Several things have made me think a bit about context in nature photography. It can be an important part of nature beyond the subject, but sometimes a simple photo of a subject without context is also important. Context is the "other stuff" in a photo that goes beyond the subject itself and tells you something more about the subject. Context can help a photo tell a story about the place where an animal lives, for example. On the other hand, all of that "other stuff" can at times be distracting and keep you from seeing the subject.
Niall Benvie, Paul Harcourt Davies and Clay Bolt started a terrific website, Meet Your Neighbors, that uses a very specific technique of studio-like lighting with a white background to isolate, emphasize and highlight distinctive natural subjects. These are photos without context so as to emphasize looking at the unique differences among life around us. They are working hard to use photography to show off the biodiversity of nature everywhere.
Niall has a wonderful e-book, The Field Studio, that shows you exactly how to do this beautiful photography. This is a stunning book worth checking out even if you don't plan on doing this type of nature photography. It will give you ideas on what is possible. Click here to learn more.
For some unknown reason dwelling deep in my psyche, I often seem to gravitate toward images with context. I started shooting close-ups with a wide-angle lens and a small extension tube 30 years ago when I worked as a naturalist in Minnesota. Wide-angle close-ups show off the setting and context along with the subject. For me, they are photos that show relationship and ecology. Shooting with a wide-angle this way can be challenging because you have to deal with so much "other stuff" showing up around your subject, but it can also be a lot of fun. I love using a camera with a tilting LCD, such as my NEX cameras, because it means I can set the camera on the ground and easily see what I am getting at subject level.
That is not to say that you cannot get context with a telephoto. You have to take a wide enough shot (not to be confused with a wide-angle shot) that includes setting or other details to tell you more about the subject in relationship to its environment. I find that even when I am shooting birds with a telephoto, for example, I like including context.
This green heron is part of a photo e-book I am working on called Reports from the Wild that I hope to have done by the end of the month. As I put together photos of green herons and other birds, I realized that no matter what I did, I tended to include context. You can also see that in the photo of the moorhens opening at the top of this post.
It also occurred to me that none of these bird photos would ever win any photo contests. Both types of photographs are important, with and without context, however, many nature photo contests seem to overly favoring images without context, which to me, does not represent the full possibilities of nature or nature photography. I just saw a recent Audubon magazine showing winners from its photo contest and nearly every shot (though to be fair, not all) was done with a big telephoto lens, wide-open f-stop, blurred unrecognizable background – pretty and definitely worthy, but this is very limiting to photography if this is the main type of photography featured. NANPA contests have been similar.
I feel we need both types of photography, with and without context. Yet the emphasis today is so much on no context because folks are just using telephotos with limited depth of field. I see this in my class on storytelling photography at BetterPhoto.com. They find learning to bring context to their subject challenging, yet context is critical for storytelling. Photographers have such an emphasis on seeing the subject and making it look good (which can be a good thing), that they struggle to see possibilities in adding context to give something new for their subject.
Look at your own photography. Are you concentrating so much on the subject that you don't see the context? Or if you want to isolate and emphasize that subject, are you doing all you can to make images simple and direct like Niall does? Both approaches are valuable and important to both nature and photography.
Interesting viewpoint. I've had publishers take environmental portraits and publish them with an all white background. I've had closeups dropped into a different background. Shows the need to shoot both, I guess. Personally I agree and like to compose my subject off center which does give it context.
Thanks for sharing, Steve.
Rob, a rabbit trail. When you edit your pics, in what order do you prioritize the following when you edit---exposure, brightness, contrast, saturation, wb, temp., tint & sharpness? Thanks! John B.
I am thinking you are talking about processing the image. I tend not to like the term "edit" because I use Lightroom. Photoshop is a photo editing program, Lightroom is not because technically photo editing means you are editing and changing pixels, especially copying and pasting. In Lightroom, you won't even see the word edit except when you send an image out of Lightroom. The Adobe folks deliberately chose to set up Lightroom this way and the processing is called the Develop module. I believe there is benefit in this because you look at photos differently if you think process vs. edit. That said, my workflow is based on traditional darkroom technique. I set blacks, check whites, adjust midtones, correct color, then do local adjustments (the "dodging and burning" of the traditional darkroom. I only use Photoshop now for when I need to do something with layers and do true photo editing. I mainly work with Lightroom. I have a Lightroom workflow outline (http://robsheppardphoto.com/download/pdf/Simplified-LR4-Workflow.pdf) on my website, http://www.robsheppardphoto.com.
