For years bird photographers and others have debated the relative strengths and weaknesses of two primary “styles” of bird photography.
1/4000, f/6.3, ISO 800, Canon 7D Mark II, Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM + EF 1.4 III Extender, not baited, set up or called in
A “bird on a stick” (BOAS) is essentially a photograph of a bird perched on a stick or twig, usually with a clean background with nothing or very little else in the setting to compete with the bird. This photo of a Willow Flycatcher is a fairly typical example of a BOAS.
1/4000, f/6.3, ISO 800, Canon 7D Mark II, Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM + EF 1.4 III Extender, not baited, set up or called in
A “bird in habitat” (BIH) is a photo of a bird that includes significant portions of its habitat. Usually it’s a natural habitat and typically we don’t have such a clean look at the bird and the setting can be busy or even unattractive but we learn much more about where that bird actually lives.
Both of these shots were taken in the same area a couple of weeks apart (the photo above was taken two days ago). In fact it’s almost certainly the same flycatcher in both shots but the photos are very, very different from each other.
Some folks prefer BOAS photos because they like a clean look at the bird with little else in the frame to compete with it and since BOAS photos are typically taken up close there can be more detail to be seen. Others prefer BIH photos because they want to see the bird where it lives and potentially interacting with its environment. There’s a third camp of viewers that equivocates by saying “it depends” – if the photo is meant to show detail and/or field marks of the species (as in a field guide for example) they like BOAS but otherwise they might prefer BIH.
Over the years my overall preference has evolved from BOAS to BIH but I do enjoy quality photos of both styles. Back in the day when I was posting regularly to a bird photography critique forum (NPN – Nature Photographers Network) there was a lot of discussion about BOAS vs BIH. And that’s when my preference began to gravitate from BOAS to BIH, in part because many photographers in the BOAS camp regularly shoot setups and I much prefer bird photos where neither the behavior of the bird nor the setting has been artificially manipulated. I prefer my nature photography to be just that – natural. BOAS photos are more likely to have been set up than BIH photos but it goes without saying that not all BOAS photos are setups.
It’s my belief that over the years the pendulum of public opinion has swung significantly from BOAS to BIH, in part because most photographers who shoot setups don’t disclose how they’ve manipulated the bird and the setting to get the shot.
And folks don’t like being deceived.
Ron
Notes:
- By now it should be obvious that I have some strong opinions on this subject (what I’ve said above is just the tip of the iceberg). Not everyone will agree with me. If you feel the urge to express a different view that’s fine as long as you keep it civil, and hopefully logical.
- Once again, shooting setups isn’t necessarily unethical, especially when methods are disclosed to potential consumers of our images.
BOAS for me all the live long. BIH captures are typically too busy for my eye. But that’s jut me.
I really appreciate both kinds of bird photos. BIH can be done really well at times with patience. Oftentimes if you wait quietly a bird will move to a cleaner perch in the area, and give you an even better opportunity. Thanks to digital film being so cheap, I shoot the “so so” shots and hope for a better one. I don’t mind spending time with a particular bird and watching its behavior. The best of both worlds is when you are able to show an interesting piece of the habitat with a bird displaying itself unobstructed (or mostly so)! I know from your beautiful photos Ron that you spend a great deal of time, and are able to capture the best opportunity the bird presents.
I also have no issue with photographing birds near a feeder, as long as this is disclosed to the viewers. Setups can create artistic images, but should also be disclosed.
It all depends on what you are looking for Ron. I find your two examples on the extreme. The background on the first image has very little diversity, unusual for it’s habitate and potentially could be interpreted as a setup. The second image, for me, is too busy. If I had the perfect opportunity, I would like to see the second image with the background further back in the frame with the bushes in the left of the frame and perch stick close to in focus but the background much softer. I know I am asking for the perfect setup, but that is the goal, rather than simply making a record. To me, this seems to be the challenge of great photography vs recordings. It’s one of the reasons I bought a 400mm f/2.8 Lens.
Did our deal in s. Cal and headed back to Montana.
“back to Montana”. How I wish that was me. Need I say it, I’m jealous. Good for you, Frank.
One more comment, I seem to be on a roll. As a result of seeing photos of birds in their habitat, I have had some luck at finding them by searching said habitat, so I like that record and it gives me more knowledge about the bird, its habits, etc. No objections to a nice clean branch but now I am more aware when it has been set up when I see other’s photos. I know when I see bird seed set out by others on the trail, I take advantage of the birds flying close, but it causes me laughter when they land on my hat and lens. Too close, Chickadees!
Interesting, Jane. I often see comments by others (and posts on social media) indicating how “tame” chickadees can be. Around here they’re very shy and difficult to approach.
