Photographers without fieldcraft (1 Viewer)

[stuartvine]

I'm a huge fan of many newbies, their enthusiasm and willingness to learn is infectious and allows me to pontificate and appear far more knowledgeable than I actually am ;-

Being slightly more serious, we never go on pure birding holidays, but once a year choose somewhere tropical where we can hike and see great wildlife (with companies like KE and Exodus). These parties usually comprise mostly of middle-aged walkers, often with a birder or two who's other half isn't that interested. After a day or so, someone will probably say "What's that bird?" or "What's that you're photographing?" By the end of the holiday about 70% of the party will be busy spotting, photographing, asking for IDs, etc. They tend to behave as well as any of their more experienced brethren and make you think and work harder with all their questions.

 

[Johann Sebastian Bach]

We need rules to organise our hobby.

1. No-one new to the hobby shall be allowed a camera or telescope for their first year.
2. No twitching allowed for two years. Anyone who sees a Black lark before a Skylark should be barred for life.
3. In the first year, you must always have a birding mentor with you to show you where the bird is.
4. There should be an exam at the end of year 1, where fieldcraft is assessed. Anyone who climbs a tree to see a blue tit should be publicly named and made to wear a pink bandana.
5. No posting on BF, apart from the ID forum, where you can ask questions like "Is this a sparrow or sparrowhawk?" Questions like "Is this a chiffchaff or willow warbler" are banned, since they reveal an upstart-in-the-making.
6. Know your place (the bottom).
7. Towards the end of Year 2, you may start to scoff at dudes who can't distinguish between marsh tit and marsh warbler.
8. At the end of Year 2, you should have lost all sense of reason. You must also understand "lumping" (i.e. putting photographers and birders into the same basket headed "weirdos") and "spitting" (i.e. separating selfish photographers from selfless birders [or vice versa]).

Vive la difference,

Peter

 

[Farnboro John]

We need rules to organise our hobby.


2. No twitching allowed for two years. Anyone who sees a Black lark before a Skylark should be barred for life.

Vive la difference,

Peter

Agree with this rule. Barring is better than streaking.

John

 

[Telephoto Paul]

Does twitching ever lead to world class photos?

 

[Jasonbirder]

Does twitching ever lead to world class photos?

No but it can lead to world class experiences and memories...
Surely more important to the participant!

Don't try to imply photography leads to some "greater good" anymore than twitching does...

 

[Telephoto Paul]

I wasn't. In response to Johann Sebastian Bach rule number 2, I was just querying the value of twitching for photographers (photographers being the demographic mentioned in the thread title). Leave the pagers to the twitchers, and learn fieldcraft by working local species in suitable locations.

 

[Mike Crawley]

I have seen some fabulous images, taken by birders whilst on a twitch.
Maybe not world class but world class photographs are exceptionally rare in themselves.

 

[Telephoto Paul]

I have seen some fabulous images, taken by birders whilst on a twitch.
Maybe not world class but world class photographs are exceptionally rare in themselves.

But my mum says all of photo photos are fabulous and world class....

A twitch isn't a bar to good photos, and if it's what brings somebody the most satisfaction, then that's absolutely what they should spend their weekend doing. The problem is that it's always going to be stacked in favour of the guys and gals who aren't chasing a rare migrant but working with numerous birds in their true habitat, and can spend the time getting that perfect photo. Bob and his golf-course Pink crested giant ice sparrow is unlikely to outshine Vladimir who spent two month camping in remote Siberia and followed their entire breeding season.

So for somebody who defines themselves as "a photographer and I want to win Wild Photographer of the Year/get on the cover of Wildlife Magazine/get commissioned by Nat Geo", the field-craft and knowledge that will allow that is unlikely to be acquired using pagers to chase migrants. That's more likely to be found with a less sexy two month project following blue-tits in the garden.

 

[Farnboro John]

Does twitching ever lead to world class photos?

I've seen a few of White-throated Needletails that were fairly mind-boggling.

John

 

[John Cantelo]

There you go, John, generalising and pigeon-holing.


I refer you to my first post on this thread where a mob of 'birders' charged beyond two other birders who also happened to be photographers, not once, but twice to crowd the birds and get better views than the patient 'photographers' were waiting for and had planned. So much for the supposed superior skills of birders.

There seems to be a compulsion amongst certain people to pigeon-hole and categorise other people. It's as if it's an extension of the birding hobby where birds must be put in certain families and sub-species and therefore so must the people who pursue them for whatever reason, whether to see them or photograph them, as a by-product providing the photographs that 'birders' now demand as almost essential for the identification of certain birds. Birdforum is a prime example of this. Show me a birder who says he doesn't benefit from the product of the reviled photographers and I'll show you a hypocrite.

We can't all be categorised and there are tossers amongst birders, just as there are amongst photographers and just as there are amongst people who fall between those 'categories' and even people who have no interest in either (ie the vast majority of the population who think that we are all weird and obsessive beyond redemption anyway).

I remember the days before the word 'birder' came into use and people who now are called birders would have been called birdwatchers and their hobby wouldn't have been 'birding', but 'birdwatching'.

I suspect that was about the time that the preciousness and imagined superiority crept in. Airs and graces are never attractive.

Apologies if I've upset you BW - I was careful at the start to mention that we all have 'feet of clay' and wouldn't exclude any group from offending. I feel the desire to get that little bit closer when I've got a camera myself which is why I tend not to use one overmuch. I've seen misbehaviour from all groups, but I'd be dishonest if I didn't note that a minority of photographers seem more prone to getting closer to a bird than anyone else.

 

[Robin Edwards]

I agree with those that believe photographing birds is commonly just an extension of watching birds given what modern technology and prices/budgets now allow.

