Peregrine Falcon + Rant (Gear vs Art)

[Erik Hedlin]

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3759/9810127386_89cb8122fc_c.jpg

This one obviously isn't recent (snow); it was taken in June. Controversial rant ahead, so feel free to jump down to shooting info.

I've been really struggling with the whole concept of bird photography (could extend that to wildlife too) for a while. It seems to be so painfully oriented around gear and technical ability. If you have the right gear (in other words enough money) and know how to use it, you can take beautiful shots. There's obviously more to it than that, but as an "artistic" medium, I'm not sure artistic expression always enters the equation in a substantial way. Not all, but many people (myself included) get stuck in that fight to be able to fill >65% of the frame with the subject and produce that beautiful bokeh that isolates the subject. It almost seems like a simple equation; and if you have the right tools, patience, right timing, you can hammer out those images. What sort of creativity does that demand? I'd love to hear your thoughts on the subject. If not that's cool too, but thanks for stopping by!

Canon 7D
400mm f5.6L
Exp. comp: +2/3
SS: 1/2500
Aperture Priority at f/5.6
ISO:400

[dankearl]

Erik,
Not sure what your rant is about?
Your photo has nothing to do with equipment, your equipment is plenty good enough.
I am more and more leaning towards enviro bird photos, but that is a personal preference, nothing to do with equipment, etc.
I like small birds in the frame photo's, if the foreground of your image was in focus, this would be an appealing image.
It is not and that has nothing to do with money, etc.
Take one look at what Grace Scalzo produces, she has top notch equipment, but does not worry about filling the frame with the bird, she
fills it with the bird and the environment, and produces some of
the best work here.
Stuart Bowie does not have expensive equipment and produces images I can only dream of getting.
Dan Cadieux produces the same quality with average equipment.
I am not sure what your point is, I have nice equipment and just don't spend the time and effort of others to get those "great" photos.
It has nothing to do with equipment at a certain point, those willing to get out and muck around, spend time crawling in mud and sand,
get out when the rest of us are in bed or enjoying an evening dinner will get the best photos regardless of equipment.
The best photographers here could use a point and shoot and post great stuff.

[Erik Hedlin]

I should clarify a few things...

Firstly, that photo isn't particularly tied to the rant. I felt that I couldn't rant without providing a photo of some sort. As for my equipment, I'm completely satisfied!! I'm not complaining about it lacking in any way. I've recently bought the 7D and 400mm (within the last year), and it actually blew open photographic opportunities. That's partly where the rant comes from. Prior to the 7D I was shooting film and developing/printing my on photos. Since getting my digital set up, I feel like the creativity of image making has been degraded.

My rant has everything to do with a personal battle, and NOTHING to do with what I see going on in BPN. The photographers here are extremely talented and I use this very high level of photography to motivate and push myself further. I'm still pretty new to the forum but I definitely have some favourites (really look up to Daniel and Gail to name a couple).

[LinzRiverBalmer]

Well your rant is fairly close to my thoughts, I wouldn't call it a rant. It also mirrors what I get told every time I'm harsh on my photos.

I do not have expensive equipment, one really good bridge camera, and older top end point and shoots.

i don't have the money or ability to do what most of the big wig über good photographers do.

no belly in the sand for me.

my father and friends are masters at what they do which is film right now. Used to be pre press fine art photography.

my dad has all the high end stuff and chooses to only shoot light reflections in water, its easy and pleasing to him.

he has awesome bird and wildlife shots but doesn't want them criticized so they never get shown.

i like your falcon shot a lot, the snow adds substance.

[dankearl]

Sorry Erik,
I still have no idea what your rant is.
Maybe attention?
Sorry, but if you think going to digital from film is somehow stifling your "creativity", then you should just stick to film (if possible?).
Most long term film photographers think digital is heaven.
Digital photography is way more creative than film ever was, only people who think being "retro" is somehow cool would think otherwise.
But hey, to each his own.
This discussion should probably not be in this forum. As far as your image goes, as I said, the foreground needs to be sharp for this kind of photo to work for me.
That has nothing to do with equipment or film, pretty much ability.

[Erik Hedlin]

For the most part I'll let your post slide. My post was as an honest attempt to start a discussion that I personally think is relevant. A discussion about something that's been bothering me every time I go out and shoot. It's a little silly to reduce it to an act of "attention grabbing".