Regarding Chickadees, I am speaking of certain trails where they get fed all the time. I no longer feed them but often will hold out my hand and they will land, but look quite “put our” when I have nothing to offer. On other trails they indeed are shy. Oh, and so hard to capture in a photo!
Though I try to get “clean” shots, without sticks in the way, it is often impossible, but I still a record of seeing the bird, I will keep it until I get a better shot. Speaking of ethics, I see how how you share that you do not lure, bait, call, etc. I now understand more fully what that means.I met a fellow while out shooting and he invited me to stick around while he “called” in two yellowthroats with a phone app. While I succumbed to the temptation, because I had never seen this done before, I never got the shot. I thanked him for the experience but asked if he thought it was ethical during nesting season, as the speaker in the tree brought a quick reaction from a pair of yellowthroats, and I think it would be stressful to them. It leaves me off the hook because I can’t afford it anyway, and while I thought the app that matches a recording of a live bird to the I.D. was interesting, hearing his recording a few times on the trail was an irritating interruption when I was trying to listen for the calls of the real birds. The same with seeing canoeists paddling close to Pelicans fishing, the result was they flew away, only to have the paddlers approach them again in the next bay. How would they like it if they were sitting down to dinner and had their meal interrupted by a telemarketer? At least it makes me think about the issue and I hope I respond respectfully to wildlife since the birds and critters give me such joy as I observe them.
I loved your comment, Jane. That’s exactly how I feel in those situations. IMO you have excellent instincts in this regard.
Ron, I learn something new from almost every post.
I usually just take what the bird gives me, and feel good when I get a good, clean shot. That being said, BOAS is a much easier focus than BIH.
Thank you for taking the time to educate us. I have learned a lot in the six months I’ve been following you, and my technique has certainly improved.
That’s great to hear, Bob. And you make a valid point about birds in habitat often being more difficult to get sharp focus on. I had that same experience just this morning.
Very good discussion vis-a-vis ethical issues and wildlife photography. As regards BIH or BOAS, however you choose to present is fine with me; I’m a fan of your blog because of your ethics, the the things I learn from the stories that come with the photos, great photography, and responsiveness to your audience.
Thanks very much, Lyle.
I once went to a photography critique group. The leader shot high style portraits. One of my photos I showed was a BOAS – a great egret on an old tree at
the edge of a bay. I had no clue about photo editing at that time. She wanted me to copy the original egret and place it in the photograph above the original egret. I didn’t go back. But I’ll add a different angle. Many of my pictures are of BOAS but are natural. Seeing the first picture, I thought it was quite natural because flycatchers and many birds do like to sit on an exposed stick to catch prey, look around, sun bathe, get warm … I thought that the BIH pictures were usually manipulated to eliminate the extra leaves and sticks and unsightly stuff! So I have to relearn and look at other photos more closely. Both are beautiful pictures and give different aspects of where birds hang out!
Beth, BIH photos are often “manipulated” to eliminate unwanted elements but certainly not always. Sometimes it’s hard to tell. That’s one of the reasons the reputation of the photographer is so very important.
what would your definition of photo manipulation that exceeds ethics be?
Fair question, Beth Ann.
It’s a little complicated but the short answer is almost anything that exceeds “normal” darkroom techniques like exposure and tonal adjustments, cropping, removal of dust spots and in the digital age, sharpening. I’d add that if you honestly disclose additional manipulation to your viewers and/or potential clients that also removes or at least mitigates any potential ethical issues.
Anything done to an image for the purpose of misleading or deceiving your viewers is unethical IMO. That’s why disclosure is so important when additional manipulation is done. The reputation of the photographer, once damaged, can never be fully repaired. Not ever.
I am very firmly a fence sitter on this one (with the HUGE caveat that the shots not be set-up). I do like an unobstructed view (and how I wish that birds were more co-operative on that front) but I also like to see their natural habitat.
Like so many of your devoted followers/stalkers your photography sucked me in, and your knowledge, ethics and humour keep me here.
There’s nothing wrong with fence sitting in this situation, EC. Thank you.
But is a bird on a stick worth two in a bush? Sorry, it had to be done. 😜😈
I started following your blog in large part BECAUSE of your ethics. Plus you have damn good photos. I consider you a friend because I can trust you and also because you’re wonderfully weird and hilarious — characteristics I look for in friends. 😃👍
Ha, if you’re looking for weird I’m your guy, Marty! 🙂
My type of weirdness doesn’t appeal to everyone but it works for me and I like to think I’m true to myself (at least most of the time…).
