There has been a few comments about when I suggest cropping off the “mush”, so let me explain where I’m coming from.
Before I start, yes, I know it’s the best avian shot I have ever posted.
Firstly let me state that I have nothing against low level shooting, far from it, in the right circumstances, it can be the best way to take an image, and should always be considered, but not blindly so.
Low angle, works particularly well when shooting over water, but I don’t think so well over mud etc..
From the above sketch, I think you can see the effect of shooting parallel, or not, to the ground.
If the ground is undulating, then you have to drop your framing to cover the “virtual” feet, and in the process bring in a band of soft vegetation across the bottom of the frame, and also run the risk of all the bottom of the image being soft, with the end result of the subject standing on “x” sticks, its legs, disappearing into an expanse of mush. As an offshoot of this, there is also the possibility that none of the habitat is in focus, which just gives you the appearance of a “floating” subject, in a sea of nothing. If this is the shot you want, then fine, but consider your other options.
If you raise your viewpoint, in this case an arbitrary 15 degrees, emphasis on arbitrary, you no longer have to worry about “virtual” feet, and you are also bring into play a zone of in focus habitat, with the out of focus graduating away.
Obviously all this depends on the situation too hand.
Now I’ll take a recent example. Phiilip Tomkinson posted, a few threads down, a shot of a Redshank, and an excellent shot it is. Now I commented about cropping off the bottom. I’ll ask a question here, how many of you actually moved the image on your monitor, so than the bottom edge of your monitor simulated the crop, very few I suspect, but I did before I commented, so I’m speaking/writing from a measured observation. Try it, you might just be surprised. Sorry Phillip for using your image, and I apologise if I’ve offended you. It really is a cracking shot.
Basically what I’m really saying, is that you shouldn’t turn up at a location with preconceived ideas, for example, “I’m doing waders, therefore I’m going to shoot along the ground”, circumstances all too frequently will dictate otherwise, so bottom line don’t be blinkered, unless that is you are going for a particular shot, for your files, that is.
Be versatile.
Now to wait for the flack.
Posted by Nigel Blake on February 11, 2009 at 11:18 AM
We all have to learn how to suck eggs at some point.
Posted by F.DESMETTE on February 11, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Ray, you have got to talk to someone! or start to take some medication! Instead of telling people how to take picture you should show some of your pictures! The only picture I saw from you were the bittern. Surely you must have something else.
N.B. I don’t as a rule, revisit a post, so please e-mail me with any queries!
Frederic
Posted by Greg Hitchcock on February 11, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Ray, I think you are seeing someone else's aesthetic, rather than a lack of ability to try a different angle. I'm sure the togs on this site are more than capable of making a choice between 'mush' and raising the camera to get the feet in shot (or cropping it out). It doesn't mean it wasn't deliberate if you don't like it!
IMO, OoF foregrounds can add a sense of depth and intimacy to low level shots. Each image should be assessed on its own merit, of course, but some of us like a bit of mush!
Well said Greg!!
Bring on the mush!!!
When ever possible I always shoot at the subjects level unless its sat up a tree(if I had a helicopter !!!),this always results in a more intimate shot,if your just starting up and just want a record shot fair enough but then you move on and try these things as you will see on this site as i've said before boundries!!!I
If we all took the same thing at the same level life would be very boring!!!
O.K. so I have made a mistake, when I posted this, in reply to some of the e-mails I have received from people visiting this site.
I was honestly trying to be helpful, obviously I was misguided.
From the replies and tone that have now been posted, I now expect the mods to lock this thread.
One thing I will say is, just because you know something it doesn't follow that everyone else does. We all have to learn everything. I thought that this forum is for learning about NH photography, apparently I was VERY wrong.
For the Mods, I fully understand if you lock this.
Posted by David J Slater on February 11, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Before anyone locks this thread (if they do!), I want to support Ray for being an individual with some great British eccentricity. Not easy these days!
Dave
Posted by Paul Ashton on February 11, 2009 at 2:23 PM
I think Ray has posted this to the wrong forum. The folks who post here have long past the stage of needing such elementry info. If they haven't then perhaps they should confine there participation to that of observation.
Respectfully
Paul
Posted by jack chapman on February 11, 2009 at 2:35 PM
Hi Ray
interesting, like the little cads you've done, i can see where you are coming from about including a sense of environment but at the same time simplicity is beauty, personally i quite like the effect of low angles, ultimately it's all down to individual styles and everyone will always take the pictures the way they like,
you use the term natural history photography, personally i use the term wildlife or nature photography, obviously at face value there is little difference but the term you use suggests the style of imagery you create, the way you see nature photography and what you aim to achieve in it is also indicated, correct me if i'm wrong but i think you see natural history photography's primary objective is to record the natural world as accurately and objectively as possible (very sorry if this is an incorrect assumption and i mean no offence in the least), personally i see nature photography as an oppurtunity to marry creativity to science and express myself using, what i love, nature. None of this is to say i am not interested including the environment of an animal but am likely to make the decision whether to or not based on aesthetics not scientific merit.
This is why i personally am quite keen on low angles and quite like a diffused foreground. Sorry if that was all a bit long winded
Just my opinion
Best wishes
Jack
PS dont think you've made a mistake posting this, quite thought provoking, i've had fun writing this at any rate
Posted by Steve Fletcher on February 11, 2009 at 2:39 PM
I think everyone is being rather hard on Ray, what on earth is wrong with trying to be helpful and informative. Sometimes the obvious is not obvious at all, and it needs pointing out to some people, not everyone is an expert, even if they think they might be.
Posted by Simon Litten on February 11, 2009 at 2:47 PM
Nice presentation and a good argument well put.
My thoughts are that method a) the low POV, is always the first choice - if your taking a portraite of a person you don't stand on a chair and take a photo looking down on them, you keep the lens parallel to them at their level - it produces the best and most natural results. This should be no different when working with small furry and feathery things.
