Portraying Birds As Individuals
©2004 Harri Vainola
©2004 Harri Vainola
I care about birds; some would say, too much. Thus, the way the birds are portrayed in traditional bird photography, troubles me; the norm appears to me rather technical, aiming at producing sharp photographs of "behaviour", and the like.
This is all well and good, as far as creating beautiful photographs is concerned; after all, birds are an attractive subject; but it often does little to portray the being behind the feathers.
Since the public forms their opinion about the birds largely from the photographs and films we make, portraying birds as nonpersonal entities, makes it all too easy, to dismiss them as a commodity, existing solely for our benefit.
And since it is that public, which elects the politicians and officials, who govern the way we may treat the birds, the image the public has of our feathered friends, might be, potentially, a question of life and death for a bird.
I wish to portray the birds for what they are, as individual beings, with personalities of their own. In other words, I feel, that instead of focusing on the feathers, one should endeavour to focus on the soul of the bird, the being behind the plumage.
(A beginner, though, would do wisely to learn to focus the plumage first.)
While evaluating my images, my first consideration is, does the photograph do justice to this bird as an unique individual, with her own identity ? And, as importantly, can I feel a connection with this being on the image ? If not, I feel all is lost, and, regardless of the other benefits of the photograph, then most often disregard the file.
Neither would I publish an unfavorable picture of a bird; this I would regard as rude.
This pursuit for emotional content, and the connection between the bird and the viewer, are at the heart of my style of bird photography, dictating over the other factors, such as composition and light.
Finding one's own style of photography is not always easy; I once read about a photographer, who had given up bird photography, since the "right" kind of bird photograph had been already determined; a front-lit bird against a background of pure color. Now this is, of course, not the case; it is no more "right" to only image a bird against a one kind of background, in a certain kind of light, as it is "right", to only image a person against a one kind of background, in a certain light. That is but a one style; a beautiful one, but, nevertheless, only one of great many.
Creativity and intimate knowledge of your subject still go a long way in photography, birds or other kind.
One might feel tempted to release the shutter, as a familiar kind of image appears in the viewfinder; that seems like something you saw on a magazine. I would consider that a good time to turn the lens elsewhere; that has been done.
"Looking for new images" would pass for a definition for many types of photography, bird photography being one of them.
Nature photography, in general, is about conveying the essence of nature to an image, trough the eyes and mind of a photographer. A great landscape photograph will give us a strong sense of place of being, even though we are only looking a photograph on a paper, or on a computer screen. There might not appear a single living soul on that image, but it is still the emotional response, which makes that photograph work.
Bird photography is, by definition, about birds; we always have a unique, individual subject on our photographs. Should I not be able to express this in my image, I feel I have failed my obligation to the bird, to portray her as a fellow being, deserving her place in the world. If there is one thing I wish to express trough my photographs, it would have to be:
Respect Life.
This is all well and good, as far as creating beautiful photographs is concerned; after all, birds are an attractive subject; but it often does little to portray the being behind the feathers.
Since the public forms their opinion about the birds largely from the photographs and films we make, portraying birds as nonpersonal entities, makes it all too easy, to dismiss them as a commodity, existing solely for our benefit.
And since it is that public, which elects the politicians and officials, who govern the way we may treat the birds, the image the public has of our feathered friends, might be, potentially, a question of life and death for a bird.
I wish to portray the birds for what they are, as individual beings, with personalities of their own. In other words, I feel, that instead of focusing on the feathers, one should endeavour to focus on the soul of the bird, the being behind the plumage.
(A beginner, though, would do wisely to learn to focus the plumage first.)
While evaluating my images, my first consideration is, does the photograph do justice to this bird as an unique individual, with her own identity ? And, as importantly, can I feel a connection with this being on the image ? If not, I feel all is lost, and, regardless of the other benefits of the photograph, then most often disregard the file.
Neither would I publish an unfavorable picture of a bird; this I would regard as rude.
This pursuit for emotional content, and the connection between the bird and the viewer, are at the heart of my style of bird photography, dictating over the other factors, such as composition and light.
Finding one's own style of photography is not always easy; I once read about a photographer, who had given up bird photography, since the "right" kind of bird photograph had been already determined; a front-lit bird against a background of pure color. Now this is, of course, not the case; it is no more "right" to only image a bird against a one kind of background, in a certain kind of light, as it is "right", to only image a person against a one kind of background, in a certain light. That is but a one style; a beautiful one, but, nevertheless, only one of great many.
Creativity and intimate knowledge of your subject still go a long way in photography, birds or other kind.
One might feel tempted to release the shutter, as a familiar kind of image appears in the viewfinder; that seems like something you saw on a magazine. I would consider that a good time to turn the lens elsewhere; that has been done.
"Looking for new images" would pass for a definition for many types of photography, bird photography being one of them.
Nature photography, in general, is about conveying the essence of nature to an image, trough the eyes and mind of a photographer. A great landscape photograph will give us a strong sense of place of being, even though we are only looking a photograph on a paper, or on a computer screen. There might not appear a single living soul on that image, but it is still the emotional response, which makes that photograph work.
Bird photography is, by definition, about birds; we always have a unique, individual subject on our photographs. Should I not be able to express this in my image, I feel I have failed my obligation to the bird, to portray her as a fellow being, deserving her place in the world. If there is one thing I wish to express trough my photographs, it would have to be:
Respect Life.