Avian Phototgraphy vs Landscape Photography

[James Shadle]

Which do you find more difficult, avian or landscape photography.
And why.

James

PS Roman started this!!!!!!

[Desmond Chan]

How about flower photography, macro photography, both of them BPN has a forum for?

I've heard people describe flower photography as deceptively difficult :)

The most difficult part of avian photography is the finding of the birds :o

[arash_hazeghi]

Lol I picked avian, choice of subject, waking up early, traveling and creativity is the same for both, but you don't need AF for landscape on the other hand,you need perfect AF and technique for Avian :D

[Chris Hansen]

I will admit landscape photography done well is extremely difficult due to factors of composition,lighting,weather, the seasons etc. It seems to me that avian photography is more difficult due to the fact that you are now trying to apply most of those same concepts to a subject that moves and is sometimes difficult to even find. T:)hen once you have found it you have to find a method of approaching it where it won't fly away. So far I haven't had any mountain ranges run away on me! Just some of my thoughts.

God's light to all,

chris

[Desmond Chan]

you need perfect AF

Technologies can help. Soon or later, AF is no longer an issue IMO :)


and technique for Avian :D

So, photographing landscapes don't? :D

[arash_hazeghi]

Technologies can help. Soon or later, AF is no longer an issue IMO :)



So, photographing landscapes don't? :D


I wish I live long enough to see the day when AF is no issue. By technique I meant focus and HH technique for flight shots, don't need that for landscape.

[Chris Hansen]

Last time I looked at my 4x5 field camera it didn't have auto focus. Sorry Desmond I couldn't resist throwing that one into the mix.:)

chris

[Desmond Chan]

Last time I looked at my 4x5 field camera it didn't have auto focus. Sorry Desmond I couldn't resist throwing that one into the mix.:)

chris

When I shoot macro, I don't use AF. And my favorite wide angle lens - one that I'm using these days - is also a manual lens.

Technologies helps, good techniques help, but IMO, it's the vision of the photographer that makes the difference. Otherwise, it's just another photo out of many others, IMO. Just think how many people can shoot BIF now (comparing with before) with the kind of cameras we have today. You can't approach the bird? No problem. You just need to get a 5000mm lens :) That brings up to another factor: money helps :D:D

[Kaustubh Deshpande]

Apples and Oranges...but I still voted for Avian. I used to do landscapes( velvia slides) and started focussing on Avian an year back. Producing extraordinary work is quite difficult in both. But producing good-looking landscape photos is easier than producing good-looking bird photos. I think most will agree to that.

IMO, butterfly photography( as in wild butterflies on plains, woods, jungles) is even more difficult. working with flying objects at macro distances and resulting aperture requirements is quite challenging. It has all the BG, orientation of subject w.r.t sensor, perch, light angle, shooting angle and other variables of avian plus all challenges of macro photography.

[WIlliam Maroldo]

By far avian is the most difficult. Landscape is setting up a camera on a tripod after traveling to a location, and waiting for the best lighting. The subject is stationary! No comparison.
Avian: Find the subjects, approach the subjects without them flying off, or wait for one to fly by/ the next steps are likely to need to be done very quickly- position the camera/subject/sun for optimal lighting, adjust the camera (bearing in mind shutter speed/ DOF/ ISO settings). Since we have AF, focusing is one thing you don't have to worry too much about, compose the scene trying to avoid obstructions to the view and background distractions. Then you can release the shutter.
How in the world does this even compare with Landscape photography, or am I missing something?
regards~Bill

[Roger Clark]

The way I see it in both avian and landscape it's all about lighting, composition and the subject (and in most other photography too). Foreground and background are important in both. Depth of field (or lack thereof) is important in both. With landscape, I have sat and waited for hours for the right light (I still have my 4x5 and 8x10 cameras). Both require travel to the best locations and early/late hours. But with landscape you can wait minutes for the light and wind conditions to be right (except right at sunrise/sunset then still many seconds). With avian (and other wildlife) you have to throw in the luck of the animal. Will it's head turn just right? I wish it would move over a little because that stick is in the background but if I move another stick is in the way. And then when the action starts, you must follow that action and must make decisions on composition and what is in the foreground and background and when to take the shot while panning, all in a fraction of a second. It is that thrill of action that moved me more to wildlife (from birds to big animals) that makes me want more. Now give me great wildlife in a great landscape scene and that's the best for me. So I see avian and landscape very much the same, but decisions must be much faster with wildlife action, thus harder.

Roger

[Harshad Barve]

For me ,

Action photography ( Avian or Wildlife ) and then Landscapes

[Sabyasachi Patra]

Frankly speaking I can't place one over the other. One ought to have the right knowledge. In case of mammals or birds, it has to be animal/bird behaviour, lay of the land etc so that you know where to go and wait for the animal to move in etc.

In case of landscape, it is true that the mountain doesn't go away. However, the mountain doesn't look the same on every day. So you have to know in which season the light would be the most spectacular, more of clouds etc etc. The early morning light changes so fast, that unless, you know the right place and choose the right season and day, you won't get that lovely image.

And lastly, I had an attack of High Altitude Sickness Syndrome when I was shooting landscapes in Ladakh in India. I was alone, and somehow could manage to return to my jeep. I was later told by the Indian Army, that people hardly spend 15 minutes there, and it was a miracle that I was there for one and half hours and still survived. Still I didn't chose landscape in the poll. I think each is equally difficult or easy, depending upon the person concerned.

Cheers,
Sabyasachi

[Roman Kurywczak]

I did want James to start this and here's why in my opinion ......landscapes are harder.
To all of the above......when was the last time you went out to photograph birds and came away empty handed? In the last 2 months I have traveled to Tanzania and Florida with over 100 gig's of birds and animal keepers!....yet only a handful of Landscape images! To be fair, there were restrictions of getting about at night and even during the day......but even if I was able to, only a handful more keepers.

Yes light is important to both.....it is photogrpahy......but most avian images that are spectacular aren't taken 1/2 hour B4 or after sunset.......you have around 3 hours every morning and afternoon.....whether it is overcast, cloudless, raining, windy, etc.........in landscapes the timeframe for getting remarkable images is much shorter. For me the proof is when I head to Arches NP in May, I hope to come back with a couple of dozen spectacular images.......while in one day with James on the Hooptie Duex ........I have come away with Gig's of great images/poses.

Since I am the one who wanted this debate started I offer this......post your best landscape image. In the specs post how many images you had in that day......and then post a link to an Avian image of yours with how many images you got that shooting session.

I think once you sit down and realize the narrow window you have to photograph a landscape and how you need many elements to come together to get that spectacular image.......it's not even close!

PS I wish it was just a case of focusing in Landscapes.....I've have a lot more posts to reply to in there:D!

[Alfred Forns]

I think for a fair comparison some extra parameters need to be listed !!

On the surface I have to go with birds but if you start looking deeper will not be the case at all.

From a technical point Roger brought out the large format usage which in itself takes a steep learning curve, if B&W is used just the developing side is a world onto itself. Also as Roman pointed out the window of opportunity is narrower for landscapes.

If you base the difficulty in going out and making a keeper birds might be the easier choice !! ... it will all boil down to the circumstance and what your going after. Like comparing apples to oranges !!! ... one thing I do feel is important, if you are able to do both it will make a much better photographer !!!

[Roman Kurywczak]

[quote=Alfred Forns;471034].
........If you base the difficulty in going out and making a keeper birds might be the easier choice !! .....quote]
I have to base it on that......I'm a landscape mod:D!......but here's the thing......birds are everywhere!!! Dreary and miserable today in NJ.....great day for macro.......and if I set up a feeder or perches like Alan.......right in my backyard......I can get some wildlife (squirrels) and bird images right now! While my backyard is nice.......I'd have to travel to get either the lighthouses......river scenes.....or even the NYC skyline.....but I have to pray that the sun comes out or better yet......we get some more thunder showers! So many variables come into play with landscapes.....most impossible to control!........degree of difficulty just went up another notch!!!

[Daniel Cadieux]

One thing to consider is that the keeper rate for bird photography in Florida is much higher than most other places! Even with a "mere" 400mms! When I went out there I couldn't believe how many good photos I had on my card in a single day - Roman, I do have days where I come home empty handed bird photography-wise (excpet for the reliable Chickadees)... and on those days I'll switch to landscapes (or macros) and usually bring back many keepers even if I didn't take many frames**. Yep, for me birds is the tougher of the two, but both have their issues to contend with:cool:.

