Its a lovely pose and great background. I usually like a bit of landscape context and the foreground is a bit too blurred for my taste but it does isolate the bird nicely.
Posted by Andy Bate on January 29, 2009 at 6:21 AM
Nice work young fella!!! Love these kind of shots .... Perfect.
I like it Danny. I've just commented on Phils Sanderling image and this one illustrates perfectly my point about oof foregrounds. The oof foreground suits this image well but it doesn't work on Phil's.
Robert
Posted by Anthony House on January 29, 2009 at 6:55 AM
Nice work Danny, light looks superb.....
Posted by Dave Bartlett on January 29, 2009 at 8:32 AM
Good stuff Danny. I think the diffusion around the bird makes for an excellent image. I'm off up there for a while in a couple of weeks - be more than pleased to get one like this
Dave
Posted by John Chapman on January 29, 2009 at 9:18 AM
Nice one Danny.
Posted by John Robinson on January 29, 2009 at 9:19 AM
Interesting shot, but can't make my mine up on this one.
JR
Posted by Andy Astbury on January 29, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Stunner Dan - reminds me very much of a Fulmar post by Nick from way back - almost dream-like F&BG.
I am so pleased that you posted this thread when you did and when I was on the road, and I have only just got in, 4.15 pm, if I had been the first to comment, then recent threads would have paled into insignificance.
Now your Turnstone is an absolute stunner in itself, but you knew that, and I think you also know that I personally don’t really like shots, where the balance of the image is soft/blurred. So I won’t repeat myself.
Now here we go, and I know I can say this to yiu without running the risk of upsetting you.
I have been thinking more and more about these shots, which we are starting to see on the forum, and I’m coming to the conclusion that they have more to do with art, than natural history. In these shots, there is little, if any, natural history content other than the subject, which to be totally honest, it could have just as easily been a shot of for example, Tutankhamen , a single flower, etc.. There is no discernable habitat/environment etc. in the image.
I know that there could be a commercial reason behind these images, but I would be really interested in your opinion as to their validity as a true natural history shot, as I know you will say it as you see it.
Hard hat now on, and ducking down behind the parapet.
Posted by keith mitchell on January 29, 2009 at 12:03 PM
Hi Danny.
This really doe's it for me,beauty is in the eye of the beholder! excellent. Keith.
Posted by Danny Green on January 29, 2009 at 12:43 PM
Hello Ray
Thanks for your responce Ray don't worry I am not going to question your opinion on this image and I am certainly not going to bite your head offf I think you are right in the fact that we see more and more images of this nature not only on this forum but also on the front covers of many of our magazines. Nature Photography has changed dramatically over the years and also styles are constantly changing as well. There has always been very artistic photographers and there has always been good natural history photographers as well. I do believe there are two camps there always has been. But I think the reason why we see more images like this is not because they are new as they have always been around but because they are selling as the people that buy them like them. I know a lot of Guys that really know there stuff on Natural History and I also believe that the practices of old like hide work and good old fashioned field work like say trying to photograph a Golden Plover at the nest where you have to put the hide in over days if not weeks are becoming a thing of the past because we want that quick fix. I am also a commercial wildlife photographer that has to sell my images to feed my family so in that respect I am under more pressure. Personally I love this kind of work and if you look back at my stuff on here you will find that I nearly always shoot low and with the lens wide open at F4 but then again this is my own personnal style that works for me it doesn't mean it works for everyone. What I am saying Ray is if we all liked the same picture I think wildlife photography would be boring and I for one welcome the fact we all shoot in different ways. But your points are very strong Ray and I hope that it has answered your question but not changed your opinion because it would be boring if everyone liked the same stuff
If i had seen this and not the photographers name i would have said Danny Green-A signiture image-Beautiful
Dave
Posted by Ian Mason on January 29, 2009 at 3:39 PM
Nice one danny, although I would have liked just a bit more of the legs showing.
Posted by Major Gilbert on January 29, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Dont know about the legs showing possibly a bit more room for the virtual legs.
Danny hasnt said if this is cropped or not. In any case I am sure you could create a bit of extra canvass to suit. Overhaul a good looking shot.
Been and done it today.
Many thanks for your reply, and I agree with many of the points which you have raised.
I’m a bit too knackered at the moment to give your comments the reply they deserve, so with your permission, I leave it till tomorrow, when I will be able to think straighter.
So a bit of chill out, I’ll comment on some of the other postings, referring to my crib sheet me thinks.
Posted by Major Gilbert on January 29, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Well I just have to say it Ray. I guess you paled into insifignifcance after all.
Love this. I'm a fan of the low and wide open approach. There were three turnstone's posted today. Three different approaches to the same bird - all of which have merit. That to me is the beauty of all photography, not just nature photography. Vive la difference!!
