-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
How Technology is changing Bird Photography (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter manelson
- Start date
Chalky W
Well-known member
Hi Michael,
I’m fairly new here and am in no way an accomplished or expert photographer, rather someone starting out on a journey into photography, but I read your blog and have an opinion too, hope you don't mind if I express it. 42 reads and no-one else has one??
I agree that technology has changed photography (not just bird) and so it should and digital has allowed it to be more accessible to the masses and quality photographs are more abundant than ever, you just have to look at the galleries here to see that. Even I can turn up with my 500mm prime and quality body (D300 in my case), set everything up, press a few buttons and bingo, perfect detail, every feather visible, etc. Technology has made this accessible to us all. Easy, the camera does it all for us provided we read the manual and get the settings right.
But I do think that advances in technology are slightly detrimental to photography as well. Because it does give instant results (I'm as guilty as anyone), I think that there are too many people who expect that and don't take the time to learn about using their equipment to take great photos whatever the circumstance. I read lots of posts (all over the net) basically saying why is my camera crap, too much noise etc, etc. I think they're missing the point in that it isn't technology that takes a great photo but rather the person behind the camera understanding the technology.
The issue of noise is one that especially gets my hackles up and one that everyone seems to be obsessed with, especially given technologies ability to reduce it. We seem to expect the camera to produce a noise free photo even when it's a half an hour before sunset on a cloudy day and AutoISO is at 3200. I for one have taken the decision not to change my current camera until I can take good photos and am forcing myself to concentrate on learning the art of taking photos and overcoming the restrictions that nature can force on us sometimes, even if it means that a photo has a bit of noise. Subject, composition, mood, message play a far more important part in a photo than noise I feel.
Your point over weight and a 500mm zoom over a 500mm prime, well if the 500mm prime (sharper, more aperture) gets you a better photo than the zoom then surely a it’s the tool for the job. I agree it can be a pain to lug around sometimes but aren't we after the perfect photo? I concede that a 500mm prime isn't a hand holder unless you're Arnie Schwarz, my personal compromise, when I don’t want my shoulder in ice the next day, is a 300mm prime and I accept that I have to get closer or expect a heavier crop in the edit, reduced detail etc. I know that money is an issue with a lot of us, especially with glass but that’s another compromise we have to make and learn the art of photography and not expect technology to solve it for us. But then nobody ever said that photography is a cheap hobby.
To return to your post, yes I agree that technology has changed past held assumptions regarding quality bird photography and for the better I’m sure, but I wonder if some of those past held assumptions were based on some people’s lack of understanding of the skill of photography and the art of the photographer? I said this on another post but a bad craftsman blames his tools a good one blames himself and technology makes it harder to blame ourselves sometimes. I’m sure that the great photographers could take a point and shoot and produce better photos than lots of us.
I really hope that this isn’t read as a personal rant or as an attack on your blog as I agree with what you say but my point is that we should take advantage of technology, applaud its advances but don’t use it as an excuse for taking poor photos, that’s where we come in.
Just my opinion in the interest of debate.
Chalky
I’m fairly new here and am in no way an accomplished or expert photographer, rather someone starting out on a journey into photography, but I read your blog and have an opinion too, hope you don't mind if I express it. 42 reads and no-one else has one??
I agree that technology has changed photography (not just bird) and so it should and digital has allowed it to be more accessible to the masses and quality photographs are more abundant than ever, you just have to look at the galleries here to see that. Even I can turn up with my 500mm prime and quality body (D300 in my case), set everything up, press a few buttons and bingo, perfect detail, every feather visible, etc. Technology has made this accessible to us all. Easy, the camera does it all for us provided we read the manual and get the settings right.
But I do think that advances in technology are slightly detrimental to photography as well. Because it does give instant results (I'm as guilty as anyone), I think that there are too many people who expect that and don't take the time to learn about using their equipment to take great photos whatever the circumstance. I read lots of posts (all over the net) basically saying why is my camera crap, too much noise etc, etc. I think they're missing the point in that it isn't technology that takes a great photo but rather the person behind the camera understanding the technology.
The issue of noise is one that especially gets my hackles up and one that everyone seems to be obsessed with, especially given technologies ability to reduce it. We seem to expect the camera to produce a noise free photo even when it's a half an hour before sunset on a cloudy day and AutoISO is at 3200. I for one have taken the decision not to change my current camera until I can take good photos and am forcing myself to concentrate on learning the art of taking photos and overcoming the restrictions that nature can force on us sometimes, even if it means that a photo has a bit of noise. Subject, composition, mood, message play a far more important part in a photo than noise I feel.
