Which do you find more difficult, avian or landscape photography.
And why.
James
PS Roman started this!!!!!!
Avian
Landscape
Avian Phototgraphy vs Landscape Photography
Which do you find more difficult, avian or landscape photography.
And why.
James
PS Roman started this!!!!!!
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
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
New! Sony Capture One Pro Guide 2022
https://arihazeghiphotography.com/Gu.../Sony_C1P.html
------------------------------------------------
Visit my blog
http://www.arihazeghiphotography.com/blog
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
Technologies can help. Soon or later, AF is no longer an issue IMO :)Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi
So, photographing landscapes don't? :Dand technique for Avian :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.
New! Sony Capture One Pro Guide 2022
https://arihazeghiphotography.com/Gu.../Sony_C1P.html
------------------------------------------------
Visit my blog
http://www.arihazeghiphotography.com/blog
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
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.
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
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
For me ,
Action photography ( Avian or Wildlife ) and then Landscapes
Last edited by Harshad Barve; 03-23-2010 at 08:21 AM.
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
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!
Last edited by Roman Kurywczak; 03-23-2010 at 08:42 AM.
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 !!!
[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!!!
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...
Last edited by Daniel Cadieux; 03-23-2010 at 09:10 AM.
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.
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.
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
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
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.php?t=59867
Hi Roman , after 10 yrs and more than 500 visits , this happened infornt of me , Wildlife ( A & W ) is tougher job :):):)
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
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!
I think we have made amazing images of tigers and harriers CHEAP Roman by posting toooo many
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.php?t=59539 here is link
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
I'll be waiting for those landscapes:cool:!
Sure :):):)
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. :)
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!!!
Last edited by arash_hazeghi; 03-23-2010 at 01:11 PM.
New! Sony Capture One Pro Guide 2022
https://arihazeghiphotography.com/Gu.../Sony_C1P.html
------------------------------------------------
Visit my blog
http://www.arihazeghiphotography.com/blog
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
Last edited by arash_hazeghi; 03-23-2010 at 01:13 PM.
New! Sony Capture One Pro Guide 2022
https://arihazeghiphotography.com/Gu.../Sony_C1P.html
------------------------------------------------
Visit my blog
http://www.arihazeghiphotography.com/blog
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
New! Sony Capture One Pro Guide 2022
https://arihazeghiphotography.com/Gu.../Sony_C1P.html
------------------------------------------------
Visit my blog
http://www.arihazeghiphotography.com/blog
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
Last edited by arash_hazeghi; 03-23-2010 at 01:55 PM.
New! Sony Capture One Pro Guide 2022
https://arihazeghiphotography.com/Gu.../Sony_C1P.html
------------------------------------------------
Visit my blog
http://www.arihazeghiphotography.com/blog
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!
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!
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?
I was looking for some birds in flight in your photostream and couldn't find them. :D
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 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.
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.
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!
Last edited by Roman Kurywczak; 03-23-2010 at 04:44 PM. Reason: added PS
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.
Last edited by Christopher C.M. Cooke; 03-23-2010 at 04:49 PM.
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!
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
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
Well, Roman, I do not know how you could come to that conclusion. I was only responding to your comment, which is:
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.
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?
I would love to see comment from someone who shoots forest/Rainforest birds :)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