**I'm not implying that it is easy - it's just more time to set-up and less "delete bin" images...

[Harshad Barve]

....but I have to pray that the sun comes out or better yet......we get some more thunder showers! So many variables come into play with landscapes.....most impossible to control!........degree of difficulty just went up another notch!!!



Same case in Avians and wildlife Roman :D:D:D , everymonth I travel nearly 2k Kms to get some amazing shots of wildlife and mindblowing forest birds , but most of the time they dont make a show.

[Kaustubh Deshpande]

Lot of interesting points. Thx for this thread.

One aspect of Landscape photography is 'photography of beautiful landscapes'. That "seems" easy because some places are so spectacularly beautiful that it IS easy to take typical beautiful shots. But making a different unique photo at these places( Yosemite falls, grand canyon, moraine lake, grand teton range, antelope canyon, arches in utah....just some examples) is quite hard IMO. Even harder is taking great landscape photos at places which aren't that spectacular. You need an eye for composition to take a beautiful photo of a corn field. just my additional 2 cents.

[LouBuonomo]

Totally different disciplines !!!

Roman there are plenty of times when I have gotten skunked when shooting birds.. I have been out an decided not to even push the shutter because of conditions. But there are times when you can create an image (blur etc).

I don't think I have any extraordinary landscapes, I think I have some good ones but nothing I would consider magical where everything (location, light, weather.....) have come togther.

Lou

[Roman Kurywczak]

Oh man.....I've got to call in reinforcements:D.....although I am glad to see the landscape #'s rising! Yes....Avain is very hard......but with practice, practice, practice.....you can achieve some pretty amazing images.....no matter the conditions.....given a decent light!

Ever been to Arches NP, Yellowstone NP or similar place......on the surface it appears that you can point your camera in any direction and create a masterful landscape.......far from the truth! I have been to both so many times I have lost count......I can guarantee.... a pretty stelllar elk or bison image in 10 days in Yellowstone.......but I will have to have many outside elements come together for the landscape image to be succesful! In Arches NP......no birds or animals in great quantity to speak of.....so I go strictly for landscapes or macros......desert SW....clear blue skies the norm.....you'll get an OK image......but not truly wow! Too many clouds.....too little clouds.....grey skies.....solid blue skies......too windy (making FG of plants or ripples on water impossible)......too much water for waterfalls......too little.

And for those who have missed on the birds.....I have too.....but I can count total busts on 1 hand.....I can't tell you how many days I've spent waiting for the light in landscapes......just watching the show...no images. I can't count that high!

Ever notice how the magazine Outdoor Photographer has a Landscape Spectacular.....and not a bird one?:p

[Harshad Barve]

http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=59867

Hi Roman , after 10 yrs and more than 500 visits , this happened infornt of me , Wildlife ( A & W ) is tougher job :):):)

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hey Harshad.....congrats!!!.....but you have many, many wonderful/outsranding Tiger images!
Now for all of you and especially Arash.....Just recently, you have posted some exquisite harrier images.....how many landscapes do you have that magical?.....if landscape images are indeed easier.....I expect many posts in the Landscape forum soon!:D

[Roman Kurywczak]

By far avian is the most difficult. Landscape is setting up a camera on a tripod after traveling to a location, and waiting for the best lighting. The subject is stationary! No comparison.
Avian: Find the subjects, approach the subjects without them flying off, or wait for one to fly by/ the next steps are likely to need to be done very quickly- position the camera/subject/sun for optimal lighting, adjust the camera (bearing in mind shutter speed/ DOF/ ISO settings). Since we have AF, focusing is one thing you don't have to worry too much about, compose the scene trying to avoid obstructions to the view and background distractions. Then you can release the shutter.
How in the world does this even compare with Landscape photography, or am I missing something?
regards~Bill
Ever hear of Bosque? Florida? St. Auguastine or Gatorland? Katmai? Yellowstone?.......have 3 hours in the morning......3 hours in the afternoon.......What's the problem?......as I said B4.......landscapes are "easy".....go ahead.....post 1, after all, it isn't moving!

[Harshad Barve]

Hey Harshad.....congrats!!!.....but you have many, many wonderful/outsranding Tiger images!
Now for all of you and especially Arash.....Just recently, you have posted some exquisite harrier images.....how many landscapes do you have that magical?.....if landscape images are indeed easier.....I expect many posts in the Landscape forum soon!:D

I think we have made amazing images of tigers and harriers CHEAP Roman by posting toooo many




39 rounds in 2010 means 9360 mins in park and cubs offered me in total 30-35 mins :)

http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=59539 here is link


...if landscape images are indeed easier....

I have never said so , but I feel will be at 2nd position , give me some time , I am sure Landscape is not that difficult

[Roman Kurywczak]

I'll be waiting for those landscapes:cool:!

[Harshad Barve]

I'll be waiting for those landscapes:cool:!

Sure :):):)

[Steve Maxson]

An interesting discussion folks. Roman's first post in this series sums up my perspective pretty well. For me. personally, it is much easier to get excellent bird/wildlife/macro images than it is to get a great landscape image - for all the reasons that Roman has already pointed out. :)

[arash_hazeghi]

I did want James to start this and here's why in my opinion ......landscapes are harder.
To all of the above......when was the last time you went out to photograph birds and came away empty handed? !


Actually last time for me was two weeks ago, I shot 1200 bird shots, 0 keepers :eek: but I got 1-2 good landscapes at the same place, not super shots, but keepers at least :)

The best landscape shots that I have seen are from Ansel Adams, yet can you name a famous bird bird photographer from the 50s? or 60s? or even 70s? birds have not changed, nor have talents but only in the past two decades and with introduction of AF, fast super telephoto lenses and digital technology we have been seeing high quality avian shots, avian photography especially flight requires a lot more concentration and skill plus all the creativity that is needed in landscape photography.
Landscape need a LOT of creativity too, there is no second Ansel Adams but at least when the light and scene is right you won't miss due to soft focus or bad exposure, you can just bracket everything!!!

[arash_hazeghi]

Hey Harshad.....congrats!!!.....but you have many, many wonderful/outsranding Tiger images!
Now for all of you and especially Arash.....Just recently, you have posted some exquisite harrier images.....how many landscapes do you have that magical?.....if landscape images are indeed easier.....I expect many posts in the Landscape forum soon!:D


Hey Roman,
You are right, but I haven't been really looking to get landscape shots, I don't even carry a wide lens on me any more, just the 500!

There is one major bonus you get in Avian photography though, when you go looking for a harrier for example, if you see one you can make several photos of the same bird each with a different pose assuming that you nail AF each time ;), but for landscape once you get the perfect shot you're done, can't move to the right or left. Have to go somewhere else ;)

BTW, male harrier is a EXTREMELY difficult to get and approach, so far I have only had 5 good male harrier shots in the past 2 years :eek: , 3 of which I have posted here. If I had been trying landscape shots at the same time I would have probably gotten at least 5 landscapes in 2 years :D

[Roman Kurywczak]

Actually last time for me was two weeks ago, I shot 1200 bird shots, 0 keepers :eek: but I got 1-2 good landscapes at the same place, not super shots, but keepers at least :)
......!!
I think your probably being tougher on yourself than most! I'd almost be willing to bet that if someone else went through your deleted stuff.......there would probably be more than a few keepers! :D

[arash_hazeghi]

I think your probably being tougher on yourself than most! I'd almost be willing to bet that if someone else went through your deleted stuff.......there would probably be more than a few keepers! :D


but your lansdscape standards are high too ;) sure if you look at my poor landscapes you will trash most of them :D

[Roman Kurywczak]

Fair point Arash....but I will add one other element to this debate.......How far do people usually walk/carry their large glass? Normally, I'd say a couple of hundred yards (at best) but I have carried my Sigmonster for over a mile......I have carried my landscape gear and overnight accomodations......for over 20 miles.......let's discuss degree of difficulty there! Most accomplished/famous landscape photographers spend many nights out in remote places.....lugging all the gear (where's an assistant when you need one?).....just to capture the magical shot! Don't know too many avian shooters lugging around their 500/600/or 800 very far!

