next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
nt-size: 16px; font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; ba=
RIck, I am interested in your comments about bird
photography. I used to be one of the lesser lights in a photography
club (in which I was chiefly known as the "nature expert" who could
put a name to what others had photographed). At our annual picnic in
East Gore I brought along my binoculars, because the birding was good
there. One person thought my B & L Elite 8 X 42's weren't really up
to it, because they didn't give a lens-filling view of the Evening
Grosbeaks which were high in the tree above our head. He was
astounded when I said that wasn't really desirable. So I explained
that while naturalists certainly appreciated a close, sharp, view of
details, we also wanted enough space around a bird to have a sense of
its habitat, its interactions with other birds, and to be able to
follow its movements. He was quite surprised by that thought.
Cheers,
Patricia L. Chalmers
Halifax
At 10:28 AM 03/09/2012, you wrote:
>This comment cuts right to the essence of bird photography, I believe.
>As "photographers", we want to get those perfect photos where you can
>see every individual feather, it's all in focus and the bird fills
>much of the space. But as "birders", I think we can enjoy seeing the
>bird in its habitat, seeing the bird in perspective, seeing the bird
>acting normally and seeing the bird as we would with the naked eye.
>The photo still needs to be in focus and interesting. The decision to
>include the photo with sheep was very easy for me.
>
>I believe Richard Crossley in his "The Crossley ID Guide Eastern
>Birds" does an excellent job of marrying those two objectives in a
>single image. You always have the close up but there are numerous
>other birds at various distances off into the background. These images
>were created, of course, using several to many photos. I use Crossley
>as much for forward-looking bird ID study as for ID of birds seen. You
>see them in his images as you will see them in the field.
>
>I don't disagree with anyone who prefers painted images for a field
>guide, Sibley being the current leader. You can show critical details
>in paintings that are close to impossible to capture in a photo. To
>some extent I suspect the truly skilled painters eliminate fine detail
>to highlight what really is needed for ID. But no general field guide
>will illustrate the range in distance, angle and activity that
>Crossley captures. Some of the specialist guides come close.
>
>Rick Whitman
>
>On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 11:10 AM, P.L. Chalmers
><plchalmers@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > Lovely photos! I like the third photo best, though, with the two
> > sheep in the background. It really gives one a sense of the size of this
> > dainty shorebird. I always associate the Buff-breasted Sandpiper with
> > Labour Day weekend; I don't necessarily see one every year, but
> in the years
> > that I do, it will be then.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Patricia L. Chalmers
> > Halifax
> >
> >
> > At 07:59 PM 01/09/2012, Rick Whitman wrote:
> >>
> >> I expect to be upstaged by Richard & Ronnie but I do have two photos
> >> of this beautiful sandpiper that I don't expect to equal for some
> >> time:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> http://rickwhitman.smugmug.com/Nature/Shorebirds/22686725_mPvQtv#!i=2060890809&k=nRSjDZd
> >>
> >> As Richard has posted, these were taken today on Cape Sable which is
> >> just across the water from The Hawk, Cape Sable Island. Thanks to
> >> Ronnie D'Entremont for suggesting this excellent trip.
> >
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects