Nuthatch

Ok, fair enough Phil.

I appreciate your concerns and agree with some points you raise,disagree with others,seems a tad unfair on Ian though raising them in his thread and singling him out in effect.

I`m not after an argument Phil, just my opinion fella.......(y)
 
purpleclouds said:
The fact I used Sawman as an example is irrelevant...
Click to expand...

But why did you use him then out of all the people you could have?

most people are within easy distance of somewhere good for wildlife, whether that be their own garden or a country park.
Click to expand...

A bit of a sweeping generalisation there for many people who have no garden and don't have that handy country park within easy walking distance'
My images of woodland birds, were taken a 10 minute drive away, in a public hide on an incredibly busy country park. The hide is luckily, quite out of the way and will luckily only see 10 visitors a day during the week. If that. But I spent days on end last Summer visiting, feeding the birds, getting them used to the sound of my shutter and so on. Where is it? Etherow Country Park, about 10 miles outside city centre Manchester, however still very much in suburbs. Hardly remote...and perfectly good for all woodland birds.
Click to expand...

Let me see if I've got this right then.... in spite of all this - stalker -indian tracker bullcack you keep coming out with, you're going to a hide in a busy public park, where the birds are used to people and no doubt being fed by all and sundry. Spare me the account of how you trained these birds to the sound of your shutter perlease!

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that of course, and if there was such a convenient shed in my local park, I would undoubtedly use it. I really don't give a flying fart how the images were obtained - it's the images which matter.

You really should try humping a 500mm -800mm lens, tripod and the ancillary equipment for a few miles though before you start dismissing other peoples efforts as "lazy" or somehow lacking the integrity of the shots you're getting from your local shed.

Tara! :wave:
 
CT said:
But why did you use him then out of all the people you could have?



A bit of a sweeping generalisation there for many people who have no garden and don't have that handy country park within easy walking distance'


Let me see if I've got this right then.... in spite of all this - stalker -indian tracker bullcack you keep coming out with, you're going to a hide in a busy public park, where the birds are used to people and no doubt being fed by all and sundry. Spare me the account of how you trained these birds to the sound of your shutter perlease!

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that of course, and if there was such a convenient shed in my local park, I would undoubtedly use it. I really don't give a flying fart how the images were obtained - it's the images which matter.

You really should try humping a 500mm -800mm lens, tripod and the ancillary equipment for a few miles though before you start dismissing other peoples efforts as "lazy" or somehow lacking the integrity of the shots you're getting from your local shed.

Tara! :wave:
Click to expand...

Sawman was the first that came to mind. That's all, because his relationship is quite unique.

You conveniently missed the vital bit of that point I made...the fact the hide was remote in the park and visited by no more than 10 people, on a good day! I know the birds nest on the opposite side of the river, which is inaccessible to the public due to the terrain, and I know there are no other feeding stations around that these visit...so no other real interaction with joe public.

Gazedd has visited with myself..he will tell you how quiet it is there, quite surreal once you leave the main paths of the park. Oh, and MarkEvan visits there too, I'm pretty sure he will fill you in on how accommodating the birds are to the sound of shutters, and there are only 3 or 4 photographers who regularly visit there (quite a nice birding community in Manchester). I think the late Papa Laz off here, is also one of the regular visitors.

A better example perhaps, my recent barn owl thread...I managed to capture him with 200mm (but that is irrelevant, just a bit of luck really....). But, over the coming Summer I intend to build up this relationship (even if it is one sided :p) Learn about him, and his methods, and get that photo. I mean, I've luckily got him so close...so with a bit of fore planning, I should be able to do it 'for real.' I might spectacularly fail...then I might by an 800 5.6. But in the mean time, I'll do it my way. If I succeed, then good for me eh! :)

But we are diverting from the initial topic of conversation here...

Fact of the matter is, 840mm on a nuthatch, is a bit of an expensive waste and doesn't shout out 'wow' in my opinion! If I can't air that opinion then New Labour win again! :)
 
sawman said:
Trouble is I can see both sides to this argument!
Click to expand...

There are two sides mate, I really don`t get what the problem is here,people should use what they want,it does not make it better or worse no matter which option anyone chooses.

