|
Birds in Nature - images of wild birds by Richard Ditch |
|
|
As far as I'm concerned, nature photos should look natural. I want a photo of a bird to look like the bird appears when I see it in the wild: proper color; proper light; proper habitat. This is my guiding principle for all my bird photos.
I see birds as part of nature, and want to photograph them as part of nature, and show them as part of nature. A bird removed from its natural environment is somehow incomplete and artificial in my view, so I try to show the habitat and environment that is so much a part of the evolution of that species.
I don't want distorted colors from high saturation films; I don't want colors grossly distorted because they are taken so early or so late in the day that the color temperature of the light and of the film are vastly different. I don't want a warming filter used on the lens to simulate this early or late light. I don't want color enhancing filters used. I don't want the image underexposed to increase the saturation.
I don't want the bird to look like a subject in a museum diorama, where the background looks fake. I don't want the bird isolated against a pure color background on a bare stick if that's not the way it occurs in the wild. I don't want the bird to look dead or mounted.
Return to Rants & Raves Table of Contents
Natural light is a major contributor to a natural looking bird image. Natural light comes from one direction for the most part, and creates shadows on a rounded subject that give it a three-dimensional look. Examples: Costa's Hummingbird, Verdin
Fill flash is recommended widely to reduce or eliminate shadows, but I find it is mostly overused so that it over powers the natural light. It often makes a bird look pasted onto a separate background, kills the 3D look, and makes it look very artificial.
Fill flash can work wonders in competent hands, but it takes lots of practice and skill to pull it off. If it is obvious to the viewer that it was used, it was too strong. I use fill flash sparingly, and less than 10% of the images on this site have it. Examples: Western Flycatcher, American Coot, American Kestrel, Black Phoebe, Cooper's Hawk, Green Heron, Northern Saw-whet Owl
Return to Rants & Raves Table of Contents
High saturation films are very popular with some photographers: they make an image more vibrant and they are more likely to be selected by magazine editors.
To me, they make the birds look wrong. After 30 or so years of seeing thousands of real birds in real world situations, I have a good impression of what they should look like. When a high saturation film has been used, I can almost always tell as soon as I see the image because it doesn't look like the real birds I'm used to seeing.
The most widely misused high saturation film is Fujichrome Velvia. It can give wonderful results when used correctly by a skilled photographer, but most often it pumps up the colors to an unbelievable level and brings too much contrast to the entire scene. It is only made worse when it is rated a stop faster and pushed in processing. Where it works well is in very soft light and with birds that have very little color such as shorebirds.
Return to Rants & Raves Table of Contents
Nature photos should be of true nature subjects - wild birds that are part of the avifauna and found in the wild. No zoo shots; no game farm shots; no feral ducks; no hybrid park mallards. Calling a photo a "nature shot" of a released bird that isn't part of the established ecosystem is just like calling photos of farm animals nature shots. Someone who considers themselves a "nature photographer" should be able to tell a natural subject from a non natural one when encountering it in the wild.
Return to Rants & Raves Table of Contents
There is a school of thought (perhaps stemming from the ancient contest rules of the Photographic Society of America) that believes that a nature photograph must not show the "hand of man" in the composition. This means that the obvious buildings, automobiles, ships, machinery, etc. should not be shown in the frame. It also prohibits fence posts, utility poles and lines, barbed wire, man made bird houses, etc. It makes grudging allowance for bands (rings) on the legs of banded birds (Royal Terns), but only for endangered species (at least, that's how I remember the exception).
Seldom is there any concern for the other obvious signs of the HOM: multiple catch lights in the eye of the subject from flash set ups; hand painted poster board backgrounds for hummingbirds at controlled outdoor studios, birds over lit from the front when the light clearly is coming from behind.
I seldom take photos of birds where a car or building appears in the image - these just don't appeal to me. But I take plenty of images of birds on wires (Loggerhead Shrike), posts (Western Meadowlark), fences (White-crowned Sparrow) or poles (Red-tailed Hawk). These have become such a part of the rural landscape that they are hard to avoid. Also, the birds themselves have been quick to take advantage of them. If a wild bird chooses to sit on a pole or a barbed wired fence, I consider it reasonable to include in the image of that bird. When a photographer is using thousands of dollars of large heavy equipment to record an image of a bird on a piece of film or a ccd array, it seems rather silly to pretend that the HOM is not involved in creating the image.
Return to Rants & Raves Table of Contents
There is a strong tendency for photographers to stick to the obvious: large, slow, or bright subjects that are abundant. This is most often seen with photos of herons or egrets, Canada Geese, and backyard birds like Northern Cardinal and House Finch. These "beginner birds" can all make good subjects, and are fine while learning the basics of bird photography.
