Over the years, I’ve received some criticism on my photography, and I think that’s a good thing. I’ve appreciated all of it, because on the whole it has made me a better photographer. After all, I have so many blind spots where I just don’t see problems. But there is one interesting piece of criticism that I’ve gotten many times, which was also part of a comment in one of my recent articles: Jason, your birds aren’t doing anything interesting! What do I think about that?
Showing Bird Behaviour
In many articles on Photography Life, we’ve written about how incorporating behavior and even humor in wildlife photography is a good thing. It adds interest to a photo and makes it more attractive and entertaining. Libor wrote something very nice about that recently.
I absolutely agree with that! Animal behaviour is very interesting and I love watching it myself. When animals due “cute” things it’s also touching and makes for especially attractive photos.
Actually, this reminds me of a discussion the Photography Life team recently did for our first online workshop, and one of the themes that came up was the difference between portrait (of people) photography and wildlife. In particular, we are so attuned to people’s facial expressions and eyes that even ordinary portraits have a lot of expressive power. Meanwhile, with wildlife, there is often more emphasis on their action – we don’t naturally have the same ability to understand subtle changes in their expressions and body language.
And of course, bird photography in particular can have a lot of action, especially with flight, which has a special allure and symbolism in our culture. Still, in a lot of my photos, my birds aren’t “doing anything,” and I’ve received some criticism about it.
But the truth is, for me, a bird sitting on a branch is already doing something interesting. Birds are usually moving around and doing things, so when they take time to sit and perch in an open and somewhat vulnerable position close to me, it’s actually rather exceptional. And when a bird is clearly at ease and close to me, it’s a rare moment. For me, it represents one of the pinnacles of birding. That’s why I value such photos, and I especially enjoy the still and more peaceful perched photos of others, too.
I also prefer not to present birds in especially flashy ways. That’s not to say that I don’t enjoy flashy photographs of birds from others, because I do, and I admire photographers who make them. But a more flashy or immediately entertaining style of photography just doesn’t represent my personality. I think the internet these days has created a culture where visual novelty is valued. It attracts immediate attention, but it just doesn’t feel right to me, and I am not much interested in becoming a famous photographer.
I also realize that there’s another conundrum. Behavioral shots – such as parents feeding baby birds or flight shots – are much more appealing to the typical viewer, and I don’t deny that such shots are fun and attractive. Again, I like such shots myself and I have nothing against them.
But for personal reasons, I also resist focusing too much on this type of photo. Such shots for me represent the phenomenon that nature is something “distant” from ourselves (and made more distant with each passing day). Sometimes the more behavioral photos push an animal into the abstract realm of being more about entertainment than just being.
Actually, a lot of the time, when birds start doing the typically “interesting” things, I often put down my camera and prefer to watch them with my eyes.
Closing Remarks
I don’t mean to say that I never shoot action or bird behavior. I like to do so when the moment is right, but my personality is simply more consistent with a gentle style of still birds.
Although action and behavior shots represent the struggle and the hidden lives of birds, and I certainly encourage others to capture such things, still portraits represent and highlight the best part about these beautiful animals to me: that they simply exist. In other words, for me, birds don’t have to do anything, because their just being there is already enough.
Spontaneous candid photos are fascinating but every now and then you need a portrait.
Although I certainly like action pictures, the reality is that with modern equipment and the very fast FPS available, most photographers are essentially shooting a movie and picking the best frame anyway. Photography used to be about the “decisive moment” and not just in street photography. The ability of a photographer to catch that great action shot of an animal was considered a prime criteria for judging the image. That criteria is watered down now although possibly counterbalanced by the fact that you have to sit there or wait long enough for the animal to get into action. So the talent is now in one’s “patience” as much as the ability to shoot. And frankly, that’s a lot like simple landscape photography, which is about waiting for the light.
I’ll pile on here–I love your static bird photos. You capture birds that most of us will never see, and for me, I like to actually see what they look like in detail. So, I prefer the static ones. And as others have said, you provide a lot of examples of interesting behavior for those who are into that. Well done–looking forward to which bird will be your #5,000.
If I may add, the most fascinating part of photographing birds is precisely that of “finding the birds”. It’s not that they are still everywhere, it’s not that you go under the park at home and find a particular bird, but even looking for it is part of bird photography in my opinion. Then they are still or in movement, they are always very interesting if the photographer manages to transform a photo of any pigeon with dynamism and colors
A lot of the UK’s “litle brown birds”, especially the arboreal ones are really difficult to see in a natural setting. You can walk through a deafening dawn chorus and never see more than speeding silhouettes, so when I see a good static bird photo I appreciate that there may be a deal of time and effort behind it. I restrict my own bird potography to bird tables and waterfowl – I know my limits!
