PDA

View Full Version : A Photographer's point of view


realbirder
November 11th, 2008, 04:48 PM
Hi all

I see lots of postings & letters to magazines slating photographers, so I think it is time a photographer put his point of view.

We need photographers to record the birds otherwise there would be no magazines, no websites & many more rejected records.
Also, birders are not angels as they can’t even tell an Amur Falcon in the field even with top-of-the-range scopes!!!

We are all guilty of less tolerance towards other bird enthusiasts, but we need birders - to find birds; We need ringers to sort out the more difficult birds & We need photographers to record them.

Firstly a photographer is no different a person than a twitcher, ringer, birder,etc. He just has a camera. Therefore we are actually talking about bad behaviour - are we not?

Bad photographers & bad birders are a pain to EVERONE. This is usually just caused by bad fieldcraft & ignorance. The bad person can be educated & should be treated with respect not abuse. Most people would move back if explained what the problem was.

There is however a small number of birders & photographers that are basically prats, bullies, or both.

Personally I see more bad behaviour among birders rather than photographers but this is just because there are statistically more of them. Most are relatively new to the hobby & have not learned fieldcraft through experience.
Today’s restrictive paths & hides do not allow birders to try & approach birds stealthily, so don’t know the limits.
When I find a rare bird, I take my photos & get my enjoyment from it BEFORE I put the news out. In the past, I used to release the news, only to find birders having a dig at me when I tried to get a record of MY bird a few days later after I had given them chance to see it.

Firstly birders can see a bird well at a distance with today's scopes & they see no reason why a photographer can’t do the same - BUT this shows total ignorance of the photographer’s art on the part of the birder.
A photographer must get close to a bird to achieve his goal of getting a good shot & the closer the better. Otherwise, he has basically dipped as his whole reason for journeying to see the bird in the first place is to get a picture & not just to see it.
Imagine trying to take a portrait of the kids or someone's face - you don’t stand 200m away!
A Steppe Shrike is about the same length as a girl's breast - how close would you stand to make sure that her nipple is sharp – licking distance I bet!

So why should the photographer give up his pleasure, just for the birder to add a tick? - That is selfish on the birder's part while both parties can enjoy their respective hobbies.

That said, there are unwritten rules as neither party want to flush the bird. So a good photographer knows when to stop.
If it flies, then nobody is happy.

The photographer armed with fieldcraft knows how far he can push things without flushing the bird away from the scene altogether. He is fully aware of the needs of the birder & waits for them to see the bird & does block their view.
But why not allow him to move to a position where the bird may come closer to him if he patiently waits?

This seems to be a big problem for some birders as they can't abide anyone closer than themselves, even though they are getting good views.

Unfortunately the hobby has grown so much, that there is no longer a period when the birders have had their fill & the photographer can approach.
I no longer travel to photograph rare birds because I am prevented from using my fieldcraft by birders ignorant of a photographer's needs.

Birders have also become sheep. They can only ID a bird when the pager says what it is. They do not find their own birds & are totally ignorant of the ecology of that species. They therefore do not know the natural limits of how to approach a bird. Most birds are actually flushed by birders rather than photographers. It is just that the birders are all together at the time, so don’t rant about it.

A GOOD photographer on the other hand, finds his own subject & needs peace & quiet to get the full benefit of capturing the bird behaving naturally.
I find that if I stalk a Pied Fly or Firecrest, some .... comes running up to me to see what I am photographing & flushes it in the process or thinks I am a prat because it is only a common species & I have wasted His time!!!!!!!!

In the good old days, when there was just Cotteridge, Loseby & a handful of other photographers, birders were happy to watch from a distance, but also allow them to go closer because they wanted to buy a photograph from them or see a picture in BB - both parties were happy & got from the hobby, what they had paid for.
The birder knows that 1 or 2 people closer than him, sat still & taking pictures would not cause the bird grief, but if all the birders walked closer, then the bird would fly off. They should still accept this.

