There are many reasons why wildlife photos can turn out poorly, but there’s one that I see more than anything else. Is it bad focus? Not any more – subject detection has really minimized that problem. What about high ISO noise? Nope, a few clicks and the photo looks clean. The animal is looking in the wrong direction, or is obscured by a piece of vegetation? Well, we’re getting close…
What if the wildlife looks great, but there’s an unattractive background behind it? Yes, that’s it! I see this problem frequently, and solving it is one of the easiest ways to radically improve the look of your wildlife photos. Let’s demonstrate this with a few examples.
The human brain is an amazing tool. Even so, it has some peculiarities that are good to know about. For example, our our hunter (and gatherer) brain tends to focus disproportionately on the main subject when we’re taking pictures. Once we’re looking at the subject, we tend to stop perceiving the space around it. Classic tunnel vision! The result is a photo with a bad background.
At that point, the only remedy is a judicious use of the delete key. Before it gets to that point, try to pay attention to the background and environment around your subject, not just the subject itself. Suppress the “hunter’s brain” and make room for the artist’s, or if you prefer, the photographer’s brain.
All of the example photos in this article have one thing in common: I only had to make a small camera movement in order to change the background significantly. While that won’t always be the case (oh how I wish I had wings of my own), you will usually have some control over how the background looks.
The photos above are what gave me the idea to write this article. I photographed the Superb Parrot at the Prague Zoo during my recent testing of the Nikon Z 600mm f/6.3 lens. In the first photo, vegetation at the back of the aviary was behind the parrot. The result is a natural-looking portrait in a seemingly wild setting. Meanwhile, the reddish background in the second photo may evoke the typical color of Australia, the continent where this species is native. However, rather than Mount Uluru, the sunlit facade of a nearby restaurant was the background this time.
In the next photos, you can admire the singing pose of one of Europe’s smallest songbirds, the Eurasian Wren. The first image has the austere simplicity of a brown forest background, but such a great singing performance deserved more. I took a small step to the side so that a beech tree with orange leaves would be between me and the Wren. This gave the bird’s performance a much more colorful stage. Although in this case, technically speaking, it is the foreground rather than the background that I changed.
One of the target species I wanted to photograph in Sri Lanka was the Indian Pitta. A beautiful, colorful bird, but one that likes to spend its time in impenetrable thickets. I managed to find an individual that was regularly perching on one of the more exposed branches about three meters above the ground. The problem, as you might guess, was the background.
I stood up to my calves in murky water, trying to hide as much as possible while solving the problem of the unsightly background. The bird landed on a branch, started singing, and I tried to frame its head in one of the spots in the background. It wasn’t entirely bad, but the bright spots on the right-hand side were too much for my taste. Because the background is so bright, it draws away from the subject.
I tried to squeeze a little more into the bush I was standing next to. In the meantime, of course, the bird had flown away. I was standing in an awkward position, comfort was out of the question, but the background improved dramatically. The only thing missing was the Pitta. Luckily, she showed up after a while, and I finally got a shot I’m quite happy with. Perhaps the background could have been further improved in post-production, but I deliberately left it without any retouching.
Next, an animal whose body is covered not with feathers but with scales. When I photographed this Oriental Garden Lizard in Sri Lanka, I already had this article in mind and wanted to see how many backgrounds I could capture. These are the variations I came up with.
First, a photo where the lizard was on the shady side of the trunk, with sunny vegetation in the background:
Next, a bit of a happy accident. I pressed the shutter right when someone in a green shirt walked around the tree behind the lizard. The tones behind the lizard’s body are the person’s shirt and arm:
The next moment, the lizard left the shadow and came out onto the bright part of the trunk. With small changes in camera position, I was able to get a desaturated green rice field as the background:
Then a pile of logs, some of which were charred:
Next, a blue sky with a distant tree at the bottom:
And lastly, for a “studio” look, the deep shadow of the neighboring shelter:
As you can see, each photo has a completely different color mood. Just pick the right one. For simplicity’s sake, I’ve arranged four compositionally similar photos next to each other. Which one do you like best?
