You are really muddying the water now. First what kind of photography is more difficult, now we talk who walks more? :)Originally Posted by Roman Kurywczak
Avian
Landscape
You are really muddying the water now. First what kind of photography is more difficult, now we talk who walks more? :)
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
Ok Axel....no hiking distances! ....but we are closing the gap:D!
Roger.........way cool! 6 herniations later.......even 50 sounds like a lot!
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.
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).
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/...king.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...ax.cw-800.html
I go to Tanzania for the landscapes as well as the wildlife.
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...01a2-600b.html
around 3pm:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...4.02c-600.html
about 11 am:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...4.07c-600.html
about 2 pm:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...a+b.c-700.html
about 9am:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...9362b-700.html
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?
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 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...8185b-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
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 :)
Last edited by Desmond Chan; 03-23-2010 at 10:06 PM.
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
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.
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
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.
Kat Enns
Castlegar, BC
and your subject can be under 15 cm and superspeed flyer :)
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
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
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.
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
Wow !!!! Fully agreed
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!
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 :)
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/for...ad.php?t=53297
About a 1 minute walk from the parking lot:
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.php?t=48295
Five minute walk from the parking lot:
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.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/for...ad.php?t=31970
2007 Canadian Geographic photo contest, Landscapes Categoy 1st prize winning entry:
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ead.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!
Last edited by Daniel Cadieux; 03-24-2010 at 07:57 AM.
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
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.
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
I think there is a new invention for that...called a kayak.....:D
Bill
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 :-)
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.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
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.
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! :):)
Kat Enns
Castlegar, BC
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!
Cheers, Jay
My Digital Art - "Nature Interpreted" - can now be view at http://www.luvntravlnphotography.com
"Nature Interpreted" - Photography begins with your mind and eyes, and ends with an image representing your vision and your reality of the captured scene; photography exceeds the camera sensor's limitations. Capturing and Processing landscapes and seascapes allows me to express my vision and reality of Nature.
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:!
You need someone from Chicago to help you......
Bill
Macro is WAY harder than either :)
... now we are talking Lou:D:D:cool:
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.
True that !
Hey, I'm serious :D
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...8+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
Agree 100% but great fun :)Macro is WAY harder than either
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.
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.
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.
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 ;)
Last edited by arash_hazeghi; 03-25-2010 at 07:29 PM.
New! Sony Capture One Pro Guide 2022
https://arihazeghiphotography.com/Gu.../Sony_C1P.html
------------------------------------------------
Visit my blog
http://www.arihazeghiphotography.com/blog
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.
New! Sony Capture One Pro Guide 2022
https://arihazeghiphotography.com/Gu.../Sony_C1P.html
------------------------------------------------
Visit my blog
http://www.arihazeghiphotography.com/blog
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.
Last edited by Desmond Chan; 03-25-2010 at 08:55 PM.
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:
New! Sony Capture One Pro Guide 2022
https://arihazeghiphotography.com/Gu.../Sony_C1P.html
------------------------------------------------
Visit my blog
http://www.arihazeghiphotography.com/blog
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
Last edited by WIlliam Maroldo; 03-25-2010 at 11:32 PM.
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.
If you are interested in technical details checkout the thread here http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.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 ;)
Last edited by arash_hazeghi; 03-26-2010 at 12:21 AM.
New! Sony Capture One Pro Guide 2022
https://arihazeghiphotography.com/Gu.../Sony_C1P.html
------------------------------------------------
Visit my blog
http://www.arihazeghiphotography.com/blog
Arash, well said...need I say more :D;)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