However method b) is a perfectly acceptable second option - and usually the only option when shooting from a car!
Don't know why you've recieved a bit of flack for this - your just trying to highlight reasons for some of your critiques so fair play to you.
Cheers
Simon
Posted by Kenny Turnbull on February 11, 2009 at 3:02 PM
The folks who post here have long past the stage of needing such elementry info. If they haven't then perhaps they should confine there participation to that of observation.
Wow!
I always thought this place was a little high brow, but hadn't realised how high.
Thank you Mr Ashton, for reminding me not to be tempted to pay for membership to this clique
Posted by Colin Pickett on February 11, 2009 at 3:19 PM
Ray you have got far to much time on your hands, I agree with Frederic lets see some examples and you can also substitute the medication with beer.
Posted by Danny Green on February 11, 2009 at 3:26 PM
Hello Ray
Are you paid to make these drawings during the day
I also agree with Dave and think some people which is no surprise have come down hard on Ray as all he is doing is showing people what he thinks and believes in so whats wrong with having an opinion, although I don't agree I still respect his opinion. I also think what Kenny has said is spot on not everyone that posts on here has the experience and knowledge of some of the guys and I think we forget the early days when we started. I remember when I was a lad and really felt like I was banging my head against a brick wall, so fair play Ray for making a valid point even though your drawings are a bit ropey and you are being paid to make them (hope your boss is not reading this)
Danny
Posted by John Robinson on February 11, 2009 at 3:26 PM
An old snapper of some note once told me that ultra low level stuff was alll the rage and was good if you were doing a talk to weasels etc , but was out of tune with the way us humans normally see things. He also said the main reason it was popular was that people needed to produce something different these days where every third person was a photographer.
I don't particularly like low level myself as I have stated many times due to reflections, but to even things up many have told me they don't like my methods either. Nothing wrong with that.
I think that perhaps the way the initial post was set out on this thread was less than sympathetic and does not exactly encourage new members. Some folks have a way of being what they are ,and although it can be seen as cool by some to be eccentric,it can and in some cases recently has indeed, given people confusing advice.
John Robinson
Posted by Paul Ashton on February 11, 2009 at 3:26 PM
Kenny please do not allow yourself to be detered simply by one persons point of view.
Perhaps this forum is a little high brow. I spent several years viewing on here before I had the temerity to post any images. Whilst I would encourage others to take active participation I would respectfully suggest that the general standard of the images posted here are almost always of a high order and they encourage inspiration and enthusiasm.
I consider myself privileged to be allowed to post images here though I recognise that my efforts border on the edge of acceptability.
Enjoy UKNP
Paul
Posted by Phil Shaw on February 11, 2009 at 3:34 PM
The choice of shooting angle (if you have a choice) depends entirely on what you are trying to capture. I see way too many shots here, and comments on images here, that would tend to suggest that many people are shooting or critiquing on a recipe basis, and not really evaluating the shooting opportunity and the different perspective that shooting angle can give.
Thank you Ray for providing something for people to think about when next they have a choice in how they set up and what actually it is that they want to capture.
Simon, I'm pretty sure that you are feeling rather embarrassed about how your words came over. Maybe some atonement is in order.
Posted by Major Gilbert on February 11, 2009 at 3:39 PM
No doubt I will get shot down in flames but I feel I have to respond.
I think the reason that some people have come down hard is the fact that Ray gives out all this advice and appears to have all the right answers but when he comes to post an image(very few) they dont always quite match up to the standard he is keen to preach to others about.
Sorry if that offends but that is the way I see it.
I may of course be totally wrong.
Posted by Nigel Blake on February 11, 2009 at 3:45 PM
Nail hit firmly on the head, Major!
Posted by Iain Tookey on February 11, 2009 at 3:53 PM
Well, I don't think what Ray posted was necessarily teaching people to suck eggs, it depends on the person surely? I for one enjoy being told how to suck eggs sometimes!!
As a relatively new member and poster of images on this forum, it can seem at times a little intimidating, but that's because there are some amazing images posted on here and that can be a little off putting when I compare them to my own!!
Ultimately though, I joined up so that I can learn and also pass comment where I think I can, even if it's just 'Wow!'.
Posts such as Ray's are part of that learning, for me at any rate!
Posted by Barry Southon on February 11, 2009 at 4:13 PM
Oh I guess the feathers have settled almost.
I have always had the uttmost respect for everyone who participates on this forum. I'm probably the least expert unqualified of all members. I have sought and been given the benefit of others expertise for which I am most gratefull.
The forum is unique and long may it continue. Keep the opinions coming it makes interesting reading and some of us gleen information that we can use.
Barry
Posted by Brian Davis on February 11, 2009 at 4:28 PM
To follow on from Barry, I have the upmost repect for anyone who posts here. I'm a fatty and I cannot and will not lie on the floor to take photos (i also have a bad back). I haven't posted a pic here yet, although I have made comments on lots of pics as an observer, I always try and be positive about someones shot. I am always pleased when someone gives a detailed explanation of a different way of acheiving results even though I don 't understand some of them. Give Ray a break, He was trying to be helpful.
Posted by John Robinson on February 11, 2009 at 4:33 PM
I think Major has got things about right.
There can be so much theory in every pastime or everything we do, but it really does need to be backed up now and then though.
JR
Posted by Rob Howard on February 11, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Hi Ray,
I'm sure there are people out there in cyberspace who have just googled what you have explained in your post, so thanks for taking the time to do it and post it.
Regards
Rob
Posted by Simon Litten on February 11, 2009 at 6:33 PM
Bit confused why Phil Shaw thinks I should be embarrased about my response.
Simon
Posted by Graeme Lee on February 11, 2009 at 7:18 PM
Hi Ray no offence taken, it's quite a good explanation of how a two-dimensional plane of focus so to speak can be used to your advantage in a three-dimensional world.
I quite often ajust my shooting angle so to give the appearance of more depth of field for a relatively wide aperture.
Phil.