In the past, birders actually helped by standing opposite the photographer, thereby sending the bird away from them but closer to the quietly sitting photographer.

There is no reason why this could still not be the case?
But the growing number of both birders & photographers naturally make this more difficult.
I currently wait until all the birders have seen it well, and then try to get closer to take some pictures, only to find that other birders are still coming. So I wait & wait
Then more come, so I wait, then after waiting 8 hours, it is too dark & I still have not got a picture, while the birders have all gone away happy.

The only way to please birders is to become a digiscoper - but this means boring pictures of posed still birds & nothing of any real quality.
No exciting flight views or moving images.

At the recent Alder Flycatcher, not one photographer caused a problem, because there was no way to get close to that bird. But there was still trouble.
There were several abusive birders that got aggressive because they were frustrated at not being able to see the bird. Most of this was frustration, but of course there is always a psychopath in every hobby.
I was stood above the main group & from the hill I saw birders get some stick from a birder with a Brummy accent. This particular guy did have some kind of mental problem but this shows that bad behaviour is not restricted to photographers.

Then, those birders arriving late, blamed ringers for causing the bird to leave.

Well lets just stop & think a minute.
1 – the ringers found it in the first place – they could have suppressed it.
2 – they waited 2 days before trapping it – long enough for any serious birder to get there & see it. Even those on Scilly could get to it!
3 – without the bird being trapped, it would not be on any birders list as an Alder Fly. It is impossible to ID this species without trapping it or hearing it call. So we should thank them - instead they get abuse.

There will always be a loser, no matter how well intentioned one's behaviour is.

If you are a birder, try being a little more helpful to the newer photographers & encourage them to get a little closer by directing them to sit next to a certain bush. Help them & let them know the limits rather than waiting until they annoy you or go too far.

Also accept that for every good day you have in the field, the photographer will never get the perfect photograph. He rarely has a successful day.

Cheers
A tolerant photographer, birder & ringer

Colin Key
November 11th, 2008, 06:37 PM
Not sure why you posted this over-verbose "statement" (and in the wrong forum, I think). You make some good points but also a lot of "mis-thinking" here. The para:

"A photographer must get close to a bird to achieve his goal of getting a good shot & the closer the better. Otherwise, he has basically dipped as his whole reason for journeying to see the bird in the first place is to get a picture & not just to see it.
Imagine trying to take a portrait of the kids or someone's face - you don’t stand 200m away!
A Steppe Shrike is about the same length as a girl's breast - how close would you stand to make sure that her nipple is sharp – licking distance I bet!"

...is really your undoing, but it is good to know that your expertise lies in the field of "Tit Photography" :laugh:

I will wait until others respond before I "wade in".

Colin :smile:

beltonbirder
November 11th, 2008, 06:42 PM
Thank you for putting your message across. If we can educate and inform and get the photographers to adhere to the code of conduct then we will all get along fine.
There have been some recent twitches where both birders and photographers have been picked on with I must say good cause. It is only by this forum can we fight this blight and get all birders back to enjoying birds and not s....ping over the extremist field bullies.

forktail
November 11th, 2008, 08:33 PM
Hi all
Therefore we are actually talking about bad behaviour - are we not?
Bad photographers & bad birders are a pain to EVERONE. This is usually just caused by bad fieldcraft & ignorance. The bad person can be educated & should be treated with respect not abuse. Most people would move back if explained what the problem was.

There is however a small number of birders & photographers that are basically prats, bullies, or both.

Cheers
A tolerant photographer, birder & ringer

Hoping this doesn't degenerate into the usual more heat than light affair but I agree with the basic premises above as a rational, sensible outline of the situation.

Unfortunately, how do you 'educate' everybody who acts in a selfish way? Do you ask that big beligerent chap to move back? What about the chap that gives you a mouthful back? I don't mind having a word with anyone but i can see it degenerating into an ugly situation if people become confrontational. And when you're not there, you can't stop people from trespassing and damaging relations with locals to the point of access being removed.

