How much does the background matter in a wildlife photograph? Is it merely a potentially distracting element or should it help convey a sense of the environment? Like many photographers, I often obsess over the background when I compose my images, trying to frame the shot and to adjust the camera settings to produce a certain effect. I suspect that my mindset is frequently more like that of a portrait photographer, who wants to draw your attention to the main subject, than that of a landscape photographer, who wants everything in the viewfinder to be in focus.
During the month of June I have been blessed to spot Gray Petaltail dragonflies (Tachopteryx thoreyi) on multiple occasions at several locations. I have taken lots of photos of them and the majority of those photos show the dragonfly perched vertically on the trunk of a tree—that is what petaltails do most of the time. My personal challenge has been to capture some images of Gray Petaltails doing something a bit different.
In the first image, the Gray Petaltail was perched horizontally, a position that I have rarely seen. The background in this shot is completely blurred—you don’t know for sure what is behind the dragonfly, though the colors suggest that it is vegetation. The blurred background forces you to focus on the main subject and to a limited extent on its perch. It is the type of portrait image that I strive to capture most often, though rarely am I this successful in doing so.
The second image uses a different approach. I visually separated the dragonfly from its perch by shooting from the side so that the details of its body are not lost in the shadows of the tree. The background is slightly blurred, but it lets you know that the dragonfly was perched in a sea of interrupted ferns. I like the way that you can see the patterns and color of those ferns. I took the shot from a lot farther away than I did with the first image, so the dragonfly occupies a much smaller part of the frame. As a result, the details of the perch grow in importance and in many ways the tree shares the spotlight with the dragonfly. This is the kind of environmental portrait that I really like, but often forget to take. Too often I am so driven to fill the frame with my subject that I forget to try different approaches.
The final shot is a kind of compromise shot, taken from a medium distance with a background that is more suggestive of the environment than in the first image, but not as detailed as in the second one. The perch has some details, but is intended to play a supporting role, rather than be the co-star as in the the second image. The dragonfly fills less of the frame than in the first image, but more than in the second.
In the story of Goldilocks and the three bears, she repeatedly tried two extremes, before setting on one that was “just right.” Is that the moral of the story here? Au contraire, mes amis. You can come to your own conclusions as you look at these three images, but for me it is clear that there is no single solution to the question of backgrounds. Blurry backgrounds can be good, but not always. Close-up shots are great, but may come with a cost. Showing some details in the background can enhance an image, except when it doesn’t.
What is best? Some folks may be unhappy with the lack of clarity, but the best answer seems to be, “it depends.” With backgrounds, as with so much in photography, we are left in an ambiguous situation in which “rules” are at best general guidelines, intended to be broken as the situation dictates or as the photographer decides. That gives me unlimited possibilities and a maximum amount of freedom to create more cool images.
© Michael Q. Powell. All rights reserved.
Mike Powell 
I think you have three cool images, Mike. Testament to the fact that you know what will make a good photograph. I’ve said it many times before, but I appreciate the work you put into these photos.
Thanks, Dan, for your kind words. I think in advance about what photos I might want to share, but don’t decide on a specific approach to a posting until I sit down at the computer. Then I will just start writing, insert the photos, and press “publish.” It seems that you and I, Dan, are pretty closely aligned in our views of what makes an image fun or interesting. I tend to post images that I like and you seem to like what I like. Does that last sentence make any sense? Anyways, it is great to have some like-minded friends, but it is equally wonderful to have some readers with different views, who like some types of my mages or some of my subjects more than others. Their views can help me look at my shots from a different perspective, which is an invaluable experience.
I am often surprised when people sort of ignore the photo I thought would be the popular one, and rave about one I almost decided to leave on the cutting room floor. It does make me go back and study what I did and think about why. I think one of the other things we have in common is that we enjoy learning.
Excellent shots, and article. Each shot is unique, you choose what seems to fit best at the time. I like this, a lot.
All three are excellent images Mike. I see a lot of work by photographers who stick to the same formula, whilst the results are inevitably top notch I do enjoy a bit of variety.
Mike, you’ve written a thoughtful article about a very important subject. Thank you!
I’m still learning about the insect world and how to best photograph its wonders. From birding, I’ve learned to take a “record” shot fairly quickly which can identify the subject. Especially since creatures in nature tend to move quickly and often (or else they become lunch).
With insects, I try to get shots from as many angles as possible and try to keep the subject parallel to the lens plane for better focus. Light! Where is the light?
Your article hits on a critical aspect. If the background isn’t right, it can spoil an otherwise quality photograph.
Speaking of quality photographs, all of these images are wonderful!
Thanks so much for your kind words, Wally. I am very familiar with the idea of a “record” shot and try to use that approach with dragonflies too. From your description, it sounds like we use similar approaches with insects. One additional thing that I think about a lot is depth of field. Some photographers are willing to stack images to ensure that most of the subject is in focus. I am often willing to accept the reality that with the kind of shooting I do, parts of the subject will be blurry, but that is ok if the critical parts are relatively sharp. A lot of my thinking happens in the background of my mind as I try to get a shot–when I was first starting to get a bit more serious about taking photos I remember feeling overwhelmed by all the things that I needed to consider, but now it mostly happens semi-automatically.
Short take: There are no rules. Longer take: Modern photography, as we are embracing it, is limited only by our imaginations. I often present only the single image in a series that best speaks to me at the time when I consider them for a post, but when I relent and add a couple more, I share Dan’s experience that some of my fellow bloggers quite prefer one of my “seconds.” It’s another reason why, when I post several images, I tend not to ask which one viewers “like best,” but offer them all for equal consideration. BTW, I like all three here!
Thanks, Gary. We are definitely on the same wavelength here. I definitely have my favorites when I present photos, but I think, as Dan noted, that our favorites may not be the favorites of others, because our “judging criteria” may well be different. It’s hard to be objective about my own photos–part of me and the experience of taking the photo are imbedded in the image and a photo may have special significance because of where, how, and when I took it. Sometimes I will ask viewers which image they prefer. I am often less interested in their actual choice than in their explanation of their reasons. That is the closest I can come to seeing the images with their eyes.
I find myself drawn back to the genius of Robert Burns:
Oh wad some power the giftie gie us
To see ourselves as others see us!
Wisdom for the ages!
These are lovely Mike, I couldn’t help smiling as I looked at them. Nice detail of the forward-facing, drooping wings – we don’t usually see their form so clearly in a photo. And the graduated blur on the ferns is gorgeous, with the branch/dragonfly very sharp in front. I enjoyed these, particularly the first two images, immensely!
Thanks, Liz, for explaining in such detail your reaction to the images. I literally can’t see through your eyes, but it is beneficial for me to get the next best thing, which is letting me know what aspects and details of the images caught your attention or that you found interesting.
If the photograph is for art then the background matters, as does the composition.
Thanks, Sherry. Photography can serve many purposes. One of my friends likes to use it to document the details of the species that he encounters, so his approach is different from mine. I am a bit more “artsy” in the way I go about creating images.
🌞