When it comes to images of birds in flight, do you prefer the sky as the background or some element of the earth? Here are two photographs of Canada Geese (Branta canadensis) that I took this past Monday that illustrate my question.
Canada Geese are some of my favorite subjects as I try to improve my skills in photographing flying birds—they are relatively big, flight slowly (especially when taking off and landing), and, perhaps most importantly, there are a lot of them.
In some ways, it’s a little easier to track a bird in the sky, since there is nothing else to grab the camera’s focus (if you can lock in the focus quickly enough). However, the light is a lot more variable, particularly when a bird is circling, so proper exposure is a challenge and shadows are a sad reality. I was happy that I was able to time the second shot so that the light illuminated most of the underside of the goose. Some photographers, though, seem to look down at photos of birds in the sky and prefer more environmental shots.
I had to act quickly to get the shot of the goose with the trees in the background, when some geese took off and flew by me at almost eye level. The trees were far enough away that they blurred out and the head of the goose is mostly in focus. Depth of field is always an issue for me in shots like this—you can actually see the depth of field in the amount of the extended wings that is in focus.
So there you have it, two different shots of a goose in flight. Does the background play a role in your assessment of which one you prefer?
© Michael Q. Powell. All rights reserved.
Mike Powell 
I most often prefer the in flight photos with trees or fields in the background, although when I’m taking in flight photos, I’ll take anything I get in focus!!
I’m in total agreement. When I am in the moment, I’m trying so hard to track the bird that I rarely have the luxury of thinking of the background. It’s only later, when I am looking at the results that I think about questions that i think of questions like these.
I’ve never thought much about it-I’m impressed by just seeing shots of birds in flight. I like the background colors in that first shot but at the same time I can’t understand why anyone would object to seeing sky in a bird photo, so I like them both. It’s more about the skill of the photographer than the background for me, and it takes skill to get either of these shots.
I like both but if I have to choose one, I’ll choose the first one, with trees in the background.
Thanks, Cornel. It seems like most of the people who responded agree with you on your choice.
Love both, but I guess I prefer the fall color background in the first one. You certainly ARE perfecting your shots of birds in flight. These are very nice.
Thanks, Sue. I am still working on these kind of shots and smaller, faster birds are still a definite challenge. I prefer the shot with the colorful background, but didn’t want to skew perceptions by stating that initially.
They are both lovely. I like the first one more because it seems to capture the speed of the goose.
Thanks. Speed was definitely one of the things that I was looking to capture and the lower perspective does seem to be a better job in emphasizing the speed.
There are two reasons why I much prefer the first one. I like having something in the background other than a plain blue (or grey in some cases) sky. It makes it far more interesting and contextual. Clouds in the sky can do the same thing – especially storm clouds if you are lucky enough. The second reason is that the perspective of the goose from above allowing me to see the top of its wings is different than the normal view and also adds more interest. Nicely done.
Thanks, Lyle, for being to explain your thought process in responding to my deliberately provocative question. I never even thought about the fact that the photo of the goose with the trees lets you see the top of the wings–it’s nice to see one of my photos with different eyes.
Earth brings out the colours of the goose more vividly. However, am definitely for Sky. The goose appears more free there. Guess that’s what appeals to me about birds- their freedom to roam
I really like your response. Pictures and objects can often have symbolic significance for us and that definitely affects our perceptions.
Definitely with a background, it gives the image so much more character. The sky images are harder to pull off in my experience. Occasionally I get a good one every now and then though! Nice work as always Mike, I’m very appreciative of your handy work. Thank you so much for all that you do here, Michael.
Thanks for your thoughtful response and kind words. Preferences are hard to explain and they depend a lot on the specific situation. Looking at a photo, I usually know if I like it or don’t, though I can’t always articulate why.
Both are great pics but trees or other things in the background are deffinatley better but like Judy said I’ll take anything I can get in focus..:-)
Your answer is pretty close to what I think (and I have a slight preference for the one with the trees), but I enjoy hearing what others think.
I think that both of them have their strengths especially as you have used AP in the earth image
Thanks, I agree that each has individual merits. I must admit, though, that I am not sure of the expansion of the acronym “AP” in your initial comment–maybe aperture priority.
[…] « Earth or sky? […]