Posted by John Robinson on February 11, 2009 at 8:16 PM
I've just re read this thread and noticed Ray's last comment on his original post which was _
" Now for the flack "
Maybe , reading Jeremy's post above, that was the original intention.
Maybe it worked.!
I am pleased the powers have not pulled this thread as it has allowed us to see various people that we only know from the forum, in various lights !
JR
Posted by Andy Astbury on February 12, 2009 at 4:27 AM
My God the mods on this forum are generous.....................
Not particularly Andy , an evening off and look what some of you lot get up to . Looks like we need to book baby-sitters for the forum too .
OK Kiddies, you've had your fun - I know Ray isn't always popular, and that people don't always see eye to eye with his comments or his photographic style, but it's disappointing to read that a number of you are so ready to take a pop at someone who is trying to be helpful. Everyone is free to take or leave advice that *anyone* posts on the forum, and you shouldn't dis' him for at least trying.
Posted by Alan Woolnough on February 12, 2009 at 5:03 AM
Blimey
Personally i don't see any problem with Ray sharing his views/thoughts etc, and although for many, it will be 'sucking eggs', some may find it valuable.
Maybe its a generational thing, but i sometimes get the feeling that new-comers to 'bird photography' feel that spending thousands of pounds on the latest camera, and thousands of pounds on the longest lens in the world, and then adopting the same style of shooting as the majority {in all situations.............without thought}, is the 'only' way to validate their new hobby.
On many nature forums {less so on this site}, when a new-comer to bird photography asks for basic 'starting-out' advice, the standard replies often seem to be 'get the longest/fastest lens available and whack a tc on the end.............get the highest MP body, and crop away......................get the most expensive tripod/head available........................and machine-gun away to your hearts content.
To my mind, very little posted advice deals with the 'sucking eggs' area, which comes through experience over time, and a youngster viewing the avian galleries on most sites could be forgiven for thinking that ten grands worth of kit, is absolutely essential for them to attempt to get into their intended hobby, to make it worthwhile.
However, a bit of time spent searching this forum will actually reveal that extreme FL's are not essential, neither is 50MP's, or £500's worth of tripod/head etc, for a budding bird photographer who will probably rarely print larger than A4, and just wants to enjoy their new hobby, and enjoy the experience of gaining experience/fieldcraft etc, often on a tight budget.
There are probably a number of 'sucking egg' areas that Ray {or others} could have posted, that are rarely mentioned these days.
When was the last time that the photographic term 'perspective' was mentioned................why is shooting with the light over your shoulder 'seemingly' the only option spouted, when a newby to bird photography asks for advice etc etc.
There are many on this forum that have a wealth of experience, who defy {through their posted images/comments} the often mentioned 'narrow-minded' advice shelled out by many, across the internet, {Nigel being one...........who demonstrates great use of 'perspective', and John R, who consistantly shows through his experience, that extreme FL's are not the be-all and end-all} and i really don't see a problem when someone, such as Ray, is prepared to stick his head above the parapit, and share some basics to those who may find it valuable.
Just my tuppence worth
Whats wrong with sun readers, Jeremy
Alan
Posted by Steve Fletcher on February 12, 2009 at 6:17 AM
In defence of Ray and a little enlightenment to all the high brow comments from experts, i would like to point out the first paragraph, which after clicking on Front Page, then About NPN, is quite apparent.
"The NPN website is intended to serve as an online resource for nature photographers of all skill levels, from beginner to professional."
Posted by Graeme Lee on February 12, 2009 at 6:45 AM
It's a forum!
"a public meeting or assembly for open discussion".
Why can't Ray post what he has and why can't people object or support openly?
This forum had a much more technical and open background to things a few years ago when people's descriptions of their image were elaborate and there was less of the arty " a picture should speak for itself, so I don't need to write any description" outlook. Whilst this is fine, it's an open forum afterall, I for one, learnt loads during that period and postings like this one as simple as it seems.
The forum caters less for the early learners now and because the general standard is high and a lot of people are far less open about how their images were gained, and comments relating to sucking eggs, I can see where the "highbrow" comment comes from. There are an awful lot of "lurkers" that would probably post should the forum appear more as a "mixed ability site" and people were more helpful in their postings from the outset and not having to PM the person to find out how the image was obtained.
It's quite inspiring to know that a lot of these images can be obtained by the kit that "you" are actually using (and it's not the most expensive kit available) and some posters don't state what kit they use possibly because of a kit inferiority complex? This all helps to raise standards at every level........but I digress.......
Wow, I hadn’t realised that so many members were such authorities on NH photography, to the extent that they no longer needed to learn anything new. I’ve been doing this for over thirty years now, and I’m still learning, I must be really slow.
One thing to emerge, which I didn’t anticipated, is that there are so many photographers posting, just to showcase their work and to receive plaudits only, and in the process have their egos massaged, and not imparting any help of any consequence, in other words, takers rather than givers. All very sad really.
In all the threads I have read on this forum, I can’t honestly remember any suggestions being made as to how to improve a shot pre exposure, plenty about Photoshop techniques post exposure, seems it was wrong to some for me to try and redress the balance..
There has been comment made that I should post more of my images. I don’t see how posting images negates comments made. Surely a comment is like an image, it stands or falls on its own merits. Everyone has the right to ignore any comment made, end of story.
John, you wrote: “I've just re read this thread and noticed Ray's last comment on his original post which was _ " Now for the flack "”
Well, what was behind that, is that I knew that somewhere along the line, someone was going to have a “pop” at me, and that others scenting blood would join in, I wasn’t disappointed, just didn’t think it would be that quickly. I also know, that at least in the short term, there will be some disparaging remarks in the threads concerning “mush”. This doesn’t affect me it the least, in fact it will bring a smile to my face, as it says a lot more about the commenter than it ever could about me. If they want to try and score points over me, then that’s fine by me, I’ll just not join in, wouldn’t demean myself.