I really don`t see Phils point,sorrry Phil,I simply don`t get it...........:shrug:
 
fracster said:
There are two sides mate, I really don`t get what the problem is here,people should use what they want,it does not make it better or worse no matter which option anyone chooses.

I really don`t see Phils point,sorrry Phil,I simply don`t get it...........:shrug:
Click to expand...

My point is - the shots aren't fantastic, not up to Ian's usual standard. Just goes to show big lenses aren't the solution to everything* - as we know is my belief - yet people still seem to give unwaivering congratulations as if they're the worlds best nuthatch shots :shrug: Which is annoying, when there are other shots on the forum which have received little attention. Some better, some equal, some worse (therefore perhaps more deserved of critique and help)

That is it, in a nutshell.

*although do have their place, as you pointed out Ade. I wouldn't dream of going anywhere near a bird nest with a short lens.

Edit - unwaivering congratulations is an added sarcastic exaggeration...just so you know :p
 
Last edited:
purplecloudsCan i borrow you for a while im very short on comments will you help me out:help::nuts:
 
raythefab said:
purplecloudsCan i borrow you for a while im very short on comments will you help me out:help::nuts:
Click to expand...

I gatecrashed as well............:LOL:
 
I'd be up there like a shot for your hide mate! :D
 
CT said:
I'd be up there like a shot for your hide mate! :D
Click to expand...

I have a growing list of TP members who have used it & I hope enjoyed.
I honestly do post the shots of the reds to share them with folk & I get great pleasure out of seeing folks faces when they visit the hide, & a red pops his nose in the window to give them the once over.
For ME shooting reds with a long lens now would not hold the same "intimacy" if you like.
For me it is as much about just watching them & getting to know each one as it is getting pics.
I could seriously do with something longer for the Roe though but can not make up my mind as to what I should buy.
Besides all the cash goes on feeding the hordes on the hill.:LOL:
 
You don't have to justify what you do and why Charlie - the time you've put into those reds and other wildlife there is obvious mate, as is the pleasure you get from it. Good luck to you Charlie. ;)
 
CT said:
You don't have to justify what you do and why Charlie - the time you've put into those reds and other wildlife there is obvious mate, as is the pleasure you get from it. Good luck to you Charlie. ;)
Click to expand...

Thank you.
It kinda saddens me when we all start rowing.
These days I would rather just say nought.
 
sawman said:
Thank you.
It kinda saddens me when we all start rowing.
These days I would rather just say nought.
Click to expand...
It's sad innit when a group of people who all come together with a common love end up sniping at each other?

Farping politics mate! ;)
 
Phil, I see many valid points in your discussion. Unfortunately, getting close to nature is a very personal thing which cannot be adequately covered on a forum like this (not attacking the forum) where there are too many different people with differing views. it would be more suited to a wildlife appreciation forum.

I have heard many times on here that a great image needs no explanation and with that in mind, the work behind a picture is only relevant to the picture taker. I look at the challenge in getting a good shot, as the fun part of photography, even if the final image is total carp, I've had fun getting it and can only improve on my next visit for which I do my research on the bird/animal to try to achieve.

I suppose that begs another question .. Do you see yourself as a photographer with an interest in nature or a naturalist with an interest in photography? I'm definately the latter.

We have very tame chaffinches in our local parks, of which you can nail a decent shot at 70mm but get out into the meadows/woods and you find it very difficult to get them near enough for any lens. Yet a shot of a chaffinch is just that, regardles of where it was taken.
 
Having followed this thread I was going to step in halfway through, but thought I might say the wrong thing. I am just a novice at this bird photography Lark (excuse the pun) and here are my thoughts.Myself I like to get as close to the subject as possible excluding a nest or if I was to come across a rare species, I want to be kind of at one with it, like I have been with nature for as long as I remember ( No! I aint no freaky hippie ). Surely the picture left imprinted in your head is far better than any camera or editing could replicate. As for a long lens I only have a 70-200, but no doubt there are people that looked at my pics and thought " Yeh thats quite good but he`s always using that 70-200 " :LOL: We all do our own thing and go about it in different ways.