From a patcher's point of view, the best way of dealing with this situation is to not release the news of the bird you find in the first place and this is what is starting to happen. I moved to east Norfolk two years ago and despite releasing as much news as anyone in the county, we've had too many instances of idiots behaving in selfish ways to the point of losing access rights and locals becoming distinctly unfriendly because of it. I'm not losing my hard won birding rights because of the actions of few selfish pillocks from distant places with no common sense - whoever they are. It's not anti-twitcher, anti-photographer etc, it's simply anti-selfish morons.

Of course education is the way forward but it's not as straightforward as asking someone nicely to do something. Or hoping everyone will be reasonable. Or ducking the issue with nice shots of the bird. There's a distinct **** you attitude across many areas of society and not suprisingly birding has its share. Perhaps a period of reflection (with fewer birds and local patchers to go and bother) will change a few approaches...

or we might end up with a proliferation of rogues galleries such as Mark's excellent http://www.ofpiesandbirds.blogspot.com/ and the one on Lincsbirds forum

darrenjhughes
November 11th, 2008, 10:50 PM
Not wanting to get into a full scale s.... about this BUT.Yes I like seeing rare birds yes I take photos Digiscoped/DSLR sometimes with my phone I don't intrude on anyone they are for my own enjoyment.If I think they are worth sharing with other people I put them on stop press.So the question is why do you have to have frame filling pin sharp shots.Is there any cash value to this!!!
I must admit looking at some of the photos of the shrike you might as well take a box brownie(for those who are old enough to remember one)

Colin Key
November 12th, 2008, 06:31 PM
Very grateful to Tim for posting a link to Mark's blog - absolutely brilliant stuff!!

Colin :laugh::beer:

P.S. Have a left a comment on the blog Mark.

nottsbirder
November 12th, 2008, 07:26 PM
Originally Posted by realbirder

[QUOTE=realbirder;9826]
We need photographers to record the birds otherwise there would be no magazines, no websites & many more rejected records. :notworthy:
<snip>
Firstly birders can see a bird well at a distance.
<snip>
A photographer must get close to a bird to achieve his goal of getting a good shot & the closer the better. :SLEEP:

In fact. Most if not all birds nowadays are recorded by someone who digiscopes and they can stand with the rest of us. :smile:

It is possible to put your images on a PC and crop and enlarge them, so you too can stand with us also. :yes:

NB

realbirder
November 13th, 2008, 12:54 PM
Hi all

thanks for all your usefull comments & understanding.

Most of the replies I recieved are valid & well thought out.
I should comment on a couple of things though.

Firstly from Nottsbirder "Firstly birders can see a bird well at a distance".. Yes they can, but this did not allow accurate Identification of an Amur Falcon or an Alder Fly - 2 most recent examples.
Also, think how great the experience is when the bird walks over your boots (Bailons Crake - Sunderland). Then think about ticking a Great Dot (Great Knot) at Teeside.
Who would not want to improve on any sighting?

Darren said "why do you have to have frame filling pin sharp shots.I s there any cash value to this!!!"
- well from a personal point of view, I make no money from my photos & when I did, it never covered the cost of the rolls of film I used. A real photographer takes pictures for his own personal enjoyment & sense of achievment. My pictures are now supplied free of charge to conservation organisations so that I can put something back into the hobby.

Yes, it is possible to crop pictures if you have a VERY expensive camera, but there are still limitations.

With regard to distance from birder to bird. My statement that the-closer-the-better-stands. HOWEVER, there are certain provisos depending on how selfish one is.
Firstly if you have no consideration for others - get as close as you can. This gives maximum clarity, depth of field & sharpness & light, etc.

BUT with birds, quality photographic sacrifices are made as one stands further away. This involves consideration for the bird and other people's enjoyment. The seasoned photographer knows this. BUT, the seasoned photographer also knows that he would be able to move perhaps 50m closer without scaring the bird off if the crowd would allow him.
IF this is the case, then my point is, why should he not be able to do so without fear of reprisal?