Danny “ropey”, how dare you, I’ll have you know, I’ve been conning employers with this sort of thing for years.
Re being paid for it, well I did have a booking number for it, general admin., but the majority was done in a lunch hour, I know it shows, but I thought the minimalist approach was best.
Did you like the bird ?? I.D. is a bit of a problem tho’.
I know we don’t always agree, but that’s good, its how it is discussed, with respect and good humour. I do enjoy what discussions we do have.
Jack, I think you are right when you say that I expect a N.H. shot to be true to nature, but I would qualify that. If an image is pertained to be a NH shot, then I expect it to be a reasonable representation as to what I would actually see, The human eye, dependant on what books you read, is approximately 25mm in diameter, and has a focal length of 17 -22 mm, that equates to a 12/14mm digital lens, with a f stop of 32+, that gives a fantastic DOF. If I look into the middle distance, then the both the foreground and background appear “soft”, but there is still definition there. I do like low angled shots, and I do think they have a place in this world, but not to the exclusion of everything else. I just think, that they are being catalogued under the wrong category, in many cases. But that is just a personal interpretation.
Rob, you are right, I’ve already been contacted by someone who has “googled” my sketch, I sent them a copy of it, pre downsizing for the web.
Just for your info., a week or so ago, I did another sketch showing the effect that a hides design could have on a site re shadows, that could have had numerous spin offs, i.e. how to work a reserve re the sun, distance of hide from feeders/pool etc., boy am I glad I didn’t post that.
I’m in the final throws, of obtaining permission re access to some private ancient Oak woods, near me, not many left just south of Heathrow. I was going to post an invite on here to join me when I walk the site, re putting up feeding/pool sites, and if they wish to then actually build/work them, but I don’t think that is such a good thing anymore, as I would be teaching them how to “suck eggs”, and I would also be “popped” at, so best to leave well alone.
Saying that, two people have already asked if they could string along, so there is some who want to learn. I’m not saying what I do is the holy grail, far from it, but it works for me, and it can be used as a foundation for others to work from.
When I was just starting work, I was told to work with a craftsman, look and listen, and you won’t go far wrong. This forum is surely the next best thing to personal contact, but from reading some of the above, that isn’t what many perceive this forum to be for.
Sorry if I have missed any ones comments out, but there are quite a few you know.
I have found this thread very illuminating, much more so than I anticipated I would, and in some cases tells far more about the authors than they realise.
Thanks for the "support" for want of a word, all duly noted.
Posted by Simon Litten on February 12, 2009 at 7:36 AM
Nice response, Ray - funny, friendly and informative. Some people should take note.
I'm still waiting for a response from Phil Shaw regarding his comment - he's got me baffled
Simon
Posted by F.DESMETTE on February 12, 2009 at 12:53 PM
"There has been comment made that I should post more of my images. I don’t see how posting images negates comments made. Surely a comment is like an image, it stands or falls on its own merits. Everyone has the right to ignore any comment made, end of story"
I do agree with this phrase Ray, but what I see is that you criticised everyone picture ruthlessly and we never post yours! If you are As good at taking picture that you are at giving advise you must tons of cracking shot in your library? why don`t you post more of them. To criticised the work of other is one thing but You have got to back up yourself with Very good picture, And As we do not see any picture but plenty of criticism on other people picture it is only normal that A lot of people react the way they did . I was a member for a year and posted plenty I did say a few thing about other people picture but I was posting some of mine, and I think that is only fair?
Frederic
Posted by Steve Fletcher on February 12, 2009 at 1:23 PM
So, are you saying an Art critic must be as good a painter as Van Gogh, Monet, or Brueghel ? Try as hard as i might, after much searching, i cant find anywhere in the NPN guidelines to say that to give an opinion on an image you have to have posted.
Posted by F.DESMETTE on February 12, 2009 at 2:52 PM
I saw your picture Ray and I did not want to comment on it....The only rare comment that I make are usually praise . I would not place a negative comment on the site as I do not post anymore,(I could have said that the bird is too big in the frame, point blank in the middle of the frame and in my view they was not any composition! Sorry
Steve I have got a restaurant and I do get critic all the time in the place! It is not because you are a critic that you are always right. I know critic who are also Imbecile(Good French Word!) In fact I got an article about my restaurant two wek ago and I got slaughter!! The chap discribe one of my dish and He got it wrong! He mention ingrediens wich were not in the dish!! An imbecile!!...So You see I am in a trade were there are guides talking about us and I thing that I know what I am talking about....I know what critic are all about 70% of them talk about themself! and if there is a bit of place left in the article they will write about you. I think that it is Ethical to post picture before giving a critic on someone else picture that is my view.
Frederic
Posted by Steve Fletcher on February 12, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Frederic
I sympathise most wholeheartedly with your imbecile, but i didnt say i actually agreed with critics, i was merely highlighting a point in this world where everyone appears to be a critic, or "expert" of some sort, with no qualifications whatsoever. Being a critic is purely subjective, not objective, you only have to look at one persons opinion against anothers. Of course, some will agree, but others will have wildly differing opinions. Marmite is a prime example.
Posted by Greg Hitchcock on February 12, 2009 at 3:41 PM
I for one have found this thread thoroughly entertaining, but I hope nobody has taken things too seriously (which sometimes happens on this forum) and has taken/intended offence. The response is perhaps understandable (and not unexpected by Ray), as what Ray posted was in effect ‘if foreground obscures subject, move’ (despite elegant diagram), and some forum members may have found this patronising.
With regard to comments on apertures and the human eye, read the current NPN article here, which is quite interesting and suggests the human eye has an aperture range of f2.4 – f9.
