Bird Category

Recently on these pages was a discussion about creating a separate

critique category for birds. Most of the arguments were opposed to

that action. Six of the top 21 and 12 of the top 100 photographs

today in TRP are bird photos. "Nature" or perhaphs "portraits"

might be the only current acceptible categories for birds. Many

wildlife photographers who specialize in bird photos are using very

specialized and hugely expensive telephoto lenes with pricey tripod

and gimballed heads to support the weight of that glassware. With

many existing categories which overlap (street and documentary),

(sports and events), etc., perhaps a bird category is not such a bad

idea, especially when based on the numbers.

neither the fleeting and populist TRP numbers nor the pro/hobby expense of bagging a particular sub genre of photograph should be of interest or value when determining categories, though i could go for 'wildlife' and 'nature' as separate entities

 

lets see, there is no cityscape category ...

I agree. There is no insect category either though "macro" could clearly qualify. Nature= animal, mineral, fluid, plant, landscape, astrophoto, people, portrait, etc. My only point is that there is a significant percentage of bird photographs in the TRP to qualify for a separate category. 12% of the top 100 TRP over 3 days should be enuf to qualify for a separate category.

PS: cats, dogs, and hamsters are natural and they have their own category...

Flowers are natural and they have their own category.

Domestic cats, dogs and hamsters are not natural as nature photography is usually defined. Some flowers are and some are not.

What about the wombat? No one ever stands up for marsupials anymore. Sigh.