Has digital photography changed how we see birds? (1 Viewer)

[Barred Wobbler]

Did you get a picture... because it might have been a red-footed falcon, or even an Amur falcon?!!

I managed a quick one.

EDIT I took the second photo the day before only a couple of miles away. I think it's the same bird.

 

[John Cantelo]

I can understand why this thread has evolved, in part, into an argument about how we should go about our hobby, but that's not why I started it. I'm interested in how the tools we use influence our perceptions about what we see rather than making value judgements about which approach might be 'better'. For good or ill I learnt to look intently at the bird in the field, make sketches and record notes. Today many take a different approach via the use of digital cameras. I suspect the two different approaches tend to encourage slightly different attitudes/approaches to birding and even how we percieve birds altogether. However, I found it difficult to articulate exactly what this might be and opened this thread in the hope of struggling towards a conclusion. As long as they don't create a nuisance for others I really don't mind how people bird themselves - more recruits to the cause can only help!

 

[Roy C]

In this digital age you do not need big/heavy long lenses for record shots of birds as a bridge camera something like the Canon SX50 is small enough and light enough for any birder to take along when using a scope or bins. These Cameras will even fit in a biggish jacket pocket and the focal range will out reach even the most expensive long DSLR lenses. I would have thought that such a camera would be indispensable for the keen birder if only for ID purposes.

Attached are a couple of shots taken with a bridge Camera (SX50) costing a little over £200 - both shots were taken from the same spot at the same bird which was around 400/500 feet away. The first shot with a wide(ish) focal length and the second shot at the full 2400mm focal length (hand held). Surely any 'birder' could make use of such a tool!.

 

[Clive29]

When I was in Hong Kong last year I went out a couple of times with a local birding group.. 7 blokes each with serious amount of photographic gear.. only one had bins and not a bird guide in sight. We were on one of the Islands and there were a few buntings that I was struggling to ID from my guide.. I asked but nobody had a clue. What surprised me was that I later learnt that was pretty normal. What they did was post their pictures on a forum later and somebody else would ID them.. that was just how birding was done amongst most of them, very little interest of the bird themselves, it was all about images.

 

[scary-canary]

I managed a quick one.

EDIT I took the second photo the day before only a couple of miles away. I think it's the same bird.

The one on the right looks like a pallid swift to me. :t:

 

[John Cantelo]

Surely any 'birder' could make use of such a tool!.

I'm sure that they could, but seeing a bird as a photo opportunity first (and why not if that's your aim?) and a bird second can alter how go about your birding. This is in part what I asking - do photo-birders see birds primarily as a photo opportunity thus ignoring those too distant to photograph and other aspects of birds/birding.

It may well be that some armed with long lenses have surprisingly poor ID skills (as Clive notes), but that does necessarily matter? They'd probably not be interested in birds at all were it not for the photographic intrest and some interest is always better than none, besides it might eventually germinate into a wider appreciation,

 

[scary-canary]

I'm sure that they could, but seeing a bird as a photo opportunity first (and why not if that's your aim?) and a bird second can alter how go about your birding. This is in part what I asking - do photo-birders see birds primarily as a photo opportunity thus ignoring those too distant to photograph and other aspects of birds/birding.

It may well be that some armed with long lenses have surprisingly poor ID skills (as Clive notes), but that does necessarily matter? They'd probably not be interested in birds at all were it not for the photographic intrest and some interest is always better than none, besides it might eventually germinate into a wider appreciation,

At least while people are taking pictures they're not shooting or trapping them, or liming them for food.

 

[Stonefaction]

I go out birding with my binoculars and a camera with a 50-500mm lens fitted. If I see a distant bird, I will take a photo of it (when possible) as it is sometimes possible to pick out details that would have been a struggle to get with binoculars. (Not all are possible to ID obviously). I do watch what the bird is doing/how it is flying etc, so that next time round I'll have a starting point for an ID.
If I am unsure of an ID I will check the books when I get home comparing the photos with the books, and then post on here for a second/third/fourth opinion, if necessary. If I have photographed a species I've never seen before I will study the photos so that next time I will have a better idea of what I'm looking at.
I recently found my first "big" rarity and saw it through binoculars and ID'd it that way, but being (at that point) the only person who had seen it, knew that a photo would be handy to get to prove the sighting, unless others managed to see it too (they did). Thankfully, it didn't just disappear and there were lots of photos taken to "prove" I saw what I'd claimed to have seen.
To me, photography is another tool for learning. It compliments my eyesight (enhanced or otherwise) and my hearing (getting better at recognising calls), and allows me to see details I may have missed "in the field".
Sometimes I even get a nice photo.

 

[Roy C]

I'm sure that they could, but seeing a bird as a photo opportunity first (and why not if that's your aim?) and a bird second can alter how go about your birding. This is in part what I asking - do photo-birders see birds primarily as a photo opportunity thus ignoring those too distant to photograph and other aspects of birds/birding.

The point I was trying to make was that you do not have to have a long/heavy lens or even get very near to take some good record shots with these so called little 'superzooms' and I am very surprised that more 'birders' do not user them.