[arash_hazeghi]

Fair point Arash....but I will add one other element to this debate.......How far do people usually walk/carry their large glass? Normally, I'd say a couple of hundred yards (at best) but I have carried my Sigmonster for over a mile......I have carried my landscape gear and overnight accomodations......for over 20 miles.......let's discuss degree of difficulty there! Most accomplished/famous landscape photographers spend many nights out in remote places.....lugging all the gear (where's an assistant when you need one?).....just to capture the magical shot! Don't know too many avian shooters lugging around their 500/600/or 800 very far!


Hehe Roman, but since the lenses are heavier, physically they get the same workout ;) BTW, the day I took 1200 shots and 0 keepers I also logged the 500 for maybe 3 miles, going up and down the hill chasing harriers a real workout :D This is what I wanted to get, and yup I got it it is just OOF! I still feel the pain :( how many times did you have this happen to you in landscape photography? :D

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hehe Roman but since the lenses are heavier, physically they get the same workout ;) BTW, the day I took 1200 shots and 0 keepers I also logged the 500 for maybe 3 miles, going up and down the hill chasing harriers a real workout :D This is what I wanted to get, and yup I got it it is just OOF! I still feel the pain ;)
You are probably the exception to the rule on carrying! My next poll is going ot be how far you carry your gear!....and as for weight.....nope....ball head and tripod are equal to wimberly.....2 landscape lenses, 2 bodies, peripherals including tent, sleeping bag, clothing, food...etc....ways more than even my Sigmonster!
....as for the near miss.....I have plenty of those too....but remember....we said Avian photography....not just flight images! Knowing your work I'd imagine those misses drive you as much as they drive me!

[Desmond Chan]

How far do people usually walk/carry their large glass? Normally, I'd say a couple of hundred yards (at best)

Way more than that easily. Walking around here and there, back and forth just to look for the birds. A couple of miles easily done just like that. But may be I'm doing it wrong. :)

[Roman Kurywczak]

Way more than that easily. Walking around here and there, back and forth just to look for the birds. A couple of miles easily done just like that. But may be I'm doing it wrong. :)
Ever done 20 miles with it? I can't believe you are going to argue that birders/animal shooters carry their lenses more than serious landscapers.......if you believe that.....I have a bridge to sell you (hey....I'm close to Brooklyn!:)). Go see Marc Adamus's site......snowshoed 5 miles just to get to Crater Lake......this year at Bosque Del Apache NWR......900 photogs lined up.....crying it's cold.....getting great/perfect BIF images...all 50 feet from car. Check the late/great Galen Rowell....see how far he went and then come back to talk about how far we (notice I said we) carry our big glass. I'll have to carry that Sigmonster for 10 miles every day for the next 5 years just to catch up!

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hey James.....the fix is in (hey, I'm from Jersey!)....only 15 comments (including your OP).....yet almost 40 votes! Why no explanation form the other almost 25?

[David Stephens]

Last time I looked at my 4x5 field camera it didn't have auto focus. Sorry Desmond I couldn't resist throwing that one into the mix.:)

chris

I was looking for some birds in flight in your photostream and couldn't find them. :D

[Axel Hildebrandt]

Why no explanation form the other almost 25?

The question is not really specific. Technically, photographing a bird in flight is more difficult than a landscape, but for all the reasons you mentioned, landscape photography is not easy, either, the reasons are just very different. This makes it feel like comparing apples and oranges.

[Dave Leroy]

I think birds are easier, at least for me.
The thing for me is what is my subject. With birds I know if i get good exposure, good pose, ha, sharp eye and all that stuff that we know about, I will probably have a decent keeper.

For landscapes, I always have a problem getting that stand out subject, and I live in a land of mountains and oceans.

The technical stuff I can and have been learning. It is getting that sort of undiluted subject that really stands out. I have a harder time doing that with landscapes even when I see beautiful landscapes.

[Paul Marcellini]

While to be at the top of both, takes lots of hard work and dedication, I think getting a good bird shot is way easier than a good landscape. If you subscribe to the bird on a stick approach, well that takes little artistic merit or "eye". There are some bird photographers that show true art in their images...but to be a good landscape photographer requires more than good light and fast equipment. I shoot both, with my equipment limiting what I can do with birds, but I feel I can take a better bird shot than most bird photogs can take a landscape.

I also know more parking lot bird photogs over landscape photogs...yeah, your 500 is heavy but my 5 lenses and food/water for the all day/overnight trips weighs more. Walk 7 miles in swamp water....or 12 miles with techinical rappelling in Utah slots...

I'd love to see shots of someone who does both and says one is easier than the other...my site is my proof.

[Roman Kurywczak]

The question is not really specific. Technically, photographing a bird in flight is more difficult than a landscape, but for all the reasons you mentioned, landscape photography is not easy, either, the reasons are just very different. This makes it feel like comparing apples and oranges.
I can't really say I agree with you Axel.......Here's James OP quote; " Which do you find more difficult, avian or landscape photography.
And why.
.....doesn't say specifically BIF....just Avian and explain why! ....so the fact that 25 people responded to the poll.....but didn't give a response is actually specific and fair.
On that note.....how is a BIF more technically specific exactly? The bird is moving....OK.....once I practiced enough, tracking became easier.....given a clear BG, which is generally the preference....isolating and composing is easier....even a BIF. Ever try to stop FG motion in a landscape at sunrise....wind blowing....trying to get a reflection? How about the difference in stops between a sunrise/sunset sky and the FG in stops......never really had to deal with that in any avian situation....even a bif....only had to concentrate on acquiring and focusing......again...an aquired skill with practice!
I'm actually surprised that no one has taken me up on the landscape challenge and posted one......I do in Avian!:)
PS Paul.....I've never taken a good landscape image from a car window either.....but I have seen quite a few birds!

[Christopher C.M. Cooke]

I think that as photographers we should be above the school yard, "my photos are better than yours" attitude.

I have been blown away all my life by ALL photography and bit by bit I became aware that like beauty, good photographs are in the eye of the beholder.

Great photographs come about by many and varied things, the creative eye of the practitioner, the quality of the equipment, the availability of the subject, the weather, the light and the use of it and many more variables but no form of photography is better than any other.

I don't even compare my work to others because I get 90% of my enjoyment by simply going out and taking images and enjoying the environment whether indoors or outdoors, Winter or Summer, alone or with others and at the end of the day it is the experience that lingers in my mind.

Competition may hone the skill of many but in my mind it shows a lack of awareness of the wonder of our hobby/profession and in some cases it gives one glimpses of hidden inadequacies that often show up in folk with a competitive streak which in some extreme cases may go as far a plagiarism of the work of others.

I get enormous pleasure in observing a wide variety of photographs about a wide variety of subjects and admire the technical and creative ability of the creators of that work but I have long since gone past the need to feel any form of jealousy and simply enjoy the end result of the joy that others take in their art.

Beauty is beauty whether photographed, observed, experienced of felt within the soul, let that be our reward.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hey Christopher,
Perhaps I should let you in on the secret.....yeah I made James do it (post the OP)....because he made a crack to me when I was on the Hooptie ....."landscapes are easy".....so this is my payback!!!:D
I agree with your last sentence 100%......even though I missed the shot, I never stopped enjoying the moment! This is about as useful as a Nikon/Canon debate....but we're just having some good natured fun on a dreary day in NJ!

[Morkel Erasmus]

Roman hit some of my main points on the head.

I'm chiming in a tad late - but as one aspiring to do both disciplines well, I'll have to say LANDSCAPES is waaaaaay more difficult. I live in one of the most scenic countries you can find, and finding a good, solid, creative composition is a tough ask sometimes - yet birdlife abounds and with a decent kit combo you can nail some good shots...heck I've nailed some shots with my 1.5fps Canon 1000D... :);)

I think many people still think of a landscape image as zooming out as wide as you can and snapping as much as you can in the frame. I thought so for a long time, but when I started learning about proper landscape composition the ball-game changed.

Don't get me wrong - blisteringly good bird photography is still blisteringly good and not every bloke that picks up a camera and a decently long lens can really create creative avian shots...I'm just saying in my experience landscapes is the one proving more difficult.
:eek::D

[Todd Frost]

This is about as useful as a Nikon/Canon debate....but we're just having some good natured fun on a dreary day in NJ!

