Show your Bird Portraits

Just Googled "using set ups to photograph birds" and boy have I been living a sheltered life. No shortage of material but I'm still a little torn on this topic :) :( :-\

One thing I know I don't like is some of the kind of phony looking twigs that get used that typically birds in the wild wouldn't be sitting on naturally (well, not likely).

Jack
 
Upvote 0
Jack Douglas said:
One thing I know I don't like is some of the kind of phony looking twigs that get used that typically birds in the wild wouldn't be sitting on naturally (well, not likely).

Jack
Birds (especially the exotic ones) in real world are very difficult to photograph due to trees, bushes, distance, awkward angles/height and whatnot getting in the way ... if everyone was only allowed to take image of birds in their true natural habitat, we'd have a lot less resources to refer to, and mere mortals like us would not get the inspiration to make an attempt at bird photography ... besides the idea is to capture the bird in a perfect exposure to showcase its beauty ... which twig it sits on (even if it is "phony" looking) doesn't really matter ... in fact a lot of successful bird photographers actually setup bird nests and twigs, branches etc in their backyards (or even in the field) so the bird is the main focus in the captured image rather than distracting background. I've read about very successful photographers who "plant" fish in lakes/ponds near the bird nests, so they can get perfect images of birds picking off fish from the pond.
Cheers
 
Upvote 0
Rienzphotoz, I don't disagree with you in any way regarding the challenges. I also understand the dilema and the need for good specimens for books relating to identification and so forth. However if this reasoning is extended to other subjects it's shortcoming becomes apparent. Maybe it's like comparing a model photographed against a white sheet versus one photographed in a park?? Of course both are acceptable.

Personally, I tend to see the bird and its surrounding as an integrated whole and am inclined to want that perspective displayed. I prefer a blackbird visibly amongst the bull rushes for example. That's not to say there aren't stunning shots where such is not the case and I wouldn't want to imply that there is anything wrong with them.

I guess I was very naive on this subject, now I've been edumicated! ;) Hope I haven't ruffled feathers!

Jack
 
Upvote 0
Jack Douglas said:
My venture into DSLR photography started last year with a D5100 and a 70-300 and I was thrilled (until I started to look at some sites like CR). Never the less, it was a good year and I learned a lot. So, this shot I'm posting because I think it illustrates what you sometimes get that you wont likely get with a set up. I love the pose but unfortunately the IQ has suffered somewhat.

Jack

Actually, good bird setup photography would use exactly that branch right there. You would snip it off the tree, angle it so you can get a better angle on the bird when it perches, set out some "bait", and wait. There is nothing about good bird setup photography that requires you to use unnatural perches. On the contrary, if you read the likes of Alan Murphy, he actually stresses on several occasions to make sure you are choosing the right perch(es) for the birds you wish to attract.

Setup photography does not have to, and really should not, look fake or set up. That's the real trick. Setup photography isn't about making a fake photo...it's about making a real photo, of real birds in realistic habitats. The only difference is that you, the photographer, have a little more control over your "natural studio" than if you don't use a setup. You have the ability to control lens to subject distance, subject to background distance, subject lighting, and to a fairly significant degree, subject position. That in no way reduces the fact that you can use a real branch clipped off a real tree from the bird's real habitat to ensure you get a "real" photo.

That said, there is also nothing really wrong with using alternative perches. Sometimes, to get a truly unique shot, you need to move yourself, and your feathered friends, outside the box a little. Unless you know a tremendous amount about each specific bird and their specific habitats (and range of habitats for different regions, as often the same bird will inhabit different habitats in different regions), you really can't tell if a bird is on a natural or unnatural perch. The only thing that really matters is choosing branches for perches (if your using branches...tree stumps, rocks, etc. are also valid perch material) that have the appropriate diameters. Small birds, tits, chickadees, etc. need small diameter perches for them to look natural. Larger birds like sparrows tend to look better on perches with small to medium sized diameters. Large birds, like doves and those from the blackbird family, often look good on perches with quite large diameters.

As you get used to using setups, it'll become easier to identify them in others work. You will be surprised at how many bird photos are without a doubt setups. Things that give it away are the orientation of the perch and bird, cleanliness of the background, lighting angle and shading on the bird, perch "pinching" (see if you can figure out what that is), etc.