Your point over weight and a 500mm zoom over a 500mm prime, well if the 500mm prime (sharper, more aperture) gets you a better photo than the zoom then surely a it’s the tool for the job. I agree it can be a pain to lug around sometimes but aren't we after the perfect photo? I concede that a 500mm prime isn't a hand holder unless you're Arnie Schwarz, my personal compromise, when I don’t want my shoulder in ice the next day, is a 300mm prime and I accept that I have to get closer or expect a heavier crop in the edit, reduced detail etc. I know that money is an issue with a lot of us, especially with glass but that’s another compromise we have to make and learn the art of photography and not expect technology to solve it for us. But then nobody ever said that photography is a cheap hobby.
To return to your post, yes I agree that technology has changed past held assumptions regarding quality bird photography and for the better I’m sure, but I wonder if some of those past held assumptions were based on some people’s lack of understanding of the skill of photography and the art of the photographer? I said this on another post but a bad craftsman blames his tools a good one blames himself and technology makes it harder to blame ourselves sometimes. I’m sure that the great photographers could take a point and shoot and produce better photos than lots of us.
I really hope that this isn’t read as a personal rant or as an attack on your blog as I agree with what you say but my point is that we should take advantage of technology, applaud its advances but don’t use it as an excuse for taking poor photos, that’s where we come in.
Just my opinion in the interest of debate.
Chalky
Hi Chalky,
First I just want to say thanks for spending the time to write such a detailed note about what I raised in my Blog. I didn't read it as a rant or attack on my Blog so not to worry.
First I totally agree around your points about the ART of photography. I did not mean to imply at all that technology has any impact in regard to the ART at all. I think a great artist will make use of whatever technology he or she has to make great art.
Where I have a friendly disagreement is around your statements about using a 500mm lens because it is the best so why not use it. My only point back is that we all have choices and each choice has tradeoffs. Even a 500mm prime has tradeoffs. It certainly will take the best picture BUT it will MISS many shots that you will not have at all. The extra weight and setup time with tripod means you won't get every shot that you could have got. So depending on what is important to you - that will effect your choice. I recently was in Panama heading back to the lodge. I was lucky enough to have a Blue Cotinga land on a branch about 10 ft away. It stayed there just long enough for me to move my camera up and fire off 3 shots. I never would have the shot if I didnt use my setup. The only other point I would add and really the whole purpose of the blog is that technology is changing so fast that the differences in quality over these solutions is not as much as one might think. Certainly 5 years ago I would not even suggest my alternatives as they would produce very low quality photographs. Now we have choices with tradeoffs for each choice.
Thanks for the discussion,
Cheers,
Michael
First I just want to say thanks for spending the time to write such a detailed note about what I raised in my Blog. I didn't read it as a rant or attack on my Blog so not to worry.
First I totally agree around your points about the ART of photography. I did not mean to imply at all that technology has any impact in regard to the ART at all. I think a great artist will make use of whatever technology he or she has to make great art.
Where I have a friendly disagreement is around your statements about using a 500mm lens because it is the best so why not use it. My only point back is that we all have choices and each choice has tradeoffs. Even a 500mm prime has tradeoffs. It certainly will take the best picture BUT it will MISS many shots that you will not have at all. The extra weight and setup time with tripod means you won't get every shot that you could have got. So depending on what is important to you - that will effect your choice. I recently was in Panama heading back to the lodge. I was lucky enough to have a Blue Cotinga land on a branch about 10 ft away. It stayed there just long enough for me to move my camera up and fire off 3 shots. I never would have the shot if I didnt use my setup. The only other point I would add and really the whole purpose of the blog is that technology is changing so fast that the differences in quality over these solutions is not as much as one might think. Certainly 5 years ago I would not even suggest my alternatives as they would produce very low quality photographs. Now we have choices with tradeoffs for each choice.