Thats a simple one Roman... Nikon of course :D.
I make images of all kinds wildlife, avian and landscapes and find landscapes the most challenging. At 8-10 frames per second and the af capabilities we have today makes our life easier in the wildlife/avian sector. You still have to be able to see a landscape/scenic shot and not all of us will ever have that gift.

I don't see any my shots are better than yours mentality going on here at all, just good old fashioned discussion. Competition is an integral part of our lives like it or not from sports to work to art, we are striving for improvement and being better than we were previously.

Todd

[Desmond Chan]

I can't believe you are going to argue that birders/animal shooters carry their lenses more than serious landscapers......

Well, Roman, I do not know how you could come to that conclusion. I was only responding to your comment, which is:


...How far do people usually walk/carry their large glass? Normally, I'd say a couple of hundred yards (at best)...


All I was trying to show is that your impression of "a couple of hundred yards (at best)" is likely off-base. It's not about if birders walk longer than landscape photographers, or vice versa. It's about if your impression about how much bird photographers have to walk. And your impression, in my opinion and based on my experiences, is wrong.

[Roman Kurywczak]

OK Desmond......are you basing this on your own travels.....ever been to Bosque Del Apache NWR?.......most walk 50-100feet. Ever been to any of the florida locations?......mostly the same. Ever been to Katmai.......maybe a mile or so at best.....so what are you basing your assesment on? I'm basing my statement of what I have viewed happening in the field.....how about you?

[Harshad Barve]

I would love to see comment from someone who shoots forest/Rainforest birds :)

[Axel Hildebrandt]

OK Desmond......are you basing this on your own travels.....ever been to Bosque Del Apache NWR?.......most walk 50-100feet. Ever been to any of the florida locations?......mostly the same. Ever been to Katmai.......maybe a mile or so at best.....so what are you basing your assesment on? I'm basing my statement of what I have viewed happening in the field.....how about you?

You are really muddying the water now. First what kind of photography is more difficult, now we talk who walks more? :)

[Roger Clark]

.....lugging all the gear (where's an assistant when you need one?).....just to capture the magical shot! Don't know too many avian shooters lugging around their 500/600/or 800 very far!

Hey I'm getting old. A few years ago I was hiking in the Tetons--several miles on a day hike with 500 f/4, and many shorter lenses, DSLR, 4x5 camera, 3 4x5 lenses, plus film holders--70 pounds total. Too much. Now I limit myself to 50 pounds. A goal: hiking at 12,000 feet when in my 70s with at least 35 pounds of gear.

Roger

[Roman Kurywczak]

Ok Axel....no hiking distances! ....but we are closing the gap:D!

Roger.........way cool! 6 herniations later.......even 50 sounds like a lot!

[Doug Herr]

Lol I picked avian, choice of subject, waking up early, traveling and creativity is the same for both, but you don't need AF for landscape on the other hand,you need perfect AF and technique for Avian :D

I don't use AF. I find landscape photography more difficult to get good results because I don't spend time practicing it. I'm much more willing to practice avian (& other wildlife) photography, so it's become easier for me.

[Roger Clark]

I did want James to start this and here's why in my opinion ......landscapes are harder. To all of the above......when was the last time you went out to photograph birds and came away empty handed?

I think the idea expressed here and dominant in this thread is wrong in my opinion. The idea seems to be quantity, not necessarily quality. I do landscapes and birds. I often go out for a hike and come back with zero images. But that is because I edit before I press the shutter button. I've been to Bosque many times, so I do have many many great images. But this year was really bad. I came home after several days with only about 200 images (I did post one in avian).



In the last 2 months I have traveled to Tanzania and Florida with over 100 gig's of birds and animal keepers!....yet only a handful of Landscape images! To be fair, there were restrictions of getting about at night and even during the day......but even if I was able to, only a handful more keepers.

Hmm, I've gotten many landscape images in Tanzania. Yes, one is limited by being in the vehicle, but I did
get out and hike. e.g.:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/travel/tanzania/hiking.tanzania/

One can arrange to do whatever you want in Tanzania, just make appropriate arrangements.
Here is a night landscape:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.africa/web/ndutu.night.rnclark.c01.22.2007.jz3f0077-90max.cw-800.html

I go to Tanzania for the landscapes as well as the wildlife.



Yes light is important to both.....it is photogrpahy......but most avian images that are spectacular aren't taken 1/2 hour B4 or after sunset.......you have around 3 hours every morning and afternoon.....whether it is overcast, cloudless, raining, windy, etc.........in landscapes the timeframe for getting remarkable images is much shorter.

You imply that spectacular landscapes are taken within a half hour of sunrise or sunset. I disagree. For example, here are some landscapes taken mid day, more than 2 hours from sunrise or sunset (maybe you will not think they are spectacular):

around 2pm in summer:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.large_format/web/c072099_L4_01a2-600b.html

around 3pm:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.large_format/web/nellie_falls.c09.27.2002.L4.02c-600.html

about 11 am:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.large_format/web/indian_peaks_wildernessc07.04.2002.L4.07c-600.html

about 2 pm:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.large_format/web/colorado.fall.c09.30.2003.L4.9446-a+b.c-700.html

about 9am:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.large_format/web/colorado.fall-c09.30.2003.L4.9362b-700.html


For me the proof is when I head to Arches NP in May, I hope to come back with a couple of dozen spectacular images.......while in one day with James on the Hooptie Duex ........I have come away with Gig's of great images/poses.

There are many subjects in the Arches/Canyonlands region that are great landscape subjects at all times of day. Perhaps thinking outside the box? In a typical day in Arches/Canyonlands, I'll come home with many gigabytes of landscape images too, and most are keepers.

How many great bird images will you get in a day at Arches?



Since I am the one who wanted this debate started I offer this......post your best landscape image. In the specs post how many images you had in that day......and then post a link to an Avian image of yours with how many images you got that shooting session.

Again, I'll argue that quantity is the wrong metric. A can get many landscapes in a landscape rich environment, just as I can get many bird images in a bird-rich environment. Quality is more important than quantity.



I think once you sit down and realize the narrow window you have to photograph a landscape and how you need many elements to come together to get that spectacular image.......it's not even close!

PS I wish it was just a case of focusing in Landscapes.....I've have a lot more posts to reply to in there:D!

I don't have a narrow window for landscapes. I feel I have a narrower window with birds. The light must be great for both birds and landscapes for great images. But with birds there are more variables, including behavior and luck of position. Harsh mid-day light means poor images on birds and wildlife. But with landscapes, I can do landscapes in a canyon or forest at mid day;even flowers, like I posted above. I can do landscapes at night. I can do landscapes on cloudy days or in fog.

I'll close with a foggy Tanzanian landscape with a bird:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.africa/web/vulture.in.fog.c01.20.2007.JZ3F8185b-700.html
The fog was too thick for a good image of the vulture, but the landscape was great. I wanted the fog to stay all day. I love those foggy mornings on the Serengeti.

Of course, all of this is just my opinion.;)

Roger

[Desmond Chan]

OK Desmond......are you basing this on your own travels.... I'm basing my statement of what I have viewed happening in the field.....how about you?

As I have stated in my previous post, I was disputing your conclusion on how far a bird photographer would have to walk based on my own experiences.

Now it seems to me you are suggesting that landscape photography is more difficult because, even if every other things are equal, in general, landscape photographers have to walk for a longer distance to get the shots. OK. In case you have not noticed though, my disagreeing with your conclusion about how far a bird photog needs to walk is by no means a disagreement to your conclusion that landscape photogs have to walk for longer distance. And so, if what you say about the landscape photographers is true (and I have no reason to believe I have more experiences in that field than you do), I can agree that landscape photography is more difficult. The question though is: as Axel mildly pointed out, is walking distance a determining factor now? If so, would a marathon runner turned landscape photog find landscape photography easier than avian photog simply because, perhaps, he does not have the muscles to shoot a harrier in flight shot hand-holding his 600mm lens ? :D:D

I do agree with you that a lot of the "techniques" in shooting birds can be had simply by practising again and again. Provided both photographers are at the spot to take the shot, it seems to me that shooting a bird on a stick can be easier than shooting a landscape that have more than one elements in the scene.

Oh, I believe I was the first one who casted his vote on "landscape" as I pretty much could tell what the poll results would look like :)

[Todd Frost]

One of the big problems I see with a discussion like this is a broad question is asked, meaning in general terms, on average, in most cases, etc .... and people want to start dissecting it placing certain criteria on the discussion and it goes downhill.
The question was put out in pretty simple terms, avian or landscape. Not bif or shooting from car vs walking x# of miles. All of those things are part of the question and to single out and focus on specific parts degenerate the topic.
Just my .02 cents
Todd

[David Stephens]

So avian doesn't include BIF??

Birds in the zoo are very easy. Sometimes you need to bring some extra light, but just get in close on the head and throw the background out of focus. Simple. Take a few hundred shots to get the head and eye just right, with lots of feather detail.

[Todd Frost]

David, if that question was for me. I should have been clearer and said not just bif. When I said "all of those things are part of the question" that was what I was trying to imply, just not stated very clearly.
Todd

[David Stephens]

David, if that question was for me. I should have been clearer and said not just bif. When I said "all of those things are part of the question" that was what I was trying to imply, just not stated very clearly.
Todd

You're right Todd, I didn't understand you. Now it's clear. Thanks

[Katherine Enns]

I am not in the same league as most of the respondents here, and I never post my bird photos so I am not sure I have the right to an opinion. I occassionally have to take bird photographs for my work, and although they are tricky to get, its possible to get a passible illustrative shot of the species I happen to be working on, and my frequency of actually quite good shots, to my great surprise, is higher than good landscapes. I agree with Roman, its much more challenging to get exceptional landscapes, I hope some day to get ONE :). If you consider the outcome, in my opinion, landscape is more challenging over all. The question is not as simple as it seems. I agree that birds are devilishly hard, but if you play your cards right you can get the shot easier than an exceptional landscape shot.

[Harshad Barve]

I agree that birds are devilishly hard,

and your subject can be under 15 cm and superspeed flyer :)

[Roger Clark]

I am not sure I have the right to an opinion.

Kat,
Everyone has a right to an opinion. Thanks for posting.

From the responses, I think a large factor on which is harder is due to experience. Those with a lot of avian experience and little landscape tend to say landscape is harder, and vice versa.

Roger

[Bob Sumitro]

I always find landscape photography to be more difficult than other photography, like people or portrait photography. I guess the main reason is because it's difficult for me to "see" the beauty in landscape, and that makes it harder for me to make an interesting or beautiful photograph out of it. Well, making a so so landscape photos is already difficult for me, let alone a beautiful one. bob

[Morkel Erasmus]

I agree that the question is quite broad. Shooting a killer image of a malachite kingfisher rocketing by with a fish in its mouth in less-than-ideal light conditions will stretch the best avian tog out there. Shooting a large heron perched outside your house in an open tree is quite less of a challenge. The same goes for some landscape shots. In some places the obvious composition just leaps out at you - and at other places you have walk for miles, scrounge around and try to find something that will work. You can't really effectively compare the kingfisher with the easy vista and the easy heron with the difficult landscape composition.

[Sabyasachi Patra]

Have anyone of you fumbled for your Mirror lock up button when the light is fast changing? In a couple of seconds, the light can be gone and you would still be pressing the menu buttons.

A hide, knowledge about bird behaviour and tons of patience can result in birds coming closer to you. Or for that matter, use of bird calls, drips etc. Try doing that to attract a mountain? ;)

Reaching a particular level is easy. Excellence in anything is tough, be it landscapes or birds or mammals or anything else in life.

Cheers,
Sabyasachi

[Harshad Barve]

Reaching a particular level is easy. Excellence in anything is tough, be it landscapes or birds or mammals or anything else in life.



Wow !!!! Fully agreed

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hi All,
First Kat......glad you chimed in!!!.....this is in fact all just our opinions!,,,,and more glad to see you agree with me:D!

Roger, I know you can take a landscape other that 1/2 B4 or a1/2 hour after sunrise as your posts illustrate.......now if it wasn't overcast etc......but I wanted this thread started for another reason.....

I believe Sabyasachi's comment is also 100% correct "
Reaching a particular level is easy. Excellence in anything is tough, be it landscapes or birds or mammals or anything else in life."

...but what I have found in my experiences as evident in pane #10 by William that is prevalent; "By far avian is the most difficult. Landscape is setting up a camera on a tripod after traveling to a location, and waiting for the best lighting. The subject is stationary! No comparison." ....this attitude I see in the field......I do both....and macro and wildlife....just check my posts! James knew making the statement to me "landscapes are easy" would get my blood boiling......so he posted this thread for his amusement I think! I guess I just wanted to challenge those who think landscapes are easy......to show me how easy they are and post a few!!! Still no takers:D!

Good news Desmond.....we're catching them!.....have to call in reinforcements!

[Jamie Strickland]

OK Desmond......are you basing this on your own travels.....ever been to Bosque Del Apache NWR?.......most walk 50-100feet. Ever been to any of the florida locations?......mostly the same. Ever been to Katmai.......maybe a mile or so at best.....so what are you basing your assesment on? I'm basing my statement of what I have viewed happening in the field.....how about you?

really depends where you go, there is a place I go here in MI that I have to walk in 3.5 miles in and then another 3.5 out !

then another one in Toledo thats basically the same

in the areas your talking your right you dont have to go far but I know up here in MI there are not many places like that at all.

but even if you have to walk 2 miles with a wide angle lens thats nothing compared to walking the same with a 500 or 600 :) I would rather hike for 10 miles for landscape than 2 for birding :)

[Daniel Cadieux]

OK, I haven't had time for much of any type of photography lately....but I have contributed to Landscapes a few times before:D.

Taken standing right next to my car:
http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=53297

About a 1 minute walk from the parking lot:
http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=48295

Five minute walk from the parking lot:
http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=43880

From Estero, with about 20 willing avian subjects very close behind me (people need to look BEHIND them too!):D
http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=31970

2007 Canadian Geographic photo contest, Landscapes Categoy 1st prize winning entry:
http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=3350

I'd say landscape photography takes up about 1% of my photography time....OK Roman, I'm pulling your leg a bit here...but I'm just having a bit of fun too! Great topic!!

P.S. I'd say technicals-wise they are equal. Know your gear, know how to expose properly, know how to compose properly, know how to post-process properly. I will admit with landscapes it is harder for many to "see" what is right in front of them. Ottawa is not the most landscape-friendly place...but when one learns to open their eyes all sorts of opportunities appear from seemingly knowhere!

[Alfred Forns]

Roman .... got another parameter for measuring difficulty :D I'm sure Paul M can give us a good idea :) ... how many mosquito bites in ENP it takes to set up a pre dawn shot with water over your knees waiting for the sun to come up ... and then you get no color :eek::)

[Roger Clark]

Roman .... got another parameter for measuring difficulty :D I'm sure Paul M can give us a good idea :) ... how many mosquito bites in ENP it takes to set up a pre dawn shot with water over your knees waiting for the sun to come up ... and then you get no color :eek::)

Is that landscape or avian? ;)

Roger

[Kaustubh Deshpande]

Roman, I think you are being a bit unfair in comparing landscape photographers who hike a lot with bird photographers who dont. I know of bird photographers in India who hike long distances with 500mm lenses in jungles of western Himalayas chasing small exotic birds. Am sure there are many everywhere in the world. As hard as what you and Paul and others do here. have utmost respect of the late Galen Rowell.

Moreover, you are also comparing magical landscape shots with typical bird shots. a bit unfair, I think.

As I have said earlier, getting that magical photo of anything is hard. Travel, gear and all apart, vision is needed in any kind of photography. Even if birds are accessible at some places, doesn't mean taking a unique great shot there is easy. Taking a "magical" photo of a street in Paris is also not easy IMO. So dont consider me in the 'avian is much harder' club. I voted for avian because I feel even taking good shots of easilly accessible species is not easy because of the gear needed and the nature of the subject. from my experience shooting with 400mm lens here in Dallas. cant comment on other places. I have done easilly accessible landscapes pretty much everywhere in the US in the past.

And I will say this also again....taking a good looking shot of a great landscape is easier because the landscape is great. You can take a pull-out from the road. park your car. get out. sunrise light. and take a spectacular looking shot of Grand tetons. May be not a keeper in your book...but still good-looking and might even sell. Walk up to the rock pile at Lake Moraine in Banff at mid day and take a shot that common man will go 'wow. look at those mountains and that blue color'. not a great photo, sure but some landscapes are jaw-dropping beautiful. I admit I havent worked very hard on landscapes and dont have anything really magical( may be a few that are above average)....but guess what? people visit my website and send me more comments on those typical landscape shots. homemade scans of slides taken with canon elan and 28-104 kit lens.

