Shel, FWIW you might want to check out Arthur Morris http://www.birdsasart.com/. He's taken bird photography to the next level as I mentioned in a previous post.
Kenneth Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: PESO - MIssed Opportunity >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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
