I am looking for some background information—do you generally prefer creamy smooth backgrounds in your photos or do like there to have some elements of texture? This is a ridiculous question, of course, and it’s a bit like asking me if I like chocolate or strawberry ice cream. I like them both, but in certain situations I may prefer one over the other.
These musings came to mind when I was reviewing the some photos I took this past week of Autumn Meadownhawk dragonflies (Sympetrum vicinum). These little red dragonflies are perennially the last species to disappear in our area and I am likely to see them well into November and sometimes into early December.
The first image below shows a male Autumn Meadowhawk with the kind of background that I usually try to shoot, blurred and uncluttered. The thorn on the green stem adds an unexpected bit of additional interest for me.
The background of the second image with a female Autumn Meadowhawk is completely different—the lines and texture of the decaying log are very evident. Sometimes when I look at the image I think that the background is too distracting, because I have to look hard to see the details of the dragonfly. At other times, I am drawn in by the organic feel of the wood in the background and I really like the diagonal lines and rough texture.
These two images work well for me in tandem, juxtaposing as they do different genders, very different backgrounds, and radically different angles of view. These kinds of sharp contrasts often prompt me to stop and think as I consider the images—and that is generally a good thing.
© Michael Q. Powell. All rights reserved.
Mike Powell 
Interesting question; personally, I’ve always preferred smooth backgrounds with wide-open apertures
The conventional wisdom, of course, is to isolate your subject and people will spend huge amounts of money to buy lenses that will open really wide and throw the background completely out of focus. My instinctive reaction is to go in that direction. I was trying to be a little provocative in posing the question to prompt some folks to consider the role of environmental elements in their shots. I shoot a lot of nature shots and sometimes the additional elements add some visual context to the content.
Thanks for weighing in so quickly!
I think it very much depends on the subject. In the case of your exemplars here, the smooth background allows for the detailed texture of the insect to be better seen. However, I’m rather a fan of texture in photography so I’m sure there would be other images that would benefit from having a more interesting background – say a beetle with a smooth and shiny carapace.
What is it that Supreme Court Justice Stewart said? “I’ll know it when I see it.” Granted, he wasn’t talking about dragonflies but I think the same holds. I’ve seen posts of your where you wanted a different background, but where the one you had worked well. The photographer has a goal, a vision and a subject. The viewer has the photograph. While you know everything that wasn’t the way you hoped it would be, we only see the result and I usually like your results. Chocolate or vanilla (not a fan of strawberry), I’ll take either.
What. no strawberry? I enjoyed reading your thoughtful response, Dan. It genuinely is tough for me to look objectively at my own images, in part because of the mental and emotional baggage that you described so well. If I were really concerned about controlling my environment, including the background, I’ll probably choose to work in a studio, but I prefer to work with what I find in nature, which introduces unpredictability into the equation. (By the way, I’m pretty sure that I recall the context of the quote you used–which gives away my age).
I like the first one because the thorn gives me a good idea of the size of the dragonfly. In fact I was so focused on that feature that I didn’t pay any attention to the background. I’m probably not a great one to ask though, since I spend a large part of my time looking at things like thorns.
I think the second one works because of the angles in the shot. If the dragonfly had been aligned with the wood grain it would be a completely different (and not as interesting) shot.
Thanks, Allen, and I totally agree that the angle of the grain in the second shot is what makes it worth looking at.
Good question, and thoughtful answers. I agree – like most things in life, it depends! For example, I am a real fan of birds in flight shots, especially when the blue sky provides uncluttered background. The dragonfly with the blurrier bg helps the viewer focus on the subject. Although the grain in the wood is interesting and at a nice angle, for me, it takes away from the dragonfly.
If the subject of your second photo is the dragonfly then the photo doesn’t work for me because of the background. For me the subject’s body and wings are almost completely hidden in the background. My eye spends so much time and effort trying to separate the dragonfly from the background that I give up and want to see the next picture.
Similar to papict who commented above I am also a fan of texture and like she said “…I’m sure there would be other images that would benefit from having a more interesting background – say a beetle with a smooth and shiny carapace.”
Thanks for putting forth your views. I am becoming more and more convinced that the background is too pronounced in the second image. I kind of suspected that was the case, but I thought it would be a jumping off point for a posting to put up two contrasting images and see what readers would say.
Hi Mike, great topic of discussion, as it makes me more aware of my own choices and the need to give this some attention. My preference goes for the muted background, but in some cases, a clear idea of the habitat works well, particularly when the subject stands out against it like in your beautiful header shot where the purple dragonfly is shown against the brilliant green leaves. I’m afraid the textured log competes so much with the dragonfly in your 2nd shot that the poor critter is lost. Cheers – Chris
Thanks, Chris. The general consensus is with you, as I suspected it might be, that the undistracting background works best. I think you realized that I was being deliberately a bit provocative by asking the question in the way that I did and in using two sharply different images.
Yes and it made a good point… Sometimes we are not in control of where the little critters stand and the shot is not always worth taking. Good lesson learnt! 😊chris
It is a great question, for me it all depends on whats in the background, blur the buildings and billboards and the cars..:-)
Great shots Mike -Personally, I prefer a clean clear background in order to focus on the details. If focusing on small details isn’t the objective, then the larger details of the organic background is a nice addition to a good shot. Just my opinion! Carol
Thanks, Carol. I am beginning to think I should have chosen a slightly different subject to have had a closer competition. Dragonflies have such intricate details that folks want to be able to see and some of those detail are tougher to pick out in the shot with the texture in the background.