Thanks for the discussion,
Cheers,
Michael
I've just had a read of it and my experience has been very different. I started out shooting on film but gave up as I couldn't afford it. About 8-9 years ago I started digiscoping and loved it, as the price fo DSLRs dropped I made the leap to a Canon DSLR and a Sigma 500mm zoom. I had a couple of issues with this set up, firstly the image quality - in good conditions it was excellent but when the light fell away so did the quality. As a birder I carry bins round my neck and a scope by my side so the camera ended up in a bag on my back, not much use for grabbing a quick shot. I then went to a Sigma 500 prime and then the Canon 500 f4, with these I need a tripod so the scope went in the bag and the camera was on the tripod over one shoulder. This means that the camera is available much more quickly so I'm getting more shots now. As for the image quality it is significantly better than my old Sigma 170-500 and I'd hate to change back again. I agree that these big primes are heavy and bulky but that doesn't need to stop you getting out birding with them. I take my 500 f4 out whenever I'm birding and will happily carry it around all day, it doesn't slow me down (though the desire to get a decent shot often does).
I enjoyed your blog.....a blog is intended to get people to think and reflect and you have done just that...bravo...
The 'art of photography' in this instance, has to be meshed with the 'art of birding' and I think that is where many people get lost. We now tend to concentrate too much on getting the perfect photo as opposed to appreciating birding for what it is.
I love the world that has opened up to me with photography...but I still place the 'art of birding' and observing nature and being with nature over that of getting the photo. So a 500mm lens...no way, I for one don't want to have to lug around all of that stuff. But that is just me, not you or others.
It takes away from the experience of birding. I would sooner go out with a less distance lens and capture a shot that I could identify and be proud of myself, while still birding, instead of birding on the side and getting a shot that National Geographic could use.
The 'art of photography' in this instance, has to be meshed with the 'art of birding' and I think that is where many people get lost. We now tend to concentrate too much on getting the perfect photo as opposed to appreciating birding for what it is.
I love the world that has opened up to me with photography...but I still place the 'art of birding' and observing nature and being with nature over that of getting the photo. So a 500mm lens...no way, I for one don't want to have to lug around all of that stuff. But that is just me, not you or others.
It takes away from the experience of birding. I would sooner go out with a less distance lens and capture a shot that I could identify and be proud of myself, while still birding, instead of birding on the side and getting a shot that National Geographic could use.
Chalky W
Well-known member
Michael,
I'm glad we can discuss it makes life interesting and I'm glad a couple of others have chipped in as I thought 42 views before I started my rant (lol) meant that no one else had an opinion on what I think is an interesting topic.
I think we are all saying the same thing roughly in that we all agree that technology has definitely changed photography forever since the days of film but then that can be said in all walks of life. Blimey, if you’d have asked me 25 years ago if I’d be sat at a computer that did more than 2 + 2 communicating with a stranger who lives in Canada, then I would have said you’re mad!!!!! So we’ll agree to agree on the technology front.
But I also think we agree on the 500mm big lens front too as you say yourself it is one of the best tools for the job but as I said there is a trade off to be made, one which I sometimes make on the old weight issue. But in that trade off there are sacrifices to be made in the ‘quality’ of your photos, not necessarily in the quality but there’s probably more to do in post editing, cropping etc to get the photo you might have got with the big prime. Also as we both mention, money plays a big part in making that decision too. But personally I agree with Postcardcv in that it isn’t too much of a pain to carry it around all day and I often do but I also agree with you that it isn’t as quick to set up as swinging a smaller lens up from the neck strap to get that passing flight shot. The one thing I am learning about having a big lens is that you definitely have to be a bit more organised about what it is you want to photograph but hey, that’s all down to personal choice. For example, I spent last Saturday camped out in a local wood, hide, tripod, 500mm in pursuit of a Treecreeper, a bird I’d love to get a shot of, anyway 5hrs later, lots of boredom and I didn’t press the shutter once. But I’ve done the same thing and got some fantastic shots of a family of Roe Deer. My point being that it’s what you want out of the experience that is the important thing. I’ve also walked around the same woods with a smaller lens and taken shots like the Robin in my gallery and a few more, which I’ll post when time permits, but again it’s all a trade off about what it is that you want to get out of the experience, on those days I fancy a walk not sitting in a hide. Your right it’s all a choice and each choice has a trade off, I think my original post was agreeing with you but I felt your blog was slightly dismissive of the big lens choice which is why I picked up the mantle. It may not be everyone’s choice but it is a choice after all.
In response to Imans66, again we all agree it’s a choice and your choice is to put a higher priority on birding over photography, a choice you have made. Thank god for choice as the world would be a duller place if we didn’t have any.
In essence we agree that choice is the point in respect of the way we go about things but to return to the question I have to quote Michael –
The only other point I would add and really the whole purpose of the blog is that technology is changing so fast that the differences in quality over these solutions is not as much as one might think –
which is where I wanted to go by saying that –
yes I agree that technology has changed past held assumptions regarding quality bird photography and for the better I’m sure, but I wonder if some of those past held assumptions were based on some people’s lack of understanding of the skill of photography and the art of the photographer? I said this on another post but a bad craftsman blames his tools a good one blames himself and technology makes it harder to blame ourselves sometimes.
