I'm doing a 30 day challenge and this one was to do a photograph with no foreground. I found this concept confusing so am wondering would you call this one that meets the criteria? This is a Currawong, gorgeous song birds.
I think it's a good shot and would qualify for "no foreground". The way I'd interpret it would work off depth of field. An example would be a landscape where there is a rock or bush closer to the photographer and they have focused on that rather than the mountain in the distance. If the shot had "no foreground" it would not include the rock or bush and be totally focused on the mountain in the distance. So with this shot, you might have had other trees in the foreground, but you've eliminated them from the shot and just captured the bird in the tree and voila- no foreground. At least that's the way I see it! Good shot.
I love currawongs. We have a couple of currawongs who visit us each year. Unfortunately, this year they were feeding two channel billed cuckoo chicks because the cuckoo parents left the eggs in the currawongs nest and destroyed their own babies. Channel billed cuckoos have to be the ugliest birds in the world, I hate them.
Helpful information above too regarding 'no foreground'
@olivetreeann thanks, it is curious to me - this bird is in the very top of a really tall tree and there is no way I could have included a foreground without the bird being on a dot, as soon as I took the shot I thought, hey that is no foreground! so thanks!
@jgpittenger mmmm interesting, I wouldn't have considered them foreground as they are directly against the birds body, but what great discussions on technique this has sparked (even if I'm still a tad confused 😂 )
Helpful information above too regarding 'no foreground'