Digital is incredible and as I said before, it's completely opened up opportunities. ...You know what, I'll just follow through with my first statement and let your post go if that's ok. You obviously have different opinions and it's preventing you from giving any sort of decent discourse on the subject. Everyone is different, and I brought this up to get different view points!

That being said, I CAN'T let your comment about film go! haha. There is NO point in saying digital photography is more creative than film. It's like saying digital painting is more creative than working with acrylics. It's not something you can fairly compare. They're both forms of art, and one is not "better" than the other. Digital is much more efficient, and it makes so much more sense to use digital for many thing, but both film and acrylics have their place.

[arash_hazeghi]

Hi Erik,

first your comments do not make sense to me. Many people own expensive gear, does that make them a good photographer? No. Gear does not take the photo, the person behind it does.

secondly avian forum is for image critique only. For these type of discussions you can use general photography forum.

as for the image, I like out of the box thinking, there is no such rule that you have to fill the frame with the bird. That's one kind of shot but there are plenty others where bird is smaller in the frame.

As for this image, IMO it does not work because

1) bird is so tiny in the frame you can hardly identify it as a falcon, it doesn't make a strong connection with the viewer. He is just hovering, there is no drama or action either that would otherwise attract the viewer's attention.
2) the OOF cliff/snow in the FG is distracting, if it was a beautiful mountain the BG it would work but it doesn't as is.


good luck

[Erik Hedlin]

Point taken. Sorry for putting this in the wrong place.

Thanks for the critique though.

[Doug West]

Erik...I think I know what you're trying to say. I started off with film and switched to digital in 2006.
With film it was more 'wait and see' vs digital which is more 'see instantly'. Then there was the
excitement of developing my own prints...getting chemicals all over me :)

As far as the camera side goes, I think you could be more creative with digital than film simply
because of all the features that are available these days...hdr, multiple exposures, etc. The best part
is you can try anything you want and it won't cost you like film would. You just have to let it
go and try.

For me, when I switched, I had to open my eyes and embrace the change and change my way of
thinking when it came to post processing. I had to come to terms that Photoshop was my new darkroom.
In a way, nothing has changed since the film darkroom to the digital darkroom in that you're still 100% in charge in regards
to the final print. What that final print is entirely up to that person.

I don't know how long you've been at it, but eventually the creative side will come out. I'm always
looking for something new to try. If you haven't already, check out the Out of Box forum on here.
I've been a member on here for years, but only visited for the first time recently. What people were
doing blew my mind and gave me something else experiment with.

I'm also trying blurs and creating painting-like photographs based on what Denise Ippolito has been
teaching.

It's out there, you just have to find it :)

Doug

[Sam Chaplin]

Erik
I for one have similar thoughts as you, but have come to a conclusion that, high end gear has a very big impact on Bird as well as Wildlife Photography.In bird photography its mostly spray and pray.If I were to have a 1DX & 600mm lens attached to it, even I could churn out wonders without any doubt.This is my personal opinion only.

[Randy Stout]

Erik:

Bird photography does tend to be more gear centric because of the relatively small subject and difficulty of getting close enough. Reach is always helpful.
However, as you have seen , great photos can be done with modest gear, and good fieldcraft. But it takes time, patience and dedication to do it.

Even with nice gear, it isn't easy per se. I particularly like loons. When I am shooting them, I get up at 4:00 am or earlier, day after day, to try and capture the right light, atmospheric conditions, and bird behaviour.

I can't tell you how many times I have been with other photographers, all standing in the same place, with similar equipment, and the images that result are often vastly different. May be of the same subject, but the image composition, exposure and post processing make you think they were miles apart, in skill and location!

As far as creativity, digital def. allows for much greater latitude. THe instant feedback allows you to try things that you would never do on film, too expensive, too low of yield, too much time delay in feedback, etc. I can't think of any of us old hands who have been shooting for many years would ever go back to film.

Although there are some common styles and themes posted on BPN, there is always room for different views/visions.

It would be pretty boring if everyone saw things the same way!

Good luck in your photographic journey

Cheers

Randy


This one obviously isn't recent (snow); it was taken in June. Controversial rant ahead, so feel free to jump down to shooting info.

