Very nice shot. I know from your blog you dont post process your images but geez :) a little PP (post processing) would bring so much more detail in this awesome shot.
But I can understand where you are coming from. Teaches you to become better photographer rather than try fix things later.
Thanks abeleski, putting up photos on this forum has its limits. ie the size. I've looked at a lot of blogs and bird photography and wonder how much is the moment captured, and how much is computer generated. The PP I do for my own enjoyment, but rarely put anything out into the world. But I understand what you are saying, and appreciate the comments.
I've succumbed to the birding bug!
Alice Springs, NT
Completely understand where you are coming from there Richard. I have been very disappointed to learn that much of what I assumed was great gear and top photography has been manufactured in PP. The quest for perfection seems to lose something for me of the actual moment that inspired the shot.
Nice shot of the Kite. I am useless at identifying them in flight as they always seem to be in silhouette when I spot them and still don't know enough about the tails etc.
There's a big step of honesty between enhancement and computer generation and as photographers we make the call we just need to tell the truth about it. My 2 bobs worth anyway. Good work on this photograph.
Yes Bushy you are right there :)
Re Janama: Yes nature can be cruel, that is the real world .... and regarding the juv BB here is an example of the Pied Juv
In regards to the PP. I am with you on your stance partially. Partially because I only go as far as PPing as to lighten the shadows or drop the overblown highlights. That sort of thing. I don't think its cheating as long as the picture does not end up something unnatural. Your digital camera does PP itself anyway depending on what setting you have it set to. The only time it won't is if you shoot in raw format and you only do that if you are going to PP it anyway. Is it cheating if you up the sharpness in your camera or set it to vivid to saturate the colors more? Its the nature of the digital world.
The gear used and the photographers skill are still important regardless if you PP or not. If you take a bad photo there is only so much that PP can achieve and more than likely it will still be a bad photo after PP.
I agree, some go way too far and the end result ends up being something totally different than what was seen with the photographers eye. I think this is esp important not to do when photographing wildlife. I think there is a place for PPing over the top when you want to come up with something artistic as long as that is the intention and the photographer is honest about it.
I feel like i have babled too much. I am new here and I should ease off before I upset too many people. :) Having said that I am not criticising anybody. Its just a discussion right? :)
Absolutely it is a discussion ( as long as Richard does not mind the thread hijack :') ). In fact I quite agree with you. Nothing wrong with just enough PP at all, it is just the "changing it from what was there to something unbelievable" that I don't like.
We all interpret our photography differently. To some, it doesn't matter a damn if the shot is not as sharp or perfect as it could be as long as it records what they want. In the same way that I don't give a damn about what car I drive and whether it is clean and shiny or not LOL, whereas to some people that is sacrilege. (my car certainly would be to most guys I think)
A bad photographer with the most expensive gear is still a bad photographer.
I am passionate about photography, but the main thing with me in my birding, is being in the moment and recording it as best as I can. If there are constraints from the way the subject is positioned or it has things distracting from it then I simply wouldn't use that image for anything important. I wouldn't remove half the stuff in PP just because I can, if you know what I mean. In case anyone disagrees with us here, just remember it is just a discussion and no one is right or wrong so we don't need to worry about anyone getting upset.....right??? :')
Hi Folks, fter all of the above, alas I have discovered, or more rightly been corrected, that this is actually a Spotted Harrier. Still learning! As far as PP is concerned, each to their own. I've enjoyed the respect you have all shown for others' opinions, nice to read.
I've succumbed to the birding bug!
Alice Springs, NT
Richard.... I don't know much about IDs of BOPs but we do have a couple of experts on here. It just looks more like the swamp harrier in my field guide to me. Presumably you have been corrected by your own expert?? LOL
"The other (distinguishing feature) one is the facial disc on the Spotted Harrier which is clearly visible in your photographs giving an almost owl-like appearance from some aspects."
I'm happy for any further recommendations though. This guy generally knows his stuff, but I doubt there is a birder with a 100% record.
I've succumbed to the birding bug!
Alice Springs, NT
It's a harrier and Spotted Harrier appears right especially when I looked at the other blog photos. The location where you saw it would also be a good way of identifying as Spotted Harriers are more open plains kind of hunters and Swamp Harriers are just that; Swamp Harriers are most often within a stone's throw from a swamp or wetland. The giss of this bird seems to be more spotted than swamp. I don't know, I am certainly not that good on ID. After all I cannot even tell the difference between the calls of a Rufous Whistler and an Eastern Whipbird. LOL!!!!
Windhover, telephoto lenses are a fantastic tool. But if I had a head camera that would focus where my eyes looked, then I would have been a lot closer as the first time this bird flew up I was less than 10 metres away, and the area here is very swampy at the moment, but generally not so. For some of the shots I had a 2X extender on, which takes away the autofocus but occasionally you get lucky.
I've succumbed to the birding bug!
Alice Springs, NT
Very nice shot. I know from your blog you dont post process your images but geez :) a little PP (post processing) would bring so much more detail in this awesome shot.
But I can understand where you are coming from. Teaches you to become better photographer rather than try fix things later.
Thanks
I was born to live and I live to die.
