A good wildlife shot?

I have been thinking about the problem of capturing photographs of the Osprey at Rutland water and the problems associated with it.   The biggest problem would be around the distance between the bird and the photographer.  The only place where you can guarantee to see the bird is at the nesting platform.   this is the best part of a quarter of a mile from the nearest hide - not that close.  So you then have to ask are there other locations where the bird may well turn up.  The obvious one would be whilst it is catching fish.  Again this has a problem.  Rutland water is one of the largest man made lakes in Europe and so in theory the birds could hunt anywhere.  However, this is not quite the case but there still is a large area to try and stack out.

None of these problems are insurmountable but it has started me to question what is a 'good' wildlife photograph.  I know this is an almost impossible question to answer and I am not even going to try to answer this here apart from to say that I am being drawn more and more to what I would call 'situational' photographs.   By this I mean photographs of the animal in its natural situation rather than some close up.  The photograph above gives an example.  Here we see a crow sitting in a tree surveying the land for feeding opportunities.   The photograph also portrays the broader landscape and also provides a sense of perspective to where the crow lives.  Is this a 'good' wild life shot?   I believe it is - however, when you look at wildlife magazines you find a different approach.  They always seem to want the more punchy shot.  The close up, quite literally in your face.  I am not sure this is the wild life shot I like to produce.   I will have to give this some more thought.