-
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.
Some great Osprey pics that even made the news (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ChrisKten
- Start date
Stonefaction
Dundee Birding....(target 150 in 2024).
Nice pics, but not any different from what other users of the same hide have managed to get. There's hundreds of very similar photos online, and lots of them are better than those ones. Not exactly sure why the BBC have singled out those particular ones (though I think the photographer has media connections, which might explain it).
Farnboro John
Well-known member
Canned hunting, at a serious price....
John
John
Farnboro John
Well-known member
I agree about fieldcraft (though couldn't one say that about any hide birding?) but you're being a bit unfair about skill. There's more to photographing any wildlife than point and shoot (though many people don't even seem to manage that successfully) and while the photos linked aren't outstanding, they aren't total disasters either.
Cheers
John
Nutcracker
Stop Brexit!
Ultimately depends on how rich you are, and thus how good a camera you can afford.
Kevin Conville
yardbirder
This "canned hunting" thing is a bit of a peeve with me.
A few years ago I came in second in a photo contest here on BF to a guy who's submission was taken in a hide, in a park, where food was put out at regular times.
My submission was a wild bird, stalked, in the wild, hunting.
It's clearly not the same experience.
A few years ago I came in second in a photo contest here on BF to a guy who's submission was taken in a hide, in a park, where food was put out at regular times.
My submission was a wild bird, stalked, in the wild, hunting.
It's clearly not the same experience.
The photos are, in fact, good ones and I see no problem in the BBC using them for its broadcast (or whatever), the jealous whining of amateur photographers with equally expensive equipment and “better” photos not withstanding. Like it or not, we now live in a world where anyone with the right equipment can take very good photos with hardly any effort (or knowledge of the subject or of more than the rudiments of photography) and the situation’s only going to get “worse” in the future as cameras etc. continue to improve.
Mark Batten
Well-known member
Incorrect. There are plenty of expensive camera's taking pretty average pics.
Nutcracker
Stop Brexit!
That's not the point! It's the reverse: are there any cheap cameras that take very high quality pics? Which camera can you get good flight shots of fast-moving birds with, for under £100?
Stonefaction
Dundee Birding....(target 150 in 2024).
A second-hand film SLR should manage that, I'd think. You'll have to wait to see how good your photos actually are, but otherwise it should still be possible to get good flight-shots of fast-moving birds, if you know how to set up the camera. Been a while (1995 or so) since I took photos with a film camera but the photos (of fast moving aircraft) I took then still stand up to scrutiny for sharpness and detail.
Also, in response to fugl's post as it appears to be at least partially aimed at me- jealous of what exactly? Photos on the BBC? Even if they asked to use any of my photos they'd get told where to go (up there with the Daily Mail/Express/Sun in the 'no chance' category for me). Opportunity to shoot Ospreys at the hide? Nothing stopping me, except I have no interest in getting those shots. I prefer to chance upon my photo opportunities, rather than the experience offered by those sorts of hides. I'm primarily a birder, who takes photos. The 'better' photos referred to weren't my own. I was thinking of these ones from someone I follow on flickr,
https://www.flickr.com/photos/tigerfast/albums/72157623567925161/page3
though I have seen many, many others on facebook in Scottish Wildlife photo groups that were, in my opinion, better than those the BBC chose to use.
Jealous of the equipment? Nope, what I currently own is good enough for me and should be for a few years yet, barring equipment failure.
That doesn't leave much to be jealous of.
It was also mentioned that there was nothing wrong with the photos - I agreed that they were "nice pics".
Those that enjoy this sort of wildlife photography are perfectly entitled to do so. It is their money and time after all. It just isn't for me, or, it would appear, quite a few others on this thread.
Farnboro John
Well-known member
I concur absolutely with Stonefaction. My own equipment is good though not latest models of anything and I am generally happy with what I get, using fieldcraft, reactions and years of practice. My only experience to date of paying for photographic access was in Hungary last year: it was amazing but I would be very unlikely to do it in the UK where I consider finding and approaching species without disturbing them is part of the challenge of birding.
As for going back to wet film, I'd as soon start carving my pictures on menhirs! :eek!:
John
As for going back to wet film, I'd as soon start carving my pictures on menhirs! :eek!:
John
“Nice” is clearly a sneer in your mouth. Ok, I guess—it’s your mouth.
Personally, like you, I’m mostly a catch-as-catch-can photographer, with binoculars around neck and (expensive) camera rig in a shoulder case ready to be fumbled out should a good photographic opportunity arise. I miss a lot of shots that way but then I’m a birder first and a photographer (a close, nowadays) second. I don’t believe I’ve ever taken a photo from a hide, not out of principle but because hides are few and far between at the places I do most of my birding. I do, however, do a fair amount of sit-and-wait birding/photography which is pretty much the same thing, or don’t you agree?
Last edited:
Nutcracker
Stop Brexit!
Stonefaction
Dundee Birding....(target 150 in 2024).
Except it isn't. Nice means nice. They are good photos - I've taken many far worse than these. But as I said originally I've also seen many better photos taken from the same hide that didn't get a page on the BBC. I can't help that you read my words as sarcasm, but if I wanted to say they were bad pics, that's what I would have said. These clearly aren't bad pics. They just aren't "newsworthy" pics to me.
I do sit in hides fairly regularly for birding - mostly because these are the only way to view some very good birding sites (Loch of Kinnordy/Guardbridge/Murton/Strathbeg), and I have taken some nice photos from them, though as they are not photography specific hides the birds are mostly further away so the photos tend to be less "spectacular" than the likes of the Osprey hide photos. When I go to any of these hides I'm going to see what is around firstly, though sometimes to try and see a specific species that may be around. Photo opportunities are secondary to the birding. A record shot of a distant dot will do for me, though if the bird comes closer all the better.
Not a bird but I've yet to see a Pine Marten yet I turned down the almost guaranteed opportunity to see and photograph one from a hide tailored to seeing one. A friend who invited me along went and saw and photographed her first Pine Marten and was happy to do so. I've also chosen to not go on a Beaver walk with an almost guaranteed close sighting at the end My only sightings of Beaver have been distant heads at dusk. I prefer my birding (and other wildlife watching) to be full of surprises, though if I see my hoped for species - great, if I don't - well that's wildlife watching. Those that choose to use photographic hides for their wildlife experiences are perfectly entitled to do so. It just isn't for me.
As for the film camera comment I don't think I could go back to using them either but for a fixed budget of less than £100 and good quality photos it surely should be considered (though the cost of film would add to the overall cost). Earlier model D-SLRs, including top of the range ones from their time, should be available at relatively low prices and many amazing photos have been taken with that equipment.