I agree about comments left on threads, I have even started answering a few myself although I class myself as not having enough knowledge to do so. I was surprised CT mentioned that he had no time to get up all close with his subjects :LOL:, but then thats his choice, do you take photos for a living CT? You on a mission? in and out and back to press :naughty:I dont know. To be honest I am not sure who in the bird forum are photographers or hardened twitchers :thinking: When somebody does comment on a picture, is it someone who knows more about birds and less on photography? or what?:D I have no problems with getting one or two reply`s, the other day I recieved I believe my first comment from CT praising the picture, that to me was a big boost. In reality its not possible to answer every post, so maybe we should all find it in ourselves every now and then to leave some feedback for someone who you have never replied to before eh? I have seen in the past with various clubs and associations their demise, purely through lack of encouragement. Well thats enough babbling from me ;) :wave:
 
CT said:
It's sad innit when a group of people who all come together with a common love end up sniping at each other?

Farping politics mate! ;)
Click to expand...

Totally agree. (y)
Maybe I should have an open day & let everybody come hug a squirrel.:D
 
u8myufo said:
I was surprised CT mentioned that he had no time to get up all close with his subjects :LOL:, but then thats his choice, do you take photos for a living CT? You on a mission? in and out and back to press :naughty:I dont know. To be honest I am not sure who in the bird forum are photographers or hardened twitchers :thinking:
Click to expand...

:DI don't take photos for a living - not any more.. I do it purely for the love of it. I couldn't care less if I never sold an image, in fact I don't go out of my way to, but I do sell a few from my web site to people who enquire.

My primary interest and aim in going out is the photographs - of course the pleasure of just being 'out there' is part of the whole thing.
 
Phil has made a number of very valid points mind :)

Unfortuante that it was in IanCs thread, and initially looked like a personal attack on him. Apologies from me to Ian C for posting my 2 pennys worth in his thread :)

As strong as our passion is for the art of photography we don't all have equally strong bank accounts to buy the prime lenses that many use on here to photograph birds in their garden.

As this is an open forum and activly encourages n00bs like me to join, with its open to all to veiw policy, do we want to give the message that bigger glass is the only answer to quality "product"?

The craft of bird photography should not have to lean too heavily on the use of the long lens is the point Phil was trying to make. Unless of course the scenario demands it..nesting birds etc

Who can possibly argue with that?

Oh... and yes, I am using a 100-400 to photograph birds virtually on the end of my nose. :nuts: that I know others can't afford.
 
purpleclouds said:
Sawman was the first that came to mind. That's all, because his relationship is quite unique.

You conveniently missed the vital bit of that point I made...the fact the hide was remote in the park and visited by no more than 10 people, on a good day! I know the birds nest on the opposite side of the river, which is inaccessible to the public due to the terrain, and I know there are no other feeding stations around that these visit...so no other real interaction with joe public.

Gazedd has visited with myself..he will tell you how quiet it is there, quite surreal once you leave the main paths of the park. Oh, and MarkEvan visits there too, I'm pretty sure he will fill you in on how accommodating the birds are to the sound of shutters, and there are only 3 or 4 photographers who regularly visit there (quite a nice birding community in Manchester). I think the late Papa Laz off here, is also one of the regular visitors.
Click to expand...

I visit the hide you're talking about pretty often Phil.
The hide at Etherow is very close to the feeders so a short lens is more than adequat.
However to get a good detailed shot from hides at other locations you need a lot more than 200mm.
I shoot most of my stuff at 500mm these days and at places like Marshside and most of the hides at Pennington I could do with a lot more.
The way I see it, it's horses for courses.

Don't get me wrong, although these days 90% of my wildlife is taken using the 500mm, if I can get away with using less length I will do.
I think it's a fine balance between shooting birds in their enviroment and getting super close up shots that lack character.

To be fair Ian is one of the last people on here I would accuse of lacking imagination in his photography...He's certainly one of the best along with CT and a few others on this site.