This thread also rehashes an older topic, that of an ‘images posted to comments made ratio’. A minimum suggested a while ago was 1 image posted to four comments made, to avoid people posting and not commenting (the taking and not giving), but no maximum was given. I would be against any maximum level, as it may exclude some from taking part. There may be others like myself who may have time to comment in the evening/at night (or at lunchtime at work), and enjoy giving praise where it’s due and constructive criticism/suggestion where we feel able, but don’t get out to take images as much as we’d like, to post. Everybody is entitled to an opinion, even on a photograph that may be above their ability to achieve (if this were not the case I would be posting far fewer comments!), and this goes for constructive criticism as well, as you don't need to know how to take a photo to be able to see the problems with a photo (I find it very hard to be self critical, and like to see as much feedback as possible).
The other potentially contentious topic raised here and elsewhere, that of a definition of a ‘natural history photograph’, is much more personal, and as this forum is about ‘the art and technique of nature photography’, perhaps irrelevant (‘nature’ lacking the connotations that ‘natural history’ has).
And I have met two people recently who are totally indifferent when it comes to Marmite!
Greg
Posted by John Robinson on February 12, 2009 at 5:47 PM
It is interesting in the way this thread has got around to comments on the ability or credibility of various people to comment.- whether they post pics or not. I personally think its quite nice if you are going to comment a fair bit, then post a few pics. I also think its a good idea to support this forum which I feel is one of the best, by joining and thus helping to maintain the site. Lets face it we at least are not bombarded by adverts all the time ( unlike some I could mention !! )
I will repeat and have said this several times before. One thing that worries me about this forum which is " a natural history " picture site, is the often complete un awareness of the complexities and difficulties in photographing different species or biological groups, which is apparent by some of the comments.
For example in old fashioned terms. Give everyone a 36 exposure film and say come back with a un cropped sharp picture of a Coal Tit. Then say go to Gigrin and get me a Kite pic.
JohnR
Well this thread is now slowing down, so I think it is time to look back over it.
This was, at least for me, a very instructional exercise.
I know that at least one person has copied the sketch for their records, and a number of members have requested a copy of my sketch concerning hide shadows, which I mentioned in passing, together with any other information, ideally with pictures, of positioning of hides re water and feeders.
So starting this thread was worthwhile.
Another plus, was that I got an unsolicited critique on my Black Headed Bunting. That was very informative in more ways than one, so thanks Frederic.
So that’s all pluses.
I have to put my hands up and admit there were moments when I really felt like biting back, but I’m very glad that I didn’t, must be old age. I have learnt so much about those who have commented above, that it really is unbelievable, and it isn’t always what was said, but also what wasn’t. I hope no one minds, but I have copied this thread for further study.
There are two things I would like to finish up with.
Greg earlier today, I was driving down the motorway and I could see for miles. So I concentrated my vision at some detail at least a mile away, and then whilst still looking into the distance, I tried to see if on my peripheral vision I could discern and detail, or was it all lost. It wasn’t, so to my mind that is what really counts, and that to the human eye, there isn’t any perceptible mush, this is all due to the laws of physics/optics and thus isn’t how we see the world. For me end of story.
Secondly, I mentioned that I’m hoping to open a number of new water/feeding stations. I have thought about this, and have decided that I won’t be posting any invitations here, as I don’t want to be perceived as patronising anyone. But saying that, if it all works out as I hope, and anyone is interested, then contact me directly and I’ll at least put you on a “list”.
Finally, I have to give a BIG thank you to the mods for allowing this to run, if they hadn’t, then the exchange of information re hides etc. just wouldn’t have happened, and yes, I do know I’m a pain in the a***, but do I care ??? Besides, if I recall two members asked me to rejoin, so really its could be said, that it’s all self inflicted.
Well that’s it, a good job well done. Special thanks to all who have contributed above, and to those who contacted me directly. Many, many thanks.
Posted by F.DESMETTE on February 14, 2009 at 3:33 AM
Ray, I still think that you should talk to somoene!
Frederic
Discussion
46 repliesBefore I start, yes, I know it’s the best avian shot I have ever posted.
Firstly let me state that I have nothing against low level shooting, far from it, in the right circumstances, it can be the best way to take an image, and should always be considered, but not blindly so.
Low angle, works particularly well when shooting over water, but I don’t think so well over mud etc..
From the above sketch, I think you can see the effect of shooting parallel, or not, to the ground.
If the ground is undulating, then you have to drop your framing to cover the “virtual” feet, and in the process bring in a band of soft vegetation across the bottom of the frame, and also run the risk of all the bottom of the image being soft, with the end result of the subject standing on “x” sticks, its legs, disappearing into an expanse of mush. As an offshoot of this, there is also the possibility that none of the habitat is in focus, which just gives you the appearance of a “floating” subject, in a sea of nothing. If this is the shot you want, then fine, but consider your other options.
If you raise your viewpoint, in this case an arbitrary 15 degrees, emphasis on arbitrary, you no longer have to worry about “virtual” feet, and you are also bring into play a zone of in focus habitat, with the out of focus graduating away.
Obviously all this depends on the situation too hand.
Now I’ll take a recent example. Phiilip Tomkinson posted, a few threads down, a shot of a Redshank, and an excellent shot it is. Now I commented about cropping off the bottom. I’ll ask a question here, how many of you actually moved the image on your monitor, so than the bottom edge of your monitor simulated the crop, very few I suspect, but I did before I commented, so I’m speaking/writing from a measured observation. Try it, you might just be surprised. Sorry Phillip for using your image, and I apologise if I’ve offended you. It really is a cracking shot.
Basically what I’m really saying, is that you shouldn’t turn up at a location with preconceived ideas, for example, “I’m doing waders, therefore I’m going to shoot along the ground”, circumstances all too frequently will dictate otherwise, so bottom line don’t be blinkered, unless that is you are going for a particular shot, for your files, that is.
Be versatile.
Now to wait for the flack.
We all have to learn how to suck eggs at some point.
N.B. I don’t as a rule, revisit a post, so please e-mail me with any queries!
Frederic
IMO, OoF foregrounds can add a sense of depth and intimacy to low level shots. Each image should be assessed on its own merit, of course, but some of us like a bit of mush!
Greg
Bring on the mush!!!