But there are many other possible subjects out there. Don't overlook the less glamorous female birds. Learn about all the species that occur in your area and try to get good images of the more difficult and less often seen species like the native sparrows (and I'm not talking about the introduced House Sparrow which is really a weaver finch). Example: Clay-colored Sparrow
Return to Rants & Raves Table of Contents
I have little interest in taking "pretty bird on a stick" shots. These are usually made in a backyard "studio" situation, where the photographer puts up a stick near a feeder, positioned so the view from the camera isolates the bird against a background of a single color. With the background far enough away and a large aperture optic, the depth of field is so shallow that the background is completely out of focus and lacks all detail.
For my tastes, this is little different from placing a captive bird in a studio. My preferences are for images that show birds as part of their natural surroundings. Examples: Baird's Sparrow, Great Horned Owl, Curve-billed Thrasher
Okay, I do take such blown background shots on occasion (Loggerhead Shrike, Burrowing Owl, Verdin), but only when I find the bird in such a natural habitat or location of its choice.
Return to Rants & Raves Table of Contents
There is a mystique about only taking photos in the "magic" light near dawn and dusk, when the color temperature of the light makes the image look somewhat reddish. Many people call this "sweet" light. I don't mind a bit of color cast, especially when this light is low in contrast and allows the viewer to see more detail that may be hidden in shadow in other light, but I don't think it is the best light all the time or the only light that should be used. Example: Western Meadowlark
We see far more birds in other lighting conditions, and I see no reason why we shouldn't photograph them in that light. Example: Yellow-rumped Warbler
Return to Rants & Raves Table of Contents
The Rules of Composition are a fabrication for people who want the artistic part of photography reduced to a formula that can be applied to any situation just as exposure compensation is applied. They can't think for themselves. There is some basis for some of the rules, and it doesn't hurt to learn about them and try them out. But composition should come from the photographer's vision and passion for the subject; not from an arbitrary formula that says there are four "power" points in a frame that must be used, or that birds shouldn't be taken head-on from the front. Rules are for photographers who can't think or feel for themselves. Examples: Song Sparrow, Great Egrets
The most popular style of bird photography for many photographers and viewers has the bird occupying almost the entire image area. This can be good, especially where the image must be viewed in small scale as on a web page. Examples: Black-legged Kittiwake, Curve-billed Thrasher
But, a bird doesn't have to dominate the image: I enjoy making photos in which the bird compliments the overall composition and acts almost as an accent to the habitat comprising the bulk of the image. Examples: Black-and-white Warbler, Lesser Goldfinch, Common Raven, Say's Phoebe
Return to Rants & Raves Table of Contents
Since birds are small and hard to approach for the most part, there is a tendency to think that more focal length is the solution to better images. Yes, monster lenses will let you get bigger image sizes than shorter focal length lenses in many situations, but not always. Big lenses are heavy, and require big heavy tripods to keep them steady. They make for large heavy setups that are hard to carry and hard to position.
An alternative is to use smaller and lighter lenses that don't require such massive tripods, or any tripod in some situations. With lighter gear you can be more mobile and react to changing situations faster. You aren't tied to the 10 feet behind your car trunk. Examples: Sharp-shinned Hawk, Eared Quetzal, Gray Catbird, Verdin, Palm Warbler
Return to Rants & Raves Table of Contents
It surprises me when people who express a passion for bird photography to the extent of investing many thousands of dollars in photo gear don't have a clue about what birds are in their area, what birds are likely to be seen in the places they visit, or what the name of the bird is they have already photographed.
If you really have a passion for birds, then take the time and effort to learn about them. There are many excellent field guides available for bird identification. Local bird clubs or Audubon chapters run field trips for all people so they can learn to ID the birds and learn what species are locally common. There are numerous site guides published for most of the major locations that tell precisely what species are likely to be seen by month. The most common field guides can be found at most bookstores, but you'll find a better selection of field guides and numerous site guides for many distant locations at the American Birding Association web site (see Useful Links).
I don't expect every photographer to know the proper ID of every bird encountered - we all start out knowing little about the subject. But I expect a self-described nature photographer to recognize the importance of this aspect of nature photography and to attempt to determine the species identity. For many of the potential viewers of the image the correct name is at least as important as proper focus and exposure. And viewers who are birders or scientists will also be interested in the when and where of the photo, as age and molt of a bird can determine its looks, and birds found out of normal time and place are always of great interest. If a photographer can master the complications of exposure compensation needed for a Canon camera, then that photographer can master the basics of what makes a sparrow different from a warbler. If a photographer can learn how to get close to a shorebird by doing a belly crawl, then that photographer can learn to separate species.
Invest a little money and sufficient time to learn your subject. You'll know what to expect, what the habitat preferences are, what is typical behavior, when the birds are likely to be seen, etc. You'll know what is not expected and can then concentrate on that species should you encounter it. You'll learn that the "funny" duck you see at the local park but can't find in your field guide is really a hybrid mallard and of no real interest to other birders or competent publishers. And your viewers will have more respect for you and your images if you exclude non native subjects and have put the correct name to them.
|
|