• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Crossing over to the dark side.... (1 Viewer)

David99

David99

Well-known member
I have for a number of years enjoyed being a mediocre bird watcher and have decided that the time has come in my life to have a change in direction and take my chances as a mediocre bird photographer.

Now I have a question. In general birding terms a UK life list of 400+ is considered to be a good score, at least it is far more than I am likely to achieve. But what about photographing UK birds?

What is the highest number of different species that someone has photographed in the UK?

And as a secondary question which species are the most difficult to photograph (not necessarily the rarest)?
 
Last edited:
David99 said:
I have for a number of years enjoyed being a mediocre bird watcher and have decided that the time has come in my life to have a change in direction and take my chances as a mediocre bird photographer.

Now I have a question. In general birding terms a UK life list of 400+ is considered to be a good score. at least it is far more than I am likely to achieve. But what about photographing UK birds?

What is the highest number of different species that someone has photographed in the UK?

And as a secondary question which species are the most difficult to photograph (not necessarily the rarest)?
Click to expand...

Depends what standard you set yourself. I set mine low and am happy with poor quality record shots if they're the only ones I have of a species. I've just decided to try to get something of all the non-BBRC's. I've about 20 left. Have also probably photographed more than a 100 rare species so at a guess I'd say I've photographed a little over 400 species. I've been birding 25 years but only snapping less than 10 so there are many many birds I've seen but not photographed. If you're going for higher quality shots it's harder. A friend of mine takes amazing pics but is only aiming to photograph about 250 spp.

As for difficult ones, it's hard to say. I think quail will be a tough one (as will a decent shot of capercaillie) but as a rule, birds hard to see will be hard to photograph! If you're prepared to travel and put in the time though they're there for the taking.

James
 
Simple question - why set targets?

A good photographer gets the best action shots anyway and a species list is totally incidental to this. As an example - I am half decent aviation photographer but to me a side-on shot beats an air-side action shot of what goes on around an aircraft. The trouble is, everyone and his dog can take the kind of shots that I take so it has become an exercise in capturing individual colour schemes (For birds read: species). Unfortunately, this shows through in my wildlife photography too because I want everything posed and in focus (if you look at BBC Wildlife photographer of the year winners, the majority are what many of us would reject but they show action). This is another way of saying that you will miss an awful lot of good opportunities if you chase the wrong target. I just wish my conscious brain would accept this when I have a camera in my hand. :(

Note on edit: my avatar is an example of something I would normally reject (it is not even centred correctly even after cropping) but it is a juv' barn swallow begging from its parents flying by. This is a good example of what a bird does not what it is. Good luck with the new hobby!
 
Last edited:
I started photography up this year,really enjoy it but try not to let it take over my birdwatching,which is my first love.I find i get more pleasure now,looking at the ordinary species than i ever did as a birdwatcher before photography.
Personally,although i do a list(s),they are not important to me,i now take care and pleasure getting all sorts of birds photographed because each one is different,but when you are birding every bird of a particular species is the same.What i am saying is its great to go into photgraphy but it should be an extension of Birdwatching,not taking over from Birdwatching,at least thats the way i see it.
 
The sniper said:
What i am saying is its great to go into photgraphy but it should be an extension of Birdwatching,not taking over from Birdwatching,at least thats the way i see it.
Click to expand...

Well said...this put to words my own inner struggle I have with photography. Sniper puts it just right.

John
 
I'm prepared to say that trying to take quality photographs of birds will improve all your birdwatching skills except maybe note-taking. To get what you want you will have to get up close and personal, spend long hours with each species instead of counting ducks or racking up day-lists, and learn just how birds behave so you can predict the moment when you will get your shot. Don't get the idea this is a universal panacea though - animals have their own ideas!

If you are interested in photographing all British birds, not just rarities, you will also end up learning a lot about your local birds because these are the ones you can spend more time with.

You will start estimating when crowds at rarities will have declined to the point where you can use your fieldcraft without arousing the anti-photographer sect. Your estimate of a good birding day will change (photography does tend to turn one into a fair weather birder) and your timings will consider which way the light is falling.

You also end up a bit solitary....

Good luck. I love it myself.

John
 
Idaho John I think I share the inner struggle you refer to. When starting off on the photography route, only about 6 months ago, I would try and combine birding and photography on the same day out and had some very unstaisfactory days out.

Now I make a decison about what the day's objectives are and focus on that. Generally, I tend to limit my photography to local trips and when I have the luxury of a full day out then that will be a birding day. It does mean that mostof my photos are of the commoner species but I do find I get more pleasure fom a good photo of a familiar bird than I get fom a fleeting glimpse of a rarity.
 
