bitterntwisted
Graham Howard Shortt
Absolutely. The question is about Field Guides, whose raison d'etre is identification. A well-illustrated field guide is always a better aid to identification than a photo-guide.
Graham
-
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.
Is there anything wrong with a photographic guide to birds? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter amelia1730
- Start date
Absolutely. The question is about Field Guides, whose raison d'etre is identification. A well-illustrated field guide is always a better aid to identification than a photo-guide.
Graham
pduxon
Quacked up Member
I would agree BUT I was referring to your comment on the difference between viewing the bird as a photographer or as a birder. Some people are just not 100% focused on iding the bird. Bit of deviation on my part.
Like yourself I find photoguides unsatisfying. There are any number of illustrated guides I'd prefer to the sterry and its one of the best photo guides. i know in the States Kenn Kaufman produced a photo guide where he digitally altered the photos (or some such) to aid identification. Never seen it though.
Jane Turner
Well-known member
bkrownd; said:
I too would love to see a hybrid guide 95% illustrated 5% photos. Its possible to illustrate more things more clearly with well-painted plates, but photographs do convey subtleties of shape more reliably to me*. Of course when its e-based, videos are possible, then you really do have an ideal guide. I really like the CD ROM versions of e.g. BWP for this reason, but they will never replace the pleasure of holding onto a book for me.
The exception would be Lars Johnsson who somehow manages to magically capture jizz in his illustrations.
Last edited:
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
I didn't introduce this "diversion", you did, around post 51.
I'm implying nothing of the sort. I'm commenting purely in relation to the point made elsewhere on the thread that "birding" through a camera is not necessarily the same as birding per se.
But to address the original topic: the reason you're unlikely ever to see a really effective photographic bird guide is very obvious to me.
It is because painted illustrations can bring out subtle identification "clinchers" in a way that is all but impossible to do "to order" with photographs.
Bird guides are produced to deadlines and are under the same commercial restraints as any other product.
So what makes more sense to a publisher?
To wait until their photographer has tracked down examples of "almost impossible to split in the field" bird species A and bird species B, in all their plumage states, and has taken definitive pictures of the ID differences at the best possible image quality, and in such detail that when the images are scaled down and mass produced in a field guide the tiny plumage and structural details are readily seen in the book?
Or does he just commission a knowledgeable bird illustrator to provide a few plates that bring out the feature differences (perhaps in an idealised way, but so what?) - in time, on budget, and guaranteed to convey the information that's needed to tell bird A and bird B apart?
A "no brainer", I believe...
This is, I reckon, why most photo guides use very average "stock" images of birds with no particularly useful ID information in the images, and also why photo guides tend to be cheap and cheerful.
Last edited:
John Cantelo
Well-known member
Thanks, Pete, for reminding me about Kenn Kaufman’s “Birds of North America” (Houghton Mifflin 2000) – I’ve been meaning to have a look at my copy! There’s no doubt that it’s streets ahead of any European photo-guide and is just about the only such guide that gives conventional painted guides a good run for their money. Indeed, it’s arguably better than many 2nd division artist-illustrated field guides (e.g. the original Hamlyn guide for example), but, in my view, still lags behind the best.
It’s interesting to read what Kaufmann wrote in his introduction -
“Birders have debated for years whether field guides should be illustrated with paintings or photographs. Even the best artists have trouble with painting subtleties that make each bird distinctive. Photos can convey these things well, but an unretouched photo is often very misleading. Wild birds are photographed under conditions that vary …. In comparing photos we can never trust what they seem to show about relative colours or sizes. And what looks like a distinctive mark in a photo may be a shadow or reflection”. He then goes on to comment how he spent over 3,000 hours digitally adjusting some 2,000 photos for his guide “removing shadows and other artefacts …. emphasizing field marks, and generally making them look the way I thought they should as a birder and an artist.” (His emphasis).
I think this sums up perfectly the problems of depending on unedited photographs when producing a field guide of this type. As for his comment about ‘even the best artists … etc’, one has to doubt whether these words were written before he’d seen the superlative “Collins Guide” (published in the UK in 1999)!
With regard to Jane's point, it'll be interesting to see what the proposed new edition of The Ultimate Illustrated Guide to the Birds of Britain and Europe (see entry under 'Books forum') looks like, evidently it'll use photos in addition to Hayman's meticulous artwork plus some sort of iPod link,
John
It’s interesting to read what Kaufmann wrote in his introduction -
“Birders have debated for years whether field guides should be illustrated with paintings or photographs. Even the best artists have trouble with painting subtleties that make each bird distinctive. Photos can convey these things well, but an unretouched photo is often very misleading. Wild birds are photographed under conditions that vary …. In comparing photos we can never trust what they seem to show about relative colours or sizes. And what looks like a distinctive mark in a photo may be a shadow or reflection”. He then goes on to comment how he spent over 3,000 hours digitally adjusting some 2,000 photos for his guide “removing shadows and other artefacts …. emphasizing field marks, and generally making them look the way I thought they should as a birder and an artist.” (His emphasis).
