Herons the size of warblers !!!!

[alan_woolnough]

Hello all,

 

Having read many wildlife/bird photography magazines, with articles

from all over the world.

 

Why is it when a young amateur photographer with an old 300mm tele,

for example,poses a question like "how can i get larger images of

birds", 90% of the time,the FIRST answer is usually ,get a longer

lens!

 

Are birds always the same distance from the photographer?

 

Have all birds become the same size?

 

Is a heron the same size as a warbler?

 

Is the terrain the same worldwide?

 

Does, Bird in

flight,stalking,hide/blind,woodland,coastal,alpine,marshland,tidal

river,desert,etc,etc, photography require the same "go long"

equipment in all cases?

 

Yes, i know, you can only answer a question based on how much or

little info is given,and yes,

 

I am being very SARCASTIC.

 

But, is there a grain of truth here.

 

Obviously, there are many superb books & magazines out there, dealing

with this branch of photography. But, there is also a lot of second

rate stuff,suggesting "go long" is the only answer.

 

Is this the beginnings of a trend? [ possibly the pace of modern

life is a factor]

 

Here in the UK,there seems to be a growing number of budding young

amateur photographers,spending small fortunes on top notch super-

teles,in the hope of getting some great close up shots.

 

Will they get any?

 

Some will,some of the time.

 

Some wont,all of the time.

 

The ones who will get good shots CONSISTANTLY will not be relying

solely on their equipment, no, FIELDCRAFT will be a large factor.

An excellent example has recently been posted regarding "floating

hides". Take a look and you will see what i am getting at.

 

Pros & experienced wildlife photographers need not read any more of

what im saying.They will use what is required for the job,and may

hire gear for specific purposes. They also have client needs and

market forces to deal with. They will have paid their dues.

 

This is aimed at those Budding young photographers out there,

starting down this very varied road of bird photography.

 

Fieldcraft is often mentioned in landscape photography, usually a

hell of lot of planning is involved.

 

Why is it mentioned less often than telephoto equipment. Surely it is

a vital ingredient. Sure, fieldcraft is a never ending curve of

learning and some amateur photographers may think they can cut some

corners by upgrading now, rather than later. If it works for them,

Great.

 

But, are they absolutely CERTAIN that they can not squeeze that last

ounce of use out of their current gear by getting nearer,improving on

their techniques, and using a bit of cunning etc. Do they really need

that 600/800/1000mm lens just yet. Only they will know.

 

Why not hang on to your old 300mm a little bit longer, you may even

save some big money!

 

Why not treat the wife with it!

 

Or maybe, treat yourself, you deserve it.

 

If you decide it really is time to "go longer" then chose wisely.

As an amateur, you may not need top range gear, mid range is usually

excellent for our needs.

 

How do you think the pros from yesteryear got those great images!

Their gear probably doesnt compare to modern standards, with the

advance of technology etc, and yes, a lot of those images dont come

close to modern ones, but the very best of them are still superb!

They often used very short lenses to get these images, but

compensated by using fieldcraft.

 

There are as many branches of bird photography,as there are species,

so when you decide which future gear to chose, remember, "go long" is

not ALWAYS the answer.

 

As an amateur myself,i decided some twenty years ago that hide

photography was the way i was going to go, as it suited the terrain

in the area where i live [marshland/tidal river] so my techniques

will differ from, woodland,coastal,mountain etc.

 

Dont take my views as gospel, everyone must do whats right for them.

These are just my humble views from here in the UK.

 

There is much great advice on these forums, and i am not to proud to

use it [ yes, i am still learning after all these years], but it

would be great to hear the word FIELDCRAFT, used more often, maybe

even swap ideas, or even admit to past blunders [ ive made plenty of

them]

 

Now i must get back to my darkroom and check my trannies are dry.

I hope i didnt leave the lens cap on!

 

Cheers Alan Woolnough

 

 

[robert_kennedy]

True. But I think people tend to shy away from it because they fear that the second they say "And if you do this you can get closer to the wildlife...", every bozo out there will start chasing every bird they see.