Wonderful discussion this morning! 🙂 BOAS are useful for some ID purposes – always “assumed” most were “staged” or photoshopped some way. I didn’t really think about it until recent years when I found out the lengths some will go to do that as well as the deception and $$ involved. 🙁 That being said BIH is MUCH better for me even ID wise as it has the bird in “context” – where I see them – which can be a great help. Wally’s BIAS is what most of mine end up being… 😉 Catch them as I can. Most of my photography is at home or VERY near by……:)
Judy, you make a good point about another advantage of BIH – it helps significantly with ID.
Both kinds of photos have their merits if done ethically. When the bird presents you with the opportunity to be photographed as in your first photo, take that opportunity and be pleased with the results. It is a great photo and shows details of the bird you might otherwise miss. It becomes an even better photo, yielding more info about the bird, when paired with the same bird in habitat. I think circumstances and intent may dictate what is unethical in some circumstances. Removing branches to expose a nest is unethical under any circumstance, although I have seen it done. Photographing birds at feeder in your backyard is not unethical in itself. Not disclosing that crosses the line of ethics if you plan to sell such works. Birds come freely to my feeder and I do take photos, but, those photos are for use in my teaching and in public educational presentations so that I can help people understand what bird(s) I am talking about. These photos are strictly for my personal use and none would ever be sold. No birds were put at risk in the process and the parts of my feeders that show are never removed from my images during processing. I much prefer to take photos in the wild (they are also not for sale), but my purpose is education, not stand-alone nature photography. And at no point will I take any photo in any location if a bird is put at risk by doing so. Some images in my presentations are birds at a distance, not up close, because I simply couldn’t get closer or the bird, by its behavior, indicated I should not attempt to get closer. The image is not great but it is sufficient to allow my audience to see what I am discussing, and thus serves my purpose without impacting the bird. A photo of a Band-tailed Pigeon sitting on a feeding tray is obvious what the setting is. A photo of a Band-tailed Pigeon in the wild is much more pleasing, however, the photo at the feeding tray allows my students to see a bird they may otherwise miss in the field and I can explain features without the use of study skins from the museum and we can all know that no birds were harmed.
Dan, I agree with everything you said. No exceptions.
I don’t photograph birds at my feeder (except for practice or to test gear) not because I think it’s unethical. In most cases it isn’t. Those types of photos just don’t appeal to me. I prefer natural behaviors and settings that haven’t been manipulated.
I have been a birder much longer than I have been an aspiring photographer. That may explain why I prefer the BIAS* method.
You and your fans are correct that both BOAS and BIH can be a great way to show the bird at its best. Whether for showing identifying features of the bird or displaying a habitat, each has its merits (and as you’ve pointed out, each has vehement supporters and detractors!).
I, too, was horrified to learn how many unethical “photographers” (AKA: money-grubbing pretenders) there are willing to do anything to make a buck. Sickening.
Thank you, Ron, for all you do to keep us educated and aware!
*BIAS: Birds In Any Situation (’cause I’m not good enough to tell one to sit still on a stick or fly over to that nice habitat so I can take a photo)
Thanks, Wally. None of us is “that good”. That’s why so many photographers take shortcuts.
I put lots of my bird photos on eBird, and I look at other photographers photos on eBird. The guidelines say that the best photo is one where you can see all the part of a bird that you need to use for identification. I was following one photographer who had really great pictures, only to eventually realize that all his pictures were on his own property. Then I realized that I could recognize particular sticks/twigs/perches. He didn’t have feeders in the pictures, but clearly they were set ups. I’m not sure how I feel about that — they are great pictures for identifying birds, but it somehow seems “unfair.”
Jan, here’s my take on different kinds of setups. Photographing birds at feeders is a setup. It doesn’t appeal to me personally but I see nothing wrong with it ethically. But using setups where you’ve included artificial perches to look natural, deliberately hide the seed in the perch so it won’t be seen by the viewer (so viewers won’t know it’s a setup), using artificial backgrounds, calling birds in with electronic calls (the list of techniques is endless) turns me off.
Well, over here on a neighborhood blog there’s a discussion of whether a submitted photo BIH is a Cooper’s hawk or a Sharpie. I sent in an Audubon shot and a Cornell shot comparing the two species and stated that the bird in question is a Cooper’s hawk. Even so, there are people still arguing and claiming it’s a sharp-shinned hawk. So even professional BIH won’t help those who can’t or won’t focus on the details. There is a large flock of those can’t or won’t folks around here, they are as abundant as poison oak. Thus I conclude do the kind of shots that the world presents to you and never mind any other issues.