Regards
Jon
Posted by Ian Haskell on January 29, 2009 at 5:59 PM
There is some cracking shots to be had in Norfolk and I really like this type of shot. Well done
Ian
Posted by Jeroen Stel on January 30, 2009 at 11:13 AM
Wonderfull shot Danny!
Love the sundued foreground.
I fully take your point that nature photography has changed dramatically, and I believe it took a decisive turn when digital became the norm. as a shooting medium. Up until this point, you had to work for your shots. And learn about your subjects, in order to get any semblance of a relaxed natural image. This is no longer the case, field craft is NOT considered necessary by the majority of photographers any more.
Before you had to get within, say, 20 metres, of your subject, now using the same lens but a digital camera, its 30 metres for the self same image. In other words technology has replaced the need for field craft in the eyes of many. A new camera release is a panacea to many. An answer to their dreams, THEY can now take all those images they dreamed about, but it isn’t them, its technology and their wallet which is doing it. If you stand and shoot at 8+ frames a second, then the law of averages say that you will get a semblance of a good image, sooner or later. We are fast loosing sight of the most important element in any photograph, the person behind the camera.
When you refer to getting a quick fix, it struck a sympathetic cord with me. I mentioned in a thread by Sam Mannaets titled a “Blue Tit reflected”, a certain Máté Bence of Hungary, he has had outstanding success in the Wildlife Photographer of the year competition, with his shots taken at his “pool”. The set up is completely man made, and the hide itself is brick built.
Máté now rents the hide out on a daily basis, together with other hides in the area. The end result is, that there are now photographers, catching a plane, being driven to the hide, told where to put their tripods and shoot away. They get cracking shots, and receive serious acclaim for them, but all they did was open their wallets and press the button, there is nothing of themselves in the image, I know this is rather simplistic, but basically its true. Photographers want to go to “X” hot spot, have it within reason, laid on for them, and then go home. This is increasing becoming the norm..
Just you watch, Lee valley is going to take a right canning in the next week or so.
When it comes to commercial photograph, well that’s a whole new ball game. Luckily I’m not under the same pressures as yourself, I earned my crust as a design engineer, I’m now winding down. I also freely accept that if I was a professional, then I would be trying to get every possible type of image from any one situation, whilst trying to develop my own style. The logical fallout from this, is that on occasions the “true to nature” shot has to fall by the wayside. Bread on the table and all that. Market forces will always dictate to some extent, what we all see and do.
I’m not blind to technology, infact if you were to look at the different ”methods” which I can, and do, call upon most would be surprised. I have three different semi-permanent hides, one in particular has a frame work which allows me to use it, either at ground level or on top of scaffolding. Then there is the bag hides, car conversion into a hide, etc.. One of my most memorable images used an air bubble to trigger it and a pair of binoculars for composition. This has now graduated to radio triggering where I’m 100+ metres away and using a laptop for composition and triggering, and by the way this is invariably low angle shooting. One permanent hide I once built, took three years to build. And yes, I will occasionally be found in public hides, the London Wetland Centre in particular, as its just down the road so to speak, and when I just want to get out for a few minutes with no hassle, then I might well be found there, infact I was there last Thursday, didn’t take a shot tho’, no real subjects, plus it isn’t what I really enjoy doing, but you can learn a lot just from observation. So I think it is fair to say, that I’m not blinkered in my approach to N.H. photography
For me a natural history shot, should contain more than just a close up of “x” subject surrounded by indistinct/soft “mush”, for me this is more like an abstract/pictorial image, not N.H. be it using a subject from the natural world. Basically, I like to see in a N.H. picture, what I would see thro’ my own eyes and not something that is the result the limitations of lens design, due to the laws of physics/optics.
When you say “if we all liked the same picture I think wildlife photography would be boring”, I couldn’t agree more.
If I return to the image posted in this thread, I really do like it as an image, just not as a N.H. one, I leant nothing from it N.H. wise, but I do appreciate the artistic side to it.
Returning to “getting a quick fix”, everyone in today’s world is rushing around, and for one reason or another, won’t/don’t stop and appreciate what is really around them. The knowledge which the old lads gained, just be doing it and being out in the field, is being lost, primarily thro’ disinterest which is a great pity. You only have to look at how many questions are asked, within any of the posts, very few.
Sorry to go on, and do carry on developing your style, particularly if it is pushing the boundaries as we understand them, further and further, I just hope that not too many of us loose sight as to what it is all truly all about.
I’m really enjoying this, but its now time to return to my bunker.
Posted by Danny Green on February 1, 2009 at 8:08 AM
Thanks everyone for their comments.
