Having read, with interest, the Pete Cairns post about the uses of wildlife images, I ended up deciding that I was, well, confused! Having thought about it, I'm pretty sure (I think), I support the premise that images CAN make a difference in promoting wildlife.
Last night (at the third attempt) I got 'my' shot:
1. Yes, it is dark (the bird arrived when it wanted to i.e. dusk!).
2. Yes, it is noisy (ISO 800 on a Canon 1DS3 is not as good as a Nikon D3).
3. Yes, I should have got closer to avoid using a x2 converter (poor field-craft).
In short, this image is unlikely to be used to promote anything because it doesn't live up to the perfect look of the "honey-pot" picture. So, please dismiss it! But before you do, have a closer look and read the story . . . notice the warn-out number '8' on the shooting butt of a managed grouse-shooting moor. Then think about what the photographer was trying to symbolise by the juxtaposition of curlew and man-made fixture. When all the ‘gun-men’ have gone, nature reclaims the land.
So, am I "photographer of wildlife" or a "wildlife photographer"? Errrr . . . like most, probably a bit of both? What I do know is that you take your chances in the 'wild' or at a 'honey-pot'. Either place rewards the creative, you only have to look at one of the best shots on this forum to realise that:
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=44726&CGISESSID=104ee151faa4f1dcf3f993a861a4ffaa&u=8432
Hope you like 'my' image.
Cheers,
Chris
1Ds3
500 + x2
1/160 @ f8
ISO 800
Bean-bag
Full-frame width, 30% cropped from the sky
Chris, the image may be too dark to see anything, on my screen the 8 is barely visable..
And to answer the question, we are all a bit of both, for nobody knows everything, what matters is we undertake the the journey... and then it is not us but our peers that assign our designation.
... as T.S. Eliot said
We shall not cease from exploration,
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
This is my point (or at least one of them!).
Your entry is not about the image alone - it's not the best, it's not the worst - but about the story behind it and the context within which it can be set - much more powerful I feel.
Interesting stuff Chris - cheers for commenting on my image!
I always find stuff like this interesting, although I think its a difficult feat to pull off... One image that always sticks in my head along the same concept, was in WLPOTY a few years ago, of 2 SeaLions rubbing noses inside the rusting porthole of the old abandoned whaling station in the Antarctic, such an ironically effective image and the sort of thing i'd love to capture one day on my travels.
3. Yes, I should have got closer to avoid using a x2 converter (poor field-craft).
Maybe, but then again maybe not. Poorer field craft by trying to get too close may have resulted in a spooked bird resulting in no photo oppurtunity.
Besides, the image isn't one that's dependant on every last ounce of quality, such as a close up portrait, so with that in mind, perhaps staying back and using the 2X was actually good field craft in this instance.
Discussion
5 repliesLast night (at the third attempt) I got 'my' shot:
1. Yes, it is dark (the bird arrived when it wanted to i.e. dusk!).
2. Yes, it is noisy (ISO 800 on a Canon 1DS3 is not as good as a Nikon D3).
3. Yes, I should have got closer to avoid using a x2 converter (poor field-craft).
In short, this image is unlikely to be used to promote anything because it doesn't live up to the perfect look of the "honey-pot" picture. So, please dismiss it! But before you do, have a closer look and read the story . . . notice the warn-out number '8' on the shooting butt of a managed grouse-shooting moor. Then think about what the photographer was trying to symbolise by the juxtaposition of curlew and man-made fixture. When all the ‘gun-men’ have gone, nature reclaims the land.
So, am I "photographer of wildlife" or a "wildlife photographer"? Errrr . . . like most, probably a bit of both? What I do know is that you take your chances in the 'wild' or at a 'honey-pot'. Either place rewards the creative, you only have to look at one of the best shots on this forum to realise that:
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=44726&CGISESSID=104ee151faa4f1dcf3f993a861a4ffaa&u=8432
Hope you like 'my' image.
Cheers,
Chris
1Ds3
500 + x2
1/160 @ f8
ISO 800
Bean-bag
Full-frame width, 30% cropped from the sky
And to answer the question, we are all a bit of both, for nobody knows everything, what matters is we undertake the the journey... and then it is not us but our peers that assign our designation.
... as T.S. Eliot said
We shall not cease from exploration,
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
T
Thanks for the heads up.
This is my point (or at least one of them!).
Your entry is not about the image alone - it's not the best, it's not the worst - but about the story behind it and the context within which it can be set - much more powerful I feel.
Good work.
Pete
I always find stuff like this interesting, although I think its a difficult feat to pull off... One image that always sticks in my head along the same concept, was in WLPOTY a few years ago, of 2 SeaLions rubbing noses inside the rusting porthole of the old abandoned whaling station in the Antarctic, such an ironically effective image and the sort of thing i'd love to capture one day on my travels.
Maybe, but then again maybe not. Poorer field craft by trying to get too close may have resulted in a spooked bird resulting in no photo oppurtunity.
Besides, the image isn't one that's dependant on every last ounce of quality, such as a close up portrait, so with that in mind, perhaps staying back and using the 2X was actually good field craft in this instance.