Is there anything wrong with a photographic guide to birds? (1 Viewer)

[Tannin]

However, photos contain a lot more features, and much more faithfully reproduce details, textures and colors.

If you are talking about:

• a particular individual bird
• at a particular time of year
• under particular lighting conditons
• in a particular pose

then I agree entirely.

But if you are talking about a generalisable image that fairly represents the normal and typical look of a species, then a decent artist will beat a photographer every time. A good field-guide illustration heightens the key ID features and generalises the typical range of variation such that you, the birdwatcher, are able to extract the recognition features from the illustration and apply them to the bird in your scope.

Bird illustration, in other words, is not about 100% life-like reproduction (we have cameras for that), it is about creating caricatures - drawings or paintings which are more life-like than life itself.

Think about your favourite political cartoonist: he can capture the essential essence of any of our noble leaders, and make them more recognisable than a photograph would be, with just a few strokes of the pen - bring out the eyebrows, for example, or outline the weak chin. Quality field guide illustrations do something rather similar, though much more subtle. This is why they work so effectively and why photographic guides will never be much more than a charming novelty.

 

[Pete Mella]

I carry my Mighty Midget around, and my Collins Field Guide, and don't give two flying ones if any self-righteous snobs turn their noses up at my inept, amateurish antics.

Yes, scopes aren't much use for general birding on walks, and I learnt very quickly that you just end up lugging a tripod round for no reason at all. But I'll take a scope to a reserve. Why? So I can tell Little Ringed Plovers from Ringed Plovers, snatch the id of hard to clinch waders and... god forbid!... actually get a closer look at birds and admire their beauty instead of squinting at their indentifying fieldmarks and nodding sagely in a state of extreme smugness that I can tell them apart as tiny dots in my binoculars.

I do appreciate the need to take notes, but I'll keep a field guide in my bag as well and often refer to it in hides, and have often been asked by people too cool to bring theirs if they can borrow it.

Back on topic... I've never got on with photographic fieldguides, as they never seem as complete and never seem to show as many variations as the best drawn ones.

 

[John Cantelo]

Identifying birds is often all about making comparisons - Whimbrel vs Curlew, Chiffchaff vs Willow Warbler, etc. The great advantage of good illustrations over photos, is that an artist can put all the confusion species in the same pose, at the same angle, under uniform 'lighting' conditions, etc. This makes it easy to compare of multiple points. It's not impossible to do this with photos, but very much harder. Even with digital manipulation of photos it's hard to compete with the number of images per inch too.

I know that there's a tendency amongst some to knock any degree of expertise born of long experience as arrogance or elitism, but the fact is I don't know a single highly experienced birder (and I know a lot!) who prefers to use a photoguide as their basic general fieldguide. I think that this tells us something,

John

 

[bkrownd]

Bird illustration, in other words, is not about 100% life-like reproduction (we have cameras for that), it is about creating caricatures - drawings or paintings which are more life-like than life itself.

That's why illustrations fail on their own. They're too generalized and idealized, and lack or can only crudely mimic detail. Real creatures have individual variations and a wealth of details. It a great help to see several examples of those variations. Photographs also capture details, colors and textures that illustrations can't. IME it's much easier to get a good feel for a creature from a few actual photographs. Your last statement that guidebook illustrations are "more life-like than life itself" has to be a cruel joke.

 

[Farnboro John]

Actually photographs good enough to go in field guides are almost inevitably misleading as they are selected to show particular things in the same way was field guide art is posed and angled to demonstrate the ID features.

This selection process leads to effects like totally unnatural lighting of a skulking species because the only pic worth having in a guide is of it out in the open where light is stronger and distorts the contrasts and perceived colours. Good field guide art restores the balance.

Less of an issue perhaps with digital images but the the good old days two pix of the same bird taken simultaneously by two photographers standing next to each other with different speeds and makes of film, processed by different labs and printed on different paper would be very different and have caused debate over ID.

I remain on the artwork side of the discussion.

John

 

[DGRW]

I don't know a single highly experienced birder (and I know a lot!) who prefers to use a photoguide as their basic general fieldguide. I think that this tells us something,

Ditto.....I agree.

Your points about close comparisons are very valid too.