Thanks Ray for your responce although it took me ages to read it feels like I am back at school reading an old report, nice kid but must try harder. I agree to a certain extent Ray on what you are saying but I tend to look at images not so deep as you and if I like the image when I have seen it first time then I tend to like it second as well. I think for me I approach subjects in a different way, as lets be honest Turnstones have been photographed well before by many other photographers and for me the trick is in finding a different way sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't. I think as well that if you try something different you never know what you are going to get.
Cheers
Danny
Posted by John Robinson on February 1, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Reading Ray's comments and the detailed accounts of the various technical innovations he has come up with, then I think it would be nice to see some of the results. I,ve never taken what I call a good picture yet with radio control. Some examples would be great.
I think you are quite right, I don’t look at images the same way as most, as I tend to look at them prior to pushing the button and try to see what the photographer was trying to achieve, and if the final result is true to nature. Most rely on post processing to correct any mistakes initially made. I must admit that on occasions I have been guilty of making such comments, but only because this is what I feel is what is wanted.
When it comes to getting another slant on a particular subject, I’m all for it, keep at it. As you say, you don’t know what you are going to get, unless you try. So keep trying to push those boundaries, they are there to be challenged.
I just don’t think this image is “true to nature”, but that is a personal thing. But if it’s the difference between putting bread on the table and not, then there is no contest.
John, to post an image using any form of remote control is a complete waste of time. The trick is to know what to use and when, and have the means to hand to achieve the result that you want.
Posted by John Robinson on February 1, 2009 at 6:31 PM
(quote) One of my most memorable images used an air bubble to trigger it and a pair of binoculars for composition. This has now graduated to radio triggering where I’m 100+ metres away and using a laptop for composition and triggering.(/quote)
I must be reading things very wrongly Ray as I assumed by your above statement that you are advocating this sort of photography.
I must be getting old.
You have taken my reference to remote triggering completely out of context, I would suggest you re read the paragraph concerned.
Posted by John Robinson on February 2, 2009 at 8:27 AM
Sorry Ray
There is no point in trying to discuss the issue anymore as I just an unable to understand your use of the English language. No dis - respect,
JohnR
Discussion
36 repliesCanon 1Ds MK11, 500mm Lens, 1.4x Convertor, F5.6, 1/800, ISO 200
Danny
Robert
Dave
JR
Top shot
I am so pleased that you posted this thread when you did and when I was on the road, and I have only just got in, 4.15 pm, if I had been the first to comment, then recent threads would have paled into insignificance.
Now your Turnstone is an absolute stunner in itself, but you knew that, and I think you also know that I personally don’t really like shots, where the balance of the image is soft/blurred. So I won’t repeat myself.
Now here we go, and I know I can say this to yiu without running the risk of upsetting you.
I have been thinking more and more about these shots, which we are starting to see on the forum, and I’m coming to the conclusion that they have more to do with art, than natural history. In these shots, there is little, if any, natural history content other than the subject, which to be totally honest, it could have just as easily been a shot of for example, Tutankhamen , a single flower, etc.. There is no discernable habitat/environment etc. in the image.
I know that there could be a commercial reason behind these images, but I would be really interested in your opinion as to their validity as a true natural history shot, as I know you will say it as you see it.
Hard hat now on, and ducking down behind the parapet.
This really doe's it for me,beauty is in the eye of the beholder! excellent.
Thanks for your responce Ray don't worry I am not going to question your opinion on this image and I am certainly not going to bite your head offf
Danny
Dave
Danny hasnt said if this is cropped or not. In any case I am sure you could create a bit of extra canvass to suit. Overhaul a good looking shot.
Been and done it today.
Major.
Many thanks for your reply, and I agree with many of the points which you have raised.
I’m a bit too knackered at the moment to give your comments the reply they deserve, so with your permission, I leave it till tomorrow, when I will be able to think straighter.
So a bit of chill out, I’ll comment on some of the other postings, referring to my crib sheet me thinks.
Major
As someone once said, "I WILL return".
Fran
lea
Love this. I'm a fan of the low and wide open approach. There were three turnstone's posted today. Three different approaches to the same bird - all of which have merit. That to me is the beauty of all photography, not just nature photography. Vive la difference!!
Regards
Jon
Ian
Love the sundued foreground.
Greetings,
Jeroen Stel
I fully take your point that nature photography has changed dramatically, and I believe it took a decisive turn when digital became the norm. as a shooting medium. Up until this point, you had to work for your shots. And learn about your subjects, in order to get any semblance of a relaxed natural image. This is no longer the case, field craft is NOT considered necessary by the majority of photographers any more.
Before you had to get within, say, 20 metres, of your subject, now using the same lens but a digital camera, its 30 metres for the self same image. In other words technology has replaced the need for field craft in the eyes of many. A new camera release is a panacea to many. An answer to their dreams, THEY can now take all those images they dreamed about, but it isn’t them, its technology and their wallet which is doing it. If you stand and shoot at 8+ frames a second, then the law of averages say that you will get a semblance of a good image, sooner or later. We are fast loosing sight of the most important element in any photograph, the person behind the camera.
