Songbird Photography - Clean or Dirty? 

Hi, I really like your busy, dirty, environment showing photo’s way more than the clean ones. So much more story telling.

Dirty gets my vote. You’ve inspired me to do some more work on my backyard bird studio. I like the diversity of seeing the birds in a more natural setting. Kind of a hybrid between backyard and wild. Native vegetation is also a plus for pollinators.

everyday any day love the way birds look in the wild

I love the dirty ones! It's like documenting history. It tells the story of the animal

I really respect the clean shots, but I have always preferred the more habitat focused images. The artistic merits and the story are more important

Clean or dirty… I am always towards what the situation calls for. I Like all your images.

Thanks for sharing another wonderful video like always, I love clean photos but being a bird photographer myself I really enjoy the dirty look including everything that's going on in picture not just a bird on a stick 🐦❤️👍

When elements of the environment take priority as the major points of interest over the bird, well, to my way of thinking, it becomes an environmental photo.

I like the bird photos with natural environment around them

Hi Scott. I'm amazed by both "genres" you photograph. Incredible, beautiful photos! You got me thinking. When I photograph in my backyard, my favorite place in all the world, I photograph with the feeders and baths included. People say to me that the photos are good, but why not put a branch there and get a "clean" photo? (well, they don't say "clean" photo). I do that a little, but honestly, I like my "dirty dirty" photos the best :-) I love seeing that I feed the birds. I love seeing what kind of food they like. I love being able to even recognize some individuals. I'm not photographing for a book or a magazine. I suppose some people think I'm crazy for spending so much on the camera and lenses for photos of birds at bird feeders or bird houses. Still, that enables me to see what I don't see without them. I saw Purple Martin & Bluebird babies' first flights, because their houses were in my front yard and I watched them every morning. I saw Mom & Dad Purple Martins following the babies and coming back with them and when I zoomed in, I saw Mom or Dad had dragonflies in their mouths, like they were maybe teaching the babies. I saw those Martin babies come back to the house and miss landing a few times till they learned how to land. I could never do that "in the wild" IF I could find the nest, because I couldn't be there that much. And I feel good about providing the house for them. So, I like it in the photo too :-) Thanks for another very interesting video...

Hi Scott great video great subject matter. I’ve been doing photography for over 30 years and I believe you need to have both the clean and dirty images in your portfolio. Both tell a story one shows the bird in a cleaner guidebook fashion. The other shows the beauty you can capture out in the wild while just carrying your camera around looking for birds. So I think clean and dirty imagery is required to be a diverse bird photographer. Also your viewers and fellow wildlife photographers will appreciate them both.

Pics in background of this video - clean.

with the covid issues over the last few years so many of the local farmers didn't work fields in my area and they went to weeds. And the habitat went crazy for the birds

Dirty all the way for me, I admire the skill and beauty of some of the ‘clean’ images but I like some context around my birds.

I love both styles of images equally. "Clean" images really rock! As long as there is enough in the frame to anchor the composition, and it doesn't just look like a bird and a stick floating in space. So called "dirty" images really rock too! As long as there is order to all of the foliage in the frame and it is not just a hodge-podge of sundry textures and tonal values. In other words, there should be a uniformity to the dirtiness. I am not a fan of shoot-thru foreground blur that causes parts of the bird to appear translucent. I like the parts of the bird to either be clearly rendered, or totally obscured by the foreground vegetation. If half of a bird is clearly visible, crisply rendered, and the other half of that bird is completely blocked by foliage, then that looks great to my eye. But when part of the bird is visible, but in a cloudy, translucent way, that is bothersome to my sense of aesthetic and just doesn't look right. I understand how others could like that look ... I mean, I "get it" ... but I just really dislike that look myself.

If I had to pick one, I would pick dirty. The story and habitat contribute so much to make a truly unique photo vs only a subject taken out of context. Both are difficult to achieve overall though. Great photos and this is a great topic! 👍

I love the portrait style shots but the dirty ones speak directly to me. The best way to explain it would be the portrait style is like a video without the audio. When photo is “dirty” it’s video and audio. - I hope that makes sense. Keep up the great content!

I prefer dirty or environmental for sure, but, as a beginner, clean is usually easier to compose!

Scott - "Clean or Dirty"? As with everything, it depends. For me it comes down to the specific artistic aesthetics of the photo and the ultimate print. Each concept has it place and appeal.

Great video Scott. I'm a huge fan of environmental shots or zoomed in tight to see all the details. Going for a lifer bird, I'll take any shot to document it. I'm not far from you, down in Quakertown, Peace Valley is my local hang out. Singing or eating shots are my favorite. Also on Flickr, same name

I strive to shoot mixed to have some context. But I lean more sterile than dirty. I don’t mind if some of the bird is covered, but I think where it’s covered matters. The Red-eyed vireo bothered me because of where the leaves were on the bird. But I loved the indigo bunting with the belly and feet covered up by the foreground.

