I wasn't going to comment on your comment, but after thinking about it a bit, I decided to go ahead and do so. Very simply, I find a lot of "traditional" bird photography trite and boring, no matter how well executed the photographs are technically. I'm not making photographs here for bird watchers, rather, I'm trying not only to learn a few things about photographing birds and trying to find ways to present them (the birds and the photos) in less traditional ways. That means I'm gonna push the envelope some, and that ~always~ means some, or many, people are going to dislike what I do and even take offense at it. Cotty's comment that the photo was crap let me know very clearly that I'm on the right path by experimenting and trying to find new ways to present a traditional, and often tritely portrayed, subject.
In addition, I'm using older manual focus gear, which makes getting the results i want more difficult. So, I need to practice focusing quickly and zone focusing, which lenses are best for a given situation, and need to take the time to pay attention to the way the birds move and their habits, and even, perhaps, learn a bit about the personalities of different birds, and hang out with them so they become more comfortable with my presence. Yesterday was my third day with these birds, and the results I got were better by a marked degree than the earlier photos. I'm learning, and the birds are learning to accept me as well. So yes, I know that doing bird photography can be difficult. One of my photographic heroes is John Pezzenti who, IMO, is the greatest eagle photographer on the planet, for many reasons. He used to photograph them with short lenses, all manual gear, and spent a lot of time (years, in some cases) getting to know individual birds, who in turn would get to know him, and allow him to get quite close to them. He'd photograph them in flight with old manual gear and get amazing results because he took the time to study their flight patterns. It seems that, as they approach their nests, they followed certain predictable paths. So he often knew where they'd be before they got there, which gave him an edge. Oh, BTW, I've done my share of bird watching, and what I want as a watcher is different than what I want as a photographer. IMO, there's no reason why every bird must be identifiable, with it's markings clearly shown. Anyway, enough of this. Time to do something else. And thanks for the lecture about what good bird photography should be. Shel > [Original Message] > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > One of the standards of bird photography seems to be, basically, that the > bird be identifiable. This means showing the bird's significant field marks -- > which usually means a lot less blur. I've taken some bird classes, but I am no > expert by a long shot. Not even a serious novice. :-) But for serious bird > watchers, identifying the bird is very important. There are thousands of types of > birds. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