When you refer to getting a quick fix, it struck a sympathetic cord with me. I mentioned in a thread by Sam Mannaets titled a “Blue Tit reflected”, a certain Máté Bence of Hungary, he has had outstanding success in the Wildlife Photographer of the year competition, with his shots taken at his “pool”. The set up is completely man made, and the hide itself is brick built.
Máté now rents the hide out on a daily basis, together with other hides in the area. The end result is, that there are now photographers, catching a plane, being driven to the hide, told where to put their tripods and shoot away. They get cracking shots, and receive serious acclaim for them, but all they did was open their wallets and press the button, there is nothing of themselves in the image, I know this is rather simplistic, but basically its true. Photographers want to go to “X” hot spot, have it within reason, laid on for them, and then go home. This is increasing becoming the norm..
Just you watch, Lee valley is going to take a right canning in the next week or so.
When it comes to commercial photograph, well that’s a whole new ball game. Luckily I’m not under the same pressures as yourself, I earned my crust as a design engineer, I’m now winding down. I also freely accept that if I was a professional, then I would be trying to get every possible type of image from any one situation, whilst trying to develop my own style. The logical fallout from this, is that on occasions the “true to nature” shot has to fall by the wayside. Bread on the table and all that. Market forces will always dictate to some extent, what we all see and do.
I’m not blind to technology, infact if you were to look at the different ”methods” which I can, and do, call upon most would be surprised. I have three different semi-permanent hides, one in particular has a frame work which allows me to use it, either at ground level or on top of scaffolding. Then there is the bag hides, car conversion into a hide, etc.. One of my most memorable images used an air bubble to trigger it and a pair of binoculars for composition. This has now graduated to radio triggering where I’m 100+ metres away and using a laptop for composition and triggering, and by the way this is invariably low angle shooting. One permanent hide I once built, took three years to build. And yes, I will occasionally be found in public hides, the London Wetland Centre in particular, as its just down the road so to speak, and when I just want to get out for a few minutes with no hassle, then I might well be found there, infact I was there last Thursday, didn’t take a shot tho’, no real subjects, plus it isn’t what I really enjoy doing, but you can learn a lot just from observation. So I think it is fair to say, that I’m not blinkered in my approach to N.H. photography
For me a natural history shot, should contain more than just a close up of “x” subject surrounded by indistinct/soft “mush”, for me this is more like an abstract/pictorial image, not N.H. be it using a subject from the natural world. Basically, I like to see in a N.H. picture, what I would see thro’ my own eyes and not something that is the result the limitations of lens design, due to the laws of physics/optics.
When you say “if we all liked the same picture I think wildlife photography would be boring”, I couldn’t agree more.
If I return to the image posted in this thread, I really do like it as an image, just not as a N.H. one, I leant nothing from it N.H. wise, but I do appreciate the artistic side to it.
Returning to “getting a quick fix”, everyone in today’s world is rushing around, and for one reason or another, won’t/don’t stop and appreciate what is really around them. The knowledge which the old lads gained, just be doing it and being out in the field, is being lost, primarily thro’ disinterest which is a great pity. You only have to look at how many questions are asked, within any of the posts, very few.
Sorry to go on, and do carry on developing your style, particularly if it is pushing the boundaries as we understand them, further and further, I just hope that not too many of us loose sight as to what it is all truly all about.
I’m really enjoying this, but its now time to return to my bunker.
Thanks Ray for your responce although it took me ages to read it feels like I am back at school
Cheers
Danny
JohnR
I think you are quite right, I don’t look at images the same way as most, as I tend to look at them prior to pushing the button and try to see what the photographer was trying to achieve, and if the final result is true to nature. Most rely on post processing to correct any mistakes initially made. I must admit that on occasions I have been guilty of making such comments, but only because this is what I feel is what is wanted.
When it comes to getting another slant on a particular subject, I’m all for it, keep at it. As you say, you don’t know what you are going to get, unless you try. So keep trying to push those boundaries, they are there to be challenged.
I just don’t think this image is “true to nature”, but that is a personal thing. But if it’s the difference between putting bread on the table and not, then there is no contest.
John, to post an image using any form of remote control is a complete waste of time. The trick is to know what to use and when, and have the means to hand to achieve the result that you want.
I must be reading things very wrongly Ray as I assumed by your above statement that you are advocating this sort of photography.
I must be getting old.
You have taken my reference to remote triggering completely out of context, I would suggest you re read the paragraph concerned.
There is no point in trying to discuss the issue anymore as I just an unable to understand your use of the English language. No dis - respect,
JohnR
Gentlemen, please try and refrain from personal squabbles on other's posts .
Phil