Last edited:
I agree there is always a conflict between photography and birding - they cannot be combined easily. When you are photographing birds you are not watching them - hence many i/d's made from photos after the event. I've had a flock of redpolls round my housing estate the last few days and my focus has been on photography as I want to improve my library of shots and can glean more from photos of indioviduals from a photo than from a few seconds' view in the field. That said, by being a 'snapper' rather than serious photographer I do get away with birding trips in which I take plenty of photos using a hand-held DSLR & 100-400 zoom hanging off my belt and if not too much walking a 'scope with compact digital in my pocket. I am guilty on many occasions of going straight for my camera when I perhaps should have looked at the bird first - less of a problem of course if you get good shots but if you don't you might end up questioning the i/d based on brief views!
 
I think it's very much a case of ''each to their own''...you can see a common bird....hundreds of times and derive simple pleasure from the experience, then one day you might see that bird under superb lighting conditions (perhaps a moody sky/dramatic lighting/good complimentary background etc.). I've taken lots of shots over the last few years and my best one by far...is a juv.BlueTit..which I don't think I'll ever surpass for resolution, sharpness, plumage..background or lighting....In my book it's very much..whatever floats your boat..it's kinda personal.
 
KenM said:
I think it's very much a case of ''each to their own''...you can see a common bird....hundreds of times and derive simple pleasure from the experience, then one day you might see that bird under superb lighting conditions (perhaps a moody sky/dramatic lighting/good complimentary background etc.). I've taken lots of shots over the last few years and my best one by far...is a juv.BlueTit..which I don't think I'll ever surpass for resolution, sharpness, plumage..background or lighting....In my book it's very much..whatever floats your boat..it's kinda personal.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with this Ken. I perhaps did not set out my intended views very well in my previous post. I should therefore point out that I do not tend to take as many photos of commoner birds these days unless I am in an hide and I have the chance to capture 'behaviour'. I do not keep a list but I am aware of what species I have not captured as images although I would not specifically chase them. I suppose I am a bird watcher first and a photographer second when it comes to nature whereas the reverse is probably true when I am photographing aircraft (I do not collect registrations, for example although I do collect liveries to some extent).
 
It's a really interesting thread and it's good to see that others are facing the same dilemma I do nowadays in the field.

I'm a 450+ British lister. I've always wanted to have a record of what I've seen, and in the early days I'd buy someone else's photograph, and then moved on to direct video, then video down the scope, then digi-scoping to where I am now which is a half decent camera and lens, (60D with a Sigma 150-500). Not top of the range stuff but a kit which can take some decent shots, (well I think so - see blog:-O).

I am trying to get a shot of everything on my list. I have two massive 6x4 albums in Vous order with gaps where I've no shot. For me it's a constant process of improving on what I have. I'll take a record shot for the album but if the opportunity arises to get a better shot I'll go for it. There are some species where I'm really happy with the shot I have, and they are low priority. For many of the older ones I've taken a video grab and you can imagine these are really poor. Some say it spoils the album, and I've a mate who is doing the same thing, but won't put anything in unless it's of a certain quality.

The dilemma I have is birding -v- photography. First of all, I'm having to travel miles now for birds I've seen. Had it stuck the Desert Warbler would have been a good example. I saw the Flamborough and Easington birds, but have a poor video grab of the latter. Do I travel to Kent for a shot?

The other dilemma is I've always birded with my brother who has never caught the photography bug. So, we were all set to go for the Hooded Merg. which we both need last Sunday. Had we gone, we'd got a loose plan to go for the Ring-billed Gull and Red-breasted Goose as well. However, if we'd arrived at the HM and it was distant, I'd have wanted to give it as long as it took for it to come close, whereas my brother would have probably been ready to move on after grilling it through the scope for say half an hour to an hour max. Now I also need the Ring-billed, (currently decent shot but the Walpole bird offers more) and Red-breasted, (currently poor video shot). It's always a constant decision-making process. Is the HM rare enough to justify staying? Is the goose shot so poor I need to go? Am I being picky with my gull and the current shot is good enough for the album?

Then I'm now finding that the photography is taking over which I'm not comfortable with. I can have a day at Spurn in Autumn, (example) and see Red-breasted Fly, Greenish Warbler, Wryneck and Red-backed Shrike and come home disappointed because none offerd a decent opportunity for a shot. That's ridiculous because prior to the camera I'd have really enjoyed those birds.

Then, it's not enough for a record shot, you are trying to take a shot with the perfect pose and back-lighting etc.

So in summary for me it's a balancing act. I'd always prioritise seeing a lifer or Yorkshire list bird above a good shot, but sometimes it's do I go see a rarer bird that offers less photo opp. (recent distant Roller) or a common bird that will give good photo opp's. (say an inland diver or velvet scoter).

No easy answer but I will try to continue to combine the two as I love the end results at times even though it's probably spoiling my enjoyment of the hobby as a whole to some extent.
 