Of course if you are primarily a bird photographer then then you objectives are bound to be different to that of a birder with a scope and are you looking to get quite close to obtain maximum image quality.

I know when I used to do bird photography (gave it up a while ago) I often took along a pair of bins for the distant birds if only to post my sightings on my counties web site. So I am in no doubt that you can combine the two hobbies.

 

[Farnboro John]

Last autumn I asked a chap who had been photographing waders at the Shoveler pools at Pennington, "what have you got?"

His response, which nearly earned him a decking, was "Same as you, I won't know till I get home."

Instead I explained I was actually asking what species were on the pools, and the answer was still "I don't know." Whether he was a birder or just a photographer (no offence ) doesn't really matter. What he was doing was not birding.

His casual implication that I was in some way like him still rankles though.

John

 

[Fozzybear]

By range I meant the distance you are from the birds. Increasingly I find photo-birders tend only to look at what'd near enogh to get a good photo. Apologies for not making myself clear.

I find a camera extends my view rather than restricts it - birds I'd otherwise only see as dots in my binoculars I'll take some photos and see if I can figure out what they are. Usually I can't tell but I have had some interesting revelations by doing this.

Using cameras rather than scopes I see as a complete non-issue really, it's like complaining that no-one uses draw telescopes balanced on the foot anymore and everyone uses fan-dangled spotting scopes on tripods instead... and where's the skill in that?! :-O

 

[r_bruce]

I began birding later in life. I had always been interested in the natural world but only began seriously birding early in 2009 (at the tender age of 55). Later in 2009 I got my first DSLR, so for me birding and digital photography go together. The details that I have been able to see on so many birds could not have been seen without killing those birds 100 years ago. The DSLR is the "fowling piece" of the modern day natural philosopher. So in that way, it has definitely changed how we see birds.

Although for me they go together very well, I consider myself a birder first and a photographer second. I have often said that I am a birding photographer, not a bird photographer. Seeing the bird in its natural habitat comes first, if I am able to get some photos, all the better. Many of these are merely recording shots of the bird. Sometimes I am fortunate, and this produces a very nice image that ends up on someone's wall. But was I out photographing? No, I was birding and taking pictures.

I think much of the animosity toward 'photographers' by 'birders' is rubbish. Just don't be "that guy." I did have the misfortune of birding for several days with "that guy." He would step between anyone and the bird to get more shots. He never had enough photos to step back and let others have a go. He often flushed the bird by crashing along to get closer to it and blasting with his fill flash (not that flash is necessarily a bad thing. Personal preference, I do not use one). He was not someone I wish to bird with again and of the dozens of generous, enjoyable birding photographers I have met, he was the only "that guy" amongst them.

Cheers,
Bruce

 

[digiscope09]

Birding, photographying etc

I watched birds for many years via binoculars alone but eventually made the transition to digiscoping as a new challenge and also to get a more detailed look a bird via a highly magnified photo appreciating the detail and beauty. I have since progressed to a high end telephoto lens/DSLR combo which has taken my photos to another level. The key point is that it is about progression and capability in admiring the beauty of birds. I no longer watch birds via small birdwatching groups for two reasons. Firstly, taking photos slows down the group and secondly, reference is made in the original post about photographers jumping in front of bird watchers whereas I have found the reverse, so I no longer participate in birdwatching groups but prefer solo outings or with another photographer. Even that can be a challenge at times particularly when stuck in a small hide and each trying to get a decent shot!

PS: my binoculars ALWAYS travel with me!

 

[Jane Turner]

For good or ill I learnt to look intently at the bird in the field, make sketches and record notes. Today many take a different approach via the use of digital cameras.

I was about to start a thread on the same subject, as a result of comments on the Cleveland Pallis Swift thread, until I found yours. I agree there is a very definite behavioural change in birders. I'm like you, what I would call old school. Taking a photo is something I might consider doing after I seen a bird well, repeatedly and taken notes, made sketches etc. I even had a brief exchange with a "New school" birder as to why I'd not just taken photos of my recent BRW.

In contrast I was told just y'day of another BRW that was only viewed though a viewfinder and on the back of the camera shots and once the shots looked good, the birders concerned left. No bins used, no notes!


See I just couldn't do that...old dog new tricks etc. Yet I suspect they will have a lot less trouble getting their's accepted by BBRC. This doesn't mean that don't get enormous amounts of vicarious pleasure from dissecting other people's photos,apparently to the annoyance of some.

 

[ClarkWGriswold]

Interesting thread John. What goes into my rucksack at the start of each session in order is as follows: Topic, bins, SX50, field guide and then it depends on the weather.

Range is an issue for me hence the SX50. I find it difficult to justify dropping a grand on a scope set up with two young children and limited resources. BF is a great resource for inexperienced birders such as myself. I try to identify key features on distant birds - upturned bills on divers etc. but still try to get a quick grab to confirm at home. I guess it's a confidence issue. All of these things are just tools at the end of the day and it's upto the individual how they use them. Occasionally I also pack my iPad as well. An area I'm cac at is bird song. If I hear something in the field I'll try to have a listen in the car to confirm it is what I think it is. If I wait til I get home invariably my memory plays tricks on me. For me though, as a learning aid, nothing beats seeing the bird in question piping out the tunes.