Great discussion! I am mainly trying to capture the beauty of the creatures I love. So, I love both the clean and dirty approach and want diversity in my shots. Arguably, to make the dirty approach artistic requires more skill. I definitely respect what you're doing and your overall skill set. I've mainly done the relatively clean portraits but you've given me something new to focus on. You commented on not using perch set ups...did you recently stop? I thought you discussed using them in part I of your backyard photography videos. I could be mistaken.

Very interesting. I would post this. Now I didn’t really think about it but now I see that there is a mix of almost everything in my pictures. I guess it’s more of a balancing act for this thing, since no two pictures are the same. Like with that last one - because bird still stand outs it works for me. A different bird might just not be OK.

Love both but used to love the clean only.

I love a blurred foreground that gives the feeling I’m watching a secret scene or hiding from the bird. As for decaying leaves, I’ll remove stragglers but keep them if they frame the subject.

100% ok with the "dirty" look, to me it adds more to the image and makes it more interesting. Yes nice clean images are nice too, but they start to become all the same. Though there nice to have in your catalogue but mixed in with the "dirty shots. Maybe mine are to dirty though lol. Great video Scott

Great photos! I prefer the environmental style aka dirty.

I just love all your images. I do like a clean bird shot and agree this has some 'old school' ideology behind it (I was in film school doing wildlife back in the early to mid 80's. But I also love how a bird in its environment tells a story about the bird.

I enjoy both clean and dirty. What is liked is quite personal. Certain of the dirty I did like and others were not for me.

Thanks for taking the time to make this video, it's very helpful. Thanks for pointing out that neither style is right or wrong, that it's just preference. So often I feel like my images are "wrong" because they aren't clean enough. Thanks for showing that both styles have merit.

I started out 7 or 8 years ago photographing birds. For the first three years I wanted images that could be used to positively identify birds. Field manual type images. Bird portraits. And once I filled up most of the hundreds of birds I'm ever going to find in this area I started including more of the environment. And finally went for environmental shots totally. Now I'm so old and decrepit that I can't get around much so I'm pretty well confined to creating a Hollywood Set on my back porch and setting up perches, flowers and dead limbs, etc. I use peanuts and I put out water. And I sit at the porch table and shoot at 4 to 12 ft. I get lots of hummingbirds on the flowers and all the local birds and some migratory birds on the perches. I still try to make the best images I can. But the whole point is I'm still shooting birds and enjoying it. Look me up on FB and you can see my current work. And I am enjoying this video immensely because it looks like you are treading ground where I have left prints.

For my personal taste, it depends on the individual photograph. I particularly like the Red-eyed Vireo on the mountain ash. The Indigo Bunting with the yellow out of focus flowers in the background does not work for me as well. I suppose that having the bird within environmental context without too many distracting elements is the sweet spot. That being said, I would have been happy to have made any of these images.

Yep Scott I like em all sometimes clean sometimes not, I very much shoot for myself so what I like goes. I try not to let "what will others say" get in the way of what I'm shooting. Tbh most of my fav shots turn out to be happy accidents. I dont try too hard I just go with the flow.

Thank you for posting this. I watched some of your early videos and it seemed that the “clean” photos were the only ones that were good photos. I gave up on watching you because I found it very difficult to find “clean” bird situations to shoot. I was able to find and successfully shoot subjects in true nature surrounds but because they were not “clean” I believed my photos were not good photos. After watching this video I now believe my style is proper and good bird photos can include the subject in natural surrounds. Birds live in nature and showing the environment with the subject is a successful photo if composed properly.

I’m all in with DIRTY! I’ve been headed that way for awhile now and you’ve basically affirmed my preference. Great video!

Great video , loved the way you presented it. I like the clean images, who doesn’t ,but they seem a little fake at times. Sometimes I see images clean images and think, that person just spent thousands of dollars to take that image at a workshop. Nothing wrong with that, I’ve done that. I am leaning more to the dirty images more because that is how I usually see them in their habitat-environment, but that’s just the biologist in me.

I like the busy kinda look myself

Excellent viewpoint for differing bird photography styles. Personally, I have found myself drifting towards more 'environment' in by bird pictures. Your examples look like you spent most of the time looking through your view finder, and a lot less time in front of a computer screen, manipulating the shots. Finally, in respect of partially hidden birds, I feel as long as the head is clear with good focus on the eye and beak, the bird should be identifiable. Not all birds sit happily out in full view, as bird books would have us believe. Only just found your channel, but I'm on it now. Thankyou and well done. Doug B. Nottingham (UK)

Beautiful 😊😊😊

Another interesting video topic and presented well! I’m pretty much in your camp. Photography came about for me as a result of wanting to share what I saw as I was out enjoying nature. Of course I began to challenge myself with the photography as I learned more and realized I really enjoy it, but it’s still about seeing and capturing birds and critters as they exist in “the wild.” I will say though, equipment does come into play here, as even your more dirty images create a lot of isolation due to f2.8 and f4 apertures. I’m fortunate enough to have such gear also but I remember my 5.6 and 6.3 zooms and many of these same images with those higher apertures can all the sudden border on dirty to the point of non-usable. Anyway, great video!

