habitat, it depends on the situation and what I get handed. I do prefer a bokeh that is softer and more overall blurred rather than with round, apparent circles. I'll soften the background as needed in PS sometimes. My 600PF offers up great blurred backgrounds, no problem there at all, even at f/6.3. Having the knowledge that background blur depends on more than aperture can help when you want a softer, more blurred background, as others have said, it also depends on the distance from you to the subject and the distance from the subject to the background.

 

[Highbow]

This type of discussion is one of many things that I enjoy about this forum. Bokeh, to me can be just that final touch of a other wise distracting background for certain subjects. Then in other settings of different subjects with a landscape behind it I want all the detail that my eye can grasp which may not best for others.

 

[Steve W]

Another thought here is that a distinguishable object or animal in the background (or foreground) may add to the image rather than be a distraction..

Yes, sometimes detail in the background helps set the scene otherwise you often have a bird / animal surrounded by not much.

 

[dplawrance]

Bokeh is that photography thing that transforms a bird within nature into a bird on a stick. Burning away the background simplifies the composition, standard fare for portraiture art. Making beautiful portraits of wildlife is a glorious thing to do. Sit or stand very still, reduce the aperture, lower the ISO, play with the exposure, move to the left to avoid the leaf, and shoot a hundred photos at 30 exposures a second. One or two of them will show sparkle in an eye focusing upon the viewer, fine, delicate feather detail, a well-focussed stick, and a bland non-distracting background. If only birds didn't move, we could focus stack them. A finely-crafted bird portrait shares the characteristics of a Gilbert Stewart portrait, a vintage timepiece, Tiffany jewelry.

But, I dare say that most wildlife portraits I see taken with a masterly-crafted $20,000 fast prime telephoto capable of emulsifying backgrounds aren't nature photographs. They have stripped all of nature away.

 

[Larry S.]

Bokeh is that photography thing that transforms a bird within nature into a bird on a stick. Burning away the background simplifies the composition, standard fare for portraiture art. Making beautiful portraits of wildlife is a glorious thing to do. Sit or stand very still, reduce the aperture, lower the ISO, play with the exposure, move to the left to avoid the leaf, and shoot a hundred photos at 30 exposures a second. One or two of them will show sparkle in an eye focusing upon the viewer, fine, delicate feather detail, a well-focussed stick, and a bland non-distracting background. If only birds didn't move, we could focus stack them. A finely-crafted bird portrait shares the characteristics of a Gilbert Stewart portrait, a vintage timepiece, Tiffany jewelry.

But, I dare say that most wildlife portraits I see taken with a masterly-crafted $20,000 fast prime telephoto capable of emulsifying backgrounds aren't nature photographs. They have stripped all of nature away.

YES! !

 

[Larry S.]

Yes, sometimes detail in the background helps set the scene otherwise you often have a bird / animal surrounded by not much.

The incredible irony, subliminal message or whatever you want to call it..is.. The boats’s name identifies the bird. Love it!

 

[Jerry Watson]

Bokeh is that photography thing that transforms a bird within nature into a bird on a stick. Burning away the background simplifies the composition, standard fare for portraiture art. Making beautiful portraits of wildlife is a glorious thing to do. Sit or stand very still, reduce the aperture, lower the ISO, play with the exposure, move to the left to avoid the leaf, and shoot a hundred photos at 30 exposures a second. One or two of them will show sparkle in an eye focusing upon the viewer, fine, delicate feather detail, a well-focussed stick, and a bland non-distracting background. If only birds didn't move, we could focus stack them. A finely-crafted bird portrait shares the characteristics of a Gilbert Stewart portrait, a vintage timepiece, Tiffany jewelry.

But, I dare say that most wildlife portraits I see taken with a masterly-crafted $20,000 fast prime telephoto capable of emulsifying backgrounds aren't nature photographs. They have stripped all of nature away.

You say most, I say some. National Geographic has $20,000 lens and have spectacular nature shots of animals with bokeh.

 

[Steve W]

The incredible irony, subliminal message or whatever you want to call it..is.. The boats’s name identifies the bird. Love it!

it was at Lakes Entrance, Victoria... the “Pelican” was a dredge used to keep the opening to the sea clear of excess sand buildup. The pelicans standing in from of the ships bow was an opportunity not to be turned down. Right place, right time.