I've recently joined Carmarthenshire Bird Club. Had no intention of doing so but having bumped into a few of its members in the field who were keen to share their knowledge and assist with the learning process, it seemed like a good idea. Despite most of them being Scarlets fans (and therefore the be all and end all when it comes to rugby knowledge3) I'm sure we'll get along.

I should have added that my biggest source of inspiration and knowledge has been, and always will be, my old man.

Rich

 

[Farnboro John]

I am simply appalled by Jane's tale. Not spending any time just observing the bird at all - that's awful. It ain't birding, even if it does result in an acceptance. I hope it isn't simply about that - getting their stats up... dear me.

BTW I don't think either Alan or I mind Jane dissecting photos - we just don't want to do it ourselves most of the time - old school holistic birders, y'see, though both of us can do a bit better than "because it is" if we have to.

Anyway, today we have a real case about perceptions to deal with, from the Scillies. Having had a Sora on Tresco for a fortnight, which must surely mean that everybody there has seen it, scoped it, digiscoped it, absorbed its character and identification features, an alleged Spotted Crake at Shooters' Pool was reidentified from photographs as a Sora.

Surely this must mean there is a dearth of field identification skills down there at the moment, from a lack of open minds when looking at birds to an inability to apply recently gained learning (or have they not learned at all, just gained a tick?) or an inability to retain field marks for more than five minutes? Was it, possibly, a Spotted Crake because the observer had already seen Sora.....?

Anyway full marks to the person who looked at the pictures and went "hang on a minute...." even if they hadn't spotted the issue at the time.Maybe not full marks, but seven out of ten.

I went for the Semipalmated Plover yesterday, bins and camera (scope too heavy and awkward with the rest). At first the bird was too far away to pick out with bins or camera but others provided good directions, and once I had my eye in I could pick it out on my own. I could have done with the scope but I had no pix of Semipalmated Plover so the choice was simple. As it happens the pix are of little merit, not as good as Alan's of the previous day, but I think they were worth taking. I could see the head features easily once the pix were pumped up on the back of the camera. I heard the call. I compared the size of RP and SpP. I enjoyed the experience.

John

 

[Bonsaibirder]

Spotted Crakes were being re-identified as Soras on Scilly before the digital age, so it's not a new thing.

 

[Farnboro John]

Spotted Crakes were being re-identified as Soras on Scilly before the digital age, so it's not a new thing.

No, indeed one might say that we have learnt from our mistakes and can now repeat them almost perfectly!

John

 

[MSA]

Personally, having a camera hasn't changed the way I bird to any great degree. I still find that on a typical walk, the majority of birds are picked up and/or identified by sound, and also that if I have a camera with me, I can often return home with no pictures as nothing's really been close, sat still, been unobscured or generally been worth taking a pic of. This could be a function of going out to bird rather than to take pictures.

Generally, the availability of relatively cheap but good cameras has opened up our hobby to a new group of people who like the idea of taking photos as much as, or more than, they like "birding". I'd hope this was for the good as it means more support for "the environment".

For me, the camera is a nice way to record a memory, and also to provide backup to notes etc (but I still carry the belief that as long as I'm happy with what I've seen, it doesn't really matter if someone else doesn't believe me). It can also be very useful if a bird pops up in front of you, you've seen enough to know it's something unusual, made some notes but it's not something where you can recall all the features needed for an ID (eg it's a juv dendroica, but which one?) - firing off a quick pic could make all the difference.

As regards "how we see birds", cameras have one good and one bad point. The good point is that they show a faithful reproduction of what was actually in front of them. The eye can be deceived into seeing what it wants or expects to see, and the mind can fill in gaps, all subconsciously, not deliberately - a picture avoids this problem. The bad point is that it can only take an image at a moment in time, so if that was the point at which a bird stretched, turned, ruffled feathers or whatever, the image can mislead. Pictures themselves lead to a raft of other problems - manipulation, blur, "artefacts" from backlighting, shadows etc.

I'm off to Scilly for a few days tomorrow, and have decided to leave the DSLR at home, but will still take the SX50 for when the Magnolia Warb jumps out in front of me in Lower Moors

 

[dandsblair]

Yes I've changed

I notice that I rarely now take notes and almost never do sketches, 6 years ago when I found a local yellow-browed warbler, I took extensive notes and did some rough sketches to ensure is was not Hume's Leaf or Pallas. At that time I often used my sketches to do some occasional paintings. More recently after finding a Pallas's Warbler (luckily saw the rump and nailed it on first viewing), I then spent the next few minutes unsuccessfully trying to get a photo rather than observing and enjoying the bird. I didn't even report the second bird as I had no notes, drawings or photos.
I also find that I sometimes don't bother with a scope unless I expect to need the range because it can be too much to carry with the camera and other gear. I also now rely on digital photography for my artistic fix rather than painting, it is much more immediate but not so satisfying in the longer term, so for me things have changed and probably not all for the better.

David