Favorite Nature Photo Mistake

<p>Hi Folks,<br /> I couldn't bring myself to go out into the snow this morning. I found myself going through images from a few years ago and got some pretty good laughs to go with the morning coffee. Don't we all blow shots now and again? Sometimes there's something to learn and then we can move on to other mistakes. I don't know about you, but I've always found that if I can find humor in the error, it's less frustrating. OK, if you blow the shot of a California Condor in the wild there may not be much humor to find. That's different.</p>

<p>I'm talking about the dumb things that happen out there that you may not even see coming while concentrating on the subject. These are the dumb mistakes that we make, then once realized, we're glad that no one else is around to serve as a witness. Those seagulls over head may squawk, but they won't tell anyone. The squirrels may shake their heads, but they won't tell either. It may be beneficial for rookie nature photographers to hear and see that good photographers get bad shots for many reasons. Give them something to aspire to. ;-))</p>

<p>So, if it's cold and you're going through the archives, see if you've got some good blown shots. Tell the story and let's see it. Oh, is it 80F and pleasant as can be outside? You can join the fun also.</p>

<p>To start, here's one from Cape May, New Jersey. I'd rented a Canon 300 f4 and the Canon 400mm f5.6. I took both down to the beach to test drive them. I was going to get one, just needed to decide which one. I was following this bird and doing pretty good, then I didn't realize how close it had come and lost all track of it. It was right there. Well, at least it's in focus.</p><div></div>

<p>I'm sure the number of my "blown" shots vastly outnumbers the keepers!</p>

<p>Here's a raven who, after allowing me to get a couple of successful shots, decided to dive bomb me. Out of focus and didn't fit in the viewfinder.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Less of a mistake and more of a surprise!</p><div></div>

<p>My one, and only, 'decent' mink shot. I very quietly trugged through snow and ice, popped up my camera and knew I was only going to get one shot before I spooked it. This was the result:</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17632930-lg.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="423" /></p>

<p>Mirrorless cameras are still a beat behind SLRs when it comes to action.</p><div></div>

<p>Playing with intentional camera movement is fun, but the failure rate is, er, 'quite high'.</p><div></div>

<p>Probably not exactly a "mistake", but certainly an unexpected find today when I browsed my African images. - Caught the <strike>golden</strike>black-backed jackal's blooper moment and I didn't even know it. I have my share of hit-and-misses with moving subjects. Oftentimes I wish for a better composition, better light on the eyes and face of the subject, etc. "Mistakes" galore!</p><div></div>

<p>This may have been part of the inspiration for angry birds. I was shooting an evening grosbeak with a 150-500mm lens when it (the bird) headed straight for me. That pointy beak bearing down on me @500mm sure made me jump! No time to focus.</p><div></div>

<p>Not a big deal, but the pooping "golden jackal" I posted earlier is actually a "black-backed" jackal. A friend corrected me. Sorry.</p>

<p>Mary, we'll let you slide ;-)) Great poop shot. Do you recall the wombat poo from the early days of MiN?</p>

<p>Similar to Laura's opening shot. I was tracking this gull and the third or fourth shot in the burst was a bit close.<br>

<img src="https://photos.smugmug.com/Nature/216/Birds/i-gdV95b4/2/1000x1000/birds%20Jan16-8379-1000x1000.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>This image has a different theme. The presence of the fish hook makes it no longer a nature image, and it is sad to see.</p><div></div>

<p>Poop Art:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Mary, we'll let you slide ;-)) Great poop shot. Do you recall the wombat poo from the early days of MiN?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It was probably before I joined MIN. Hwvr, I looked it up (<a href="

poo link</a>) and it's certainly interesting. I will be careful when someone offers a piece of brownie that looks a little strange. ;-)</p>

<p>So many mistakes, this is my latest from last week. When will I learn to pan at a higher shutter speed?</p><div></div>

<p>This was to be my MIN shot for this week. In the cold I saw a small tree overgrown and smothered by the vines. After returning discovered a chemically treated post...hand of man. Charlie strikes again.</p><div></div>

<p>Does nature and landscape photography have the same rules as far as hand of man?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Does nature and landscape photography have the same rules as far as hand of man?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>On this forum, we generally follow Photographic Society of America's definition for nature photography, but sometimes there can be exceptions. "No signs of human activities" is a simple way to describe it in one sentence: http://psa-photo.org/index.php?nature-nature-definition</p>

<p>Landscape can mean different things to different people. Apparently in some cases buildings are completely acceptable.</p>

<p>Thanks Shun. I remember getting bounced from a landscape competition once because there was a zebra in my photo. Central CA, Hearst Castle area.</p>

<p>If you're limiting the question to the forums on pnet, then I'd say no. I don't think there's been a discussion in Landscape to define, or place parameters on what constitutes a landscape photograph. (this was written while Shun posted)</p>

<p>Sanford, I was curious about the answer to your question, so I went and did a bit of looking around. If you look at the bodies that govern the definitions, then it looks like the answer is yes. <em>This is with regard to photography contests</em>. <a href="https://psa-photo.org/index.php?nature-nature-definition">Photographic Society of America</a> does not list "landscape" as a photographic division. Maybe it come under the heading of Nature....."<em>Images entered in Nature sections meeting the Nature Photography Definition above can have landscapes, geologic formations, weather phenomena, and extant organisms as the primary subject matter." </em>Under the "Travel" division is "<em><em>A Photo Travel image expresses the characteristic features or culture of a land as they are found naturally."</em></em><br>

<em><em> </em></em><br>

Take a look at this <a href="http://www.fiap.net/pdf/DefNat-en.pdf">link</a>. It's about 2015 rule changes that are interesting. My favorite part is where it states that fungi are acceptable wildlife subjects. What makes landscape different from nature? I don't know, but I agree with Shun.</p>

<p><em> </em></p>

<p>Interesting. It kind of sounds like a beach with footprints is "travel" and the same beach without footprints is "landscape." And I think my wildlife biologist colleagues will be very interested in the redefinition of their field. Hmmm....radio-tracking slime molds?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I remember getting bounced from a landscape competition once because there was a zebra in my photo. Central CA, Hearst Castle area.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It all depends on the rules for that particular "landscape" competition as well as those in charge who interpret those rules. Additionally, zebras are not native to California. I can only speculate, but that could be an issue as well.</p>

<p>In any case, the definition for nature photography is not the topic for this thread. We essentially follow the PSA's guidelines on this forum.</p>

<p>We're always scouting for hawks and eagles and the like, and today my wife spotted one in a distant tree. A check, and it moved as we watched. Stopped car, stealthily grabbed camera, and oh so skilfully snuck up on it, and ....Yep, I bagged it but good!</p><div></div>

<p>Hi Laura,</p>

<p>As the perpetrator of the original wombat poo shot (http://www.photo.net/photo/17897089) I thought I would just say that I am still around admiring everyone's work from time-to-time, and dreaming of when I will have more time myself to "get back into it"!</p>

<p>Cheers,<br>

Geoff</p>