I also agree with BK's comments to some degree as well though; very often, the bird that we see in the field may look quite different to an idealised artists illustration and whilst such illustrations are invaluable for defining a bird distinctive features, it's nice sometimes to be able to refer to less idealised photographs as well.

PS: Sometimes I simply punch in a birds name to google images and see what comes up, this can be quite useful for getting a feel for a bird in those none ideal situations.

 

[bkrownd]

Naturally it's good to have plenty of both, but the point about a field guide is that space is limited to allow portability which conspires against this ideal. That's why I think that the only photo-guides that challenge traditional field guides are those that concentrate on a single family or group of birds.

Comprehensive pocket field guides, like the Sibley I have, with its itty bitty smudgy illustrations are already IMO too big and heavy to be "portable". It sits at home and I try to compare to the day's photos when I get back to it at night. Then I get on the internet and look at real photos for final confirmation of anything iffy. Actually, I would much prefer guides that focus on groups of species in detail. I don't know of many, but my little warbler guide (full of nice photos!) is my favorite guidebook, and actually portable. I'd absolutely love to have more of those, starting with sparrows. Fortunately here in Hawaii the seabird and forest bird guides tend to be separate.

 

[John Cantelo]

That's why illustrations fail on their own. They're too generalized and idealized, and lack or can only crudely mimic detail. Real creatures have individual variations and a wealth of details. It a great help to see several examples of those variations. Photographs also capture details, colors and textures that illustrations can't. IME it's much easier to get a good feel for a creature from a few actual photographs. Your last statement that guidebook illustrations are "more life-like than life itself" has to be a cruel joke.

We're obviously looking at different field guides or have a different way of looking at birds entirely! Contra your opening statement, I do not find that modern good quality field guide illustrations "fail on their own". I find them extremely useful!

I'm sure you'd love the two British "Macmillan bird guides" which do pretty much what you ask in terms of a field guide that has the details when you want them ... and they're illustrated by artwork.

Also, and please don't take this the wrong way, but another posting of yours suggests that you do a lot of your birdwatching through a camera lens. Good for you and I'm not trying to suggest that you shouldn't, but, in my experience, means that all too often you're not actually looking at the bird itself!

John

 

[Clive Watson]

I think there are openings for more photo-guides but for a general guide, particularly for a beginner, I'd have thought that an illustration guide was better. Or maybe it's just that when I was growing up there weren't any good photo guides!

The problem with photo guides is that they always contain some good photos and quite a few rubbish ones, possibly because there was nothing better in the time available. Or quite often they contain rubbish reproductions of good photos.

The space consideration is also a major flaw with photo guides. I don't know why someone doesn't bring out a photo guide with no or very minimal text, which would allow more space for photos. Of course you couldn't use it on its own but most texts I find are virtual repetitions of each other, at least in the more basic guides.

Where photos are more useful are in identification papers, where the extra space allows more emphasis on specific points. I think as an extension of this there could be more photo-guides concentrating on specific groups of birds but there aren't that many decent ones at the moment. My favourite has always been the Hamlyn wader one from about 1994 I think, written by David Rosair I think (going on memory now). Unparalleled photo reproduction but even with this one there are quite a few photos I think could have been improved.

 

[bkrownd]

Or maybe it's just that when I was growing up there weren't any good photo guides!

Are there are any yet? The only all-in-one field guides I've seen have very few photos and aren't very useful.

I don't know why someone doesn't bring out a photo guide with no or very minimal text, which would allow more space for photos.

One of the things I love about my warbler guide is that the last few pages are mosaics of photos of each warbler for side-by-side comparison in the field (forest). I can't remember if those pages separate out for portability, but they really should. There are separate charts for breeding and non-breeding plumage males. Unfortunately (incredibly) the author didn't make such charts for females and juveniles - you have to look back in the detailed sections for those - or the book would have been perfect.

 

[bkrownd]

Also, and please don't take this the wrong way, but another posting of yours suggests that you do a lot of your birdwatching through a camera lens. Good for you and I'm not trying to suggest that you shouldn't, but, in my experience, means that all too often you're not actually looking at the bird itself!

I'm not sure how I can take a photo of a bird without looking at it? Not only do I look at it, but I also have enhanced photos to look at for all eternity after it's gone.

 

[Keith Reeder]

I think John means that when you're taking photographs of a bird, you're really thinking about the photograph, not the bird.

