Photographs or paintings in guides? (1 Viewer)

M

mcdowella

Well-known member

• Aug 3, 2003

• #1

In my local WHSmith I noticed a number of small field guides with photographs of birds, instead of paintings. I can see that this might increase accuracy in some ways, but I wonder about the faithfulness of the colours after the compromises of colour photography and colour printing, and I wonder if it might lead me to confuse features of the particular bird photographed with features of general use for identification.

Any comments? (I actually went in planning to buy a more recent Collins Gem guide than the one I carry everywhere in my jacket pocket, but they didn't have that one. The most compact book they had was 'Britain and Europe' and I resent carrying around pages whose only effect in this country will be to distract and confuse me). I would carry a guide even if I was expert (I'm not) because "the palest ink is better than the best memory". Anyway, it gives me something to read in checkout queues.

 

dennis

Have binoculars. Will travel.

• Aug 3, 2003

• #2

I like the paintings. Rarely do I see a bird in the same light as when the guide photo was taken.

dennis

 

robinm

Registered User

• Aug 3, 2003

• #3

I agree with dennis - definitely paintings.

I do, however, quite like the videos in products like the BIrdguides CDs because they convey behaviour that a still image can't.

 

B

Beverlybaynes

Mod Squad

• Aug 3, 2003

• #4

Guess I've been spoiled by Sibley et al -- give me paintings.

 

Charles Harper

Régisseur

• Aug 3, 2003

• #5

I like to have around a supplemental photographic guide, which is helpful for e.g. proportions and jizz. Japan has a couple of excellent ones. Drawings of course are better, I think, because they can represent a more generalized example of the species, whereas the photos are of a particular individual. Yes, film, light angle, etc. can make a vast difference in how we perceive the colors of the bird (true also in the flesh, though).

 

walwyn

Well-known member

• Aug 3, 2003

• #6

The first Black-Tailed Godwit I saw I would never have identified from either Oddies "Birds of Britain and Ireland", nor from Lars Jonsson. The bird I saw, had a long neck and long straight bill, it looked nothing like the illustrations in either book, it looked like the attached photo. On a couple of occassions I've gone to the photos rather than the illustrations.

 

Attachments

• 
  pict0021.jpg

  143.3 KB · Views: 216

Last edited: Aug 3, 2003

M

Malvolio

Well-known member

• Aug 3, 2003

• #7

All the photos you will ever need are available on the web - I'd go for high quality paintings anytime as they attempt to show the species archetype.

Poor paintings are another matter....

MV

 

H

HH75

Well-known member

• Aug 3, 2003

• #8

Hi all,
I agree with what seems like the majority view:a well-drawn plate can sum up what a species at least TENDS to look like,whereas an individual photo can,for whatever reason,be misleading.
Harry H

 

ivewalmer

Well-known member

• Aug 3, 2003

• #9

While not a bird guide I have recently purchased Butterflies by David Tomlinson and Rob Still. This is a phtoguide which has been digitally manipulated and looks superb. It is also very useful although I'm sure that there are some excellent painted butterflies guides as well.

 

Charles Harper

Régisseur

• Aug 4, 2003

• #10

I have a feeling that individual insects of a species are more nearly identical in morphology than birds, so that a photographic guide might be more valuable in the case of invertebrates than in that of vertebrates.

 

Hanno

Ho Ho Ho

• Aug 4, 2003

• #11

I like looking at bird photos, but do agree with the general trend here: give me paintings in a field guide anytime.

 

J

jayhunter

Well-known member

• Aug 4, 2003

• #12

I appreciate the works of our own Tunnicliffe, and some of the guides have some very fine artists illustrating for them.

 

phyllosc

Well-known member

• Aug 5, 2003

• #13

Photo guides, for me just don't compare with well painted plates. It would be unusual for a photo guide to have the same number of pictures per species. A good artist can capture an ID feature and/or jizz with perhaps a few pen strokes were a photoprapher could take a life time to match the same with a photo.

Good plates are a summary of the artists experience of a particular specie, while a photograph is only a fraction of second in the life of one individual bird.

Dave

 

birdman

Орнитол&

• Aug 5, 2003

• #14

Malvolio said:

All the photos you will ever need are available on the web - I'd go for high quality paintings anytime as they attempt to show the species archetype.
MV

Click to expand...

True, but there's also a lot more scope for misidentification.

Originally posted by Charles Harper
Drawings of course are better, I think, because they can represent a more generalized example of the species, whereas the photos are of a particular individual. Yes, film, light angle, etc. can make a vast difference in how we perceive the colors of the bird (true also in the flesh, though).

Click to expand...

I agree with Charles.

So I would always carry a drawings guide, but have a photoguide as a backup.

 

Option1

Village Idiot

• Aug 6, 2003

• #15

Like the birdman, I carry a drawings guide (Sibley's), but have a photo guide at home (Audubon and http://www.google.com/imghp ). Actually I also have the National Geographic Guide as well.

What happened was we originally bought the Audubon, then just recently decided we needed a good paintings guide so bought the National Geographic. The NG is useful, but I heard so many raves about Sibley that I felt compelled to buy it (well that and Western version was cheap at Costco).

I must admit to being a little disappointed in some of the drawings in Sibley. Some of the colors of birds quite common round here have been wayyyy off. Of course, having said that I can't think of an example off the top of my head and am too lazy to get out of the chair and go get the guide to check a few.

Anyway, I do still get plenty of use out of the Audubon as it's good for confirming that you saw what you think you saw.

Neil

 

pduxon

Quacked up Member

• Aug 6, 2003

• #16

I think Charles & Birdman have said it all.

Anyone got any tips for a good photo guide for Britain & Europe?

 

M

Malvolio

Well-known member

• Aug 6, 2003

• #17

A new and comprehensive photographic guide to the birds of Britain and Europe by Lars Svensson and Hadoram Shirihai is in preparation and will be published by Alula Press in the fullness of time. This promises to be by far the best photographic guide ever produced and I'd hang onto your money until it comes out.

MV

 

M

Malvolio

Well-known member

• Aug 6, 2003

• #18

Originally posted by Malvolio

"All the photos you will ever need are available on the web - I'd go for high quality paintings anytime as they attempt to show the species archetype.
MV ”


Birdman replied:

"True, but there's also a lot more scope for misidentification."

How so?

MV

 

J

jayhunter

Well-known member

• Aug 6, 2003

• #19

For Butterfly identification the Collins Wildlife Trust Butterflies of Britain & Europe Field Guide, has a photographic section at the front. The butterflies are grouped in family order rather than alphabetical, so when I thought I saw a Ringlet I trolled through the family until I recognised the Woodland Ringlet from the eye pattern and colouration of the wings. Still prefer paintings for bird identification.