For the record I think that Ian's shots of the Nuthatch are very good and it's nice to see him show some pictures of more common species...I'm not feeling as jealous as usual :D

I know where you're coming from Phil and I appreciate the skill involved in capturing wildlife at close range, but realistically it's not practical...The top pros don't shot wildlife at 200mm for that reason and anybody wanting to improve their wildlife photography will benefit from having the option of using the biggest lens they can afford.

Anthony
 
toonamp said:
Phil has made a number of very valid points mind :)

Unfortuante that it was in IanCs thread, and initially looked like a personal attack on him. Apologies from me to Ian C for posting my 2 pennys worth in his thread :)

As strong as our passion is for the art of photography we don't all have equally strong bank accounts to buy the prime lenses that many use on here to photograph birds in their garden.

As this is an open forum and activly encourages n00bs like me to join, with its open to all to veiw policy, do we want to give the message that bigger glass is the only answer to quality "product"?

The craft of bird photography should not have to lean too heavily on the use of the long lens is the point Phil was trying to make. Unless of course the scenario demands it..nesting birds etc

Who can possibly argue with that?

Oh... and yes, I am using a 100-400 to photograph birds virtually on the end of my nose. :nuts: that I know others can't afford.
Click to expand...

One of the reasons I built the hide was because I could not justify buying a longer lens.
The squirrels arrived after I built the thing & now I fair enjoy getting up close with them.
There will no doubt be many others who are trying hide work in their gardens etc. Indeed I had a pm this evening from a member asking about setting up a hide.
So hopefully there is room in this hobby for the camps, be they stalkers, hiders or long toms,to come together & just enjoy nature.
 
Ant - Like I said though, long lenses have their place. Yes, I know very well that it would be nigh on impossible to get a shot of say, a marsh harrier with 200mm. That is where a long lens would come in handy. Hence why I haven't mentioned it on any other of his threads (or other peoples for that matter), which are usually owls etc. But a nuthatch? :shrug:

That is the problem with reserves...they're not designed for photographers, look at Martin Mere, I doubt even 800mm is good enough there for a lot of the stuff. It isn't long lenses I have a problem with...more so the over use of them, when there are better tools for the job - like fieldcraft - a tool which seems to be dying it's death these days :p

The top pro's don't just stick on the longest lens they have either. I know I keep referring to it, but the Wildlife Photographer of the Year is a showcase of the cream of the crop...and no one can really deny that?

There is a shot in there from 2008, of an osprey which has just caught a fish and headed straight at the camera...it's wings have been clipped off the image and that was with a 300 2.8. What do we get on here? Cropped shots of a nest with an 800mm lens. See what I'm getting at? Fieldcraft and studying wins again!

Likewise, another osprey shot that year, by Andy Rouse...300mm and had a beautiful shot of an osprey carrying a twig to it's nest to give it's partner as a mating gift. Part of their ritual. What do we get on here again?

In fact, last year, out of all the animal/bird shots in the portfolio book, which numbered about 95 (can't remember the exact figure now...but I did tally it up)...only 8 or 9 shots were with anything more than 350mm. Does that not say something? Pro's and amateurs alike enter...so it's a good mix of the wildlife photography audience.

I don't go for super close shots myself, I like my wildlife photos to be art....and that'd look good on a wall. Not in a scientific journal with shed loads of feather detail. So I guess using the shorter lens there is more helpful for me in aiding composition.
 
Last edited:
Pointless excercise..............Tada.
 
I understand what you are saying. I use fieldcraft almost by instinct.
As to A Rouse though. He would no doubt be in a hide etc & probably in some secret location where nobody else would be allowed near.
Your comparison I feel is maybe a touch harsh against us amateurs.
To give an example. I was at a talk by a well known bird tog the other week.
First thing that struck me was the quality of the images.
Second thing that stuck me even harder was the fact he was travelling the world to get shots. Not only that but he was paying local guides to seek out the quarry & to set up hides etc.
All he had to do was turn up stick on a 500mm lens & press the button. He was paying others for the fieldcraft.
I personally would rather see a lesser image on here but know the person had at least done some stalking, or set up a hide, or even used a long lens.
 
Don't get me wrong Phil, I know what you're saying but two points you've made don't quite do it for me...