He might be right too - that's how it is with me, even though I'm absolutely a birder with a camera, rather than a photographer that takes pictures of birds..

 

[John Cantelo]

Yes, Keith, that's exactly what I mean!

 

[bkrownd]

Binoculars or camera, the view is pretty much the same. I even tried it today. The birds don't look too much different through either. However, AFTER the birdie is gone, when you look at the photos, the view is suddenly a LOT better. I still don't understand what it has to do with what makes guidebooks useful.

I think there's plenty of room for everyone to get the guidebooks they want, but only if the people who make them accept that different people are going to want different guidebooks that suit their individual needs best. The last thing we need is multiple variations of the same format, with little or no innovation between them.

I'm anxiously awaiting the new generation of electronic "guidebooks", though.

 

[John Cantelo]

I don't want to labour the point, but when looking through a camera you're not 100% focussed on identifying the bird. The technicalities of getting the good shot come in the way. Actually, I do think how we look at birds is relevant to the usefulness or otherwise of field guides. Successful identification of birds encompasses about many things one of which is training yourself how to look! I'm not knocking the usefulness of getting a good image either, but not all birds seen pose for or are within range of the camera!

Where I think we can agree is that a good portable video guide would be a major breakthrough ... well at least until the batteries run out!
John

 

[pduxon]

personally I prefer artwork. but if Photos work for you....

Amelia - Frankly though i don't care what others think of what I do, it may not be "cool" to carry a field guide (I often do, handy to remind myself of pointers from time to time, i'm not a great birder), carry a scope ( some times), camera (more often these days) or to twitch (not often but...) or whatever.

I go out to see birds and enjoy them in the way i want. If others want to do it in someother way good for them not a problem.

As far as i know there is no prescribed way of how you should bird. If you are happy then that is, as i'm concerned, all that matters.

I hadn't been drinking when I wrote that, edited the quote to make sense!!

 

[pduxon]

I don't want to labour the point, but when looking through a camera you're not 100% focussed on identifying the bird. The technicalities of getting the good shot come in the way. Actually, I do think how we look at birds is relevant to the usefulness or otherwise of field guides. Successful identification of birds encompasses about many things one of which is training yourself how to look! I'm not knocking the usefulness of getting a good image either, but not all birds seen pose for or are within range of the camera!

Where I think we can agree is that a good portable video guide would be a major breakthrough ... well at least until the batteries run out!
John

John

for some people identification isn't the be all and end all. There's a girl who wanders around Rye Meads who freely admits to not being good on identification and she isn't really interested in it because her pleasure is in just watching birds.

viva la diference (or whatever it is)

as to the video guide ... or until the rain hammers down and gets into the unit

 

[Keith Reeder]

Binoculars or camera, the view is pretty much the same. I even tried it today. The birds don't look too much different through either.

You're missing the point.

I know I'm not alone when I say that, when I'm birding, the bird is what's important, in its own right: I take in its behaviour, how it looks, how it reacts to and interacts with its environment... in other words, I'm enjoying the bird for what it is, a part of nature.

When I'm out with the camera, I obsess about the position of the sun, and about getting that little bit closer, and getting just the right angle on the bird so that that twig doesn't ruin the shot...

In other words why I'm looking at the bird is different, depending on whether I'm birding or photographing, and how I look at it is different too.

It's not really about identification, it's about appreciation, and I appreciate them differently depending on why I'm looking at them in the first place.

I'll bet you're no different.

 

[bkrownd]

You're missing the point.

The point that's missing is what, if anything, that has to do with what guidebook illustrations we prefer. You seem to be trying to imply that my inferior way of observing birds somehow invalidates my preference in the way guidebooks are illustrated. Um, no, I just don't accept that. I do think guides that contain real photographs really help identification, and it doesn't have anything to do with cameras or binoculars.

 

[John Cantelo]

John

for some people identification isn't the be all and end all. There's a girl who wanders around Rye Meads who freely admits to not being good on identification and she isn't really interested in it because her pleasure is in just watching birds.

viva la diference (or whatever it is)

as to the video guide ... or until the rain hammers down and gets into the unit

... I never suggested that identfication WAS the 'be all and end all', but I think that it is central to this discussion!

John