Darren is right, I would also not intrude on others by getting closer hence my reluctance to chase rare birds now.
BUT I did there are some birders (usually those without fieldcraft) that would not know the limits & start to get abusive. There are also photographers (again usually those without fieldcraft) that would flush the bird.

Difficult call here & probably impossible to police, but my reason for posting was to explain the thinking behind a photographer's moves, so that a birder can understand why someone is closer than him & not get bent out of shape about it.

Of course, there are the selfish idiots armed with a new camera that fully deserve to be outed on pie-lover's websites.
Were it not hypocritical, I would also suppress birds from my patch, but as I benefit from other's finds, I feel obliged to realease news. It would be nice if I could selectively suppress from a small minority of well-known idividuals though!

I think one improvement would be if the reporting services stopped posting semi rarities. People would have to find there own stuff & learn fieldcraft.
It means less pressure on birds & photographers.

It means that I could get pictures of common birds like Great Grey Shrikes, Red-necked Grebes, Ring-billed Gull, etc without having to wait 5 hours for a procession of pager-informed but fieldcraft-lacking people to get their pleasure first.
It even means that one cannot approach a Spotted Redshank, Little Stint, Snow Bunting, etc as they are now regarded as rarities!!!!
The only chance a photographer has is to take pictures in his own garden.

I really feel for today's photographers - they have thick skin!

Cheers

Colin Key
November 13th, 2008, 02:57 PM
.......So the question is why do you have to have frame filling pin sharp shots.Is there any cash value to this!!!
I must admit looking at some of the photos of the shrike you might as well take a box brownie(for those who are old enough to remember one)

Herein lies the problem Darren. If you are a committed photographer then you want the BEST SHOT. Sometimes there is "cash value", but mainly it is kudos. The competition amongst photographers (or at least a lot of them) to capture, and then publish on the web, the best image of a bird is very strong. As strong, I would say, as the competitive urge amongst birders to find the "best bird" and have its discovery attributed to them.

This (natural) desire is what causes both birders and photographers to behave badly at times.

I was just thinking about going with a mate to see a White-rumped Sandpiper a couple of years ago in the U.K. when there were only a handful of birders present, plus one young guy with a Canon 1D camera and 600mm lens. He was very polite and stayed with us (even asking to look at the bird through our 'scopes), but I could "feel" his desire to get closer to the bird; if he had been on his own he might well have attempted to walk up and get as close as possible. As it was he waited for 40 minutes or so (there is a limit to the amount of time a WRS can entertain!) before politely asking if we minded if he tried to get a bit closer to get some shots. Very nice manners (and he emailed some of his photos).

I do wonder what the same scenario might have been if it had been just one birder and half a dozen photographers?

Colin

P.S. Box Brownie was my first camera, followed by my Mum's Kodak bellows camera.

nottsbirder
November 13th, 2008, 05:21 PM
Hi all
<snip>
I should comment on a couple of things though.
Firstly from Nottsbirder "Firstly birders can see a bird well at a distance".. Yes they can, but this did not allow accurate Identification of an Amur Falcon or an Alder Fly - 2 most recent examples. :puzzled:
Sorry if i seemed to be having a dig before but in fact Photographs did not at all aid the ID of the Alder Flycatcher.
As it was not heard to call, it had to be trapped and no amount of photo's would have helped in the ID process.

Also the many, many photo's of the Amur Falcon only told the story after it had gone so thanks for that.

My best fiend is a photographer and I am a twitcher.
So believe me I don't want to stop photographers or twitchers from doing their thing, just to have some common sense.
It is an unfortunate fact and I know from experience, that of late this is very much lacking in both camps.

Regards. NB.

beltonbirder
November 13th, 2008, 06:48 PM
Well we have seen some great photographs and this will help us identify another Steppe Shrike. So we do have something to thank photographers for.