 

It is a serious problem. Look at any major park with accesible bears. People see a bear and the first thing some idiot does is "try to get closer" with his Elph 2 (not bagging on the camera...I own one. Great little P&S...). Or people who just start CHASING things. I've seen this happen before. "Look! Deer!" and off they go traipsing after the poor deer.

 

That said, a GOOD observer will learn how to get as close as possible sans the big glass.

 

But, would you really want just ANYONE trying it? Especially if the area is a rookery or prime feeding area.

 

And remember, a few years ago some idiot wanted to show off to his buddies in California, and picked up a rattler. He literally used every vial of antivenin on the WEST COAST! Imagine him with a 50mm lens and the urge to fill the viewfinder...

 

+shudder+

[andrey_mikhaylov]

I have also the feeling that there are much less questions and answers on fieldcraft relatively to what the subject deserves. <p>

One of the reasons is probably that it is much easier both to ask and to answer a question on focal lengths than to formulate the difference between fieldcraft and chasing. Maybe a 6 kg lens with an appropriate tripod really makes the photographer to some extent less dangerous with regard to chasing animals, but I would not rely on this too much.<p>

Another reason is probably that many photographers and entire schools of photography are educated in a system where the wilderness experience is not recognized as a part of healthy human nature. At least in one West-European country I know reasonably well, walking in public forests is ilegal, you may nor put a tent/blind anywhere except your private garden, and in most places you may only take pictures from a bulldozer-made road. Under this circumstances recommending anything except a longer lens would probably be an incitation to some sort of offense.<p>

Taking pictures mostly in nature reserves where you may not leave the paths also does not allow most of the alternatives to longer lenses.<p>

In Russia I used mostly a 300 mm lens, in Western Europe I have to put a x2.0 extender on it nearly all the time.<p>

I would really like to see much more discussion about the techniques of getting closer to the subject without disturbing it. <p>

I would propose to find an appropriate term to designate "Getting Closer/Higher/Lower" topics and not have to dissimulate them under "Equipment", "Ethics", or "Flash". Or is "Fielcraft" exactly the required term? Then we could ask the forum administrator to add a new category.

[jonathan_ratzlaff]

Why would you use a long lens? One of the main reasons is to avoid putting undo stress on the bird. A heron is quite a wary bird so sin order to keep it from flying off when you are sneaking up to it you use a long lens. Most people who are good at fieldcraft are also hunters and trappers or have been at one time. I am not sure about the UK, where most of the indiginous wildlife has been killed off centuries ago, however in North America most animals are wary of people and do not allow you to get too close. The people I know best able to get close to wildlife are hunters and trappers who have spent a lot of time getting close to wildlife. This is a skill that a person living in a city with only a few days in a year may have difficulty acquiring.

 

Even with a 300 or 600 for that matter, how close do you think you neeed to be to get a head shot of a heron? A lot closer than most people can sneak up.

[alan_woolnough]

Hi Jonathen,

 

Good points, but do you always have to sneak up?

 

 

I shoot a lot of small/medium sized waders from a hide. If a heron showed up, as often happens on the marshes near me, im pretty sure i can get head & shoulders shots.

 

Of course this all depends, as has been said, on various restrictions in your country/area and your particular approach to bird photography ie; stalking/hide/blind etc.

 

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

 

It would be a sad world if we all had exactly the same views on everything

 

Cheers Alan woolnough

[itis_i]

I guess it boils down to the need for instant gratification. Typically, you do not need to "sneak up" on your subject. As Alan mentions, a blind (or hide) is sufficient if you know the basics of animal behavior. The point here being, you first have to be a naturalist and THEN a photographer.

Since this morning, I have been taking pictures of a cardinal perching near its nest. 90% of this picture is to know where to look, approaching and setting up the blind without alarming the bird. 10% is photography. The focal length of the lens I have been using? 300mm.