It was a suction hopper dredge and used to work in both Australia and New Zealand. It was removed from service around 2018 and scrapped in 2020.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[EricBowles]

Certainly there are tools that can modify backgrounds. But too often I see photos where the backgrounds are not optimized by getting low or choosing an attractive angle. Getting a good background is driven by the photographer's decision or convenience - and sometimes that creates a background that complements the subject. But I see a lot of photos driven by convenience, timing, or where the background is an afterthought. It's true that you might miss a lot of photos by trying to get in an ideal position but worth the gain. After a safety shot, getting into a better position is usually worth the effort. Arthur Morris talks about the low shooting position achieved with his ankle pod - resting a long lens on his ankle and using the rear LCD for framing. With new cameras and subject detection, that technique is very effective.

 

[Doug Herr]

One of the things I dislike about many photos made with long lenses is meaningless backgrounds; a featureless wash of color tells me nothing of the bird's habitat.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

​

IMHO a bird's story is more complete with at least a suggestion of habitat and the real trick is to suggest habitat without distracting from the bird

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.

​

This goes equally for mammals

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.

(the last photo was made with an unchipped 280mm hence no EXIF data for the lens)

 

[Mike Delgado]

Positioning is everything.

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.

 

[raptor photo]

I think it's perfectly fine for portraits of birds to have a featureless BG. These are just portraits and the meaning of the photo is the bird. However, the best photos in your collection are mostly the ones that have an environment somewhere in the picture.

 

[Doug Herr]

I think it's perfectly fine for portraits of birds to have a featureless BG. These are just portraits and the meaning of the photo is the bird. However, the best photos in your collection are the mostly ones that have an environment somewhere in the picture.

I have many photos with a featureless background, and as you wrote the ones I value more are the ones with some environment that tell more about the bird than only what it looks like.

 

[Len Cohen]

IMO, the new faster glass is driven by light weight, smaller and in some cases less expensive lenses and the trend towards more hand held photography. Those features can open up new possibilities for light and nimble photography and can make long lens wildlife work economically feasible for a wider range of photographers but there's nothing about these slower aperture lenses that lessens the importance of good backgrounds in wildlife work. The meaning of good background is of course subjective and not all wildlife photography demands soft out of focus backgrounds but when that's the goal, lenses or shooting perspective that can deliver backgrounds that don't compete with the subject can still be very important.

In a lot of situations slower aperture lenses can deliver fantastic backgrounds just by careful attention to shooting position or field craft that gets a photographer in position to shoot with the background a long way back from the subject. So it's certainly not impossible to get fantastic smooth backgrounds even with a stop or more slower lens of the same focal length but we often have to work a bit harder to do that.

[edit] it looks like @Steve beat me to the point about field craft and positioning as a way to overcome background issues with slower glass

I am a very enthusiastic amateur wildlife photographer. All the images presented will look good with any lens because the background is clear. Bokeh comes into its own with a relatively messy background. I certainly dont have the luxury of being able to necessarily position myself to eliminate all the other variables. In certain situations bokeh doesnt come into play, for example, photographing a BIF in the sky but bokeh makes a huge difference agoaint a BIF flying across vegetation. I have a 500PF Nikon which I love (light and accessible) but compared to the quality of my Nikon 500f4 it definitely lacks especially whenI want bokeh. Post production with any software can never compensate. Its a cost factor. I cant afford a $12000 lens and its very debatable as to whether its worth the difference it makes...but the difference is real.

 

[DRwyoming]

Bokeh is good but so is being able to see the background, if it is relevant. A lot of this is fashion. Bokeh is fashionable. It can be over done. I'm interested in how I see things. Have I been trained how to see? Do I see what others see?

Bokeh does not really mean a completely out of focus blur. Bokeh is used to describe the quality of out of focus area, particularly the quality of out of focus specular highlights, any image that isn’t completely in focus or completely smooth and out of focus has Bokeh but the quality of that blur including shape, smoothness and size of out of focus highlights or dark patches is what bokeh describes.

Seems some on this thread and even the thread title conflates the term bokeh with completely out of focus and monotone backgrounds but that’s really not what the term bokeh means. Every selective focus image with any background texture or background highlights has bokeh but some are smoother or harder edged or more or less pleasing depending on things like relative distances, aperture, lens design and the like.

IOW, it’s not like an image has or doesn’t have bokeh (assuming any degree of selective focus) it’s just that the bokeh or quality of out of focus areas may vary.

