BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JCLynn" data-source="post: 1515871" data-attributes="member: 77625">Interesting thread!I am totally new to digiscoping but do consider myself more than capable with regards to the photography aspect.My feelings are that, although image quality, is important and very much on the 'priority list', bird photography ( and wild life photography in general ) needs interest and eye-appeal as well as image quality. I feel that is of such importance that in a scale of priorities, 'interest' often out weighs image quality. As an example, you come home from a trip with a couple of pics of, say, a heron, picture 1: Perfect image quality, sharp as a pin, every feather detail crisp, colour perfect, perfect focus, etc etc, but, the heron is just standing like a pose from a field guide. Picture 2: The same heron, but doing something, preening, tossing a frog down it's mouth, etc etc, picture quality not perfect, maybe not even colour perfect. Which pic gives you more pleasure and memories of the field trip?To me, it's all about fun, I see no point using my hobby and time to take pictures of birds that look like a page from a field guide, it's easier to just look through the field guide.Having said all this, I don't mean that poor quality images should be acceptable. Of course you should aim for a faultless picture, but no need to beat yourself up over it at the expense of your enjoyment.</blockquote>