[karl_lehmann]

Besides fieldcraft one also needs to know something about composition, lighting, exposure etc. Of course equipment matters too but only after mastering all of the above. Simply handing Cousin Jethro an EOS IV, a 600mm and a roll of Velvia will result in lower quality snapshots than he got with his auto point & shoot loaded with MAX 800.<p>And yet almost every aspiring snapshooter's first question upon seeing an image s/he finds impressive is "what kind of camera do you use?" (usually meaning "What brand?"). I think this is a great victory for the marketers. Just flip through an issue of Outdoor Photographer. Their photo captions include everything but the brand of battery used (how did they miss that?). The average consumer swallows this stuff hook, line and sinker. Just like they believe "you are what you drive" when they watch the SUV commercials on TV.<p>BTW, did you post your question from a Mac or from a PC?<p>Karl Lehmann <a href="http://www.lostworldarts.com/new_page_3.htm">Lost World Arts</a>

[robert_kennedy]

Location, location, location! I know a great place in Washington State where I have seen up to 30 herons in one location. And you can get pretty close. A 300-400mm will work. The area is near a road so as long as you are by the road they pretty much ignore you. I've had them come within 50 feet. This is me standing still, and letting the bird do it's thing. Look for areas where the animals EXPECT people. Then, as long as you aren't being funky, they will tend to ignore you. You won't need a 600mm.

 

Sometimes the best blind is simply sitting still.

 

This will limit you a bit though. Some animals never get used to people.

[Two23]

I think what you are calling "fieldcraft" we call "woodsmanship" or "stalking skills" in the Midwest. I come to photography as a hunter. I began hunting with a .22 rifle when I was 7 years old. I am quite good at getting close to critters! On Friday afternoon it was very windy. I knew that waterfowl would be in the protected pockets of small pools, generally shielded by trees. So, I went to such a place. I saw a blue wing teal asleep on the edge of the pool, it's head tucked into its wing. I had on my duck hunting camo clothes, and I crawled through the grass until I got right up on it. Trouble was, I was SO close I was inside the minimum focus distance of my Tokina 400mm! I actually had to back up. While taking photos of the duck, I felt something kind of heavy on my leg. I looked down and there was a muskrat sitting on my boot eating a piece of sedge! While it's not common, sometimes I do find I need a macro lens to get my wildlife shots! As a hunter I not only know how to get up close, but also know exactly where to go to find my subjects in any kind of weather. If it had been duck season, I probably would have tried simply grabbing that wild teal! BTW, the place I was at is a public hunting area that gets heavy hunting pressure in the fall. This time of year, it's deserted.

 

 

Kent in SD

[greg s]

Priority 1: Treatment/protection of the environment.

 

Priority 2: Getting a photo.

 

Use what works to keep priority 1 intact. My 2 cents.

[paul_ashton]

As an owner of a mere 300mm chunk of glass, I understand

what you are saying. A couple of observations from Texas.

 

First, fieldcraft is not difficult, but it is time consuming! We are in

such a hurry these days that if the light isn't right and the birds

aren't there, we call the day wasted. Occasionally the perfect

shot of the day comes easily, usually it doesn't.

 

Second, one of the best hides available is a motor vehicle! As

an example, the Shoveler Pond gravel levee top road at Anahuac

NWR (east of Houston and one of the best birding spots around)

will almost always be rewarding IF your stay in your car/truck.

Get out and the bird population sees a human for the first time.

 

Third, don't make any unnecessary noise - noise spooks birds

and other wildlife. Many is the time someone has said how

disappointed they are with so little wildlife when the guidebooks

promised so much. But the accompanying kids and dog scared

them all away long ago.

 

Fourth, use maps, the best planning tool there is. Apparently

map reading is not part of the geography curriculum in schools

any more (social studies have supplanted them, or so I am told

by teenagers) which is a pity since maps tell you where you are,

where you need to be and how to get there! Maps will give

insight into potential lighting problems and solutions, questions

about optimum time of day/season for a particular shot, etc.

Priceless as most maps are now available on the web.

 

Take lots of mosquito repellant if you are unfortunate to live in an

endemic area. Skeeters are man's worst friend when it comes

to being still and patient!