The choice being here are the tools that we choose to use, the art being can we use them?? Again I hope I haven’t ranted for too long but I’ll stop there and hope others will join the debate as I think we all have a lot to learn from the choices others make.
Imans66 - I think I’ll go out at the weekend with just the binoculars and enjoy a days birding.
Cheers Guys.
I'm glad we can discuss it makes life interesting and I'm glad a couple of others have chipped in as I thought 42 views before I started my rant (lol) meant that no one else had an opinion on what I think is an interesting topic.
I think we are all saying the same thing roughly in that we all agree that technology has definitely changed photography forever since the days of film but then that can be said in all walks of life. Blimey, if you’d have asked me 25 years ago if I’d be sat at a computer that did more than 2 + 2 communicating with a stranger who lives in Canada, then I would have said you’re mad!!!!! So we’ll agree to agree on the technology front.
But I also think we agree on the 500mm big lens front too as you say yourself it is one of the best tools for the job but as I said there is a trade off to be made, one which I sometimes make on the old weight issue. But in that trade off there are sacrifices to be made in the ‘quality’ of your photos, not necessarily in the quality but there’s probably more to do in post editing, cropping etc to get the photo you might have got with the big prime. Also as we both mention, money plays a big part in making that decision too. But personally I agree with Postcardcv in that it isn’t too much of a pain to carry it around all day and I often do but I also agree with you that it isn’t as quick to set up as swinging a smaller lens up from the neck strap to get that passing flight shot. The one thing I am learning about having a big lens is that you definitely have to be a bit more organised about what it is you want to photograph but hey, that’s all down to personal choice. For example, I spent last Saturday camped out in a local wood, hide, tripod, 500mm in pursuit of a Treecreeper, a bird I’d love to get a shot of, anyway 5hrs later, lots of boredom and I didn’t press the shutter once. But I’ve done the same thing and got some fantastic shots of a family of Roe Deer. My point being that it’s what you want out of the experience that is the important thing. I’ve also walked around the same woods with a smaller lens and taken shots like the Robin in my gallery and a few more, which I’ll post when time permits, but again it’s all a trade off about what it is that you want to get out of the experience, on those days I fancy a walk not sitting in a hide. Your right it’s all a choice and each choice has a trade off, I think my original post was agreeing with you but I felt your blog was slightly dismissive of the big lens choice which is why I picked up the mantle. It may not be everyone’s choice but it is a choice after all.
In response to Imans66, again we all agree it’s a choice and your choice is to put a higher priority on birding over photography, a choice you have made. Thank god for choice as the world would be a duller place if we didn’t have any.
In essence we agree that choice is the point in respect of the way we go about things but to return to the question I have to quote Michael –
The only other point I would add and really the whole purpose of the blog is that technology is changing so fast that the differences in quality over these solutions is not as much as one might think –
which is where I wanted to go by saying that –
yes I agree that technology has changed past held assumptions regarding quality bird photography and for the better I’m sure, but I wonder if some of those past held assumptions were based on some people’s lack of understanding of the skill of photography and the art of the photographer? I said this on another post but a bad craftsman blames his tools a good one blames himself and technology makes it harder to blame ourselves sometimes.
The choice being here are the tools that we choose to use, the art being can we use them?? Again I hope I haven’t ranted for too long but I’ll stop there and hope others will join the debate as I think we all have a lot to learn from the choices others make.
Imans66 - I think I’ll go out at the weekend with just the binoculars and enjoy a days birding.
Cheers Guys.
Good words Michael. My mate is walking around with the Canon 400/5.6 on his 5D Mark 11 and getting great results which I'm having trouble getting with a Nikon 500/4 AFS VR on my D3.
The only negative of these zoom lenses though is over longer distances through haze/rain/mist. I'm often photographing waders in Spring migration over mudflats and the 500/4 comes into it's own . I have a Sigma 170 -500 APO zoom and it can't handle it. Even digiscoping with a good quality scope gives better results than the Sigma in these conditions. Except for flight shots of course.
I wish I could reduce the weight though as I have to walk 3 kms to the hides here in HK.
Neil.