I've been really struggling with the whole concept of bird photography (could extend that to wildlife too) for a while. It seems to be so painfully oriented around gear and technical ability. If you have the right gear (in other words enough money) and know how to use it, you can take beautiful shots. There's obviously more to it than that, but as an "artistic" medium, I'm not sure artistic expression always enters the equation in a substantial way. Not all, but many people (myself included) get stuck in that fight to be able to fill >65% of the frame with the subject and produce that beautiful bokeh that isolates the subject. It almost seems like a simple equation; and if you have the right tools, patience, right timing, you can hammer out those images. What sort of creativity does that demand? I'd love to hear your thoughts on the subject. If not that's cool too, but thanks for stopping by!

Canon 7D
400mm f5.6L
Exp. comp: +2/3
SS: 1/2500
Aperture Priority at f/5.6
ISO:400[/QUOTE]

[Grace Scalzo]

You can give a monkey a hammer and that does not mean he can build a house. If you open your mind, get involoved here in posting your images, accepting critique and offering your own critiques on the photos being shared here, you might in time be able to come up with some results that you love. And if you are REALLY talented, and creative, and you work hard at perfecting the skills that you need to accomplish your vision and tell the story that you want told, then someone might indeed refer to your work as art. Good luck in whatever journey you choose to take.

[Barry Ekstrand]

As I've tried to learn from the good and kind folks at BPN and other places to become better at avian photograpy I have come to the conclusion that equipment can certainly be an enhancing or limiting factor. BUT I also conclude that I can continue to improve my skills both as a photographer and (dare I say) artistically no matter what. I am a fan of environmental shots in particular and believe there can be (should be?) an artistic element to a really good avian environmental photo. Not that I achieve it often enough, however.

On equipment, I am using the 400mm f5.6 lens and feel like I am starting to see the limitation of this lens - more so in the speed of the lens rather than in the reach of 400mm. I can use a 1.4x teleconvert to get more reach but only at the expense of stopping down to f8, so light becomes an even bigger issue than it already is at f5.6 without the tele. Makes it much more challenging in early morning and late afternoon, when ETTR is all but impossible unless I go to a crazy high ISO and accept noise. I have certainly improved in working the relationship between shutter speed, ISO, and aperture optimization with this lens but am now at a point where I really desire a faster lens. I'm very intrigued with the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4X....if only they were inexpensive....

Barry

[Iain Barker]

I only have limited equipment (300mm + 1.4 convertor) but feel the thing that holds me back more that anything is not being able to put in the time that the great photographers rather than the equipment I use.
I also think digital has improved my creativity as I now control the processing that I had to rely on the lab for with everything except B&W. Although it is frustrating that I have hundreds of images I have not got around to working on yet.

I am a great fan of images of birds in their environment but think this needs a lot more skill and a more artistic eye then a closeup of a bird to create a stunning image.
I like what you have tried to do in your image but agree with others that the mountain is distracting in this case rather than adding to the image. I don't think the falcon would be too small if the mountain had been right.

[Marina Scarr]

I, for one, love environmental images/small bird in the frame images. I find this one quite captivating, and do not find the bird too small. The species appears recognizable to me despite it's small in the frame presentation. I really love the overall feel and appreciate what you were going for.

Photography is much more about your vision and photographic skill, than it is about your gear. Far too many photographers have expensive gear with little knowledge of how to properly use it. Grace put it so succinctly. The more you get out and photograph, share your images and vision, as well as critique others, the more and the faster you will learn. The more you learn and experience in terms of photography, the more likely you will find yourself on a photographic journey that works for you.

[Erik Hedlin]

So many good points!

Doug: I think in a lot of respects you're absolutely right. With the current technology, the digital/film debate isn't as relevant as it used to be. Especially in areas like journalism, wildlife, and sports; it just doesn't make sense to be shooting film. As for the creativity aspect, it's a personal journey! And that's what makes it so fun right?? I just got to the point this summer where I felt my own work was lacking that. I guess that's how progress works though; you look at what you're doing and reevaluate. I'll definitely have to check out the "out of the box" forum; that's exactly what I'm looking for! thanks

Sam: I know it's not all about the equipment; there is a lot more to it than that. You have to work really really hard, and spend a lot of time outdoors chasing those beautiful images. But when that moment comes, I think the right equipment can certainly help securing the good shot.

Randy: Oh no i was so afraid my point might come across this way. I think equipment is one factor in maybe 100 factors that lead to great photographs. Those other 100 factors are essential, and if you don't have the technical knowledge, the patience, the huge dedication that forces you to go out at 4 in the morning, and all of the other factors, you're not going to get those shots. That being said, there are circumstances where, lets say you DO have those 100 other factors, but you don't have the right equipment, you might not get the shot either. It's just the nature of wildlife photography like you said.