Picking out some random shots in my favorites from 500px, I'm classifying the ones I am pretty sure or 100% certain are setups, and the ones that I am quite certain are not. (As you can see, the shots that most appeal to my eye are setups. They often don't look like a setup, but I am more than 97% sure all the ones I've linked as setups are):

Setups:
http://500px.com/photo/25279607?feature=favorites%2FJonRista
http://500px.com/photo/24387817?from=favorites/JonRista (pinched perch)
http://500px.com/photo/23992283?feature=favorites%2FJonRista
http://500px.com/photo/23847937?feature=favorites%2FJonRista (wrong perch diameter, otherwise very nice)
http://500px.com/photo/23731427?feature=favorites%2FJonRista (clearly pinched perch)
http://500px.com/photo/23775857?feature=favorites%2FJonRista
http://500px.com/photo/23737017?feature=favorites%2FJonRista
http://500px.com/photo/19605927?feature=favorites%2FJonRista
http://500px.com/photo/23752473?feature=favorites%2FJonRista
http://500px.com/photo/23767645?feature=favorites%2FJonRista
http://500px.com/photo/23763689?feature=favorites%2FJonRista (flashed)
http://500px.com/photo/22345735?feature=favorites%2FJonRista (lichen glued to perch...done this myself! :P)
http://500px.com/photo/15694925?feature=favorites%2FJonRista
http://500px.com/photo/23617979?feature=favorites%2FJonRista (pinched perch)
http://500px.com/photo/23616103?feature=favorites%2FJonRista (pinched perch)


Semi-setups (non-natural perches but otherwise not explicitly a "setup"):
http://500px.com/photo/22702459?feature=favorites%2FJonRista

Non-Setups:
http://500px.com/photo/24941089?feature=favorites%2FJonRista
http://500px.com/photo/28644979?feature=favorites%2FJonRista
http://500px.com/photo/29183239?from=favorites/JonRista
http://500px.com/photo/23750403?feature=favorites%2FJonRista
http://500px.com/photo/23755297?feature=favorites%2FJonRista
 
Upvote 0
I heartily agree, we all have our views and they all have merit and it's a free society we live in, thank God.

jrista, thank you for taking the time to do what you've done. It will help me to improve and no doubt others who are silent but equally interested. It's not like I have formulated some theory that I'm trying to promote. I am interested in improving relative to wiildlife photography and so all these suggestions and viewpoints are helpful.

Somewhat unrelated but interesecting this present topic is the element of ones experience in the outdoors. Even if I didn't have a camera, I find hiking or sitting in nature soaking up all the sights and sounds to be a wonderful experience. I guess that makes me more of a nature lover than a photographer and may explain why I'm not yet entholled with the set up concept. No doubt I'll evolve. :)

Jack
 
Upvote 0
http://500px.com/photo/23731427?feature=favorites%2FJonRista (clearly pinched perch)

A Marico Flycatcher in Etosha National Park, Namibia.
Luckily this guy was sitting very still next to the road, so I had plenty of time to catch him.


jrista, I'm in awe at your level of involvement and knowledge. So the comment above would seem to be a little misleading, if it's a set up?? ;)

Now, having looked at some but not all, so far I think I see what is going on. The level of sharpness and technical quality has reached levels I was unaware of. No wonder people are crying for more MP and ever sharper lenses to try to exceed what the competition is achieving. Am I right in assuming this is a very competitive environment?

Jack
 
Upvote 0
Jack Douglas said:
Somewhat unrelated but interesecting this present topic is the element of ones experience in the outdoors. Even if I didn't have a camera, I find hiking or sitting in nature soaking up all the sights and sounds to be a wonderful experience. I guess that makes me more of a nature lover than a photographer and may explain why I'm not yet entholled with the set up concept. No doubt I'll evolve. :)

Jack
In my other main hobby, fly fishing, we have a saying; "There's more to fishing than catching fish". And I believe the same goes for photography. If you don't enjoy the trip, the surroundings, the people, the scenary etc. etc.

To me, photography will always be an attempt to shoot something I, and hopefully others, will enjoy looking at. That requires a thought or two on lighting, framing, surroundings, DoF etc. etc. But a friend of mine, a very dedicated birds photographer, has a very different approach. In my view he is more into trophy hunting, in volume. I almost get the feeling it is like collecting baseball cards. He wants as many species as possible in his portfolio and he travels the world to get it. I'm having a hard time seeing myself doing that. But he is very happy and very enthusiastic about his hobby, even though he shoots with Nikon, so the quality sucks of course ;)

I walk the woods and mountains to try to get an image of a bird or an animal in their natural habitat and I don't get many keepers by doing that. (But it is a thrill every time it happens, even for the simplest and most common birds). I know that if I put up a feeding station close to home or my cabin, I could sit in a controlled environment and really get the best of everything. But it is a bit like fishing for me. I don't need lots of fish. But I want to catch the really difficult ones.