Last edited:
Lawts said:
It's a really interesting thread and it's good to see that others are facing the same dilemma I do nowadays in the field.

I'm a 450+ British lister. I've always wanted to have a record of what I've seen, and in the early days I'd buy someone else's photograph, and then moved on to direct video, then video down the scope, then digi-scoping to where I am now which is a half decent camera and lens, (60D with a Sigma 150-500). Not top of the range stuff but a kit which can take some decent shots, (well I think so - see blog:-O).

I am trying to get a shot of everything on my list. I have two massive 6x4 albums in Vous order with gaps where I've no shot. For me it's a constant process of improving on what I have. I'll take a record shot for the album but if the opportunity arises to get a better shot I'll go for it. There are some species where I'm really happy with the shot I have, and they are low priority. For many of the older ones I've taken a video grab and you can imagine these are really poor. Some say it spoils the album, and I've a mate who is doing the same thing, but won't put anything in unless it's of a certain quality.

The dilemma I have is birding -v- photography. First of all, I'm having to travel miles now for birds I've seen. Had it stuck the Desert Warbler would have been a good example. I saw the Flamborough and Easington birds, but have a poor video grab of the latter. Do I travel to Kent for a shot?

The other dilemma is I've always birded with my brother who has never caught the photography bug. So, we were all set to go for the Hooded Merg. which we both need last Sunday. Had we gone, we'd got a loose plan to go for the Ring-billed Gull and Red-breasted Goose as well. However, if we'd arrived at the HM and it was distant, I'd have wanted to give it as long as it took for it to come close, whereas my brother would have probably been ready to move on after grilling it through the scope for say half an hour to an hour max. Now I also need the Ring-billed, (currently decent shot but the Walpole bird offers more) and Red-breasted, (currently poor video shot). It's always a constant decision-making process. Is the HM rare enough to justify staying? Is the goose shot so poor I need to go? Am I being picky with my gull and the current shot is good enough for the album?

Then I'm now finding that the photography is taking over which I'm not comfortable with. I can have a day at Spurn in Autumn, (example) and see Red-breasted Fly, Greenish Warbler, Wryneck and Red-backed Shrike and come home disappointed because none offerd a decent opportunity for a shot. That's ridiculous because prior to the camera I'd have really enjoyed those birds.

Then, it's not enough for a record shot, you are trying to take a shot with the perfect pose and back-lighting etc.

So in summary for me it's a balancing act. I'd always prioritise seeing a lifer or Yorkshire list bird above a good shot, but sometimes it's do I go see a rarer bird that offers less photo opp. (recent distant Roller) or a common bird that will give good photo opp's. (say an inland diver or velvet scoter).

No easy answer but I will try to continue to combine the two as I love the end results at times even though it's probably spoiling my enjoyment of the hobby as a whole to some extent.
Click to expand...

It's generally not a dilemma for me anymore although, to an extent I do agree with Lawts last comment..I prefer a shot which hopefully results in a ''good'' picture...If there's a choice, I'd rather get good images of e.g. a Pallas's Warbler than ''most'' other non-passerine species, irrespective of whether they are on my list or not.

I find that the ''quarry'' determines my approach..I tend to prioritise the viewfinder over the Bins ''most'' of the time, not always the right thing to do as you might get a rubbish shot, resulting in very little information for ID purposes (have done that)...but!...that's the chance and trade off against ''capturing'' the wing formula e.g. on an elusive acro, which you might have problems resolving with the naked eye.

I now always take my bridge camera and bins when I go out..combined weight 1.5 kilos with 30x optical (camera) in good light I can generally get reasonable shots..and If I get really close (2-5m) shots can be..pretty damn good..especially if they stop moving ;)

My only regret is..not taking up photography sooner, as I've seen a lot of good birds..which will almost certainly not turn up again..I live in hope though!

cheers
 
KenM said:
My only regret is..not taking up photography sooner, as I've seen a lot of good birds..which will almost certainly not turn up again..I live in hope though!
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I cannot make this claim because I have carried a camera a lot of the time over the last 20 years. I had a complete Loch Ness moment and forgot I had the camera in my bag on the day when I found my rejected black-eared wheatear at Elton Reservoir in 2000. As Homer Simpson would say - DOH!. :C
 
Lawts said:
The dilemma I have is birding -v- photography. First of all, I'm having to travel miles now for birds I've seen. Had it stuck the Desert Warbler would have been a good example. I saw the Flamborough and Easington birds, but have a poor video grab of the latter. Do I travel to Kent for a shot?