Grace: nicely put. I completely agree.

Barry: haha I'm in the same boat! It's the artistic environmental shots that I struggle with. I naturally default to trying to get as close as I can, getting beautiful bokeh, and replicating the oh-so-common bird shot I always see. It's been so nice to be on BPN and actually see that there are so many other possibilities!

...

sorry, I'm going to get to the other points, but I have to run right now. Thanks for all of your input!!

[Grady Weed]

I think Randy and Grace put it best. Keep clicking and growing.

[Arthur Morris]

Count me in the does not make much sense to me camp. Hundreds if not thousands of folks own the same gear that I do but the great majority do not make images that are as good--technically or artistically--as mine. Good photographers make good pix with whatever gear they have in their hands. Quit worrying about the gear that other folks own and spend more time studying and practicing. I worked with "only" a 400mm lens--the old Canon 400mm f/4.5 FD lens for the first 7 years of my "career." No AF, no multipiler effect. You have a hand holdable 640mm lens. Quit crying and go out and learn to make great images with the gear that you have. Dan Cadieux made truly great pix for years with a 7D and a 100-400 and a young kid from CA--hard to believe that I cannot remember his name right now--he is a BPN member and is a very good friend, did the same with a 50D and a 100-400. When he was 15. Senility is a terrible mind to waste :). I will probably remember his name in two minutes.

[Arthur Morris]

As for the image, I sort of like it. With a bit more off the top and the left it would be even more interesting. Sharp with a good EXP.

[Marina Scarr]

I think Artie means Aidan Briggs.

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks Marina. Yes, Aidan. Hope that neither he nor his very nice mother sees this post! He actually co-led two Morro Bay IPTs with me. There are some problems with being 67! Well, it is not the most common name in the world....

[Larry Handal]

In my first 15 years or so of film photography I might have a handful and I mean less than 5 bird photos that I was proud enough
to display. Now I have over a thousand on Pbase Alone
I shot with a Canon F1 , Canon FD 300mm and a Tamron 500mmf8 Mirror lens.
ISO 400 ecktachrome was garbage in comparison to the stuff we get out of iso 6400 or higher depending on the camera body.
Todays technology is incredible and has made the capture of moments of life of these creatures possible when before they would never have been seen
Now a African safari does not refer to a Large Game Hunt with rifles. Most people think of it as an animal Photo shoot.
Painters were limited by the paints they had in their periods and so is photography.
But hey you can do Landscape and Portrait on a very small budget and be able to compete if you have the knowledge and EYE
with any one else in this land even if you don't have a Leica.
And yes, with a fixed amount of skill you will do birding better generally with a super Tele. No difference in Macro, you will do better with a
dedicated macro lens and the proper lighting ,macro rails and tripod. But It is more of a challenge with out the high tech stuff.
Now go in peace my child and click away for only the Canonians shall inherit the high ISOs and the Kingdom of Light

[Erik Hedlin]

Sorry, I just noticed this thread was moved.

Thanks for the comment Arthur! I have to clarify again. I'm not complaining about my equipment. I know it's not top of the line, but I am so in love with my lens/body right now. I've never owned L glass before, and the speed of the 400 blows everything I've ever touched out of the water. I feel like I'm finally able to get a satisfactory level of sharpness out of my images. I'm 100% happy with my set up and won't upgrade for a very long time. As a student, it took a lot of work to be able to afford that body and lens, and I can appreciate the fact that there are a lot of people who CAN'T afford to buy that equipment. I was shooting with a canon elan 7n (film) and a cheap 70-300 lens just one year ago, and as Larry stated, Avian photography is a different game under those circumstances. I felt (and maybe it's just me) that I had to put my creativity in to overdrive to compensate. It certainly doesn't mean that creativity isn't an essential component of digital photography, because it obviously is. Just look at the photos being posted here. I just feel that I've been using the quality of my gear as a crutch and side-stepping the creative aspect of photography by trying to replicate the bokeh-soaked images I always see. I was hoping to catch some BPNers that felt similar, and were maybe even in the spot I was in last year with their gear. I did get PM's about it so I know they're out there!

You're right though, I am fully aware that I need to keep shooting and find my "creative spark" again! It's a personal journey, and it's what makes the whole thing enjoyable!