I have been changing to storytelling photos. It was given great impetus from taking your class in storytelling. I was taught flower photography by always getting as close as possible with a 200mm or 105mm macro. The 35mm wide angle was to be used for scenics, and the 50mm normal lens for events and never for nature photography. After 25 years of this kind of photography I am bored and looking for new ways to look at the botanical world--storytelling. I was pushed in this direction in our last book project on the Natural Communities of Georgia. The writers kept after me to illustrate the ecological processes. Right now my problem is how to get closer with a wide angle lens. My old Nikon 24mm lens did that very well. I am having trouble finding a similar solution in the Olympus/Panasonic micro 4/3 line up.
I have often used an achromatic close-up lens for closer focus with wide-angle lenses. I have long used the Canon 500D with all sorts of lenses, including the Olympus E-series cameras I used to shoot a few years ago. Your lenses will also use the Canon 250D. In addition, a lot of new lenses are coming out with closer focusing capabilities. Sigma has a new 19mm for your camera that gives the equivalent of 38mm and focuses to inches (I am not sure they are available yet in the U.S., though I see that Paul Harcourt Davies is already shooting with one). Also, both Paul and I have used fisheye lenses (Tokina 10-16mm for me, Sigma for Paul) with adapters for mirrorless cameras. They focus within inches and with your format, would give a nice look that is less fisheye because they are not using the whole image area. These lenses are small, too.
Rob
Rob, I must correct one thing in your text - I was not one of the instigators of MYN:that was down to Niall and Clay. I am a keen participant -though it took me a while, for like you, I am a context man and thus far this new year that is all I have done. This is the way you get maximum info about a subject and where it lives. Even the slight distortion with ultra-wides and rectangular fisheyes adds impact. I like both approaches and take the attitude that the more different ways we can depict our subjects the better. That way we might avoid cliché and perpetuate 'impact' - variety, is after all, the spice of life (or so they say)
Thanks, Paul. I stand corrected! It is a great website and I know you have participated. But I can also see we think alike and love that context. Your experiments with the spring flowers remind me of shooting bloodroot back in Minnesota many years ago with a 24mm and a really narrow extension tube. The feel of spring with flowers in foreground and bare trees in background is something you cannot get in any other way.
Rob
Is it not basically, what was it about the subject that attracted your attention in wanting to capture the image? Was it the subject in isolation; or, with the back/fore ground that complements it?
That is definitely one way to look at it. I think it is also how you are looking and the gear in hand. If you go out with a huge telephoto shooting wide open, you will get plain, blurred backgrounds. If you deliberately go out with wide-angle lenses and wanting to show big landscapes behind flowers, that is what you will see. I am one for simplifying my approach and will often go with just a few lenses and only work the images that work with the gear. I think it is important, as I think you imply, that you do not try to force certain gear and a certain way of seeing a subject to do something they are not destined to do!
Rob
Hello Rob
And thank you for your generous appraisal of Meet Your Neighbours and my new e-book. It's encouraging to see how many people your side of the Atlantic recognize the potential of this style of photography - rather more than here in Europe.
In respect of context, it is an absence of it that means that the majority of photographs go un-noticed or are quickly forgotten: they are like overheard words at a very noisy party that alone, make no sense. The context provided by a project, by being about something, allows all these random words to form coherent sentences.
My best
Niall
Thanks, Niall. I really quite like your new e-book, too!
Rob ,i have been enjoing shooting close-up wide angle and i finally realize that
shooting wide open ,is lot more interesting that rendering everything sharp.
Shooting flowers against a white background opens new possibility, but i am too leasy
carrying strobes and i stick to natural soft light,which is my favorite for flowers
Thanks for the note, Anthony!
Hi Rob,
Thanks for featuring MYN in this post! I believe that those of us who are passionate about sharing the natural world with others –and in particular those who might overlook it– need to have a variety of techniques that can be used to convey its importance. I think of the field studio work as a "bridge" into nature for the person who isn't as in-tune with spotted animals / plants in the field and a reminder for those who might have begun to dismiss the creatures that have been "common" in their view. During my talks on the project, I often show a photograph of a cricket frog that is perfectly camouflaged along the side of a creek and then ask everyone if they see the animal. It always takes a few minutes even for those who are used to "seeing."
I believe that one of the wonderful things about being a nature photographer is that everyone isn't going to see everything the same way, so we have an opportunity to scatter more seeds for awareness and conservation by exploring different techniques.
My best,
Clay
Thanks, Clay! Great ideas!