Not picking on you in particular but this seems like a recurring idea in this thread that bokeh somehow means completely blurred backgrounds instead of a term describing the quality and nature of background blur regardless of whether that’s just subtle blurring of identifiable background features or a near complete blur of a background with texture or highlights.

The great images Doug posted above that still show slightly blurred backgrounds and environments have bokeh and other images with heavily blurred but textured backgrounds can be discussed in terms of their bokeh. It’s not an all or nothing term.

 

[mdirvin]

The great images posted above that still show slightly blurred backgrounds and environments have bokeh and other images with heavily blurred but textured backgrounds can be discussed in terms of their bokeh. It’s not an all or nothing term.

I agree with you entirely, but sometimes its just fun to have "no background"...

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Robert S]

If I take a single image with a camera only a single plane is in focus. Lenses are not perfect so that is an idealization of what is the case. What constitutes 'out of focus' blur is in large part determined by the ability of a person to see. In some instances it is necessary to remove all the background. I did this in a recent image of a male King Parrot:

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

The reason I made the 'background' black was because all there was in the background was a blurred grey horizontal band caused by a gutter. I know it was a gutter but only because I took the photo. Maybe this is an example of chiaroscuro.

In some circumstances a blurred background [ not so much background but more an effect caused by looking into direct sunlight ] can be used as an artistic compliment to an image:

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Use of focus stacking is beneficial in certain circumstances. Dynamic range can be increased ad nauseum by multiple exposures of the same scene.

It seems to me that how a person sees the world influences those around them. At one time the only images of the world were those of reflections in still water. Maybe because those people didn't have Google they had the belief that the images [ laterally inverted ] gave a glimpse of another world, and that is why they threw valuable possessions into the water.

Some people had better eyesight than western anthropologists and could see that a 'single star' was in fact a binary that the anthropologists needed telescopes to see. Come in a good conspiracy theory.

I could rant on but I'll stop.

 

[Anjin San]

BG bokeh means different thi to different people…and while I like the out of focus effect, personally the completely schmeared BG isn’t that attractive. I prefer some blurring but leave enough detail to provide some idea of the animal in its environment…that makes a much better ima*e for me. Steve prefers the smooth buttery BG effect..but even in his there is usu some color, brightness, and contrast variations to provide interest.

 

[eaj101]

Keep in mind that although aperture is really the only thing that can affect depth of field, there are a number of things that can affect how our backgrounds look. Most notably, your distance to the subject and the distance of the subject to the background. The quality of the background can have a significant impact as well.

Take a look at these images - all of which were shot with slower glass. To me, the backgrounds look every bit as good as what I see with my faster glass. However, they only look that way because I positioned myself so I was close enough to the subject to (more or less) fill the frame, the background was somewhat distant, and the backgrounds where generally "smooth" and not overly disturbed. Also, I'd add that not every background has to be a smooth, creamy blur - sometimes a hint of what's there is helpful for context. The trick is that it's just a hint and not hitting you over the head!

Oh, and I'm contractually obligated to mention that the first two were with a pre-production 600 PF.


View attachment 73967
View attachment 73968

View attachment 73972

View attachment 73971
View attachment 73970

Love the blue heron shot!

 

[Woody Meristem]

To definitively answer your question -- It depends. It depends on the photographer's and/or viewer's personal preference; it depends on whether the background detracts from the main subject or distracts the viewer's from the subject; it depends on whether it shows the subject in it's habitat.

 

[splatbass]

This is an example of one where I'm glad the background is not very blurred. The elk is clearly the subject, but his environment is showing. IMO it wouldn't be as good with a completely blurred background. If you would prefer it completely blurred that is fine, it is all just opinion anyway. Both ways are valid IMO, I just prefer this one.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Doug Herr]

This is an example of one where I'm glad the background is not very blurred. The elk is clearly the subject, but his environment is showing. IMO it wouldn't be as good with a completely blurred background. If you would prefer it completely blurred that is fine, it is all just opinion anyway. Both ways are valid IMO, I just prefer this one.

View attachment 74193

Aside from providing habitat/context, the background is also dark enough that it doesn't distract from the elk, has no 'warm' colors that would look like they should be closer than the elk, and no colors merging with the elk's colors. Nice!

