Jump to content

Bird Photography


paul_otoole1

Recommended Posts

Mark B, the photos of captive birds weren't "included" any more than the photos of mammals and scenery were included. It was simply a web page I had previosly set up showing what could be done with a 300mm lens; it was not bird-specific. They appear to have been included because I didn't actively exclude those photos.

<P>

I agree with you wholeheartedy about not disturbing the birds, and I've made a rule for myself: no nest photography. I've bent the rule a few times with cavity-nesters such as woodpecker nest holes; these were made with longest lenses I had available.

<P>

WRT disturbing the birds I've found that proximity alone isn't what birds respond to. My behavior is as big a factor as proximity, maybe more. By acting like a prey species not a predator many species accept me as a benign part of the background. I've also found that the big glass is far more disturbing to the birds than smaller lenses when aimed in their direction. I don't know if they think it's a huge eye staring at them or a big mouth but either way I find that birds require much more distance when I use the big fast lens.

<P>

The photographer's behavior make a very big difference:

<CENTER>

<IMG SRC="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/thrushes/mobl00.jpg" border="2">

</CENTER>

<P>

This Mountain Bluebird forraged for several hours over an area of a few acres, while I was only a few feet away. Quite often the bird chose to fly to perches that were less than 10' away from me. This particular photo was at about 6' distance, with a 250mm lens.<P>

<CENTER>

<IMG SRC="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/falconidae/gyrf00.jpg" border="2">

</CENTER>

<P>

This gyrfalcon was photographed at about 15' with a 400mm lens. It's too bad I didn't have extension tubes handy because the bird was curious and hopped within 6' of me.

<P>

<CENTER>

<IMG SRC="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/falconidae/merl00.jpg" border="2">

</CENTER>

<P>

There were several Merlins in the area; I couldn't include them all in the photos because my lens wasn't wide enough. 300mm lens, cropped from horizontal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Douglas, we are all here to learn more and to help those who may benefit from our experience. I think many animals have as much individual responses are we humans. In my experience the way I move has more to do to scare away individual than my lenses. But again we are all different, we move different we meet different individual animals. I do not go after the whole animal kingdom, I choose my favorites and spend time with them. Of course if something different come close I try to photograph it as well. Unfortunately I have a problem with nests. That was a second year I spent countless hours with least bitterns. I knew location of few nest but did not want to break trust with parents. This species is commonly known as one of most elusive, shadow bird, who know what. Most wrong if you learn how to make them to accept your presence. I had many times least bitterns walking or hunting a few feet away from me. I could not even take photo as it was too close. See below full frames, they hunt near me, feed young near me, named. I already documented more then dozen new feeding behaviors never associated with this species. Can not post photos yes as I still not finished my observations.

<p>

So, my most used glass is 400 and 100-400 but the quality is less and nobody can change that

<p>

Least bittern hunting 6 feet away - let me even follow him along the marsh:

<p style="text-align:center"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3650624-lg.jpg" /></p>

<p>

Feeding time: 400 mm as well, she (him as well) let me be a part of it for few weeks. Can not find any photo showing least bitterns feeding young outside nest. Will really appreciate link to one.

<p style="text-align:center"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3656627-lg.jpg" /></p>

<p>

More here: a small part of tens of thousand documental photos taken in last two years.

<p>

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=520911

<p>

Cheers, Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Bartosik,

 

 

I must not have a very good "internet" voice.

 

I was not trying to flame anyone. In this thread I was simply celebrating the bird and also showing that, under the right circumstance, even a point and shoot can capture a interesting picture. Hardware is only starting point to bird photography.

 

In the other thread you refered to, I referered to the gentleman's photo in high praise, and in reference to his exact question, I noted that I could not ID the bird.

 

Sorry for the mis-understanding.

 

--- JDR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Bartosik,

 

I'll be the first to admit that if Mr. O'Toole hadn't ask the question I would have. I am brand new at this. I love birds and I am priviledged to live in an area with large birds. I want to get better.

 

I took this on the way to work today. Fully zoomed and then very cropped.