Personally I have also been gradually shifting to "dirty" over the past few years. When I started photographing birds in 2014, I tried for the clean look. In my opinion the "dirty" images provide context for the subject; they help tell a story. A bird on a bare branch with no background doesn't tell as much of a story and furthermore it makes it difficult to get a sense for how large/small the bird really is. I get a lot more excited when I can capture behaviour in an image too: eating, singing or feeding young. All that being said, often the clean look will get more "likes" on social media. Also, the clean looking shots come across better when viewed on a small phone screen, while the dirty shots look better on a large screen or printed. Finally, if a bird lands on a bare branch in front of me with no discernible background, I am still going to take the shot! Good choice of video topic Scott!

Somewhere in the middle so far, I'm pretty new to taking bird photography somewhat seriously but I find songbirds are at home in the leaves, branches and undergrowth and it feels right to capture that context

I often say some photographers are better (or prefer) to document, while others prefer to create. I think the clean images are great to document. like you said, almost the type of photo you find on a field guide. Those who prefer an artistic approach probably lean towards "dirty" because it allows you to make the subject part of an environment, paint a picture. it's all preference. I personally prefer "dirty" images

Great video!! If I had to choose, it would be a busy, but soft focused background with some foreground included. Your Philadelphia Vireo image is exactly the look I love to get. If the bird feels like it should be there, then I love it! I end up with many shots much cleaner than I would prefer these days, but dirty would be my preference. Oh, and that Ovenbird foot slide is so good!! I guess if there is an argument for clean images, a plant covering that foot would have been tragic 😂

I love telling a story with the habitat. I think there is a place for tight portraits but as i grow as a photographer, i want to have more expression and more of the how, why, and where. Not just the animal. Great commentary and really nice shots. I like messy because its natural. I too , don't bait or lure perches, if i get a shot i do if not there's always next time. I just like to be out there even just listening if i cant see them. Sounds weird, but ultra clean and to much blown background and bokeh can seem like green screen or not real. Not always natural. Both are great, but I like you, gravitate to messy and more habitat. Even though they seem to get less likes lol.

I like dirty now, didn’t a few years ago though!

I think I’m somewhere in the middle (but I’ll take what I can get). I went through the same progression with my macro. Used to like clean sterile backgrounds but now like lots of crazy bokeh and foreground blur - yes please

Would I post the pic of the bird with two tattered leaves? Yes, any time.. The snags and thorns are just as much a part of nature as is the bird. Love it when a shot is nice and clean but it is hard (actually impossible) here in Texas in a drought to get flower shop photos.

Great video! Funny because I have seen a few videos about that topic of showing the environment, which I really like! Since I only started nature photography during the COVID period as a way to get out and take my my mind distracted, I started with the goal of clean photos. But got frustrated with my results. It was a combination of poor technique, lack of approach and hide. I still like the clean look. Since I do not get often a chance to shoot those, I am really happy when I do get a shot like that. But most shots that I get are in the dirty category and I am enjoying these as much! So it a nutshell, I like both even though I do not get the clean look often! Keep up the great work! 👌

great video. I wish I had an answer to the clean vs. dirty (or busy) background, but for me it really depends on the photo. Clean can be beautiful, but backgrounds can also add context to an image and story.

I think that "dirty" is more realistic. I would actually call these environmental though as when I think of the term "dirty" I am thinking of something entirely different. I've taken some dirty shots just to get a shot, but they are usually very messy with branches or sticks and far from great looking. I got a photo of an American Goldfinch earlier this year that would fit your definition of dirty, and it's one of my favorites.

It depends on the situation as long as it looks nice without too much clutter and I don’t have to do too much post processing.

Dirty images are great until it’s difficult to find the bird. I don’t want to play “Where’s Waldo?” looking to find the subject. I’m still early in my photography journey and my opinion could change, but for now that’s how I feel. Good video and good discussion about how you grow as you get more experience!

For me it depends on what I want the subject to be, if the subject is just the bird or animal then I like a clean shot of the bird, if on the other hand I want to show the space for example a field of sunflowers then I go for the dirtier shot. I do not like having anything man made other than maybe a old wooden post in my shots.

I have an appreciation for a variety of styles, but for my fave, I lean dirty.