I think this sums up perfectly the problems of depending on unedited photographs when producing a field guide of this type. As for his comment about ‘even the best artists … etc’, one has to doubt whether these words were written before he’d seen the superlative “Collins Guide” (published in the UK in 1999)!
With regard to Jane's point, it'll be interesting to see what the proposed new edition of The Ultimate Illustrated Guide to the Birds of Britain and Europe (see entry under 'Books forum') looks like, evidently it'll use photos in addition to Hayman's meticulous artwork plus some sort of iPod link,
John
Last edited:
pduxon
Quacked up Member
yes I'd be interested to see a copy.
I was looking at Dragonfly books recently. The photgraphic guide has garnered some good reviews but I much prefered the illustrated guides. The Brooks and Lewington conveyed more detail than the photos and the one by Dan Powell captured Jizz so well.
By the way have you seen the updated Hamlyn guide published by Phillips, seemed a nice book to slip into the ruck sack when going light.
ColinD
Well-known member
Yes, I'm a big fan of Lars Johnsson for precisely that reason. His "Birds of Europe" knocks spots off the more acclaimed Collins Guide in my opinion, because he has the jizz to perfection.
John Cantelo
Well-known member
Apologies if what I wrote (to which your responded in Post 51) seemed to you like an "accusation". It wasn't meant to be. Neither do I think it was 'thrown at you', but if my diplomacy is at fault then again I apologise. I didn't mean in anyway to personalise this debate, but was merely trying to get to the root of why we have different approaches to this topic!
John
John Cantelo
Well-known member
I'll try to see if I can photograph a page or two and post it anon. Another good example of this technique can be seen in the article on petrel identification in the current edition of 'British Birds'.
As for the Philip's guide, I posted a comment about it in the 'Books & magazines' forum a few days ago .... pity nobody's responded! I've also recently seen the new photographic guide to American waders in the UK bookshops - very good it is too!
John
bkrownd
Well-known member
Ah, no, that was actually a poorly chosen word on my part. Another senseless case of TWI - "typing while irritated". I'm off to read more positive threads.
Last edited:
John Cantelo
Well-known member
I realise this is in danger of becoming a monologue, but I've (hopefully) attached two pictures showing the plates showibng small 'stints' in the Collins guide & Kaufman's photoguide (both arguably the best of their genre). Even given the relatively poor quality, I think this more eloquently demonstrates the advantages of good illustrations over photos in a general field guide,
John
John
Attachments
pianoman
duck and diver, bobolink and weaver
To go back to the issue of taking notes in the field, rather than looking at a field guide:
The only problem with that, when I look at the guide later, it will often point out some absolutely diagnostic feature (colour of untertail coverts or something) that will absolutely distinguish this bird from a similar one. But I won't have looked for this feature because I won't have known...
Am getting to like the Mitchell Beasley pocket guide a lot more these days. It's truly portable and concentrates on ID features (at the expense of everything else, but you can always look up other info later)
Andrew
The only problem with that, when I look at the guide later, it will often point out some absolutely diagnostic feature (colour of untertail coverts or something) that will absolutely distinguish this bird from a similar one. But I won't have looked for this feature because I won't have known...
Am getting to like the Mitchell Beasley pocket guide a lot more these days. It's truly portable and concentrates on ID features (at the expense of everything else, but you can always look up other info later)
Andrew
John Cantelo
Well-known member
The more you take notes, the more disciplined & methodical you get at looking at a bird and in ensuring that you cover all points. The BIG danger of dipping too much into your field guide is that you conflate what you saw of the bird with what you saw in the plate/text. Personally, I think the first option is better,
John
John
vkalia
Robin stroker
Hmmm.. I find drawings to be far more useful for most ID instances, precisely b/c it shows all the markings, which photos may not reveal. However, there are quite a few instances where a photo actually does a better job, especially when I am trying to decide between a couple of potential birds (usually raptors).
Hence - I own both types of field guides. As an added bonus, I see more birds from my perch atop the fence.
Vandit
Hence - I own both types of field guides. As an added bonus, I see more birds from my perch atop the fence.
Vandit
a.dancy
Registered User
I would not worry what people think!
Going out without a book of some kind and making field notes like the "the big boys" means you will just learn a lot more slowly. Expert birders refer to books "big boys don't".
Illustrated books are best in my view backed up with photo books to peruse at home. Illustrations can be a bit clinical and take away context and environment whereas photos put the bird into some kind of context in my humble opinion.
Going out without a book of some kind and making field notes like the "the big boys" means you will just learn a lot more slowly. Expert birders refer to books "big boys don't".
Illustrated books are best in my view backed up with photo books to peruse at home. Illustrations can be a bit clinical and take away context and environment whereas photos put the bird into some kind of context in my humble opinion.
johnnybike
Well-known member
Just to add to the debate re field guides. I need reading glasses now and it is a bit of a job juggling bins (scope occasionally) and then putting glasses on to read the guide and then off again to check with the bins.
If unsure I either ask (and have never had any negative feedback) or make what mental notes I can.
Collins is the guide for me
If unsure I either ask (and have never had any negative feedback) or make what mental notes I can.
Collins is the guide for me