Thanks abeleski, putting up photos on this forum has its limits. ie the size. I've looked at a lot of blogs and bird photography and wonder how much is the moment captured, and how much is computer generated. The PP I do for my own enjoyment, but rarely put anything out into the world. But I understand what you are saying, and appreciate the comments.
I've succumbed to the birding bug!
Alice Springs, NT
Completely understand where you are coming from there Richard. I have been very disappointed to learn that much of what I assumed was great gear and top photography has been manufactured in PP. The quest for perfection seems to lose something for me of the actual moment that inspired the shot.
Nice shot of the Kite. I am useless at identifying them in flight as they always seem to be in silhouette when I spot them and still don't know enough about the tails etc.
Sunshine Coast Queensland
There's a big step of honesty between enhancement and computer generation and as photographers we make the call we just need to tell the truth about it. My 2 bobs worth anyway. Good work on this photograph.
See Yez
Trev
Yes Bushy you are right there :)
Re Janama: Yes nature can be cruel, that is the real world .... and regarding the juv BB here is an example of the Pied Juv
Sunshine Coast Queensland
Oops sorry wrong thread!!!
Sunshine Coast Queensland
rjwaring and birdie.
In regards to the PP. I am with you on your stance partially. Partially because I only go as far as PPing as to lighten the shadows or drop the overblown highlights. That sort of thing. I don't think its cheating as long as the picture does not end up something unnatural. Your digital camera does PP itself anyway depending on what setting you have it set to. The only time it won't is if you shoot in raw format and you only do that if you are going to PP it anyway. Is it cheating if you up the sharpness in your camera or set it to vivid to saturate the colors more? Its the nature of the digital world.
The gear used and the photographers skill are still important regardless if you PP or not. If you take a bad photo there is only so much that PP can achieve and more than likely it will still be a bad photo after PP.
I agree, some go way too far and the end result ends up being something totally different than what was seen with the photographers eye. I think this is esp important not to do when photographing wildlife. I think there is a place for PPing over the top when you want to come up with something artistic as long as that is the intention and the photographer is honest about it.
I feel like i have babled too much. I am new here and I should ease off before I upset too many people. :) Having said that I am not criticising anybody. Its just a discussion right? :)
I was born to live and I live to die.
Absolutely it is a discussion ( as long as Richard does not mind the thread hijack :') ). In fact I quite agree with you. Nothing wrong with just enough PP at all, it is just the "changing it from what was there to something unbelievable" that I don't like.
We all interpret our photography differently. To some, it doesn't matter a damn if the shot is not as sharp or perfect as it could be as long as it records what they want. In the same way that I don't give a damn about what car I drive and whether it is clean and shiny or not LOL, whereas to some people that is sacrilege. (my car certainly would be to most guys I think)
A bad photographer with the most expensive gear is still a bad photographer.
I am passionate about photography, but the main thing with me in my birding, is being in the moment and recording it as best as I can. If there are constraints from the way the subject is positioned or it has things distracting from it then I simply wouldn't use that image for anything important. I wouldn't remove half the stuff in PP just because I can, if you know what I mean. In case anyone disagrees with us here, just remember it is just a discussion and no one is right or wrong so we don't need to worry about anyone getting upset.....right??? :')
Sunshine Coast Queensland
Hi Folks, fter all of the above, alas I have discovered, or more rightly been corrected, that this is actually a Spotted Harrier. Still learning! As far as PP is concerned, each to their own. I've enjoyed the respect you have all shown for others' opinions, nice to read.
I've succumbed to the birding bug!
Alice Springs, NT
Richard.... I don't know much about IDs of BOPs but we do have a couple of experts on here. It just looks more like the swamp harrier in my field guide to me. Presumably you have been corrected by your own expert?? LOL
Sunshine Coast Queensland
Birdie, advice given was:
"The other (distinguishing feature) one is the facial disc on the Spotted Harrier which is clearly visible in your photographs giving an almost owl-like appearance from some aspects."
I'm happy for any further recommendations though. This guy generally knows his stuff, but I doubt there is a birder with a 100% record.
I've succumbed to the birding bug!
Alice Springs, NT
Fair enough and as I said... I ma hopeless with BOP
Sunshine Coast Queensland
It's a harrier and Spotted Harrier appears right especially when I looked at the other blog photos. The location where you saw it would also be a good way of identifying as Spotted Harriers are more open plains kind of hunters and Swamp Harriers are just that; Swamp Harriers are most often within a stone's throw from a swamp or wetland. The giss of this bird seems to be more spotted than swamp. I don't know, I am certainly not that good on ID. After all I cannot even tell the difference between the calls of a Rufous Whistler and an Eastern Whipbird. LOL!!!!
But how did you get this close?
Akos, Akos......, what can I say?
M-L
Windhover, telephoto lenses are a fantastic tool. But if I had a head camera that would focus where my eyes looked, then I would have been a lot closer as the first time this bird flew up I was less than 10 metres away, and the area here is very swampy at the moment, but generally not so. For some of the shots I had a 2X extender on, which takes away the autofocus but occasionally you get lucky.
I've succumbed to the birding bug!
Alice Springs, NT
Nice shot mate.