The only negative of these zoom lenses though is over longer distances through haze/rain/mist. I'm often photographing waders in Spring migration over mudflats and the 500/4 comes into it's own . I have a Sigma 170 -500 APO zoom and it can't handle it. Even digiscoping with a good quality scope gives better results than the Sigma in these conditions. Except for flight shots of course.
I wish I could reduce the weight though as I have to walk 3 kms to the hides here in HK.
Neil.
RJM
Don't Worry, Be Happy!
I think it is very hard to make blanket statements about the best gear to lug around. There are too so many variables. Certainly what works in cooler northern climates while basically strolling in parks and sanctuaries is not the best to have in a tropical jungle trail or the African bush. And then there is mountain terrrain and seaside tidal flats. I certainly know would not take any dslr/telephoto lens combo or large spotting scope with me while hiking the Japan Alps or Kauai's Waimea Canyon!
But I agree, that technological change can and should make one rethink the gear we need to enjoy the hobby. Funny as I seem to be going in circles...going from bins to telescopes, to fieldscopes, back to bins, etc! As soon as I think I find the best for my needs, my interest changes or yesterday's gear gets better!
I think the biggest breakthru has been the leap in quality superzooms. One year ago, I would have never bought one, thinking they had all the downsides of a dslr compared to pocketcam without the image quality or long reach of the dslr/telephoto combo. But since getting the Canon SX1 and its 20x (560mm) lens, I really think this might be the future. Even old school Pentax is jumping in with its first 24x (625mm) F5 lens superzoom! With the change to cheaper CMOS technology in superzooms, larger sensors and image quality should start to leap forward. Panasonic with it s G1/GH1, though still a dslr, hints at what can be done. I would not be surprised if the Pano FZ28 replacement is just a like GH1 with a fixed 600mm zoom lens.
cheers,
Rick
But I agree, that technological change can and should make one rethink the gear we need to enjoy the hobby. Funny as I seem to be going in circles...going from bins to telescopes, to fieldscopes, back to bins, etc! As soon as I think I find the best for my needs, my interest changes or yesterday's gear gets better!
I think the biggest breakthru has been the leap in quality superzooms. One year ago, I would have never bought one, thinking they had all the downsides of a dslr compared to pocketcam without the image quality or long reach of the dslr/telephoto combo. But since getting the Canon SX1 and its 20x (560mm) lens, I really think this might be the future. Even old school Pentax is jumping in with its first 24x (625mm) F5 lens superzoom! With the change to cheaper CMOS technology in superzooms, larger sensors and image quality should start to leap forward. Panasonic with it s G1/GH1, though still a dslr, hints at what can be done. I would not be surprised if the Pano FZ28 replacement is just a like GH1 with a fixed 600mm zoom lens.
cheers,
Rick
Last edited:
I don't know how the SX1 compares to the S3 of a few years past, I am sure it is a great improvement. I did love my S3 and recently gave it to my daughter as she was into cameras in college but film, not digital, so she can play with this a bit.
The issue I had with the S3 was quality of image. Sure, I loved the ease of use and how clear it looked in the camera. I used this all the time in Ecuador. But when I went to download the images to my computer, I found that Elements 5 or 6.0 could do little to improve the quality of the image. Simply poor....lots of noise. I really notice that noise more-so now since I have stepped upwards in camera choice.
When in difficult hiking situations I will miss my S3...but wish the images stacked up better. How are the images in the SX1 and how do they compare to a ?..... I wish I had better photos of my ecuadorian adventures....
RJM
Don't Worry, Be Happy!
Sensor noise gets far more attention than it deserves, especially with today's 10-12MP sensor digicams. Only when pics are pixel peeped at 100% in most cases is blurring from sensor noice apparent. If you only prints up to 8x10 (~6MP file) or resize your pics for viewing on a full HD rez TV or screen (~3MP file), the noise is sampled into invisibility.
cheers,
Rick
cheers,
Rick
rjwims
Certified newbie
Michael
Good food for thought....thanks for starting this thread and for the blog as well
to everyone and/or anyone with a positive opinion
I am just starting out with all this and have been looking for a decent lens in the 500mm range, but not interested in lugging something heavy around.
I have a Cannon 450 and would like a decent lens, possibly with IS or so that I can avoid the tripod gig.
Any suggestions, options?
I have looked at the Sigma, but seems that reviews are less than spectacular.
In the interim, I am playing with digibinning, which sometimes gets a decent pic, but mostly just to ID birds.
Thanks
Richard
Good food for thought....thanks for starting this thread and for the blog as well
to everyone and/or anyone with a positive opinion
I am just starting out with all this and have been looking for a decent lens in the 500mm range, but not interested in lugging something heavy around.