We can go in circles on this.

[Alfred Forns]

Is that landscape or avian? ;)

Roger


Landscape all the way Roger I have seen Paul Marcellini and Judd Patterson way in the mud covered by mosquitoes waiting for an image. Difficulty goes way up in my opinion, I don't even go into the park when the "heavy mosquito" sign is up !!!!

When I think of that seems birds are easy :)

[William Malacarne]

Al

I think there is a new invention for that...called a kayak.....:D

Bill

[Kaustubh Deshpande]

Landscape all the way Roger I have seen Paul Marcellini and Judd Patterson way in the mud covered by mosquitoes waiting for an image. Difficulty goes way up in my opinion, I don't even go into the park when the "heavy mosquito" sign is up !!!!

When I think of that seems birds are easy :)

Al, but its not like bird photographers dont do that. I have led birding tours in leech infested "shola forests" (8-9km walk though hills to just get to the place from the base camp site) of Southern India in search of Malabar trogon, great-pied hornbill, ceylon frogmouth and Lion-tailed Macaques. I didn't have a camera but we had some folks with big lenses with us. And some doing landscapes as well. Much worse than mosquitoes. Every kid had a pair of red socks at the end of it. Not to mention presence of leopards, tigers, bears, bisons, vipers, king cobras and elephants all along the way. Well....good ol' days when walking was permitted and really the only way possible :-)

[Harshad Barve]

Roman, I think you are being a bit unfair in comparing landscape photographers who hike a lot with bird photographers who dont. I know of bird photographers in India who hike long distances with 500mm lenses in jungles of western Himalayas chasing small exotic birds.


http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=56080 You will get this after some great efforts ,
I am not talking of waders , Rainforest birds :)
just my 2 cents ,

PS , BTW I was carring that 600mm , mighty heavy

[Ed Cordes]

I voted Avaian. However, I recognize that either, done well, is more difficult than most people think. However, in Avain you need all the usual photographic elements to come together in a usually very short period of time involving fast action and moving targets. This not to say that outstanding light that is fleeting in its character is not a challange for Landscape - it is!

Interesting discussion.

[Katherine Enns]

Ok, well you guys, (and there seems to be a LOT of guys here) honestly, now. I have you all beat when it comes to Mosquitoes! :) In the subarctic we have to tie ourselves to the heli or they carry us away. (no trees up there, of course). Or if we are are a la pied, to the ATV! Why, we keep the rotors /engine going just for the breeze / smoke! It means a lot of crouching to get those landscape shots. Or risk decapitation / asphyxiation. And then to photoshop to get the bugs out of the shots, post process. (BIG CHEEZY SMILE!) When you factor in insect predation, it just throws everything in the arguments out for landscape vs avian out with the bathwater! :):)

[Jay Gould]

When the bird freezes in the air during a BIF shoot then I will vote for landscape. While I agree with everything said on both sides, FOR ME at the end of the day, to capture the moving target (birds or wildlife) perfectly is more difficult than capturing a landscape perfectly.

Having said that you have to keep in mind that a person's level of expertise plays a great part in this vote. What I would consider a perfect capture on either side of the fence still belongs - most of the time - in ETL!

[Roman Kurywczak]

When the bird freezes in the air during a BIF shoot then I will vote for landscape. .........!
Well Jay,
Just take a look in Avain!.......every day a bird frozen in the frame!;) Heck.....even the landscape mod has quite a few!!!:D....BTW Daniel......I have posted waaaay more in Avain!
I won't even go into the mosquitoes......I have done that for both!
OK.....I think many of you are missing the point......although the MI hikers do have a point as I am basing my assesment on my travels and local shooting......my point still is.....it requires a great deal of other elements......out of my control....to get the magical landscape image. Every place I have visited for birding......or even here in NJ.....my technique plays a more major role and I have improved with practice! Ever see an amazing sunset without clouds?......on a grey day?
Roger.....in your wildflower image you said you had to wait for the wind to die down.......and the light to get diffused.....otherwise a no go! If you had a bad wildflower season....no go.....again.....many elements that are out of my control. I don't feel that way When I photograph birds.....but it may be because of the places I visit and where I live.
And for those of you hiking with the 600mm.....no sympathy from me:eek:!!!....the Sigmonster is heavier:D.
PS I need to talk to James about rigging an election.......I am from Jersey you know:eek:!

[William Malacarne]

PS I need to talk to James about rigging an election.......I am from Jersey you know:eek:!

You need someone from Chicago to help you......http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif

Bill

[LouBuonomo]

Macro is WAY harder than either :)

[Alfred Forns]

Macro is WAY harder than either :)



... now we are talking Lou:D:D:cool:

[Jackie Schuknecht]

Each has it's own challenges. Avian I think you have to be a techno wizard, and for landscapes you need an eye for a scene which can be very difficult to compose. Agree that the Floridians have the edge with such tame birds, and with landscapes you have a very short window for that golden light and beautiful sunrise/sunsets images.

[Desmond Chan]

Macro is WAY harder than either :)


True that !

Hey, I'm serious :D

[Roger Clark]

Roger.....in your wildflower image you said you had to wait for the wind to die down.......and the light to get diffused.....otherwise a no go! If you had a bad wildflower season....no go.....again.....many elements that are out of my control. I don't feel that way When I photograph birds.....but it may be because of the places I visit and where I live.


Roman,
I think both time and location has a lot to do with which is harder. For example, I live in Colorado and while we have a fair number of birds at some time of year, but in mid summer summer many have gone further north. Landscapes are great in the Colorado Rockies. but birds are rarer. So landscapes are overall easier. But if I go to Florida at certain times of the year, birds are great but I find the lack of topography a larger challenge for landscapes. But even so, the constantly varying backgrounds of birds in flight as well as focus tracking issues all contribute to less control over a situation.

In the wildflower landscape image you refer to, I was shooting f/64 with ISO 50 Velvia 4x5 film so exposure time was very slow, making me wait for a combination of puffy clouds diffusing the light and low wind. Now days, I have switched to digital mosaics allowing me to take such images in windy conditions. Like this one:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.large_format/web/colorado.wildflowers.c07.21.2009.img_7978+9.c-700.html
taken last year in close to the same location in windy conditions. So landscapes have gotten easier with better technology, just like tracking birds in flight has gotten easier with phase detect AF.

Yes, good wildflower years help, but if one know where to go there are always nice groupings of flowers. It's no different with birds. If you know to go to the Venice rookery at a certain time of year, or Bosque at another, you will have some good opportunities. Hot spots for landscapes are just as important as hot spots for birds.

Roger

[Christopher C.M. Cooke]

Macro is WAY harder than either

Agree 100% but great fun :)

[Dave Blinder]

Seems like many skewed opinions here, along with a few balanced ones.

Sure you can get a tack sharp bird in flight or bird on a stick shot with perfect exposure and even lighting periodically once you learn the needed methodology. But.. have you created an astounding and novel photo, or have you simply created another of many high quality wildlife photos already available?

Same goes for high quality landscape photos vs. EXEMPLARY landscape photos. "Earth shattering" photos of any sort require emotion, creativity, and distinct originality. High quality photos of different subject matter are gratifying and enjoyable, but for a skilled and experienced photographer they should be produced regularly. I think the fundamentals of landscape and wildlife photography take equal discipline.

[Cliff Beittel]

I've shot mostly birds, but the truth is that much bird photography is largely reflexes. Flight shooting, for example, is much like shooting clay targets with a shotgun. Those who are good at it (I don't shoot trap myself, but photographer John Gerlach, who was a competitive shooter at one time, pointed this out to me) often run 100 targets--even several hundred--without a miss. With a camera, especially a Canon, perfectly focused images aren't a sure thing even with great hand/eye coordination, and a nicely composed image is even rarer, but still it's largely point-and-shoot, relying on reflexes and AF for a good result. With good reflexes and enough tries, a good result is likely. Landscapes, on the other hand, are more mental, more like rock climbing, where in addition to physical ability and equipment management you need to be able figure out the moves in advance. Getting a great composition takes a lot of thought, or at least great eye, and then managing multiple filters, possibly tilt/shift, and going back and forth in Live View between foreground and background to assure adequate DOF can be a much more involved process than just reacting to a bird. So I think making a good flight shot is relatively simple compared to making a significant landscape image. Hardest of all might be combining the two--landscapes that also contain wildlife.