When ever possible I always shoot at the subjects level unless its sat up a tree(if I had a helicopter !!!),this always results in a more intimate shot,if your just starting up and just want a record shot fair enough but then you move on and try these things as you will see on this site as i've said before boundries!!!I
If we all took the same thing at the same level life would be very boring!!!
Craig
www.craigchurchill.co.uk
I was honestly trying to be helpful, obviously I was misguided.
From the replies and tone that have now been posted, I now expect the mods to lock this thread.
One thing I will say is, just because you know something it doesn't follow that everyone else does. We all have to learn everything. I thought that this forum is for learning about NH photography, apparently I was VERY wrong.
For the Mods, I fully understand if you lock this.
Dave
Respectfully
Paul
interesting, like the little cads you've done, i can see where you are coming from about including a sense of environment but at the same time simplicity is beauty, personally i quite like the effect of low angles, ultimately it's all down to individual styles and everyone will always take the pictures the way they like,
you use the term natural history photography, personally i use the term wildlife or nature photography, obviously at face value there is little difference but the term you use suggests the style of imagery you create, the way you see nature photography and what you aim to achieve in it is also indicated, correct me if i'm wrong but i think you see natural history photography's primary objective is to record the natural world as accurately and objectively as possible (very sorry if this is an incorrect assumption and i mean no offence in the least), personally i see nature photography as an oppurtunity to marry creativity to science and express myself using, what i love, nature. None of this is to say i am not interested including the environment of an animal but am likely to make the decision whether to or not based on aesthetics not scientific merit.
This is why i personally am quite keen on low angles and quite like a diffused foreground. Sorry if that was all a bit long winded
Just my opinion
Best wishes
Jack
PS dont think you've made a mistake posting this, quite thought provoking, i've had fun writing this at any rate
My thoughts are that method a) the low POV, is always the first choice - if your taking a portraite of a person you don't stand on a chair and take a photo looking down on them, you keep the lens parallel to them at their level - it produces the best and most natural results. This should be no different when working with small furry and feathery things.
However method b) is a perfectly acceptable second option - and usually the only option when shooting from a car!
Don't know why you've recieved a bit of flack for this - your just trying to highlight reasons for some of your critiques so fair play to you.
Cheers
Simon
Wow!
I always thought this place was a little high brow, but hadn't realised how high.
Thank you Mr Ashton, for reminding me not to be tempted to pay for membership to this clique
Are you paid to make these drawings during the day
I also agree with Dave and think some people which is no surprise have come down hard on Ray as all he is doing is showing people what he thinks and believes in so whats wrong with having an opinion, although I don't agree I still respect his opinion. I also think what Kenny has said is spot on not everyone that posts on here has the experience and knowledge of some of the guys and I think we forget the early days when we started. I remember when I was a lad and really felt like I was banging my head against a brick wall, so fair play Ray for making a valid point even though your drawings are a bit ropey and you are being paid to make them (hope your boss is not reading this)
Danny
I don't particularly like low level myself as I have stated many times due to reflections, but to even things up many have told me they don't like my methods either. Nothing wrong with that.
I think that perhaps the way the initial post was set out on this thread was less than sympathetic and does not exactly encourage new members. Some folks have a way of being what they are ,and although it can be seen as cool by some to be eccentric,it can and in some cases recently has indeed, given people confusing advice.
John Robinson
Perhaps this forum is a little high brow. I spent several years viewing on here before I had the temerity to post any images. Whilst I would encourage others to take active participation I would respectfully suggest that the general standard of the images posted here are almost always of a high order and they encourage inspiration and enthusiasm.
I consider myself privileged to be allowed to post images here though I recognise that my efforts border on the edge of acceptability.
Enjoy UKNP
Paul
Thank you Ray for providing something for people to think about when next they have a choice in how they set up and what actually it is that they want to capture.
Simon, I'm pretty sure that you are feeling rather embarrassed about how your words came over. Maybe some atonement is in order.
I think the reason that some people have come down hard is the fact that Ray gives out all this advice and appears to have all the right answers but when he comes to post an image(very few) they dont always quite match up to the standard he is keen to preach to others about.
Sorry if that offends but that is the way I see it.
I may of course be totally wrong.
As a relatively new member and poster of images on this forum, it can seem at times a little intimidating, but that's because there are some amazing images posted on here and that can be a little off putting when I compare them to my own!!
Ultimately though, I joined up so that I can learn and also pass comment where I think I can, even if it's just 'Wow!'.
Posts such as Ray's are part of that learning, for me at any rate!
I have always had the uttmost respect for everyone who participates on this forum. I'm probably the least expert unqualified of all members. I have sought and been given the benefit of others expertise for which I am most gratefull.
The forum is unique and long may it continue. Keep the opinions coming it makes interesting reading and some of us gleen information that we can use.
Barry
There can be so much theory in every pastime or everything we do, but it really does need to be backed up now and then though.
JR
I'm sure there are people out there in cyberspace who have just googled what you have explained in your post, so thanks for taking the time to do it and post it.
Regards
Rob
Simon
I'm as confused as you are
This forum highbrow?! Are you a bunch of `Sun` readers or something?!
I quite often ajust my shooting angle so to give the appearance of more depth of field for a relatively wide aperture.
Phil.
" Now for the flack "
Maybe , reading Jeremy's post above, that was the original intention.
Maybe it worked.!
I am pleased the powers have not pulled this thread as it has allowed us to see various people that we only know from the forum, in various lights !
JR
OK Kiddies, you've had your fun - I know Ray isn't always popular, and that people don't always see eye to eye with his comments or his photographic style, but it's disappointing to read that a number of you are so ready to take a pop at someone who is trying to be helpful. Everyone is free to take or leave advice that *anyone* posts on the forum, and you shouldn't dis' him for at least trying.
Personally i don't see any problem with Ray sharing his views/thoughts etc, and although for many, it will be 'sucking eggs', some may find it valuable.
