Nature Photographers Network
This is the preserved archive of the original Nature Photographers Network. The community continues at naturephotographers.network.

Tit on Tap +1 for the sceptics.

Discussion

26 replies
Posted by John Robinson on March 9, 2010 at 3:27 PM
Tit  on Tap +1 for the sceptics.
Great Tits.
Photographed off an Ecktachrome trannie taken in 1970.
Something was eating the soap in the outside toilet. Turned out to be Great Tits.!
Pentax S1a
Metze flash. Eckt.64 Hence the blue.
Big piece of sacking. Ever tried building a hide in a toilet ? :biggrin:
Terrible picture really, but thought you might be interested.
Frederic might like it ! :smile:
JohnR
Posted by Edwin kats on March 9, 2010 at 3:30 PM
I think Frederic will like these old tits :biggrin:

Great quality after more then 30 years.

BTW....why do you name them tits? A bit weird, isn't it?
And what about woodcock?

Edwin
Posted by Paul Rosser on March 9, 2010 at 3:31 PM
Wow, who'd have thought that? Bet they were clean though :biggrin: :wink: . Well caught John!
Regards,
Paul. :wavey:
Posted by Frederic Desmette on March 9, 2010 at 3:36 PM
Lovely pair of tits John!
Best wishes :wink:
Frederic

By the way Edwin it is 40 years :jump:
Posted by John Robinson on March 9, 2010 at 3:37 PM
Thanks .
Here;s your answer Edwin

"These birds are called either "chickadees" (onomatopoeic, derived from their distinctive "chick-a dee dee dee" alarm call) or "titmice" in North America, and just "tits" in the rest of the English-speaking world. The name titmouse is recorded from the 14th century, composed of the Old English name for the bird, mase (Proto-Germanic *maison, German Meise) and tit, denoting something small. The spelling was influenced by mouse in the 16th century. Emigrants to New Zealand presumably identified some of the superficially similar birds of the genus Petroica of the family Petroicidae, the Australian robins, as members of the tit family, giving them the title Tomtit although, in fact, they are not related"
Posted by Edwin kats on March 9, 2010 at 3:40 PM
Thanks John. That's one.

Now for the woodcock :biggrin:

Ed
Posted by Edwin kats on March 9, 2010 at 3:41 PM
@Frederic.... I said MORE then 30 years :smile:

Ed
Posted by Frederic Desmette on March 9, 2010 at 3:42 PM
Woodcock : You have got to be from Holland to ask a question like that :wavey: :jump: :jump: :cool:
Frederic
Posted by Lee Newman on March 9, 2010 at 3:43 PM
Nice image John, educational too.

Lee
Posted by Edwin kats on March 9, 2010 at 3:43 PM
:biggrin:
Posted by Stephen Kaluski on March 9, 2010 at 3:44 PM
John give me film any day, well sometimes.

Based on the 'age' of the image, isn't it a testimony to just how good it really is, although going back to it, can, at times, be a struggle :smile: We mustn't forget that this was 'state-of-the-art' photography and probably leading edge. Love the comp, light, interaction etc, however on viewing it, there is a lot we we need to take into account and areas we either take for granted, or dismiss, these days with digital.

A hint of nostalgia I guess. :toast: :toast:

TFS
Steve

PS I think you need to get some Vikal out on that limescale :biggrin:
Posted by John Robinson on March 9, 2010 at 4:01 PM
Spot on Steve!
We certainly do take things for granted these days. Trouble is you only really appreciate it when you saw the other side. This only came out as iwas going through old stuff, and actually throwing hundreds of slides in the bin. Forty years ago I though they were the bees knees. Now I look and they are terrible !!
The other good thing about old age is -
-you get to sit nearer the front at funerals !! :frown:
Its great to chill out now and then and look at the funnier side of photography.. Listen me "chill out " at 70 Crikey.
JohnR
Posted by Justin on March 9, 2010 at 4:19 PM
An interesting image and an equally interesting story about them eating the soap :eek:
Posted by Stephen Kaluski on March 9, 2010 at 4:20 PM
John where will photography be in 40 years time, will it have 'developed' as much as it has done?

As I said, this is nostalgia and good to see as a comparison, no chance of doing the things we are able/take for granted these days. Certain people would not believe what work was done on 10 x 8's in the form of retouching, dyes & inks :biggrin: No chance of indulging it getting that 'perfect' shot :biggrin:

On a serious note John, were you more concerned in getting the shot then, or now?

BTW John, if you can't chillout now, when can you?

Steve :wavey:
Posted by Ian Haskell on March 9, 2010 at 4:36 PM
Great and different shots of tits! Nice to see something different.

Photography hasn't really moved on...there are just more forms of it available...and more choice open to individual photographers. I for one am beginning to learn 5x4 (film)...which is more of a challenge.

Ian
Posted by Mark Davies on March 9, 2010 at 5:01 PM
Top notch John , bad language tits perhaps ?( well I used to get '' I'll wash your mouth out with soapy water !'') :toast:
Posted by Craig Jones on March 9, 2010 at 5:14 PM
Very funny image love it :wink: :wavey:
Posted by Matt Cole on March 10, 2010 at 4:32 AM
very interesting John, certainly an unusual shot. The image quality looks very good.

Matt :toast:
Posted by Ian Macdermott on March 10, 2010 at 5:21 AM
Nice to see some film again John :smile:


As for " outside toilet " that brings back some chilly memories :biggrin:
Posted by Mark Caton on March 10, 2010 at 5:57 AM
Great image John - made me think more about the "soap" than their names - was it setup by any chance?

I can't imagine birds going for soap now - perhaps they don't make it like they did in the old days!

I have some old Ektachrome from the 70's, but not up to this quality.

Thanks for showing.
Posted by Mark Green on March 10, 2010 at 6:02 AM
excellent image. nice to see something soo different on the perch front too :wink:

:smile:
Mark.G
Posted by eric weight on March 10, 2010 at 7:29 AM
Are they stuffed?
(only kidding :smile: )
5-10 years any stills we publish will be frames from video clips taken at iso 10,000. There will be no such thing as a soft or blurred shot unless JohnMcP produces them on purpose.
Always interesting John.

:toast: eric
Posted by Robert Lawrence on March 10, 2010 at 11:35 AM
It's certainly a lot easier these days John.
Posted by David Taylor on March 10, 2010 at 3:45 PM
Not really proof that they are the culprits, no soap on their beaks as far as I can see. Guilt by association is not on IMO. :smile: :wink: Nice to see, well worth posting.

:toast: :toast: :jump:
Posted by John Robinson on March 10, 2010 at 6:58 PM
Thanks all.
For the non believers.
This is not a set up. They got through three bars of soap in all - Palmolive as I recall. It's only a form of fat anyway. As I said that year they took most of the putty out of the bog window frame too.
John R
Posted by Brett Lewis on March 10, 2010 at 7:28 PM
Great to see these shots John and interesting behaviour too.. As you say, it a fat source after all.

Brett :toast:
Posted by David Taylor on March 11, 2010 at 4:38 AM
Well done John, I knew you would have the proof somewhere. :biggrin: :wink:

:toast: :toast: :jump: