When I take a photo with just the bird and an empty background the art part of the photo is the bird and all I did was to capture it, so I consider it a photograph. A photo of a bird with a more complex background and foreground where I have to do more thinking about colors, composition etc, I think is on a different level.
Perhaps this thought (and I don't disagree with it in one sense) is at the heart of what I am pondering. I think wildlife photographers tend to tie the difficulty in getting the shot to its "worthiness". the average viewer is unaware of what went into capturing the photo and may be drawn to a "simple" photo because of the vibrant colours, beautiful lighting and a variety of things that may only register subconsciously. I do think at times I am guilty of this and am surprised by some of the photos that my family and friends are drawn to (ones that had almost not even posted to my site).
Do you think this is a fair/accurate observation? Or have misunderstood what the above is alluding to?
I agree 100% with what you just said.
I think a photo with a more complex background will have the viewer looking at it longer, and is why I think it is on a different level. I don't think it is necessarily a better photo.
Posting three examples of birds and I like all three for different reasons. When you view these, which photo holds your attention longer.