1: Andy Rouse is undoubtably one of the top 5 bird photographers on the planet and has the kind of locational access us mere mortals could only dream of.

2: :LOL: I've always found Nuthatch's a bugger to photograph away from the feeder...incredibly shy little birds.

A good photograph is a good photograph regardless at what focal length is used in my opinion.
 
Nice shots Ian, I have yet to even see a Nuthatch still a bit of a birding virgin and only 17.

Even with a long lens you still have to get close! You just have to look down one to realise!

purpleclouds said:
There is a shot in there from 2008, of an osprey which has just caught a fish and headed straight at the camera...it's wings have been clipped off the image and that was with a 300 2.8. What do we get on here? Cropped shots of a nest with an 800mm lens. See what I'm getting at? Fieldcraft and studying wins again!
Click to expand...

They were taken in a hide that is very very close to a piece of water which is stocked full of fish, in Finland I think. You can't use anything longer than 300mm.
 
They're just examples, something to aspire to!

There are plenty of other shots of more common wildlife :p But big lens, common birds...it's not what I'd call progressive photography...pushing boundaries. It's just another shot of bird x, y or z.

I'm sure Andy Rouse didn't get good by taking photos of everything with a big lens, then reverting to a smaller lens did he? He got good because he pushed boundaries. Nobody gets anywhere by following the path previously trod by millions of others. They make their own path. Fair point?

They were taken in a hide that is very very close to a piece of water which is stocked full of fish, in Finland I think. You can't use anything longer than 300mm.
Click to expand...

Well, I'd have thought so! What is the point you're making? :)
 
Last edited:
That sometimes we all talk crap............:)
 
Jesus H christ, let us put this to bed once and for all,what the hell does it matter what lens you use to get a decent image?

It doesn`t, fieldcraft is all well and good when it can be used,and the majority of us use it at some time or another,I prefer to call it common sense,experience or knowledge, but whatever,sometimes it just ain`t enough,sometimes you need a long lens. Peregrines up a cliff for example.

Why you have such a downer on the use of long lenses is,frankly, beyond belief Phil.I don`t use hides, I shoot out in the wild,nothing against hides at all,in fact I was like a child again when Charlie let me use his to photograph the Reds...(thanks Mate)....I bought a 300-800 because it suited what and how I photograph things, if a 200 suits you, then fine.But don`t dismiss the efforts,trials and tribulations of others who choose to use different kit mate,that is not on.
 
purpleclouds said:
My point is - the shots aren't fantastic, not up to Ian's usual standard. Just goes to show big lenses aren't the solution to everything* - as we know is my belief - yet people still seem to give unwaivering congratulations as if they're the worlds best nuthatch shots :shrug: Which is annoying, when there are other shots on the forum which have received little attention. Some better, some equal, some worse (therefore perhaps more deserved of critique and help)
Click to expand...

I think this is the key point Phil. Nowhere have you provided constructive criticism of the images. Just you don't like them and they should have been taken with a shorter lens. Just because you don't like the lack of comments elsewhere on this forum doesn't mean that youo should go off on one here.

Comment on the picture. I don't think Ian gets praise because he has a long lens but because his best work is superb. This isn't his best work, but it is far from rubbish.

As for the osprey pics, renting a hide isn't fieldcraft either. Neither are my fishing white tailed eagles from last year taken at 300mm. Someone else has done the hard work for me by preparing hides, feeding the animals, etc. I work 50-60 hours per week so don't have time to do that myself. Does that make me a bad person? I don't think so.

I don't have time to go to public reserves on a weekday as I am working. Therefore, like many others - including Ian, I have to fit my photography around a job. At weekends, there are limited opportunities and so you have to make the most of them.

I shot crested tits at 700mm. Could I have got closer? Maybe. But they are shy birds and I was less than 5 metres from them.

I know I am lucky to have a big prime but actually a big prime is only part of the requirement for getting a good shot of a bird. I'd much rather see a full frame shot of a nuthatch at 840mm than a crop for web from a 200mm lens on a 10 or 15Mpx image that is only 10% of the frame. At least it is of a suitable quality to make a print.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top