Martha, that kind of thing (denying the obvious and contradicting those better informed) is rampant on the internet when it comes to bird ID. Makes me think there’s a correlation with certain political affiliations…
Both photos are of course excellent, but I think overall I prefer the BIH. So many of the outstanding photos we see in magazines, calendars, etc, are set-ups. For my own photos there are times when I would choose the BOAS over the BIH because the BIH background is so messy and unattractive looking, but if it a clean BIH like yours above I would always choose that. We have often discussed set-ups on your blog and it is a subject that will be with us always. I remember one year looking at Arizona Highways top three nature photos of the year and if I recall correctly they were all set ups. I think the winning photo required the photographer and his assistant to camp out overnight and then at the exact needed time in the early am they released a lizard from a cooler into a set up location where as the sun rose its plain body turned into beautiful colors in this perfectly chosen location.
I remember that lizard example, Everett. If folks only knew how often that kind of thing is done…
For me, the only way is natural, and not ‘called in’. By ‘called in’ I mean things like rodents purchased and set out to attract owls. When I heard that I lost respect for those doing it and those taking advantage of it. I have to feel good about how I got the shot. A side note… storms the past few days has left much of the general area without power…tornado and straight line winds. Quite the mess out there but no house damage fortunately. We have been without power since yesterday and could be for awhile as the power grid needs to rebuilt. Since we are in the country and have our own well, you know what happens without power…nothing requiring water works. Makes you realize how simple life can get!
One optimistic note, I need to take a drive to charge the phone so the camera comes with…got some nice shots of a Kestrel sitting on to a tree top surveying for food last evening. Have to look at the bright side!
Kathy, baiting raptors is unethical almost by definition and in many places it’s also illegal. Raptor baiting gets my dander up more than anything else in bird photography. I’d better quit now before I get on a roll…
I don’t think we’d mind if you went on a roll. I’d almost bet that if not all, at least a majority of your readers feel the same way!!
Ron, thanks for the ‘lesson’ on the BOAS vs. BIH. I much prefer the BIH photos even though I understand the argument for BOAS. I would think that the BIH photos are more difficult because many times there are leaves, twigs, etc. that obstruct the view of the bird/subject. I appreciate the fact that you always explain the challenges of taking both types of photos. BIH is my choice. Thank you, Ron
“I would think that the BIH photos are more difficult”
They often are more difficult, Alice. Which is one of the primary reasons some photographers shoot setups. They prefer not to put in the effort and time required to get the shot “honestly”.
I once had a NPN moderator try to tell me (publicly, on the critique forum) that setups were just as difficult to get as non-setup shots. Any bird photographer worth their salt knows that’s pure poppycock! The moderator was personal friends with the photographer whose photo was being criticized because that shot was obviously set up and he hadn’t disclosed his methods as required by forum guidelines.
That kind’a thing is one of the reasons I eventually left NPN.
Edit: In case any NPN’ers see this I want to make it clear that the moderator I referred to above wasn’t Keith Bauer. I have a lot of respect for Keith and his ethics.
OK, I think I understand where you are coming from. I have to admit I never thought of it the same way, probably because I was naive about many photographers using setups, even though I knew some did and I didn’t like it and thought it was unfair. As a biologist/environmentalist I want to see where these birds are living, what they are feeding on or just where they hang out. Can’t do that with just a single bird on a stick with nothing else around it. Now, if one is doing it for art or for a book or even for plumage specifics, then I can understand bird on a stick. It is just not my preferred pose for birds or any animal. Ever since reading and commenting on your blog you have made me more aware of what others will do to gain notoriety. Your absolutely correct, “folks don’t like to be deceived.”
“probably because I was naïve about many photographers using setups”
Dick, when I first began delving into bird photography I was literally blown away by how many photographers regularly shoot setups and don’t disclose their methods. And by their sneaky, often unethical, methods. Many photographers of that type hold workshops for beginning photographers (charging big bucks) and their sneaky, slimy methodologies spread that way. Many of those beginners never even think about the ethics involved (including their potentially negative impact on birds) or if they do they don’t care.
Let me be clear. I don’t think shooting setups is necessarily unethical, but when methods aren’t disclosed I think it often is.
Setups and the unethical behavior is why I stopped entering contests.
Never had BOAS and BIH explained to me before, but I have assumed that the BOS has been photoshopped. Yes, in any case I don’t like to be deceived.
Lonna, I don’t think any of us enjoy being deceived.
I don’t assume BOAS photos have been either photoshopped or set up but I do tend to be more suspicious of that style. And I hate being suspicious, I just wish photographers would disclose their methods. When methods are disclosed I don’t think there’s necessarily an issue with ethics even though my personal preference is to avoid shooting setups or significantly altering my images.