So bottom line, in my view is that everyone should find her/his style and do what stimulates them, provided we don't interfer with the animals and deprive them of their quality of life.
 
Upvote 0
Jack Douglas said:
http://500px.com/photo/23731427?feature=favorites%2FJonRista (clearly pinched perch)

A Marico Flycatcher in Etosha National Park, Namibia.
Luckily this guy was sitting very still next to the road, so I had plenty of time to catch him.


jrista, I'm in awe at your level of involvement and knowledge. So the comment above would seem to be a little misleading, if it's a set up?? ;)

Definitely a setup. One of the key tips with setup photography to get the birds landing where you want them is to pinch off leaves, or in this case thorns, off the branch to leave an open spot. A random bramble along the side of the road isn't going to have a nice patch of thorns removed. You might find a one, maybe two random thorns on a real branch broken, but I find it far too convenient that there is this clear patch along the perch in this shot where all the thorns were clearly broken and torn off. It even appears as though some of the flower bunches were also torn off, leaving only the ones behind the bird. That's pinching, or cleaning, your perch.

Jack Douglas said:
Now, having looked at some but not all, so far I think I see what is going on. The level of sharpness and technical quality has reached levels I was unaware of. No wonder people are crying for more MP and ever sharper lenses to try to exceed what the competition is achieving. Am I right in assuming this is a very competitive environment?

What is a competitive environment?

And as for megapixels, absolutely. You can always use more resolution. ;) That said, I see more bird photos taken with the 7D, 5D II/III, and 1D X than anything these days. You can trade sensor resolution for a long lens, as ~20mp is usually enough to get you nice, crisp, clear detail. I think Canon has their plans correct...first improve the lenses, then improve the sensors. A 30, 40, 50 megapixel sensor can certainly produce better results, but to get the full benefit, your lenses have to be up to snuff as well. That is the reason I purchased the Canon EF 600mm f/4 L II IS lens before buying a 5D III. The 5D III wouldn't have been nearly as much use at 400mm f/5.6 (and on a far less sharp lens than any of the Mark II teles), where as the 7D with the 600mm does quite well. Once I finally do buy my own 5D III, I'll be set for a good long while. Canon can take their pretty time releasing a high megapixel camera after that.

I would also say that, for birds, more important than resolution is AF accuracy and precision, AF speed, and frame rate. FPS and AF rank higher on the hierarchy of essential capabilities for my bird photography than megapixels. Personally, I am most interested in megapixels for my landscape photography. The 5D III does a good job there as well, but having 30, 40, 50, or even more megapixels would produce increasingly better results, where as FPS and AF could be the best in the world, and it wouldn't matter a wit for landscapes.
 
Upvote 0
Jack Douglas said:
jrista, another question. How would you know my chickadee on the stump was not a set up (honest it wasn't :)). Probably because its not very well done! ;)

I like to think I have a sense of humor. Unfortunately, sometimes I offend people with my kidding around :-[

Jack

Well, I certainly cannot know for sure. When I commented about your chickadee shot, I was actually referring to the one on the branch with the dead leaves, not the stump one. With the branch, the angle of the bird, the angle of the light on the bird, the angle of the perch, etc. are all indicative of a purely natural shot. If you had taken the time to set up a perch, you would have taken the time to make sure that the branches natural landing spot was set up such that: the leaves wouldn't intersect the bird, the background would be "clean", that the background was far enough away to blur more, that the whole setup was angled properly to the light. Additionally, that when the bird landed, it would either land facing away (and thus not be viable for a shot), or broadside such that when the bird turned its head and "looked at the camera" you would have the perfect shot.


As for the stump, that's one of those ideal natural perches. They certainly do exist. And they are prime targets for "baiting" with seed. ;) There is no reason you can't bait the setups nature hands you on a platter, you know. :D As a matter of fact, many groundfowl setups are usually built to support existing natural perches. Quail, grouse, pheasant, etc. rarely land on top of tree stumps or logs or rocks, however setup photography for them usually involves setting up a ramp behind your angle of view (so it cannot be seen in the photo), then setting up a bait trail of your quarries favorite food...starting out a ways from the ramp, up the ramp, and finally settling in a little pile on top of the perch to keep any takers there for a little while as you take their photos.