[Alan Melle]

Well, the equipment for bird photography generally far outweighs the equipment for landscape photography and hauling it around for hours can be a real pain. Learning good long lens technique is a must. One must also learn about birds. On the other hand I can set up a nice perch, place a nice BG if I want and even provide food or use a bird call to get the birds to come to the really nice perch set up with the perfect lighting angle. I can even provide the light if needed.

Try setting up a good BG for any landscape photos lately? How about adjusting the light? And I've never found a way to get a great landscape to come to me. And no new poses or different landscapes come to my setups. I always have to go find them myself and wait for the right light, if it ever shows up.

As much as I love bird photography and it's challenges I find landscape photography more difficult.

[arash_hazeghi]

Chill guys, taking top notch photos is difficult being landscape or birds, if setting up perches and adjusting light is easy or BIF is point and shoot why don't you do it then? Where is your gallery? I can see Alan Murphy and Jim Neiger laughing at these arguments ;)

Instead of debating here just go out and take pictures, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Roman I guess you and James had a bet on this, did James win already ? :D ;)

[Desmond Chan]

if setting up perches and adjusting light is easy or BIF is point and shoot why don't you do it then? Where is your gallery?

Well, I don't think it's about which one is easy, Arash. I think it's about which one of the two is easier or more difficult than the other one.

[arash_hazeghi]

Well, I don't think it's about which one is easy, Arash. I think it's about which one of the two is easier or more difficult than the other one.

To be top notch and successful in either is difficult Desmond no more or less. It is like comparing swimming and running.

[Desmond Chan]

To be top notch and successful in either is difficult Desmond no more or less.

I don't think anybody here is denying both are not easy, Arash. Nobody is disagreeing to your statement above, too, I believe. But to some of us mortals one definitely appears to be easier than the other. I have a feeling that some older folks, for example, may find panning difficult to do and thus would likely have problems shooting BIF. For them, I would not be surprised if they find shooting landscape easier. So, yes, to any particular one of us, between landscape and avian photography, one can be easier to do than the other although they are both difficult to get good results.

Besides, by casting your vote, you already have told us you do find one is easier than the other. Your responses also seem to suggest that, if I'm not mistaken.

[Roman Kurywczak]

........ Where is your gallery? I can see Alan Murphy and Jim Neiger laughing at these arguments ;)

Instead of debating here just go out and take pictures, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Roman I guess you and James had a bet on this, did James win already ? :D ;)

I actually have a florida and avian gallery on my website and if you check.....I have equal posts in both forums here:cool:! Since you mention the names.....it would be interesting to see them chime in........as well as James and maybe even Artie!.......and I haven't lost the bet quite yet:p......just a while ago it was 3 to 1......I'm almost 2 to 1 now......have to call in more reinforcements:eek:!.......I might have to pay off the macro side:D:D:D!

[arash_hazeghi]

I actually have a florida and avian gallery on my website and if you check.....I have equal posts in both forums here:cool:! Since you mention the names.....it would be interesting to see them chime in........as well as James and maybe even Artie!.......and I haven't lost the bet quite yet:p......just a while ago it was 3 to 1......I'm almost 2 to 1 now......have to call in more reinforcements:eek:!.......I might have to pay off the macro side:D:D:D!

Roman,

I wasn't referring to you for sure ;) I have no doubt in the quality of your work. Avian and landscape alike.
But I am on James's side, how much are you guys betting?

We should call in reinforcements too :) coalition of BIF shooters.

Al and Fabs have not chosen their side yet :D maybe waiting to see which side comes out first :eek:

[WIlliam Maroldo]

I thought I'd jump in one more time. There is a bunch of stuff here that has deviated substantially from the basic question posed by James.
I didn't see anything in the question about results, just how difficult it is. Now if the question was how difficult is it to take a great avian image or a great landscape image, I'd say taking a great landscape image may very well be more difficult; but this has something to do with a long history of landscapes in both photography and other media, and the bar has been set pretty high by Ansel and others.
The history of bird photography is much shorter; certain technological milestones needed to be reached for it to be possible. It wasn't that long ago that 1/1000 sec was the highest shutter speed on SLRs. This would be too slow for capture of many birds in flight.
I didn't, and still don't, consider difficulty in getting to a location to take pictures, and it seems this is highly dependent on where you live. Since that is the case, I can't see how any valid conclusion can be reached.
Taking avian photographs, especially in flight or in motion, as I have mentioned, requires relatively new technologies (30-40 years old such as AF) and digital has helped, and primarily because of instant feedback.
I was looking at the question from a photographic point of view, as in cameras and technique. I am under the impression that landscape photography, as far as basic photography goes, is simpler. Certainly artistic vision and other intangeables are important, but in this discussion I primary am looking at things from a technological point of view. Sorry, photography is technological , from day one. . In landscapes, since a tripod is usually used, shutter speed isn't that important(remember a stationary subject). DOF is the primary consideration. And you have more time to get it right. Not infinitely more time, for example that sun will rise or set pretty quickly, but in avian this need to take advantage of a situation can require decisions to be made in seconds, and not minutes. Occasionally a willing subject will pose, but you have no idea how much time you have at the onset of shooting, and settings must be adequate, and quickly ascertained, for the subject is likely to fly off at any moment.
Avian has many more variables; shutter speed is very important, especially when the subject in moving, and there are distinct advantages in being able to hand hold the camera, which has been improved by relatively recent image stabilization technology.
DOF is important as well, and closeness and size of the subject must be taken into account, as well how DOF effects the background. Exposure is highly variable as well, and the darkness or lightness of the bird must be considered, and positioning the camera to get even lighting of the subject is also important. Again, time is of the essence.
Shadows are a real problem. Shadows can be an important element in landscape photography, yet often cause serious problems in avian photography.
High contrast sometimes works for landscape photography, especially black and white, but rarely in avian images. This causes other problems as well, for the soft light that is preferred is less intense, and requires understanding of higher ISO shooting, and methods of reducing digital noise in these higher ISO situations. In landscape photography you can use as low an ISO as your camera will deliver, and ISO 50 has advantages. Noise is not nearly as much a problem. Rarely could avian photographers get decent images with such low ISOs.
My 2 cents. regards~Bill

[arash_hazeghi]

As an engineer, there isn no doubt in my mind that capturing the "peak of action" in Avian photography is much more difficult than capturing a perfect light in landscape, and it has a very lower probability, because it requires the optimum permutation of independent events to happen in a short time scale (milliseconds for flight and interaction shots) Here I am posting the highlight of my work from last week, I spent 3 days in a row, each day spending 5-7 hours in the field with the 500 with no tripod or monopod.

http://www.stanford.edu/%7Eahazeghi/Photos/birds/super.jpg

If you are interested in technical details checkout the thread here http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=60214

In order to get this shot I used all of my skills as well physical and mental abilities and stretched them to the limit. The exposure has to fall in a ~100 msec window to capture a peak moment like this otherwise you're done (and I was using a 5DMKII which is 4fps only). Focus needs to be dead on too, otherwise the birds will be soft and you won't have those shiny water droplets. Avocet lands from above so it is initially against sky BG if I didn't change exposure in time the egret would be toast! trash again. You need to coordinate between eye, brain and mussels within less than a second to get this. I am sure Al, Fabs, Artie, James, Alan and Doug et al also have much better samples than mine that show how technically demanding Avian photography is.

Now show me a single landscape shot that needs eye, brain and mussels coordination to capture a peak moment that lasts 100 msec only :eek: :D ;) ?

Landscape photography needs high levels of creativity and that makes it very nontrivial but it is not difficult from a technical point of view for photographers who know their gear. Put the camera on tripod and activate LV and with exposure simulation you will see what your photo will look like prior to taking it.


I will leave it here, hope that James and Doug will bring the reinforcements soon.