I have a Cannon 450 and would like a decent lens, possibly with IS or so that I can avoid the tripod gig.
Any suggestions, options?
I have looked at the Sigma, but seems that reviews are less than spectacular.
In the interim, I am playing with digibinning, which sometimes gets a decent pic, but mostly just to ID birds.
Thanks
Richard
Great topic.
I think that advances in camera and lens technology are good for bird photography, and other photography. Tradeoffs are not the result of advances in technology. They continue to exist as technology evolves, and exist in many facets of life. Advances in technology can give new and different choices.
I grew up with film. For me, the switch to digital photography was only good. It gives me a better tool, and more control by use of photo editing software. It allows me to take better photos in a variety of conditions.
For photographing birds, I generally use either a 70-200mm f/4, 400mm f/5.6 or 500mm f/4 lens, with a Canon 1DMkIII body, sometimes with a teleconverter. The only tradeoffs I see for the camera body is size and weight as well as expense, but for me the extra size and weight is inconsequential. The camera body, compared to a smaller lighter body I used before, allows me, among other things, to have a much higher keeper rate for birds in flight, to capture shots that I could not get with less than 10 fps, to take acceptable photos at higher ISOs, to use flash exposure compensation on the body, and to use a teleconverter without affecting focusing speed. I think all of those advances are good. I can bring with me different lenses depending on the lens tradeoffs I choose, and to use or not to use a tripod or bean bag.
The 500mm lens is my favorite lens, but not in all situations. The size and weight certainly is a tradeoff. But not being able to capture a decent image of a bird that is further away is also a tradeoff.
My choice is that I do not particularly like to take lower quality images. Advances in technology permit better quality images regardless of the tradeoff choices that are made.
Bob
I think that advances in camera and lens technology are good for bird photography, and other photography. Tradeoffs are not the result of advances in technology. They continue to exist as technology evolves, and exist in many facets of life. Advances in technology can give new and different choices.
I grew up with film. For me, the switch to digital photography was only good. It gives me a better tool, and more control by use of photo editing software. It allows me to take better photos in a variety of conditions.
For photographing birds, I generally use either a 70-200mm f/4, 400mm f/5.6 or 500mm f/4 lens, with a Canon 1DMkIII body, sometimes with a teleconverter. The only tradeoffs I see for the camera body is size and weight as well as expense, but for me the extra size and weight is inconsequential. The camera body, compared to a smaller lighter body I used before, allows me, among other things, to have a much higher keeper rate for birds in flight, to capture shots that I could not get with less than 10 fps, to take acceptable photos at higher ISOs, to use flash exposure compensation on the body, and to use a teleconverter without affecting focusing speed. I think all of those advances are good. I can bring with me different lenses depending on the lens tradeoffs I choose, and to use or not to use a tripod or bean bag.
The 500mm lens is my favorite lens, but not in all situations. The size and weight certainly is a tradeoff. But not being able to capture a decent image of a bird that is further away is also a tradeoff.
My choice is that I do not particularly like to take lower quality images. Advances in technology permit better quality images regardless of the tradeoff choices that are made.
Bob
Last edited:
Ultra Lite
Well-known member
Chalky said:
"The one thing I am learning about having a big lens is that you definitely have to be a bit more organised about what it is you want to photograph but hey, that’s all down to personal choice."
Most folks seem to put a high value on mobility and portability. That is
the want gear that allows them to move through an area, either on foot
or by car, picking up shots of birds as the opportunity presents it's
self. Let's call them wildlife photographers of opportunity.
I work very differently. I usually have a particular species that I'm
interested in. After 40 years of birding I have a well developed network
of the best birders in my area and some are professionals in wildlife
management and Ornithology. So I put out an email asking if anyone has
seen , say, a Indigo Buntings and where. Then I go out with just bins
and check out any suggestions myself. First I look for the particular
species I want. If found then I very carefully decide on the best spot
to set up my gear thinking in terms of lighting, time of day the bird is
most active, cover, closeness to feeding area, closeness to human
habitation and roads, nesting or not etc.
A few days later I go back to my chosen spot and set up. Then I wait.
Then I wait some more. At the end of the day I may end up taking 200
frames or more. Then I go home and find out that of those 200 frames
perhaps 10 are keepers. Around midnight I go to bed a happy camper
knowing that I have finally got a few decent shots of my desired bird.