If you are a true purist at heart, and really want to get birds in their natural habitat, exhibiting natural behavior, without any baiting or setup involved, you should get into shorebirds and waterfowl. Shorebirds in particular are wonderful subjects, tend to naturally set themselves up for very good, clean shots with blurry backgrounds, when you photograph them from ground level. (I have often laid in freezing cold, soaking wet snow covered sand for hours while trying to get the perfect shot of a shorebird during fall migration. I'll see if I can dig up some of my shots from the last year.) You don't need to bait shorebirds, they migrate up and down sandy shores and mud flats around lakes and along coasts, probing for little morsels of food. So all you need to do is set up shop and wait for them to come. (A long lens is essential, 600mm at least, whatever aperture you can get, although f/5.6 or faster is recommended.)

Waterfowl, such as geese, ducks, loons, grebes, even gulls, etc. as well as marsh, swamp, and wetland birds like marsh hens, coots, herons, egrets, etc. also make excellent subjects that usually don't need any setup. (Although your photos can benefit from some live bait to bring the birds closer to shore if they are keeping their distance.) These birds tend to be larger than the songbirds you usually photograph, so you don't need quite as long a lens, and don't always have to get quite so close (and, sometimes, you may find yourself framing a bit too close, limiting your composition options.)

Whether you use a setup or not often depends on the types of birds your photographing. While they are not necessary for songbirds and groundfowl, they certainly do help, and can give you the flexibility and control you need, without adversely affecting the birds habitat or behavior or well being. Many other types of birds don't need any setup at all, however there are still some techniques like live baiting waterfowl that can help bring them in closer (without adversely affecting their behavior or making their behavior seem unnatural.) So, if/when you do tire of purely "natural" bird photography, there are plenty of other ways to expand your knowledge and explore new ways of getting better photos. ;)
 
Upvote 0
Fascinating insight into how different people approach birding. I prefer to just wander and see what I find, I think working with a shorter lens you learn to get closer where possible. I have considered setting up a feeder but the local miners and parrots are so close anyway it hasn't seemed worthwhile.
Can't remember if I posted this but I was at a stream waiting for fairy wrens to calm down and this lorikeet landed about 2m from me. I think it highlights what I enjoy about birding, that you don't know what you will see.

Rainbow-Lorikeet by Synkka~, on Flickr
 
Upvote 0
Synkka said:
Fascinating insight into how different people approach birding. I prefer to just wander and see what I find, I think working with a shorter lens you learn to get closer where possible. I have considered setting up a feeder but the local miners and parrots are so close anyway it hasn't seemed worthwhile.
Can't remember if I posted this but I was at a stream waiting for fairy wrens to calm down and this lorikeet landed about 2m from me. I think it highlights what I enjoy about birding, that you don't know what you will see.

Rainbow-Lorikeet by Synkka~, on Flickr

Beautiful!
 
Upvote 0
jrista, thanks again. There is a lot to digest and it'll take me some time to navigate though the topics you touch on. I admire your passion and dedication coupled with willingness to share. And all that without being critical of what the various readers might prefer for themselves.

It may be hard to believe but these revelations have come as a shock simply because I haven't been in a public bird photography environment very long. I think the word competitive will always be applicable from what I can sense but it could well be, for many, a matter of perfection as opposed to doing better than some one else. I certainly am inclined to push myself to do better and tend to be quite critical of my own achievements. That's why I won't complain about compliments I might receive here on CR ;).

As long as folks are enjoying these activities and not adversely impacting the environment of the wildlife, as you say, then I agree, it's do your own thing.

Eldar, I don't fish at all. However, when it comes to bird photography I think we'd be very compatible. Lovely capture.

My biggest thrill early on came a year ago when I was sitting around 11 AM on a log by the shore of "my" pond and I saw a dark shadow about 90 degrees off to the right. It proved to be a large female moose in the bushes, and I being frozen with anticipation, just waited. It slowly walked into the center of the pond and meandered about giving me all kinds of clutter free shots with my Nikon D5100 (this year 6D). Ultimately, when I was finished and couldn't stand any more motionlessness I stood up and talked to my friend. She listened intently and then walked off into the bush and then returned once more to say goodby before trotting off. Since then I am aware that I'm going to be routinely getting such shots at least once in a while around here but that was a first and I was pinching myself for weeks! :) Hope it's OK to post this non-bird non-Canon here. :-\

I am now more appreciative of what makes the CR community and this thread in particular interesting and fun. It's the variety of dedicated nature lovers/photographers who are willing to share. Thanks to all.

I'm still all ears if others want to share how they approach their bird photograpy.

Jack
 

Attachments

  • Moose_03.JPG
    Moose_03.JPG
    777.4 KB · Views: 332
Upvote 0