BTW Roman, the egret was calling you, he was shocked to hear you said landscape photography was tougher than Avian ;)

[Nicki Gwynn Jones]

Arash, well said...need I say more :D;)

[Roman Kurywczak]

Has anyone who voted for Avain ever had to use a split ND filter?.......me either! In landscapes you often have to balance the light of the morning sky with a much darker FG. On average, the light difference is anywhere from 3 to 9 stops off! Ever have a bird that many stops off from head to foot? Didn't think so! Balancing the light and achieving that balance often requires a great deal of thinking and knowledge......that can't be done in a split second......so the 10 fps on the Mark lll can't save me as it almost always does in Avian!......one millisecond is just a push of the button away:D. Yes, I have to study behaviour......but Arash.....I would never take another Avian image again if the magical light of sunrise and sunset allowed me to photgraph 5 hours!;):D Take a look at the image below......how would you expose for this? In Avian, I never have such difficulties and I shoot manual mode for both 100% of the time. No cheating now and checking my specs from earlier!:eek:

[Alfred Forns]

Hi Roman ... does letting he water drain to the right side of the image has anything to do with it :D

... kidding aside you also have those night shots pitch dark which you showed me how to, at the time was thinking of all the tech/thinking that went into make a successful image !!

On the other hand with birds, it is often reacting making changes which I'm hardly aware of doing. Need constant practice to keep proficient.

I think it all boils down to the circumstance of the area.

[Roman Kurywczak]

I do think you and the others may be correct.....but waiting for James to chime in!!!:D See what happens when he says Landscapes are easy:eek:!

[Sid Garige]

See what happens when he says Landscapes are easy:eek:!

http://www.youtube.com/user/joemcnallyphoto#p/a/u/2/lkiuQs6gqBQ

some thing like this .... hehe :D

[Roman Kurywczak]

hehe he he!

[Christopher Miller]

Very interesting discussion. In my own personal experience, I find avian photography more difficult because there are so many things that can totally ruin a good bird photo, many of which are out of your control and can change in a split second. Landscapes, on the other hand, don't run away(or fly away as the case may be! :D) giving you much more time to plan your shot and get it right. Then again, I use a bridge camera, which isn't as fast as a DSLR and thus isn't as effective for avian photography; maybe if I had a DSLR, I would feel differently.

I do feel that no area of photography is easy to do successfully, and how difficult a particular area is is entirely dependent on circumstances and personal opinion.

[Marina Scarr]

After reading this thread, I am beginning to think that Roman has made some valid points which I had not conidered.

[Kaustubh Deshpande]

Happy to see lot of people chiming in with 'getting exemplary work done in either is quite hard' opinion. I find taking "extra special" photos of my son as hard as birds and mountains :)

[Jim Neiger]

Landscapes don't move very fast. :) Anything that allows you to take your time, think it over, retry repeatedly and go back and do it again on a different day is got to be easier than something that requires instantaneous decision making and split second response.

[Roger Clark]

A few years ago I was driving in Arches N.P. working with another researcher. I was mapping minerals of the rocks and soils. A made a comment to the other researcher: "I study the geology because it doesn't change very fast. I can work this week and next month and it'll be pretty much the same. But you have it much more difficult studying plants as they constantly change with time." The researcher fired back: "Nah, I have it easy. I can come out next week to the same plant. Those who study animals really have it tough. Not only do the animals change with time, they are constantly moving and you don't always know where they are.";)

Roger

[Dan Woodward]

IMHO I have no problem getting tack sharp focus on a tree and my exposure dosn't rapidly change as a stream dances across the horizon. Ican't say the same about focus on a birds eye or a change of light as a bird hops into and out of the shade. Just a beginers point of view. Intresting topic :)

[Roman Kurywczak]

IMHO I have no problem getting tack sharp focus on a tree and my exposure dosn't rapidly change as a stream dances across the horizon. Ican't say the same about focus on a birds eye or a change of light as a bird hops into and out of the shade. Just a beginers point of view. Intresting topic :)

Shoot a tree at sunrise or sunset with a FG.....then talk to me!.....after that you will know the true meaning of a tough exposure!;)

[Dan Woodward]

Roman your light house photo is truely stunning and surley technicaly difficult, well above my skill level. However the subject will be there next year, by then my skills may have improved enough (I should live so long) to attempt such a shoot. If I get it wrong, I can try again. With avian my subject may be rare for me, never to be seen again. For me, time with the subject determines the degree of difficulty in getting shot. Both disciplines require excellent tech's. :)

[Roman Kurywczak]

.......However the subject will be there next year, by then my skills may have improved enough (I should live so long) to attempt such a shoot. If I get it wrong, I can try again. With avian my subject may be rare for me, never to be seen again. For me, time with the subject determines the degree of difficulty in getting shot. Both disciplines require excellent tech's. :)

The statement is partially correct Dan.....while the lighthouse may indeed still be there.....the same exact conditions won't! Ever see 2 sunrises/sunsets exactly the same? I have been to this lighthouse (Nubble) many, many times......only 1 frame like this......and it didn't have to do with skill level....but conditions coming together. This was a full moon night.....which I normally don't attempt night images.....but there was a very thick for.....just behind me diffusing the moon just the right amount. While I will definitely see fog there again at some point.......most likely not where I need it! Even if conditions do come together for a similar image (because the lighthouse didn't go anywhere)....still won't be the same because too many factors come into play! I have egret, GBH images...etc., etc, etc....from every trip the last 14 years down to Florida.....same with Cranes and Snow geese from Bosque.....if I didn't have a date on them....wouldn't know when I took them.....can repeat them fairly regularly.
I do agree that it depends on many factors as Roger and others have stated....such as where you live and access to either birds, landscapes, or animals......this plays a large role......only difference in all is......that macro is easy:D......as it is readily available to all......you don't even have to leave the house!.....but I'll save that argument for another time!

[Dan Woodward]

Thanks Roman. You bring up great points that are quiet valid. If I ever get to the point were I'm happy with my avian shooting (seems impossible at this stage) I will take on landscape. After all it's all nature wich I love. After seeing some of your images it gives me a level to shoot for. So much to learn... So little time

[Charissa]

For a total noob, i just had to budge in. Have to go with Morkel on the Landscapes being more difficult. We come from the same country, and as he said, birds are everywhere, and in masses sometime. Maybe it should be narrowed to avian, and Bird in flight shots, as everyone can get a sharp, perching shot of a bird, but not everyone get the BIF shots perfect.
I don,t use fancy equipment for avian photography, and i do get more keepers of BIFs on a average day out, than i do with landscapes. With avian, u have to worry about the bird being correctly exposed, but with landscape, u have a lot of things to consider, and expose correctly. Birds move, but remember, clouds, water, grass, sun, waves, all of them move constantly, so there is my 2 sents worth, landscape it is. ;-)
Roman.****, i see u took on macro.... did u ever shoot a wasp, or bee for that matter with a Canon MPE 4mm from its face, manual focus, and still get the wing blur fancy, the pin point small eyes sharply in focus, whiles rocking back and forth?....;-))

[Kobus Tollig]

Nice to read all this. And some very good points made here.
I think for myself landscapes are harder.
The reason is that you need to find a landscape by yourself to get a really good one. Something that no one else has shot. With Avian the basic composition stays the same and most people has done the shot before.
We do sit in a catch 22 on this subject cause avian can go hand in hand with landscapes. Arty has done this and some other togs. To get out of the box avian stuff is also hard......
Im talking myself into a corner here:D
So i guess you cant really compare a green apple with a red one... One is sweeter but they both apples......

[Harshad Barve]

Hi Roman ,
It took me 10 years to get tiger cub climbing on tree , this is FYI and I am posting this LIVE from Bandhavgarh NP

Wildlife photography ( Avian & W/L ) needs lots of time , money and patience , it is all about freezing the moment when it comes and that too perfectly , so for me this is more difficult :)

[RakeshDhareshwar]

For me , the level of quality you want to achieve in any branch of photography makes is more and more difficult . The small increase in the quality is achieved with a dispropionate<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p> effort .and that is true for each genre of photography . So both the genres are very difficult at the highest level .

[James Shadle]

IMO it is as tough to do one "great" as it is the other.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hi All,
Charissa....I've been doing macro for a long time.....more than I care to admit:D....while I don't have the MPE.....I have plenty of images full frame in macro.....most hand held! Not easy either....just having fun!

Harshad......I also do wildlife photography.....and I hope to do it in Bandhavgarh NP with you one day......and hope to prove you wrong:D!

James.....see what you started:eek:???......but which way did you vote:D?