Posted by Ben Darvill on March 31, 2010 at 10:35 AM
Okay - so my first photo post on here. I took this more than 10 years ago, before a career ate into my time.
Canon 500n, Sensia 400, probably f 5.6 at around 1/15 or 1/30.
Natural light after a thunderstorm, with the dark bank behind.
To be transparent, this was taken from a hide close to a nest entrance in the UK. I was a student and had no idea at the time that licences were needed. The birds weren't disturbed and nested successfully, but I'm a little ashamed that I unwittingly broke the law.
it's a nicely composed image Ben and always a bonus to get one with a fish in its mouth. It looks a little soft on my screen and the colours slightly muted. I also think the shadows could be lifted a little, particularly around the eye.
Matt
Posted by Jeff Harrison on March 31, 2010 at 12:54 PM
A very nice first post Ben but I'd have to agree with Matt's comments
There's no shame in now recognising that in your youth you unwittingly broke the Schedule 1 licensing laws - full marks for coming clean about it.
Sadly, even today the licensing laws are still unknown or misunderstood by many photographers.
As a boy (more than 50 years ago now ) I was an egg collector - in a very small way - as were many of my contemporaries including Sir David Attenborough and Bill Oddie.
However and whilst now recognising the error of my ways, I bear no shame for such innocent boyhood activities. It was how I learned much of my fieldcraft and which I now put to good use not only in connection with my photography but also as a BTO Nest Recorder
Posted by John Robinson on March 31, 2010 at 7:41 PM
Good comments raised above.
Jeff
I am still somewhat confused by your Schedule1 references on your posts.
That licence has to be applied for each year with sites specified etc etc, and all the rubbish that goes with it.(We won't go into that !)
Do you apply for a licence for those three every year then continuously or what ?
I have had dozens of Sched one permits over the past years but they only last for one year without a re application surely ? If I apply for one this year and don't use it I still have to re apply as I see it , for next year ? So when I had my sched 1 for stone curlew in 1970 I could say I was a licence holder for Sched1 Stone Curlew ! ? Surely not.
I worked for the three orgs that issued the licences but I was still refused more than I got .!
Sorry to appear vague but I assume you apply for and get thet three you ask for every year according to your reference to them? ?
Perhaps you mean to say Schedule 1 Licence holder for such and such a species -2010 perhaps?
I think its only right that the licence procedures should be clear to all especially new comers to the "sport"
Cheers
JohnR
I'm sorry that you're still confused by my Schedule 1 references (as part of my 'signature') John - I thought I'd explained/confirmed the position when you first queried the matter some months ago. Let me try again by answering your questions -
Yes - Schedule 1 licences are time limited (not always annual, ie. lasting for a whole year) and are site specific.
Yes - I have applied for and been granted licences for Kingfishers and Barn Owls every year for several years now. Last year was my first year for Avocets and that licence has also been renewed for 2010.
Yes - applications to renew licences have to be made as previous licences expire, whether or not the earlier licence was actually used. Nest reports also have to be submitted.
"So when I had my sched 1 for stone curlew in 1970 I could say I was a licence holder for Sched1 Stone Curlew ! ? Surely not" - I'm afraid I don't understand your point here John Surely if you actually held a Schedule 1 Stone Curlew licence in 1970 then it would have been perfectly right and proper to have said so - in 1970. And if, for whatever reason (eg. if you wanted to now post an old nest-based SC photo), you still wanted to refer to it now you could presumably say something like "former Schedule 1 Licence holder for Stone Curlews...etc"?
"Sorry to appear vague but I assume you apply for and get the three you ask for every year according to your reference to them?" - exactly so.
"Perhaps you mean to say Schedule 1 Licence holder for such and such a species - 2010 perhaps?" - Again I'm afraid I don't quite understand your point here John - I see no need to specify the year, provided that I continue to hold the licences concerned at the time of posting.
"I think its only right that the licence procedures should be clear to all...." - I entirely agree John and have devoted a page on my website to "Schedule 1 Licensing" in an effort to spread the word - it's here for anyone who might be interested -
Finally, although you don't ask it occurs to me that many may think "why mention being a licence holder at all?" - the answer is because on posting what are sometimes obviously nest-based photos on some other websites (and before I began to make reference to being a licence holder) I was challenged several times and warned that I was committing a criminal offence. I therefore decided to include a reference to my licences as part of my 'signature' for all web postings. The holding of a licence does, of course, also indicate some degree of expertise with regard to the species concerned, as in order to get a licence one has to demonstrate some understanding of the breeding ecology of that species.
I hope that clarifies the situation John but do please get back to me if anything remains unclear
Regards, Jeff
PS. with apologies to Ben for taking your thread a little off topic.
Definitely looks soft on here and as Matt has said there could be some improvements made in the processing. The composition is fine as it is but I have to say I don't like the black background.
Posted by David Sewell on April 1, 2010 at 5:07 AM
To bring the discussion back to the posting, I agree with Matt's comments. Some of these, such as the shadows around the eye, are relatively easy matters to improve.
As for the Schedule 1 issue, I commend you, Ben, for your honesty. Like Jeff, I used to get queries about the legality of nest shots when I used to photograph Schedule 1 species at nest many years ago. These days I only hold licences for the rarer British herpetofauna. Interesting that I have never been asked about the legality of any shots I have taken of these. I wonder if people are aware of what is protected and what is not, or if we put different standards on birds and mammals compared to other taxa?
....and are you now clear regarding my Schedule 1 references John?
If so, a simple yes will suffice. But if not, and rather than take Ben's thread any further off-topic, please feel free to e-mail me regarding your queries/concerns and I'll do my best to clarify further.
Welcome to the forum. Not sure why most of the 25 odd people who have welcomed Dale on the post above haven't done the same with you, a bit rude I reckon .