A question to the photographers. Why is digiscoping not practised by yourselves, this will keep you at a respectable distance from the bird and help you blend into the observers

Colin Key
November 13th, 2008, 07:51 PM
A question to the photographers. Why is digiscoping not practised by yourselves, this will keep you at a respectable distance from the bird and help you blend into the observers

The simple answer here is that digiscoping, whilst often producing good (and sometimes very good) record shots, is not a photographers "medium".

I spent a fair bit of cash when the digiscoping thing first "erupted" on a Nikon Coolpix 4500 (at the time "THE" camera for this sort of thing), a whole array of adapters, LCD magnifiers, remote shutter release brackets, etc, etc. to take what I thought were going to be great shots through my Swaro ATS 80HD. The problem is, for anyone with a passion for photography, it simply does not work (I know there will be disagreements, but that is the truth). I also quickly learned that you cannot go birding and digiscoping (or any other sort of photography) at the same time - it really has to be one or the other. It is a fact that photography gets in the way of birding, and possibly vice versa.

I am predominantly a birder and most of my time in the field is spent even without a 'scope, just my bins. If a scarcity or rarity turns up then I will load up my Land Rover with all the "gear" (Canon 1DMk3 + 500 f/4 + 100-400 zoom + 400 f/5.6 + 1.4 TCII + Gitzo tripod and Wimberley II Gimbal head, in addition to my Swaro 'scope and Manfrotto 055 and two sets of bins) - THIS IS NOT BIRDING!!!

And at other times I go out with the sole intention of taking photographs, whatever happens to turn up (and which often turns up the best shots).

There really is no conciliation between pure birders and pure photographers, FULL STOP. I just happen to be a bit of both, and can see both points of view.

Colin :smile::beer:

Father Hackett
November 30th, 2008, 12:49 AM
I also quickly learned that you cannot go birding and digiscoping (or any other sort of photography) at the same time - it really has to be one or the other. It is a fact that photography gets in the way of birding, and possibly vice versa.


I couldn't agree more. I put forward this point of view on Birdforum once and got a load of flak for it.

Colin Key
November 30th, 2008, 09:21 AM
I couldn't agree more. I put forward this point of view on Birdforum once and got a load of flak for it.

If you put forward ANY point of view on Birdforum you get a load of flak for it!:biggrin::wink:

By the way, welcome to the forum - does your first name begin with "P"?

Colin :smile:

Father Hackett
December 1st, 2008, 01:01 PM
I've been a member for a while but I don't normally find I have much to say.

P? No.

MichaelF
December 1st, 2008, 01:39 PM
For information, there's a well-known birder in Britain named Paul Hackett. That explains Colin's query, if you were baffled.

His photo gallery:
http://www.surfbirds.com/paulhackett1.html

Colin Key
December 1st, 2008, 01:59 PM
I've been a member for a while but I don't normally find I have much to say.

P? No.

So, you are either:

A: Paul Hackett's Dad

B: The first Trappist Monk on this forum

C: Other?

Colin :laugh:

P.S. I hope you can take my sense of humour - no offence intended.

Father Hackett
December 1st, 2008, 04:44 PM
I should have realised that! No, I'm not Paul Hackett, the user name is a reference to Father Ted (but you all knew that anyway of course)

Marcus Conway - ebirder
December 5th, 2008, 07:05 PM
I often find the necessity for some big lens boys to get close is actually counter productive as the bird inevitably gets flushed. These 'must get closer' types would struggle to snap loads of commoner species with such woeful fieldcraft. It's nearly always best to wait for the bird to come closer to yu if that's possible or to work out where it might go next and wait there.

But, yeah, it's hard to mix photogrpahy and twitching so maybe the two are mutually exclusive.

Colin Key
December 5th, 2008, 08:28 PM
But, yeah, it's hard to mix photogrpahy and twitching so maybe the two are mutually exclusive.

Not with a bit of common sense and sensitivity; "bird comes first, the shot comes second", in my book at least. There is "room for all" as long as some basic guidelines are adhered to to.

Colin :err:

Joe stockwell
December 5th, 2008, 08:53 PM
i find myself somtimes not going out at all because i cant descide weather i want to go and photograph birds or watch them!

Colin Key
December 5th, 2008, 09:01 PM
i find myself somtimes not going out at all because i cant descide weather i want to go and photograph birds or watch them!

That is a very good point Joe; I always have my bins with me wherever I go (I walk my dog twice a day for a total of three hours), but it is a question of 'scope or camera as I cannot do both.

Colin

beltonbirder
December 5th, 2008, 09:55 PM
As an allrounder I sometimes do not take my bins when looking for fungi or plants, It is usually when I see something good. I do take my camera at all times and use it as a photographic record of my finds rather than take a voucher. But with difficult genera I do take them.

A camera shot does not always have to perfect "Record Shots" are still worth taking

FayJ
December 6th, 2008, 08:47 PM
A camera shot does not always have to perfect "Record Shots" are still worth taking

Yeah, a poor shot is always better than no shot at all.

Urbicum
December 7th, 2008, 12:22 AM
Interesting discussion.

I started digiscoping earlier this year having never taken any wildlife photos before in my life, but also having been a birder for over 30 years.

Since starting to take photo's myself, i am beginning to understand the desire to get as close as possible. When you are on your own, this is not so much of a problem, but when there is a large crowd, the stakes are much higher. On your own, if the bird moves or flies off, then the only loser is yourself; in a crowd, if you are the one that causes the bird to fly, then there are many more people to answer to. As a birder, i like to get as close as possible to a bird i am watching by being patient and using good, obvious fieldcraft. I believe that many photographers also do this - on thier own. The thing is, at a twitch, it is totally different. I would never dream of trying to get closer views of a bird (even though i know that i could) if there are 100 more people who might be well p***ed off if i accidentally flush the bird.

To a certain extent, as a birder, i dont really have a problem with a photographer with careful fieldcraft skill trying to get closer to the bird whilst i am watching it, this could even be to my benefit as many photographers have a great awareness of birds habits and can often advise on the best timing/direction to move in etc in order to get closer to the bird. The problem lies however in the fact that photography has now become so popular that there are a great many people who want/need "a shot" of a bird who really have no idea of how their actions might affect the bird in question and just go "steaming in".

At a twitch, allowing one or a few "good" photographers to get a bit closer would never work, because there would always be others who are not so "good" who would want to follow, and mayhem would ensue.

I have also seen several big name photographers whose photos appear regularly in magazines who don't adhere to the ethos posted here and in the original post. In my opinion, these are the worst kind of photographer - they seem
to think that they have a given right to get closer, irrespective of others wishes and stuuf you if you disagree, 'cos MY photo might get published". These people should know better.

U

Colin Key
December 7th, 2008, 06:36 PM
Yeah, a poor shot is always better than no shot at all.

This is arguable Fay; if you look at some of the I.D. threads on various birding forums you will see that poor shots (and my goodness, there are some real "howlers") can initiate a lot of futile discussion simply because the image data is inadequate. The camera can, and often does, "bend the truth".

Colin:err:

Colin Key
December 7th, 2008, 06:42 PM
I have also seen several big name photographers whose photos appear regularly in magazines who don't adhere to the ethos posted here and in the original post. In my opinion, these are the worst kind of photographer - they seem to think that they have a given right to get closer, irrespective of others wishes and stuuf you if you disagree, 'cos MY photo might get published". These people should know better.

U

This is true of most (maybe all) "professional" photographers (i.e. those who are either selling images or publishing them to increase their own kudos) in any field of photography. That "money shot" is all that matters and they will often go to any lengths to procure it irrespective of the effect on the subject. Have you ever seen the "paparazzi" in action? - like wild animals.

Colin