What's In The Background?

[KurtM]

Osprey in flight. I can't decide if the background is an asset or a distraction. I mean, I know exactly what's back there, so maybe that clues me in. Is it clear to you, or does the picture leave you wondering what the heck you're looking at besides the bird? Thanks.

(Also wonder how good or bad it is to have the bird's body fall right on the line between golden reeds and blue water. I teeter between really liking it, and wanting to delete it, as opposed to simply being ambivalent about it.)

I have been playing around with different aperture settings to "adjust" the DOF, and believe I like the shallowest DOF for blurred background best for bird photography. Any opinions expressed along these lines would be welcome also - do you prefer to zero in on the bird, or do you wish to see its habitat too? Or does it simply vary from shot to shot depending on composition, etc., etc., etc.?

Finally, this is my first critique request, so if anyone cares to critique this post in general, I want to hear it.

Exif data
Taken on December 30, 2011 at 4.48pm CST
Camera Canon EOS REBEL T3i
Exposure 0.001 sec (1/2000)
Aperture f/5.6
Focal Length 400 mm
ISO Speed 400
Exposure Bias 0 EV
Flash Off, Did not fire
X-Resolution 1
Y-Resolution 1
Software Picasa
Date and Time (Modified) 2011:12:30 16:48:06
YCbCr Positioning Co-sited
Exposure Program Aperture-priority AE
Metering Mode Multi-segment

[Doug Sundseth]

I'm not bothered about the minor complexity in the background, but I do some bird photography, so it looks like quite a few photos I have.

I think having the water line running through the bird is a detriment, but not so much of one that it spoils the photo. The background is far enough out of focus and desaturated enough that it doesn't interfere with the lines of the bird.

Shallow DoF is usually an advantage, and that's certainly true here. Sometimes, if the background is interesting enough, I'll want to get that in the photo, too, but it's not very common.

More important for me, at least, is that I'm often working in very sketchy light conditions (cranes and geese before dawn, for instance), so there I'll open as wide as possible and pick an ISO high enough to freeze action (enough) and hope to manage the resulting noise in post. The short DoF is just a side effect in those cases.

FWIW, I wouldn't trash the photo; I like it quite a bit.

[RichardTaylor]

+1 on Doug's comments.

For me it's a keeper, probably until you get one with a "better" background.

Re just the bird and it's habitat.
It all depends on what you want to show.
If it is an environmental bird portrait yes I will show some of the setting and tend to shoot at smaller apertures.
If it is a straight portrait, DOF will be a lot shallower and I will try to fill the frame with the bird.