I'm ok with very busy environment if the picture remains great without the bird. (You show many examples of that). But these are difficult shots to get right. I really like blurry foreground even when masking parts of the subject. Eventually, a bit of every types of shots is always nice in a portfolio to break monotony.

I like both but am growing towards dirty and loving it. But the two dying leaves in front of the bird do bother me.

I'm torn, because ideally I would want to do everything natural but there are some birds here in Australia that are almost impossible to get at eye level and spend their life in the tree canopy. So a water point might be an only option so a setup perch will offer reliable results. Also because of the huge amount of land cleared for farming, some birds live purely on fence lines and birds on barbed wire gets old quick so a setup perch might be your best bet as well. In terms of how clean the image is, im roughly in the middle, but I lean toward cleaner as I like to see most of the bird unobstructed. But definitely some texture in the out of focus background really adds some interest. But if you want lots of texture, I think getting close and shooting wide angle 200mm or less looks great, but im not a fan of an in focus background at 600mm, becomes too cluttered

I'll take what i can get lol but if given the chance, i would try to get a dirty shot, or at least somewhere in between

at the 15:45 mark ..... "you're going to have to have pretty good handholding technique" ..... I was surprised that you mentioned handholding. About 98% of my songbird photography is on a very rigid, stable tripod. It's hard to imagine getting adequate support if handholding, unless one is using smaller, lighter lenses such as the 150-600mm f6.3 zooms that are all the rage these days. But I would think that for those using the truly huge, heavy glass, tripod use is a must.

What's up Scotty?

I shoot both styles and tend to go with what the bird presents. Never staged a shot in 30+ years and besides pishing in fall, nothing done to "lure" birds. I do not use playback at all and I don't like photographing around people that abuse it. I am not a fan of the small in frame type shots. Some of that is just based on what I shoot (600mm +1.4x almost 99% of the time) with as well as how I have shot in the past. I feel like small in frame is just something that folks do when they don't possess the field-craft to get tighter shots. When I see it I wonder if it's more about the environment and not so much about the bird. It's like... "great landscape shot and what kind of bird is that?" On your Philadelphia Vireo shot I would say that as long as that was mostly created in camera I am OK with it. If that foreground and background were more in focus and it's heavily blurred in post... not sure that would be something I would do

I like the clean shots when wanting to see small details of the species. However, I much prefer viewing the bird in it's environment. So, it would be "dirty" for me. There seems to be this idea amongst photographers that a clean shot is better than a dirty one. Not sure how that all started...probably as big expensive lenses showed the capability to capture only the bird and blur out everything else with bokeh. A clean image doesn't tell the story that a dirty one does.

Habitat is good

IMO dead leaves tell me is is not phony. I feel like the maker has the final word. If other people like what I do it is my gift to them, if they don't like it that is not important. Artists don't rely on other people to feed an ego.

Give me some dirt. Dirt is real. I have little use for laboratory pictures. Some background makes it feel cozy to me. Like a warm, gentle, hug.

You asked for honesty, so here it is: No, I wouldn't post those cluttered images, I would have deleted them in the culling process. If we agree that photographers ought to push themselves to get better & better (no matter what type of photography), then this style (just like "small in frame") is just easier, requiring less time & effort with these shy, uncooperative creatures.

I like it dirty big boy. I call them environmental images, things that are real. I don't go for heavily edited images as it becomes digital art, which I can't do anything with other than look at. If it can't be published or entered into a contest it seems like wasted effort. I'm not going to spend ages working on an image to post on IG for 4 likes. So for many reasons I prefer your hybrid or dirty. It's nice to see someone other than me talking about this stuff. Shame you hate Snowy Owls

“Dirty.” I’m not interested in bird portraits; I’m interested in the bird in its natural environment.

Give your subject a place to live

While I’m not above editing out crap in the photo, I shoot in the field 100% of the time. So …….. dirty, 95% or more. Frankly, even though I’m an old……ish guy, clean bird shots always look like “old guy photography,” English chaps sitting for five hours at a time in their backyard hides, camera aimed at their garden “perches” while they eat marmalade sandwiches, sip tea from their thermos and marvel at the great outdoors while they avoid doing the dishes. However, ask me again in 10 years.

I think the clean images of a bird on a perch all look the same, often even having that yellow-tan background. It's not interesting and doesn't capture my attention.

dirty😉

For perched song birds, I prefer mid to dirty, because the natural habitat should be included for context. I my opinion, dirty photos are substantially more interesting as it draws your eyes to the subject. As in Scott's dirty photos, only the subject should be in focus and not the entire frame.

Definitely dirty. Dirty tells a story. Much more interesting.

I'm moving from clean to dirty. Too "staged" does not appeal to me.

Do not use the word _dirty. T Th