Anyway the long and short of it is that the way I work is very different
than most on this forum when it comes to birds. Mobility means very
little to me other than the hassle of getting the gear out to my chosen
spot. After that I'm more or less stationary waiting for the bird to
come to me rather then the other way around.
This style of photography has a lot of implications for the gear I use
and I think my experience would not translate very well to many others.
If you saw me setting up it would probably look more like Ansel Adams
setting up his 8x10 view for a shot of the Tetons than how most people
imagine what a bird photographer does.
It's not a matter of better or worse just different.
BTW I don't use conventional telephotos but rather high quality astro scopes at prime focus. I have 5 scopes and the shortest FL is 500mm. I consider 500mm the minimum for shooting small passerines at a distance of 20-50 feet or so.
A few examples of my work taken with different FL lengths. The waxwing was taken with my longest glass - 1000mm at about 150 feet or so:
"The one thing I am learning about having a big lens is that you definitely have to be a bit more organised about what it is you want to photograph but hey, that’s all down to personal choice."
Most folks seem to put a high value on mobility and portability. That is
the want gear that allows them to move through an area, either on foot
or by car, picking up shots of birds as the opportunity presents it's
self. Let's call them wildlife photographers of opportunity.
I work very differently. I usually have a particular species that I'm
interested in. After 40 years of birding I have a well developed network
of the best birders in my area and some are professionals in wildlife
management and Ornithology. So I put out an email asking if anyone has
seen , say, a Indigo Buntings and where. Then I go out with just bins
and check out any suggestions myself. First I look for the particular
species I want. If found then I very carefully decide on the best spot
to set up my gear thinking in terms of lighting, time of day the bird is
most active, cover, closeness to feeding area, closeness to human
habitation and roads, nesting or not etc.
A few days later I go back to my chosen spot and set up. Then I wait.
Then I wait some more. At the end of the day I may end up taking 200
frames or more. Then I go home and find out that of those 200 frames
perhaps 10 are keepers. Around midnight I go to bed a happy camper
knowing that I have finally got a few decent shots of my desired bird.
Anyway the long and short of it is that the way I work is very different
than most on this forum when it comes to birds. Mobility means very
little to me other than the hassle of getting the gear out to my chosen
spot. After that I'm more or less stationary waiting for the bird to
come to me rather then the other way around.
This style of photography has a lot of implications for the gear I use
and I think my experience would not translate very well to many others.
If you saw me setting up it would probably look more like Ansel Adams
setting up his 8x10 view for a shot of the Tetons than how most people
imagine what a bird photographer does.
It's not a matter of better or worse just different.
BTW I don't use conventional telephotos but rather high quality astro scopes at prime focus. I have 5 scopes and the shortest FL is 500mm. I consider 500mm the minimum for shooting small passerines at a distance of 20-50 feet or so.
A few examples of my work taken with different FL lengths. The waxwing was taken with my longest glass - 1000mm at about 150 feet or so:
Attachments
ammadoux
Registered doux
hi all, had a great time reading all this, guess if you gays are suffering from 500 mm lens then i should get it out of mind for good, i was really considering getting one.
another point i would like to add, about noise, this is something totally new for me as a person doing film photography for 20 years, i used to even do prints of 8 by 10 and larger without the issue of noise, as a matter of fact we use to add some sort of material on our prints as noise for artistic feeling. and frankly until now i did not see any shot with resolution good enough to be compared with the prints that come out of a super multi task film like fuji color Reala. and abosultly no comparison to the marvelous fijichrome velvia and kodachrome 64.
another point i would like to add, about noise, this is something totally new for me as a person doing film photography for 20 years, i used to even do prints of 8 by 10 and larger without the issue of noise, as a matter of fact we use to add some sort of material on our prints as noise for artistic feeling. and frankly until now i did not see any shot with resolution good enough to be compared with the prints that come out of a super multi task film like fuji color Reala. and abosultly no comparison to the marvelous fijichrome velvia and kodachrome 64.
Great thread!
I don't believe for one minute that technology ie our digital age, has made taking good bird photographs any easier. What it has done though, is, due to the quickness of use, and 'burst mode' is to fill up computers with zillions of exteremely poor photographs, and taken up countless wasted hours by people trying to 'improve' them via image processing/adjustment software.
On the other hand, because taking bird photographs is 'cost free' then the user no longer has to consider film and development costs and so can have great days out snapping away to their hearts content.