As I’ve shown you today, it is always very important to perceive the photo as a whole. Although our hunter’s brain tries to focus primarily on the main subject, take a moment to engage your compositional brain to examine the entire photo. When you do, you’ll see what you like and dislike about the background, and you will likely find a way to improve it!
Although I have used wildlife in the examples here, the same tips apply to human models or even product photography. As always, I would love to hear your experiences and opinions in the comments below the article. I wish you success in finding good subjects against pleasing backgrounds!
Yup, another splendid example how you put things in context making it easy to make bigger steps forward by trying the more significant things first. There are good “technical” explanations around this topic to be found, but the way you prove it with a group or series of photos, that were really made rather than taking one and manipulating it in differetn ways to show off the effect makes it really more obvious that anybody can do something about it on site, in the moment and within a blink of an eye. This is chaos theory applied to photography: The smallest possible modification in the starting conditions of a process can lead to an enourmous variation in output.
Exactly as you write, Thomas: “The smallest possible modification in the starting conditions of a process can lead to an enourmous variation in output.” Especially in the case of telephoto lenses, this is 100% true. The difference between a good and an average photo can really be only a few centimeters. Of course, nowadays you can change the background with a few clicks, but that’s not a photographic approach. I can also cover a hundred metres in my car faster than Usain Bolt and even faster than Cheetah, but that’s not going to impress anyone.
I really enjoy the second lizard background because the brighter head and darker body contrasts with the reverse color scheme on the background. However, the first lizard shot is unique in that the eye has a catchlight.
Thanks for the tip, Jason! My favorite is probably the second photo from the “push-up” series. I managed to capture the lizard so that it wasn’t even touching the wood with its front legs. But this one is more about the story than the background.
I prefer charred log background of the lizard shots. I think it complements the subject the best. I’m curious which one you prefer Libor?
Thank you for your pick, Josiah. Leaving aside the composition and focusing only on the colors, my favorite of the quartet below is photo number two. I like the monochromatic nature of it and the subtle tonal transition.
It is amazing how a small step to the right or left changes the composition. I am always looking for this when I am out shooting. Great article!.
Thank you, Steven. Really, sometimes all it takes is a little movement. Especially at very long focal lengths. Telephoto lenses are amazing at that. You can take great advantage of that when you’re shooting in very messy, chaotic environments. Just wiggle your hips, move a little to the side, and everything is beautifully tidy in the picture. This way, I could take “tidy” photos even in my kids’ room.
In most cases of wildlife photograpy it is not possible to influence the background with the choice of location, because many animals are only visible for a short time and you are happy to get a photo at all.
Nevertheless, an important contribution, because if it is possible, it also brings a great improvement
Unfortunately, it is often necessary to accept things as they are. But it’s still good to have an ideal in mind that we work towards.
I agree. I’ve noticed this in my own photos. I mostly use a 300/f4D and 1.4TC on a D7500 or Z5. I do select background in LR and reduce clarity and sharpness and play with contrast and exposure, but that is a bit tricky. I gather PS has better options but I’m not good with software. There’s not too much scope for moving around in a hide.
Of course, the post process allows for great possibilities, however, the ideal is to do everything nicely on the spot. Even when shooting from the hide, you can work well with the background. But in this case you need to enter the process as an active background creator. For example, for my Tit photo in the latest Photography News, I used a beech branch with dry leaves to get an orange background.
One of the advantages of using long telephotos also for macro photography as well – due to the narrow angle of view, it is much easier to “select” a good background than with shorter lenses that include more of the background.
I totally agree. Sometimes even a 105mm macro lens is too wide.
Good topic and sample photos, Libor. I have way too many photos ruined by bad backgrounds. Sometimes changing positions is impossible or doesn’t help. When it all comes together though, even a mediocre subject can make for a great photo.
Your photos also show that great backgrounds don’t require an f2.8 or f4 lens.
“Your photos also show that great backgrounds don’t require an f2.8 or f4 lens.”
No, but they do require a large entrance pupil diameter, 𝐷.
E.g., 600 mm f/6.3:
𝐷 = 𝑓 / 𝑁 ≈ 600 / 6.3 ≈ 95 mm
For a given subject-to-image magnification 𝑚 the image blur disc diameter 𝑏 for background objects at ∞ is given by
𝑏 = 𝐷 × 𝑚