I was reading a missive only recently (sorry, have absolutely lost the link), and came across a nugget of semi-wisdom: it was posited that the most important (or interesting) part of an image is the background. This struck me, as I’ve heard similar thoughts from a variety of photographers.  Shortly after the article came out, I came across a black-crowned night heron.

Now, here’s the thing.  I had a decent (400mm) lens with me,  and actually had a decent opportunity to catch a good shot.  So, first thing: just catch the guy, right?  Here was the initial result:

Black-crowned heron, first take

Now, this is a pretty poor photo.  Somewhat sharp, but the bird isn’t that pleasing (pose-wise), and the background is… well, it’s a deal breaker.  Far too distracting, and not really adding anything to the story.

Now, contrast that with this image:

Black-crowned Heron, much better

Yes, the same bird.  Much better.  Reasons? Well, technically: better light, better framing, closer view.  Click on it to get closer, and you’ll see details in the eyes and water. Most importantly, especially for wild animal shots: the background supports it.  You see it’s natural habitat, simple shapes and forms, and nothing that tells anything outside of the story of this guy.

Now, having read this over: I suppose this isn’t the best shot either.  There are implied lines cutting through his head (although it doesn’t bother me), and the details need more retouching on the face and beak. And I’m not sure I’ve quite made the point as to how backgrounds matter, since the two photos are pretty different.

But you can see how the second is far superior, no?