Maybe its a generational thing, but i sometimes get the feeling that new-comers to 'bird photography' feel that spending thousands of pounds on the latest camera, and thousands of pounds on the longest lens in the world, and then adopting the same style of shooting as the majority {in all situations.............without thought}, is the 'only' way to validate their new hobby.
On many nature forums {less so on this site}, when a new-comer to bird photography asks for basic 'starting-out' advice, the standard replies often seem to be 'get the longest/fastest lens available and whack a tc on the end.............get the highest MP body, and crop away......................get the most expensive tripod/head available........................and machine-gun away to your hearts content.
To my mind, very little posted advice deals with the 'sucking eggs' area, which comes through experience over time, and a youngster viewing the avian galleries on most sites could be forgiven for thinking that ten grands worth of kit, is absolutely essential for them to attempt to get into their intended hobby, to make it worthwhile.
However, a bit of time spent searching this forum will actually reveal that extreme FL's are not essential, neither is 50MP's, or £500's worth of tripod/head etc, for a budding bird photographer who will probably rarely print larger than A4, and just wants to enjoy their new hobby, and enjoy the experience of gaining experience/fieldcraft etc, often on a tight budget.
There are probably a number of 'sucking egg' areas that Ray {or others} could have posted, that are rarely mentioned these days.
When was the last time that the photographic term 'perspective' was mentioned................why is shooting with the light over your shoulder 'seemingly' the only option spouted, when a newby to bird photography asks for advice etc etc.
There are many on this forum that have a wealth of experience, who defy {through their posted images/comments} the often mentioned 'narrow-minded' advice shelled out by many, across the internet, {Nigel being one...........who demonstrates great use of 'perspective', and John R, who consistantly shows through his experience, that extreme FL's are not the be-all and end-all} and i really don't see a problem when someone, such as Ray, is prepared to stick his head above the parapit, and share some basics to those who may find it valuable.
Just my tuppence worth
Whats wrong with sun readers, Jeremy
Alan
"The NPN website is intended to serve as an online resource for nature photographers of all skill levels, from beginner to professional."
"a public meeting or assembly for open discussion".
Why can't Ray post what he has and why can't people object or support openly?
This forum had a much more technical and open background to things a few years ago when people's descriptions of their image were elaborate and there was less of the arty " a picture should speak for itself, so I don't need to write any description" outlook. Whilst this is fine, it's an open forum afterall, I for one, learnt loads during that period and postings like this one as simple as it seems.
The forum caters less for the early learners now and because the general standard is high and a lot of people are far less open about how their images were gained, and comments relating to sucking eggs, I can see where the "highbrow" comment comes from. There are an awful lot of "lurkers" that would probably post should the forum appear more as a "mixed ability site" and people were more helpful in their postings from the outset and not having to PM the person to find out how the image was obtained.
It's quite inspiring to know that a lot of these images can be obtained by the kit that "you" are actually using (and it's not the most expensive kit available) and some posters don't state what kit they use possibly because of a kit inferiority complex? This all helps to raise standards at every level........but I digress.......
One thing to emerge, which I didn’t anticipated, is that there are so many photographers posting, just to showcase their work and to receive plaudits only, and in the process have their egos massaged, and not imparting any help of any consequence, in other words, takers rather than givers. All very sad really.
In all the threads I have read on this forum, I can’t honestly remember any suggestions being made as to how to improve a shot pre exposure, plenty about Photoshop techniques post exposure, seems it was wrong to some for me to try and redress the balance..
There has been comment made that I should post more of my images. I don’t see how posting images negates comments made. Surely a comment is like an image, it stands or falls on its own merits. Everyone has the right to ignore any comment made, end of story.
John, you wrote: “I've just re read this thread and noticed Ray's last comment on his original post which was _ " Now for the flack "”
Well, what was behind that, is that I knew that somewhere along the line, someone was going to have a “pop” at me, and that others scenting blood would join in, I wasn’t disappointed, just didn’t think it would be that quickly. I also know, that at least in the short term, there will be some disparaging remarks in the threads concerning “mush”. This doesn’t affect me it the least, in fact it will bring a smile to my face, as it says a lot more about the commenter than it ever could about me. If they want to try and score points over me, then that’s fine by me, I’ll just not join in, wouldn’t demean myself.
Danny “ropey”, how dare you, I’ll have you know, I’ve been conning employers with this sort of thing for years.
Re being paid for it, well I did have a booking number for it, general admin., but the majority was done in a lunch hour, I know it shows, but I thought the minimalist approach was best.
Did you like the bird ?? I.D. is a bit of a problem tho’.
I know we don’t always agree, but that’s good, its how it is discussed, with respect and good humour. I do enjoy what discussions we do have.
Jack, I think you are right when you say that I expect a N.H. shot to be true to nature, but I would qualify that. If an image is pertained to be a NH shot, then I expect it to be a reasonable representation as to what I would actually see, The human eye, dependant on what books you read, is approximately 25mm in diameter, and has a focal length of 17 -22 mm, that equates to a 12/14mm digital lens, with a f stop of 32+, that gives a fantastic DOF. If I look into the middle distance, then the both the foreground and background appear “soft”, but there is still definition there. I do like low angled shots, and I do think they have a place in this world, but not to the exclusion of everything else. I just think, that they are being catalogued under the wrong category, in many cases. But that is just a personal interpretation.
Rob, you are right, I’ve already been contacted by someone who has “googled” my sketch, I sent them a copy of it, pre downsizing for the web.
Just for your info., a week or so ago, I did another sketch showing the effect that a hides design could have on a site re shadows, that could have had numerous spin offs, i.e. how to work a reserve re the sun, distance of hide from feeders/pool etc., boy am I glad I didn’t post that.
I’m in the final throws, of obtaining permission re access to some private ancient Oak woods, near me, not many left just south of Heathrow. I was going to post an invite on here to join me when I walk the site, re putting up feeding/pool sites, and if they wish to then actually build/work them, but I don’t think that is such a good thing anymore, as I would be teaching them how to “suck eggs”, and I would also be “popped” at, so best to leave well alone.