[markci]

I don't think I'm personally compatible with blinds. I have a questionable back and spend too much time sitting on my ass in my day job anyway. However, you're right that there are a lot of ways to skin a cat, and they don't all involve 600mm lenses.

<p>

For example, I think every wildlife shooter should take a look at <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0789306387/qid=1020741277/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_71_1/104-3273721-1871109">Rare and Elusive Birds</a> by William Burt. Talk about fieldcraft and years of dedication. Most of the photos were taken with a 200mm macro and a complex flash setup he designed, many of them at night, which is the only time you can get anywhere near some of those subjects.

<p>

Not only are his subjects not the same old egrets, ducks and raptors everyone else shoots, but his approach produced images with an environmental portrait style with great corner-to-corner sharpness completely different from the usual bird-on-a-stick image. He talks about his philosophy and approach in the book.

[Brian]

Jonathan, is this a common perception on your side of the Atlantic? The UK is teeming with wildlife, I'm glad to say. Come and see it some time.

[paul_ashton]

600mm lenses are used primarily to fill the frame with heron or

warbler or whatever. But so often it is the bird in its natural

context that makes the best photograph, where the subject is a

part of the frame, not all of it. At least that's what I always believe

when I can't get close enough with my measly 300mm lens!

[mike f]

Robert,

 

Where are you finding those groups of 30 to 40 Heron up close in Washington State? Would love to give them a try.

[alain hogue]

Hi Alan,

I think that profesionnal photographer use big lenses primary for productivity and efficiency reasons. I am essentially a bird photographer. I have photograph birds during 10 years with a 400mm without extender. To get good pictures with such a short lens, you have to be ready to invest a lot of time to prepare your journey (study behavior of the bird, find it before go in the field, choose the best spot, developed camouflage and approach technics, etc.). Then, you have to accept the fact that often, you can spend an entire day waiting for a close encounter of a few minutes long. Also, you have to accept that many time you will return home with empty hand. Of course, professionnal dont have time to lost. They often need to get a lot of pictures fast and with a minimum of works. This is probably one of the reasons why they need big lenses. By the way, photography with short lenses and photography with long lenses are two different world. Philosophy that are behind are very different.

 

This being said, the worst of the two world is the guy who cannot affort to buy a big lens and who dosent want to invest time its need to get close to the bird without disturbing them. This kind of photographer cause a lot of problems to the animals and to the reputation of the other photographers. Yes, get good picture is possible with a short lens but please, but if you promote that idea, you also need to explain that a photographer with a short lens must be serious, patient and overall he must respect a minimum ethics. And the basic rules are simple: Do not interfere with their life cycle and avoid disturbing them when it can disrupt nutrition or reproduction. Do not hound a bird with constant pursuit. Be informed of the degree of fragility of the ecosystem you are visiting. Avoid penetrating delicate sites. And finally, do not approach bird nests and do not damage the vegetation cover around you. If you want to promote FIELDCRAFT, it's find to me, but you have also to promote the ethics that go with.

 

Alain Hogue www.oiseaux.ca

[alan_woolnough]

Hello alain,

 

Yes i agree with all you have said, in fact you have said it better than i could.

 

To me, fieldcraft means putting the wildlife first, the photography comes second. Your experiences seem similar to mine.I often spend hours/days carefully introducing my hide into a carefully selected spot, only to to end up with, perhaps a few minutes of photography.

Although, those few minutes are usually worth the effort.

 

Ihope i didnt give the impresion that i am against the use of long teles. I use a 500mm lens as standard, although this is on 645 format, giving an angle of view similar to a 300/350mm lens on 35mm format.

 

I guess im very fortunate to live in an area where i can use a hide, and ,like you, i have never needed to use a teleconverter so far.

 

I think what prompted my original posting, was that a lot of mags/books, over recent years, tend to cram them full of images, with very little info on how they were achieved. I guess the editors think that this approach will sell more copys.

 

There is a hell of a lot of great mags/books out there, but how does a photographer, new to this branch of photography know, which is good/bad?

 

Thanks again

Alan Woolnough