 

 

--- JDR<div>00EaKh-27077484.jpg.be804c0ed0b4e747f6692c973a1d5b6f.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JD there is only one way: practice, practice, practice. And never be fully contented with results. I will tell you a little secret. I am extremely happy if I take one very good photo a year and one good one a month. Plus a few stock photos daily when shooting. And I am not joking. Do not look seriously at 7s/7s all around this side. It is very hard to get exceptional photograph and many, many people are trying all the time. Try to do your best, always try to learn something new and do not underestimate hardware:). Best wishes, Mark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what's missing from this discussion is the purpose of the photographs. For some it's documenting rarities, for others documenting behavior for original research, and some just want pretty pictures of the birds (and there are many othr reasons people might want to photograph birds). I don't think Mark B and I are disagreeing on much though from his posts it's a little hard to understand this. Mark's Least Bittern post in particular was a bit cryptic. I wish I knew what he means by "<I>Most wrong if you learn how to make them to accept your presence.</I>"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is late and I am trying to do too many things. And take to many shortcuts when writing. <i>Most wrong </i>(most infos in books and papers are wrong - I think because so little observations were done) <i>if you learn how to make them to accept your presence </i>((so if one learn real behavior of those birds one have no problem to be accepted around).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure that Paul got more than be bargained for when he opened this thread with a simple question about pursuing an interest in bird photography. There are many great comments and photos in this thread, but I hope that we have not left him with the impression that he should not bother if he is not willing to shell out $5,000+ for a lens alone. As Doug points out, there are many reasons to pursue bird photography. For some, the simple joy of the outdoor activity, an interest in learning more about birds, and the pleasure of getting a few good images (even though they may be less than perfect) are reasons enough. Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

may I be permitted a final comment or two ?

 

Despite a few little spats along the way I suspect we have all learnt something - including, but not only, "different strokes for different folks" and sometimes "size does matter".

 

For me perhaps the most encouraging thing has been the almost universal acceptance that the interests of the birds comes first and the interest in the birds comes second. Sadly it is not always so but hopefully the message will be boosted by all who have posted in this way on this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting responses. I have had a look at many cameras and would be able to swing a Nikon D50 instead of a Canon Rebel T1 film. Does anyone own this camera for wildlife photoprahy. I would be able to get a D50 kit that includes two lenses: 18-55/55-200 In a few weeks a larger one say in the 300 - 400mm range. The only reason Ii thought film was to learn photography at my own pace by trial and error.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul, I admire your thinking about film and appreciate it (as I can relate to it). Consider what Heather Forcier wrote (click on her name and treat yourself to some fabulous bird photography). It will make things faster.

 

If your are choosing a Nikon DSLR, get a D70s instead of the D50 plus two lenses. I would suggest that you pay attention to what Christoper wrote, 300mm f/4 Nikkor plus the 1.4X TC from Kenko. Look at his examples. If you decide to stick to Canon, you also have options as Kin suggested with a fabulous example. In any event, have fun!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<I> The only reason Ii thought film was to learn photography at my own pace by trial and

error.</i><P>

 

To be honest, I think you'll learn much more quickly with a DSLR, if for no other reason than

not feeling the pressure of film and development costs every time you click that shutter. I

agree with Vivek: skip the kit lenses and get a 300 + 1.4X (and a tripod if you can afford it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgot to add: consider the Canon digital rebel and the Canon 300/4 lens instead of the

Nikon equivalents. Not because one brand is better than the other in general, but the Canon

300/4 has image stabilization -- extremely useful if you don't want to be wedded to a tripod.

Thus far, Nikon hasn't put stabilization (VR in their terminology) into the Nikon 300/4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JDR: Hawk ID can be a challenge but I'm about 99.9% certain it's an immature red-tail.

The shape is correct for a red-tail, as is the coloration. The heavy black belly-band

suggests a juvenile (a better view of the tail would clinch it). There aren't many other

possibilities. The apparent eyestripe is a little distracting but the juvenile red-taile on the

bottom of <A HREF="http://www.biology.ucr.edu/personal/MACphotos/birds3/

redtails2.html">this page</a> shows a slight eye-line.<P>

 

One of the clues is that it's eating a rabbit. Peregrines very rarely catch rabbit-sized

mammals (they're bird specialists). Another clue -- much harder to describe, but easily

recognizable with experience (bird ID becomes increasingly easy with practice) -- is the

shape and proportions. Big falcons don't have the same ... gestalt, for want of a better

word ... as red-tails. It's vaugely apparent in the pictures of perched peregrines on <A

HREF="http://www.biology.ucr.edu/personal/MACphotos/birds3/peregrine.html"> this

page.</a>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Mr. Chappell,

 

 

I think I know why the brow is so pronounced in my Red-tailed. In Sibley, they illustrate a juvenile "Southwestern" red-tailed with a prominent brow. That is probably what we are seeing in my image. We are right on the Utah/Arizona line.

 

--- JDR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<I> We are right on the Utah/Arizona line.</i><P>

 

Just to complicate the lives of birders, lots of red-tails from northern regions migrate south

in the winter, mixing in with the local resident populations. And that species is highly

variable even within populations. Some examples showing color ranges in southern

California: <A HREF="http://biology.ucr.edu/personal/MACphotos/birds3/

RTHfly.html">here</a> and <A HREF="http://biology.ucr.edu/personal/MACphotos/birds3/

redtail.html">here.</a>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...