The other dilemma is I've always birded with my brother who has never caught the photography bug. So, we were all set to go for the Hooded Merg. which we both need last Sunday. Had we gone, we'd got a loose plan to go for the Ring-billed Gull and Red-breasted Goose as well. However, if we'd arrived at the HM and it was distant, I'd have wanted to give it as long as it took for it to come close, whereas my brother would have probably been ready to move on after grilling it through the scope for say half an hour to an hour max. Now I also need the Ring-billed, (currently decent shot but the Walpole bird offers more) and Red-breasted, (currently poor video shot).
Click to expand...

The simple answer is in your mind already - life is a series of compromises, do what suits you best.

With regard to the two R-b Gs, goose and gull, the gull will be there all winter but mornings are best before it is so weighed down with bread that it goes off to digest it. There are often Med Gulls there to be photographed as well, and approachable Little Egrets on the creek. The goose may move further west, possibly to Devon, so the sooner the better. Hope this helps.

John
 
Nightranger said:
Unfortunately, I cannot make this claim because I have carried a camera a lot of the time over the last 20 years. I had a complete Loch Ness moment and forgot I had the camera in my bag on the day when I found my rejected black-eared wheatear at Elton Reservoir in 2000. As Homer Simpson would say - DOH!. :C
Click to expand...

I did that with a putative Thrush Nightingale a number of years ago..which emerged from a hedge, hopping out onto the grass verge, just a few metres away..I was so shocked!...that I completely forgot about the camera that was in my bag over my shoulder..until it hopped back into the hedge..never to be seen again.

That still hurts :(
 
Farnboro John said:
The simple answer is in your mind already - life is a series of compromises, do what suits you best.

With regard to the two R-b Gs, goose and gull, the gull will be there all winter but mornings are best before it is so weighed down with bread that it goes off to digest it. There are often Med Gulls there to be photographed as well, and approachable Little Egrets on the creek. The goose may move further west, possibly to Devon, so the sooner the better. Hope this helps.

John
Click to expand...

Thanks. It was just an example to illustrate with the HM being there and me ready to go. Now she's gone I probably wouldn't bother for these two particularly.
 
Just to offer another perspective endorsing a lot of what has been said.

I did a reasonable amount of bird photography as a relative youngster and then in my early twitching - 1987 to 1992. I just worked my way through my incomplete albums from then and they contain about 220 species photographed – including a number that I may well never see in Britain again. I suspect during that period I actually photographed maybe 260 or so species. But I called it a day after I had gone to Shetland to twitch a species. It was confiding and I ran off three or four films but could not really remember studying it. It was all about getting the lighting, focus and framing right and every picture cost money. It was expensive.

I purchased a camera again in January and have caught the bug again. The result is that I have photographed just over 130 species on my patch so far this year and about 50 of those are not in my previous albums because I was not concentrating on the commoner species in the past. [I do a limited amount of twitching now unless a tick is available so spend most time on my patch.]

The results that you can get now (but I am not [yet] getting!) are extraordinary. As a result, you can see things on species that you cannot observe without a camera and could only previously see in field guides, the hand or specimens. It is now a tool to add to your observation of species. You can run off a couple of hundred shots - seeing instant results and adjusting things like lighting and focus instantly - and try to freeze the bird in interesting postures and in action. Today the weather and light down here have been awful. There is a Grey Phalarope on my patch. I could only just about get away with 3200 ISO so the quality is awful but when it flapped, I wanted to see if I could actually record its wing pattern. The answer was yes and sitting in front of the screen later with Shorebirds and the Collins Guide in hand I was actually learning something new about a species I had first seen twenty five years ago.

Cross over to the dark side but if you wish to do so you can use it to supplement your 'birding' rather than simply for the photography's sake.

All the best

Paul
 

Attachments

  • Grey Phal flapping (reduced).jpg
    Grey Phal flapping (reduced).jpg
    135.5 KB · Views: 64
Last edited:
Paul Chapman said:
The results that you can get now (but I am not [yet] getting!) are extraordinary. As a result, you can see things on species that you cannot observe without a camera

Paul
Click to expand...

Had seen many Cuckoos over time..shot a short video burst a few years ago..took a ''grab'' and saw the underwing pattern for the first time!

Couldn't have observed that with bins!..
 

Attachments

  • Sewardstone Cuckoo 2 (2).jpg
    Sewardstone Cuckoo 2 (2).jpg
    27.7 KB · Views: 40
Warning! This thread is more than 12 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

P
Best birding in Europe?
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
THE_FERN
T
G
Greenish and Arctic Warblers wintering in the UK?
Replies
4
Views
790
Bismarck Honeyeater
Bismarck Honeyeater
JRP01
How did this started for all of you? (And my little story of how I got into this amazing hobby)
Replies
12
Views
1K
Patudo
P
O
BirdMApp
Replies
0
Views
530
OrsonDeWitt
O
John Cantelo
Your most unlikely birding experience
Replies
14
Views
2K
KenM
KenM

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top