What isn't mentioned so much though is that photographs are taken to meet different objectives. For some it might be their livlihood and others, like me, it is simply my diary record of what I saw at a particular place and particular time. I get great enjoyment at trawling through my images from past trips, each crap image acting as a memory refresh. But at heart, I'm still a birder and would never label myself as a photographer despite wanting to improve and get better quality images as and when a situation allows.

On a recent trip, we encountered a group of bird photographers who it was said, had considerable wealth and each carried the best cameras and lenses money can buy. However, they demonstrated very little field craft or interest in or apparant knowledge of what they were photographing which was seen as very funny to their tour leader who was holding back the grimaces as they each machine-gunned a domestic Muscovy with their huges lenses, on a small pond imagining it to be a worthy subject for their portfolios.

As in all walks of life, it takes all sorts and I dislike the occassional divisive nature of some rants against birders or photographers. In my book, there is a degree of construed or real bad behaviour exhibited from some folk whatever you choose to do in life but in this case, there is a minority who demonstrate a degree of intollerance and ignorance against someone who simply has slightly different interests and objectives than themselves, despite having a common interest: birds! Such is life and whether I'm using a scope or my modest lens I'm sure that joe-public think I'm another nut-job anyway. I had a young women cuss at me recently whilst I was getting some close-ups of a very tame Grey Heron at the local country park. She thought I was being unfair to delay her small toddler from running at it to make it fly and remarked discouragely, "just how many pictures do you need to take anyway?" Maybe she was right

 

[mathare]

I had a young women cuss at me recently whilst I was getting some close-ups of a very tame Grey Heron at the local country park. She thought I was being unfair to delay her small toddler from running at it to make it fly and remarked discouragely, "just how many pictures do you need to take anyway?" Maybe she was right

This reminds me of something that has really been annoying me of late - parents that allow (and in some cases encourage) their young children to run at and chase common urban birds such as pigeons. Does they think this is acceptable because there are so many of these birds? Or because they are "just" pigeons?

But these parents are neither birders nor photographers so have no place on this thread

 

[stuartvine]

Of course, you could just let the child chase it and then get a good flight shot ;-) Can you be unethical by proxy?

 

[Robin Edwards]

Of course, you could just let the child chase it and then get a good flight shot ;-) Can you be unethical by proxy?

well the Heron flushed and the very young toddler came very close to a full body baptism in lake off the end of the fishing platform. I recall thinking at the time whether said parent would have felt any sense of irresponsibility and concluded not. And no- I failed to get an image.

Anyway, I deviated from any Birders vs Togs debate and shouldn't have introduced the ever-present and not-interested-in-either pursuit third party.

 

[Robin Edwards]

to maintain unbiased story recall.............

Photographer without Fieldcraft

a very good friend who will remain nameless, sees his first male Great Currasow wander from the roadside vegetation within 20m of our vehicle and instinctively feels inclined to run at it with his tripod and 500mm lens with 2x converter. He failed to get his shot..........
A dear friend but one who first came in to birding with top-end camera gear rather than as a life-long birder. We smiled!

Birders without Fieldcraft

Sat at local NR on bench with my non-birding wife this spring listening and viewing a Nightingale sat out in the open and singing. Large single deck coach had unloaded a visiting RSPB group who quickly descended upon us like locusts wanting to share what we had. One stood immediately in front of where I was sat blocking my view whilst another publically mis-ID'd a Great tit which happened to be in same tree as the nosiy Nightingale which by now had dived for cover. We both made a quick exit as our pleasure had been ended and become overly claustrophobic. We smiled!

Public with no Sense?

So hands up who has ever spent time in a photo-hide and had a well meaning chap peer through the front slot to ask what they are(were) photographing? Answers on a postcard..... I didn't smile.

 

[stuartvine]

"So hands up who has ever spent time in a photo-hide and had a well meaning chap peer through the front slot to ask what they are(were) photographing?"

Surely the answer would be. "You, now!"

 

[mathare]

This is perhaps a little off-topic but on reading the various stories in this thread it seems that sometimes organised birding trips turn into a bit of a tickathon and getting the tick is more important than enjoying the birding. This leads to tour groups bustling in, jostling for position to get the tick, then noisily departing in search of the next tick. Are tour companies desperately seeking ticks to make their advertising/reviews better?

I'd happily settle for a 70-tick trip if I got good views of the birds and got to enjoy the creatures in their natural habitats. I'd much rather have that than a 100-tick trip where some of the ticks are dubious at best

 

[lmans66]

I have seen some fabulous images, taken by birders whilst on a twitch.
Maybe not world class but world class photographs are exceptionally rare in themselves.

Ditto....and to add to this. How many bird photographs are 'really good' OR...do they just look good when uploaded to a web page which requires far less true skills in the field + photoshop skills in the dry darkroom.

 

[Robin Edwards]

Imans,

The judgement of "goodness" is somewhat subjective. In many cases the person behind the camera may not be interested in winning any competitions. It's possibly just a record of what they saw with their eye and each to their own if they are happy with their results.

 

[stuartvine]

Now this is another point. What is a really good photograph? Is it a technically superb, artistic, beautifully framed and lit house sparrow? Of course. Alternatively, is it that slightly blurry shot of a ptarmigan on top of Ben Doom in a howling blizzard that brings back memories of the sheer nastiness of the weather and the warmth of the pub and the jokes of your friends afterwards. Of course. Photographs can be technically brilliant and/or artistically brilliant and/or ornithologically brilliant and/or just personally brilliant. I love them all, but treasure the latter the most, no matter if they don't fulfil any of the other criteria. OK, I'm a rubbish photographer, so would say that wouldn't I?