I think its healthy to dabble with something different from time to time, but I don’t see how it can ever be wrong to take the sort of photos that engage your own interest. Keep up the good work!
I really don’t get the criticism in the first place – just looking at the photos of your past few articles reveals that you have plenty of birds with interesting behavior and/or action.
Anyway, overall composition and aesthehics of a photo matter much more to me than what the bird is doing. A “simple” picture of a sitting bird in front of a plain, unicolored background can be awesome if the colors work well together and can emphasize the inherent beauty of the subject. Also, backgrounds that give a glimpse of the habitat often make for an interesting picture, as in the blackbird photo above.
So in short, I always prefer a well-composed photo of a sitting bird over any action shots with bad lighting, background, colors etc.
I’d have never noticed that your birds aren’t doing anything. To me are simply beautiful pictures and, most important, is the way you see these subjects.
Criticism is always welcome, because it brings growth. But criticize the real root of photography (the way you see the world) …. well – to me is questionable. If you like pictures of birds not doing anything…. well, that’s your fingerprint/style/DNA/way to see the world.
Likely Ed is right – Socials need novelty and if you’re out of the main stream you do not exist. (we can cope with that).
As there are poor or good photos – there are also poor or good critics. That’s life.
I like your photos, but maybe is because I love shooting flowers. Who normally aren’t doing anything.
Greetings from Italy
Thanks for the comment, Mauro. It’s true, there are so many different ways of seeing the world, and that “personality” definitely comes out in a person’s work, whether it’s birds or not. I think sometimes there is a pressure of sorts to go after certain styles, which can be tricky and confusing, especially when starting out photography. I try to avoid those pressures though…
Thanks for a thought-provoking article, Jason! It gives me something more to appreciate about stationary shots of birds, and how they must be comfortable with the photographer to allow those photos to be taken. And it also gives an insight into your style as a photographer.
I do wonder if you’ll always see things the way you describe it here. We change a lot as photographers over time, and after all, even Audubon’s illustrations did not only show static moments or action moments, but a variety, inspired by the variety of his subjects. I know you’re not looking down on other people’s photos of birds in action, but I would also encourage you also not to look down on your photos of birds in action.
That is very true, Spencer, and it’s something to think about. I hope I do keep learning and changing over time, as that is very satisfying and worth exploring. I do definitely enjoy looking at all styles of bird photography. I do have some action shots I like, and I will definitely not ignore that style if the feeling is right.
That makes sense to me. Maybe my initial reaction was down to a difference in how we define “doing anything” — to me a lot of your bird photos do show very interesting behavior that is just more subtle than what some other photographers try to capture.
Good grief…I shoot wildlife, and do love a good inflight. However, a nice stationary shot will provide more details to appreciate. And… those who would make that statement I say get out, every day, and get consistent photographs, everyday. They might rethink what the genre requires.
Yes, I think any kind of bird can make a good photograph regardless of what it is doing. I like all kinds of bird photographs, and like you I also love flight shots.
Jason: I have heard the subject you mention on several occasions, but the criticisms generally come from people who either don’t know much about bird photography or definitely don’t value the photographer’s abilities and the technique needed to capture a certain species even if he isn’t “doing something interesting.” In principle, I would respond to the critics that: knowing the species and its feeding habits, its environment and time of year when you find them, if they are predominantly terrestrial or aerial, their vocalizations, differentiating their sexes, etc., and after all of this getting the subject to come into focus – eye, legs and tail – completely clear and in an interesting posture is not for everyone; of course, if after all of this you achieve an unexpected behavior, an interaction between subjects or simply in flight, it will add more dynamism to the shot. Adding to that, don’t forget that there are species that are not even easy to find or simply see, so being able to photograph it even if it is in a passive posture is already a merit in itself. As an example, I’ll tell you about a species I just took in Chile, it’s the “Colilarga” (long tail) Des Murs’s Wiretail (Sylviorthorhynchus desmursii) www.flickr.com/photo…ateposted/
This is perhaps the most difficult – at least in Chile – to get a complete and unobstructed bird since it lives in branches and always below 4 feet or so, adding to the fact that its tail is one and a half times the length of its body, and when it shows itself it only lasts for a few seconds and disappears never to return. That said, I believe that “doing something interesting” is not a “sine qua non” condition for not getting a great photograph. Kind regards from Chile.
Thanks for the reply, Walter. Yeah, there are all sorts of subtleties when it comes to different species. And speaking of that, you got a very nice shot of that bird. What a cool tail…I’m only two thousand kilometers away from there, by the way. Currently in São Paulo. It would be fun to visit.