Saying that, two people have already asked if they could string along, so there is some who want to learn. I’m not saying what I do is the holy grail, far from it, but it works for me, and it can be used as a foundation for others to work from.
When I was just starting work, I was told to work with a craftsman, look and listen, and you won’t go far wrong. This forum is surely the next best thing to personal contact, but from reading some of the above, that isn’t what many perceive this forum to be for.
Sorry if I have missed any ones comments out, but there are quite a few you know.
I have found this thread very illuminating, much more so than I anticipated I would, and in some cases tells far more about the authors than they realise.
Thanks for the "support" for want of a word, all duly noted.
I'm still waiting for a response from Phil Shaw regarding his comment - he's got me baffled
Simon
I do agree with this phrase Ray, but what I see is that you criticised everyone picture ruthlessly and we never post yours! If you are As good at taking picture that you are at giving advise you must tons of cracking shot in your library? why don`t you post more of them. To criticised the work of other is one thing but You have got to back up yourself with Very good picture, And As we do not see any picture but plenty of criticism on other people picture it is only normal that A lot of people react the way they did . I was a member for a year and posted plenty I did say a few thing about other people picture but I was posting some of mine, and I think that is only fair?
Frederic
Look at the following link, it was posted 6 days ago.
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=39260&CGISESSID=cf2e214689d5cd78d0c86a911ce05e9b&u=17773
Steve I have got a restaurant and I do get critic all the time in the place! It is not because you are a critic that you are always right. I know critic who are also Imbecile(Good French Word!) In fact I got an article about my restaurant two wek ago and I got slaughter!! The chap discribe one of my dish and He got it wrong! He mention ingrediens wich were not in the dish!! An imbecile!!...So You see I am in a trade were there are guides talking about us and I thing that I know what I am talking about....I know what critic are all about 70% of them talk about themself! and if there is a bit of place left in the article they will write about you. I think that it is Ethical to post picture before giving a critic on someone else picture that is my view.
Frederic
I sympathise most wholeheartedly with your imbecile, but i didnt say i actually agreed with critics, i was merely highlighting a point in this world where everyone appears to be a critic, or "expert" of some sort, with no qualifications whatsoever. Being a critic is purely subjective, not objective, you only have to look at one persons opinion against anothers. Of course, some will agree, but others will have wildly differing opinions. Marmite is a prime example.
With regard to comments on apertures and the human eye, read the current NPN article here, which is quite interesting and suggests the human eye has an aperture range of f2.4 – f9.
http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles0209/rb0209-1.html
This thread also rehashes an older topic, that of an ‘images posted to comments made ratio’. A minimum suggested a while ago was 1 image posted to four comments made, to avoid people posting and not commenting (the taking and not giving), but no maximum was given. I would be against any maximum level, as it may exclude some from taking part. There may be others like myself who may have time to comment in the evening/at night (or at lunchtime at work), and enjoy giving praise where it’s due and constructive criticism/suggestion where we feel able, but don’t get out to take images as much as we’d like, to post. Everybody is entitled to an opinion, even on a photograph that may be above their ability to achieve (if this were not the case I would be posting far fewer comments!), and this goes for constructive criticism as well, as you don't need to know how to take a photo to be able to see the problems with a photo (I find it very hard to be self critical, and like to see as much feedback as possible).
The other potentially contentious topic raised here and elsewhere, that of a definition of a ‘natural history photograph’, is much more personal, and as this forum is about ‘the art and technique of nature photography’, perhaps irrelevant (‘nature’ lacking the connotations that ‘natural history’ has).
And I have met two people recently who are totally indifferent when it comes to Marmite!
Greg
I will repeat and have said this several times before. One thing that worries me about this forum which is " a natural history " picture site, is the often complete un awareness of the complexities and difficulties in photographing different species or biological groups, which is apparent by some of the comments.
For example in old fashioned terms. Give everyone a 36 exposure film and say come back with a un cropped sharp picture of a Coal Tit. Then say go to Gigrin and get me a Kite pic.
JohnR
Well this thread is now slowing down, so I think it is time to look back over it.
This was, at least for me, a very instructional exercise.
I know that at least one person has copied the sketch for their records, and a number of members have requested a copy of my sketch concerning hide shadows, which I mentioned in passing, together with any other information, ideally with pictures, of positioning of hides re water and feeders.
So starting this thread was worthwhile.
Another plus, was that I got an unsolicited critique on my Black Headed Bunting. That was very informative in more ways than one, so thanks Frederic.
So that’s all pluses.
I have to put my hands up and admit there were moments when I really felt like biting back, but I’m very glad that I didn’t, must be old age.
There are two things I would like to finish up with.
Greg earlier today, I was driving down the motorway and I could see for miles. So I concentrated my vision at some detail at least a mile away, and then whilst still looking into the distance, I tried to see if on my peripheral vision I could discern and detail, or was it all lost. It wasn’t, so to my mind that is what really counts, and that to the human eye, there isn’t any perceptible mush, this is all due to the laws of physics/optics and thus isn’t how we see the world. For me end of story.
Secondly, I mentioned that I’m hoping to open a number of new water/feeding stations. I have thought about this, and have decided that I won’t be posting any invitations here, as I don’t want to be perceived as patronising anyone. But saying that, if it all works out as I hope, and anyone is interested, then contact me directly and I’ll at least put you on a “list”.
Finally, I have to give a BIG thank you to the mods for allowing this to run, if they hadn’t, then the exchange of information re hides etc. just wouldn’t have happened, and yes, I do know I’m a pain in the a***, but do I care ??? Besides, if I recall two members asked me to rejoin, so really its could be said, that it’s all self inflicted.
Well that’s it, a good job well done. Special thanks to all who have contributed above, and to those who contacted me directly. Many, many thanks.
Frederic