 

[Chappy]

I think it is more of a decision for each image and how you portray it. Sometimes i like just the background to be blurred with only the subject isolated in the frame. It has a place in wildlife photography. Other images may need the background for many different purposes. Here are three photos where I used different backgrounds and why. Now you may or may not have liked the backgrounds that were used but remember it is a subjective decision for each of us. I can say that I consider these successful as each of these photos have been published and I have also sold each of these images as art pieces.

The first is a white tail buck in a cotton field. The buck is actually eating the cotton. Most people don't know that many ruminant animals love the seed in cotton. It is high in protein . Many dairies in the US actually feed cotton seed in their rations. Many farmers are also hunters and this image hits a feel good place in their minds.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

In this next photo I was driving around in my Polaris Ranger around my house and this scaled quail was sitting on the fence with the mustard weed in front of him. In the background is a window in my house. As I was shooting the photo I didn't like the background until I moved in front of the window that just seemed to highlight the quail. When I looked at it in LR I really like the look and darkened the background just a bit.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

In this last photo, this Immature Great Horned Owl was sitting on the top of a trencher in my barn. it is a quantset barn and i wanted to keep the look of it being inside a barn. Everything in the barn was in the shade while the owl was sitting in some light coming into the barn on a cloudy day. I didn't like the backgound that much with the diagonals in the background. However, I did like the lighting and felt that the look in the background was structural and gave the look that the owl was inside a structure.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[JoelKlein]

I like this thread.
In my opinion, Some photographers just gotta have their fast glass for the following reasons:

1) They need it for their own confidence. (They lack)
2) Status!
3) Attention from others.
4) They actually see the difference in image quality.

Some folks buy 2 camera systems and Fast glass for business, like Steve, who is writing books and creating content.

I doubt you will go on a paid tour with someone without him having fast & heavy glass. Because, fast glass = a pro!

The folks who really NEED fast glass, are not that many.

In the past fast glass was the primary tool to overcome high ISO. This isn’t the case anymore. I can shoot professional images with long glass f/6.3 creamy bokeh. While I do own portrait fast glass in studio, gauss what, not because it’s f/1.2, but because its a whole different world of a difference at f/5.6!

Some folks - including myself, still feel they have to buy the best long glass because they can see the difference, otherwise they would not buy it!

I Skipped the 180-600 before I knew Nikon will surprise us with the 600/6.3. Why? I didn’t like the image quality of the lens, and I predicted it will see a number of people returning it, I wasn’t wrong. Would I buy a 600/TC? No! Why? I don’t like TC’s, and because the 800pf is slightly better bare. If Nikon would have offered a Z mount 600/4 with no TC, big chance I would buy it, because for ME, the ISO is a hassle to clean up in post. I want clean image in the field. That’s me. Everyone has their own opinion.

Bottom line, Everyone has their own priorities in:
Bokeh
ISO
Weight limit

 

[fcotterill]

Defining and utilizing Bokeh in images is an intriguing pursuit. As discussed already, its relevance in a specific composition is at the discretion of the artist. You decide how to depict the subject.
Here's some material for anyone curious to research this arena, and particularly the nature of bokeh

On Bokeh

Bokeh with 5 Normal lenses at f/4 on a D810 - the last word

This continues with the bokeh testing of the previous post. The candidate lenses are: Nikon 60mm f/2.8 AF Micro-Nikkor Nikon 58mm f/1.4 AFS-Nikkor G Coastal Optical 60mm f/4 UV-Vis-IR Apo Macro Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG Art Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Otus At f/4, we can show samples from all the lenses...

blog.kasson.com

10 Tips for Better Bokeh in Photography

"Bokeh" is a term to describe the quality of out-of-focus areas in a photograph, both in the foreground and background. Although some aspects of bokeh are subjective, everyone seems to like creamy, smooth bokeh, whereas the infamous "onion rings" are unwanted in photos and probably better left...

photographylife.com

In 2016, a prominent dpr member, M Oelund, shared the results of laboratory comparisons of some of the faster Nikkor primes often favoured for their image quality in portraiture. Here's the interesting graphic comparing their bokeh :

What are the best Nikon lenses one can own which are perhaps superior to thier competitors?

400/2.8E FL ED is definitelly a reference lens concerning the resolution (the image still has details when it is heavily cropped). Moreover it has a kind of crispiness no other lens has! No other of any brand, I mean. The other qualities to consider are: the bokeh (perfect by 400/2.8 but I am...

bcgforums.com

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.

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.