I agree with the nits already mentioned, a bit more sharpening and some work on the shadows would improve it IMO. I like the black bg personally.
I admire your honesty regarding the schedule 1 licensing, its amazing how many people still have no idea about schedule 1 and it took me ages to find the correct list a while back, so Pete's link is very useful.
Ben
Sorry - Got caught up in other matters, Welcome to the forum.
You may - or may not find it stimulating
Cheers
John
Jeff
Sent you a PM, as you requested.
JR
Discussion
11 repliesCanon 500n, Sensia 400, probably f 5.6 at around 1/15 or 1/30.
Natural light after a thunderstorm, with the dark bank behind.
To be transparent, this was taken from a hide close to a nest entrance in the UK. I was a student and had no idea at the time that licences were needed. The birds weren't disturbed and nested successfully, but I'm a little ashamed that I unwittingly broke the law.
Matt
There's no shame in now recognising that in your youth you unwittingly broke the Schedule 1 licensing laws - full marks for coming clean about it.
Sadly, even today the licensing laws are still unknown or misunderstood by many photographers.
As a boy (more than 50 years ago now
However and whilst now recognising the error of my ways, I bear no shame for such innocent boyhood activities. It was how I learned much of my fieldcraft and which I now put to good use not only in connection with my photography but also as a BTO Nest Recorder
Jeff
I am still somewhat confused by your Schedule1 references on your posts.
That licence has to be applied for each year with sites specified etc etc, and all the rubbish that goes with it.(We won't go into that !)
Do you apply for a licence for those three every year then continuously or what ?
I have had dozens of Sched one permits over the past years but they only last for one year without a re application surely ? If I apply for one this year and don't use it I still have to re apply as I see it , for next year ? So when I had my sched 1 for stone curlew in 1970 I could say I was a licence holder for Sched1 Stone Curlew ! ? Surely not.
I worked for the three orgs that issued the licences but I was still refused more than I got .!
Sorry to appear vague but I assume you apply for and get thet three you ask for every year according to your reference to them? ?
Perhaps you mean to say Schedule 1 Licence holder for such and such a species -2010 perhaps?
I think its only right that the licence procedures should be clear to all especially new comers to the "sport"
Cheers
JohnR
I'm sorry that you're still confused by my Schedule 1 references (as part of my 'signature') John - I thought I'd explained/confirmed the position when you first queried the matter some months ago. Let me try again by answering your questions -
Yes - Schedule 1 licences are time limited (not always annual, ie. lasting for a whole year) and are site specific.
Yes - I have applied for and been granted licences for Kingfishers and Barn Owls every year for several years now. Last year was my first year for Avocets and that licence has also been renewed for 2010.
Yes - applications to renew licences have to be made as previous licences expire, whether or not the earlier licence was actually used. Nest reports also have to be submitted.
"So when I had my sched 1 for stone curlew in 1970 I could say I was a licence holder for Sched1 Stone Curlew ! ? Surely not" - I'm afraid I don't understand your point here John
"Sorry to appear vague but I assume you apply for and get the three you ask for every year according to your reference to them?" - exactly so.
"Perhaps you mean to say Schedule 1 Licence holder for such and such a species - 2010 perhaps?" - Again I'm afraid I don't quite understand your point here John - I see no need to specify the year, provided that I continue to hold the licences concerned at the time of posting.
"I think its only right that the licence procedures should be clear to all...." - I entirely agree John and have devoted a page on my website to "Schedule 1 Licensing" in an effort to spread the word - it's here for anyone who might be interested -
http://www.jeffharrisonphotography.co.uk/page5485.html
Finally, although you don't ask it occurs to me that many may think "why mention being a licence holder at all?" - the answer is because on posting what are sometimes obviously nest-based photos on some other websites (and before I began to make reference to being a licence holder) I was challenged several times and warned that I was committing a criminal offence. I therefore decided to include a reference to my licences as part of my 'signature' for all web postings. The holding of a licence does, of course, also indicate some degree of expertise with regard to the species concerned, as in order to get a licence one has to demonstrate some understanding of the breeding ecology of that species.
I hope that clarifies the situation John but do please get back to me if anything remains unclear
Regards, Jeff
PS. with apologies to Ben for taking your thread a little off topic.
As for the Schedule 1 issue, I commend you, Ben, for your honesty. Like Jeff, I used to get queries about the legality of nest shots when I used to photograph Schedule 1 species at nest many years ago. These days I only hold licences for the rarer British herpetofauna. Interesting that I have never been asked about the legality of any shots I have taken of these. I wonder if people are aware of what is protected and what is not, or if we put different standards on birds and mammals compared to other taxa?
David
Cheers
JohnR
Good to see you on here!
A useful spreadsheet for finding out what species have legal protection can be downloaded from the JNCC at: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/Files/Taxon_designations_20091123.zip
....and are you now clear regarding my Schedule 1 references John?
If so, a simple yes will suffice. But if not, and rather than take Ben's thread any further off-topic, please feel free to e-mail me regarding your queries/concerns and I'll do my best to clarify further.
Regards, Jeff
Hi Ben,
Welcome to the forum. Not sure why most of the 25 odd people who have welcomed Dale on the post above haven't done the same with you, a bit rude I reckon
I agree with the nits already mentioned, a bit more sharpening and some work on the shadows would improve it IMO. I like the black bg personally.
I admire your honesty regarding the schedule 1 licensing, its amazing how many people still have no idea about schedule 1 and it took me ages to find the correct list a while back, so Pete's link is very useful.
Looking forward to more.
Cheers,
Lewis.
Sorry - Got caught up in other matters, Welcome to the forum.
You may - or may not find it stimulating
Cheers
John
Jeff
Sent you a PM, as you requested.
JR