Bird-In-Flight--unoriginal?

Am I alone in thinking a frozen, perfectly sharp seagull (or other common bird) in flight is a grossly overshot scene?

I've never shot one (never seriously tried), but why is it in photo clubs and even here on PN photographers still fall

over themselves when they see these images? I know the difficulty in getting a perfectly sharp action shot, BUT I

also know the difficulty of image capture does not guarantee the image is good. Note: I am NOT talking about shots

of raptors with prey, or blurred, abstract birds-in-flight images. Am I off my rocker here?

Not really, but if you're trying to sell your work to field guides or other publications, sharp "BIF" shots may sell well. Artistically perhaps they're not very original, but art may not be the goal.

Good point, Bob. I hadn't considered that. I still think they're overdone, but I see how they're good for stock photography and the such

Birds in the wild (outside of a Zoo) are not that easy to photograph, plus you are out in their habitat which makes it that much more enjoyable. JMO

I think that you are being hyper - critical about something that seems to stand out for you. Pictures of people, sports

activities, flowers, and any subject you may want to pick are "over done!"

 

If you will note, most photography boards try to A) focus on photography B) try to focus on an area of photography C) try

to divide their board into specific areas of interest eg, BIF!

 

Try shooting seagulls some time. They don't follow a specific pattern and are a challenge to shooting birds in general.

 

What is your specific area of interest? Do you think it is over shot? Please define "original?"

To photograph a bird in flight, particularly all white birds, and achieve perfect focus and adequate DOF, without overexposing the subject is no easy shot. There are no magic bird setting in the EOS creative zone, panning skills and the use of mode 2 on IS lens comes into play here, if you are good you are focusing on the birds eye not the body. I have shot birds for several years using EOS cameras and L super telephoto lens and I still miss a great many shots. I think a new photographer who has truly photographed a bird in flight, not one hovering by the dock, desires to show off their prize and should. As for the breed of bird, it is not important, you have to start somewhere.

If it has an acronym it's over-done.

"Originality" as a score is what it is: a little hard to work with.

 

Lots and lots of subjects are so well-photographed, and photographs are so easy to display, that the subject itself becomes a cliche, even when photographed very well indeed. That doesn't lower the quality of the next photograph. I mean, does the world need another photograph of an Eagle, or Antelope Canyon, or whatever? Possibly not, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep shooting, either.

"I also know the difficulty of image capture does not guarantee the image is good."

True, but that doesn't mean it's any less satisfying or worthy of pursuit. Just because your subject is "common" doen't make it any less beautiful. If you really want to test your mettle, leave the AF rig at home and head out with a manual focus set up. Brave the long waits and near misses, the sun, the bugs. Capture a perfect BIF shot and you'll be dancing. Like many things in photography, even common subjects can often provide surprises. How are you going to capture that one-in-a-hundred shot without shooting the first hundred?

as opposed to oh say Canyon lands, Coyote canyon, the arches, Yosemite, and on and on. Everything common in Nature is over shot. Some tot he point people make money selling books and video's that tell you when and where to stand to duplicate such and such photo. Eco tourism combined with modern AF do everything cameras have allowed any armchair Nature fan to become a pseudo Nature photgrapher

 

As an example I attended a Nature Photo Lecture a while back and after picking a seat towards the back of the room this nice MUCH older woman came in. I helped her into one of the school desks that we were sitting in. We struck up a little bit of a conversation.

 

Later during part of the slide show some mention was made of the focal lenght required to get a shot of a Penguin. At this point the nice older lady made the under the breath comment. "Bull, that isn't how it was last year when I was in Antarctica and Terra Del Fuego" Now I'm thinking this lady is old enough to have been part of Shackleton's expedition. So I ask her and she tell me for her 75th birthday she went on an Eco tourist expedition to Antartica for 3 days of nature photography.

 

Now remember I had to help her into a school desk. So figure almost everything is over shot. Unless your way the hell off the beaten path.

 

You like shooting Oregon's Crack in the Ground instead of Coyote Canyon. Granted two very very different slot canyons.

Thanks for the responses, photographers. A lot to ponder.

I think the issue here is the urge to create something original. I too try to avoid the cliches as much as I can. I can appreciate how hard it is to catch a bird in flight--I've had my shares of tries. It's not a type of photography that I have a lot of motivation for but I don't knock others who are into it. The basic question remains though. How do I do something a bit different, a bit more creative? I'm headed up the northern Californy coast later this summer and am doing a "tree tour". I love the trees, and will see the giant redwoods, sequoia, and even the bristlecone pines. There's been millions of photos of the things, to be sure. What can I do differently? For the past year I've been taking photos mostly at night using x10 Nikon SB flash and x2 Alien Bees B1600 monolights/Vagabond batteries. My plan is to hike in with a pack full of lights and photo the things at night. I'm not 100% sure it will make really cool photos, but I am sure I'll have fun out there in the dark. I always do.

 

 

Kent in SD

"Try shooting seagulls some time. They don't follow a specific pattern and are a challenge to shooting birds in general."

 

Shooting Seagulls in flight with a moden AF camera is like shooting fish in a barrel. Sometimes they'll even hover to give you time to focus and compose! In New York they fly alongside the Staten Island Ferry. You could almost use a tripod!<div></div>

After going-on 200 years, EVERYTHING has been "overdone". Originality is not the only criterion of good art or good photography. By genius and by accident, sometimes both, people still find new things to do, but few of these are going to be "firsts" in any profound way.

 

Be not down-hearted, comrades, we must struggle on regardless.

Sorry, I can't image what came over me, a sudden attack of "philosoper's stone" or something.<div></div>

People tend to like bird photos, whether easy or difficult shots. Take a look at the top rated photos here on photo.net. There are ALWAYS lots of bird photos which are highly rated.

 

http://www.photo.net/gallery/photocritique/filter?period=3&rank_by=sum&category=&store_prefs_p=0

there are certain "iconic" bird images -- not necessarily BIF -- that may be beautifully done but are nonetheless not especially moving, at least to me -- like the eagle's head that could be the obverse of a dollar coin. on the other hand, having chased more than a few of the critters myself, they are wild animals so you usually have to work for what you get. face it, although that iconic image is not my thing, if it was and i got it, i'd be tickled to death. whether it rated a 7 for originality would be beside the point.

Tim,

 

I agree, BIF are shot to death. But honestly, everything is. When it comes to originality, nothing is! And I mean nothing. When I rate photos here and I give a 7/7 it is just becase I like the picture. What I should be giving is 7/1's and 7/2's. Why, because everything has been shot to death. The BIF shot is no more common than the waterfall or sunset. At first I personally did not care at all about BIF shots, till I got a good one. Personally, you may dislike BIF's but it is no more common than what you do like.

 

Just my opinion,

Overshot times three I guess!<div></div>

I may sound brash when I say this, but in my opinion, even though BIF shots have been done to death already, they will always remain original in a way, every bird and photographer are differant, and as a result each shot is totally unique, plus they make for excellent artistic work, (if you can get a good one!) you can create all kinds of montages and stuff like that!

Maybe it's because I'm not as skilled as other photographers, but I get excited whenever I get a good BIF image. And whenever I get any other good nature image. And I enjoy seeing others results also, as there is usually something a little uniques about each one.

I like birds. BIF pictures are HARD (at least for me). Why wouldn't I be excited when I got a good one.

For me, wildlife and nature pictures are about two things. Nature is a gift I want to remember. Photography gives me an opportunity to do that while also providing me some intellectual and physical challenges. So when the result of my photography ends up with an image that creates a high quality memory of my nature experience, I'm excited.

I think we are confusing technical difficulties with aesthetic quality.

 

I am a wildlife photographer and while I shoot a fair amount of BIF and bird-on-twig shots, I dont think of them as being

particularly artistic. They are a product of craft, not art.

 

To explain a little more: I have taken shots where I have spent a lot of time getting the subject in focus, pointed at the

camera and exposed properly (eg, shooting pygmy seahorses while diving in a current). The difficulty I have spent in

obtaining the shot definitely gives me a sense of accomplishment and also carries some weight with other underwater

photographers who identify with the challenges involved, but it does not - and should not - make the photograph any

more impressive. The image has to stand on its own merit.

 

And while I enjoy looking at beautiful birds standing out on a plain background, and I also appreciate that a lot of

technical skill and fieldcraft goes into getting such shots, I also think that artistically, such shots are nothing special.

The same also holds for a typical BIF of something like a gull.

 

And I hasten to say - I dont mean this as an insult or putdown to the people who take such photos. As I said, I am one

of them.. such shots pay the bills which allow me to make other non-commercial shots (which will never sell, but which I

really like), such as this:

http://www.photosafariindia.com/galleries/khichan/page004.html

 

Vandit