Pixels per Bird - Eureka! (1 Viewer)

I'm probably slow on this compared to many other people but I think that I've finally worked it out. I now know how to get a good (digital) bird photo - the magic factor is "pixels per bird".
"What's he on about?", I hear you thinking. Well, as people who have taken bird photos will have noticed it's usually easier to get good shots of big birds than little birds. Why? Because they fill more of the frame - more pixels. Continuing this train of thought leads to, as they say, the bleedin' obvious.
Your chances of getting a good bird photo are greatly increased by:
1. (Most obvious but not the easiest) Getting as close to the bird as you can.
2. Using the most powerful telephoto lens that you have.
3. (Less obvious) Using a camera with a high pixel count - means more pixels per bird.
Now add to this the secondary factors of things like the quality of your equipment, having good light and holding the camera steady and you're more aware of what it takes to go and take wonderful pictures.

All this has partly explained to me why my pictures are not as good as some other people's. I have reasonable equipment (I've seen other people get excellent results with the same kit) but, having analysed my technique using the criteria above, I've realised that I'm just not getting close enough to the birds. I need to work on my fieldcraft and stop rushing about expecting the birds to perch on my lenshood.

I know that my mumblings are only a gross simplification of the actual techniques required for good bird photography but maybe other people will be able to identify an area from the above where they too might be able to improve their results.

If only it were that simple. I wish you all sunny days and friendly birds - the rest is up to you.

adrianf said:

I'm probably slow on this compared to many other people but I think that I've finally worked it out. I now know how to get a good (digital) bird photo - the magic factor is "pixels per bird".
"What's he on about?", I hear you thinking. Well, as people who have taken bird photos will have noticed it's usually easier to get good shots of big birds than little birds. Why? Because they fill more of the frame - more pixels.

Click to expand...

I know what you mean, but I've a partiality for a photo where the bird doesn't fill the frame, and where the bird is seen in its habitat.

Portraits are OK but they're not my favourite. For instance, I like 'verité' style shots of seabirds over the sea at a distance, birds of prey over fields etc. They're just as good in their own way.

I agree with you. I print quite a few of my better pics and I can honestly say that an A4 Blue Tit looks wrong (scary!) no matter how perfect the photo is! For prints at least, a bit of background (habitat) looks so much better.

A rule of thumb I found useful from a bird photography advice website was to get the bird to fill 1/3 of the frame. If it is less than 1/6 of the frame your lucky to get any detail for printing let alone for posting on BF @ 800 x 800.

Robert

Sounds right, Robert.

It's easy to get carried away with the "extreme close up" idea initially - I did - but the contextual shot has more to say about the bird.

adrianf said:

I need to work on my fieldcraft and stop rushing about expecting the birds to perch on my lenshood.

Click to expand...

Sounds good to me, might get better shots if they were in front of the lens instead of on top though.