I'm as guilty as the next person when it comes to clicking the shutter for the sake of it, just because I can and going home with 3 cards full of images of which maybe one, if I'm lucky, is a 'keeper'. The ironic thing is, that even while 'snap-snap-snapping' in burst mode, we know that the photo's are going to be rubbish, we still hold that shutter and hope. Truth is, that just isn't going to happen.
I would bet that every 'decent' photo we have is one that we took a little thought over and none are from 'click and hope' shots.
In conclusion, I feel that digital techmology has helped with bird photography, but not improved it. The 'human element' is still a major ingredient towards a super photo and a mediocre one.
We must not forget though, that the cost free ability to 'click-click-click' regardless, has proved invaluable as a bird ID aid regardless of 'artistic quality'.
Joe
ps: An important, but mostly forgotten, aspect of digital photography is that, with regards to sharing you images via the web, is that not everyone will see you images as you do, because everyone's monitors are different with regard to brightness/contrast settings. screen rez, etc etc. We set our monitors up to suit ourselves and everyone has their own preferences.
I don't believe for one minute that technology ie our digital age, has made taking good bird photographs any easier. What it has done though, is, due to the quickness of use, and 'burst mode' is to fill up computers with zillions of exteremely poor photographs, and taken up countless wasted hours by people trying to 'improve' them via image processing/adjustment software.
On the other hand, because taking bird photographs is 'cost free' then the user no longer has to consider film and development costs and so can have great days out snapping away to their hearts content.
I'm as guilty as the next person when it comes to clicking the shutter for the sake of it, just because I can and going home with 3 cards full of images of which maybe one, if I'm lucky, is a 'keeper'. The ironic thing is, that even while 'snap-snap-snapping' in burst mode, we know that the photo's are going to be rubbish, we still hold that shutter and hope. Truth is, that just isn't going to happen.
I would bet that every 'decent' photo we have is one that we took a little thought over and none are from 'click and hope' shots.
In conclusion, I feel that digital techmology has helped with bird photography, but not improved it. The 'human element' is still a major ingredient towards a super photo and a mediocre one.
We must not forget though, that the cost free ability to 'click-click-click' regardless, has proved invaluable as a bird ID aid regardless of 'artistic quality'.
Joe
ps: An important, but mostly forgotten, aspect of digital photography is that, with regards to sharing you images via the web, is that not everyone will see you images as you do, because everyone's monitors are different with regard to brightness/contrast settings. screen rez, etc etc. We set our monitors up to suit ourselves and everyone has their own preferences.
Last edited:
I agree with ammadoux about film.
DSLR camera images have two distinct drawbacks.
1) Operating in poor light conditions, even a dullish day can cause the incursion of black into the colours, increasing noise and the flattening of image colour.
2) The image file resolution, and more importantly the enlargement factors are limited to the number of camera pixels, depending on the output device chosen.
People today disregard the skill and colour expertise of people who were taught how to correct colour properly. Photoshop is a boom, but unfortunately in the hands of those who think they can use it – it’s a menace. I would certainly include many professionals in that statement too.
The remedy is a better sensor, which eliminates the need for people to fiddle with their images.
On the large primes, who’s to say that development of the point and shoot zoom cameras will not advance to an acceptable level.
It is possible – just like film that interchangeable lenses are a thing of the past.
DSLR camera images have two distinct drawbacks.
1) Operating in poor light conditions, even a dullish day can cause the incursion of black into the colours, increasing noise and the flattening of image colour.
2) The image file resolution, and more importantly the enlargement factors are limited to the number of camera pixels, depending on the output device chosen.
People today disregard the skill and colour expertise of people who were taught how to correct colour properly. Photoshop is a boom, but unfortunately in the hands of those who think they can use it – it’s a menace. I would certainly include many professionals in that statement too.
The remedy is a better sensor, which eliminates the need for people to fiddle with their images.
On the large primes, who’s to say that development of the point and shoot zoom cameras will not advance to an acceptable level.
It is possible – just like film that interchangeable lenses are a thing of the past.
Joe...this is really, really, really, really true. Glad you brought it up. I have several computers and each one will view the image a bit differently. Not sure if there is anyway around that one though....
Specialist software can be used to calibrate a monitor to be 'true'. The thing is though, I doubt many people use it, so monitors wil still all be different. I believe that the calibration software is to enable correct colour printing rather than viewing.
paul goode
Well-known member
You calibrate your monitor so that black is black, white is white and everything in between is correct as displayed on the monitor. Then you profile your printer so that images print correctly.
Sounds simple doesn't it
Similar threads
