Nothing new or rocket science here. Same it has been for hundreds of years: "Different strokes for different folks.", "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.", "to each his own", "horses for courses", "whatever floats your boat", etc., etc, These phrases all mean that people have different tastes, opinions, and preferences.
Most birds perch on 'sticks' at one time or another, so I find photos of them doing that are as interesting as birds in flight. If I like the image, I don't give a hoot if the photographer got a lucky shot with his cellphone or if it took years using the most expensive gear available. I only need to see a final image, not an epistle on how much trouble or skill it took to get the shot.
A macro shot will show you details and beauty that a telephoto lens never can, and a telephoto shot can show you things a macro lens can't.
If anyone thinks they can post images that everyone will like, they are nuts.
Hi all. Just a quick update on my web site reconstruction project. It is now finished. What an eye-opening experience on many fronts.
The number of photos on the web site diluted my quality with quantity. Looking at the slimmed-down, curated result was uplifting/motivating for me. Not the Jenny Craig diet, but I have a new confidence, .
The tools available today for post-processing are soooo superior to what was available when many (most) of these images were processed and posted to my web site.
My skill at PP has greatly improved over the years (at least in LRC. Still terrible in PS).
My approach to PP and the "look" my images have after PP has evolved over the years (mostly due to discussions/input with/from many of you (thank you)). The reprocessed images have a little more "pop" while still being to my taste of not over-the-top.
All in all, a very worthwhile exercise. Having gone through this process, I would encourage people to pick a few favourites from time to time and try reprocessing them. It could be an eye-opener!
Don, I took a look at your web page. Very nice with lots of variety and hardly any BOSs.
I am almost inspired enough to work on my web page. Sadly I have not touched it in over 10 years and it does not represent my better work. Looking at yours, I realize that it would take lots of work to bring mine up to any reasonable standard.
I too thought it was going to be a lot of work but it wasn't quite as bad as I imagined. The hardest part was picking the images that would continue to be public-facing out of the 900 or so images on my site. It was interesting, and surprising, how long the personal emotional attachment remains for certain photos.
The approach I took was to select the photos I felt should be there (I put them into interim galleries) and to note the ones I really deliberated on but didn't put in the interim galleries. I made a LR quick collection out of the ones I debated but didn't put into the interim galleries. Then I asked three family members (different ages and backgrounds; none avid photographers) for their input. I made note of which ones didn't really grab them (by file number). If all three picked the same photo, the photo was out (one exception; executive privilege, ). If two picked the same photo, it too was out unless it was one that REALLY appealed to me. Then I showed them the quick collection. There were two or three photos that all said should be in the new galleries, so they were added.
With the photo selection complete, I reprocessed the images. That went surprisingly fast, relatively speaking. It was an emotionally uplifting experience, with each reprocessed image making me more curious and excited to see what the next one would look like.
The web site update was fairly quick although Zenfolio's interface for slideshows is terrible and it took a self-concocted workaround to get what I was looking for (originally the slideshow images were very small and Zenfolio Support said there was no way to change that without changing the look of the entire web site).
Anyway, I got everything set up behind the scenes and then moved the public-facing galleries behind the scenes and the interim galleries to be public-facing. All in all, it went very well and I am very pleased with how it turned out.
EverLearning wrote:
One type of photo I am really struggling with is the BOS photos. That type of photo certainly draws some strong, negative reaction on this photography site (especially wildlife presentation board) but I wonder if that is a function of "demanding" (not the best word?) something unique and BOS photos are "too easy".
Thanks
** Like every other type of shot, BOS shots can be beautiful or plain. That's the same with BIF or bird behaviour shots.
** A SUBSET of bird photographers go after novelty and action rather than artistic beauty. Definitely not everyone. But some clearly are more interested in seeing horribly composed pre-capture shots of birds taking off than anything resembling composition.
** People are in general these days more captivated by novelty because technology is reducing the average attention span. Fewer and fewer care about the communicative value of photography and only really care about initial visual stimulus. The consumption of photography is becoming more shallow due to our overexposure to it and the way algorithms encourage quick scrolling.
Photography in general has changed so vastly in the last 50+ years that now you get millions more people taking photos. Bird photos have become a dime a dozen now and many are repetitive, so I am happy when I can get a bird shot that looks different.
I say take photos for yourself and share what you want! I added three perch stakes at the shoreline in our back yard. We have egrets and herons on the "sticks" every day. Fun to watch and photograph!
It’s unfortunate that people respond negatively to a BOS photos, or any type, because they think the genre is inferior. We’re here to share and learn. Comment on the merits of the pic within the genre. Give constructive criticism, maybe. A nice BOS pic might be an accomplishment for a new photographer with a kit lens.
That said, if the purpose of a site is to show your ‘best’ 100 shots, pick the shots you’ like most for whatever reason- challenging shot, nice memory, makes you smile. If some are BOS, they belong there.
There's a couple of reasons why I've never tried to do BIF. BIF specialists are highly specialized and judge most images by a special BIF. I've assumed some of them also judge other types of bird images as inferior to all-out BIF.
Once upon a time....... getting a sharp photo of a bird in flight against a blue sky was a rare skill possessed by only a handful of the most proficient action photographers.
The first time I saw a photo of a bird in flight in a magazine (long time ago) I was blown away with the mastery required to pull a shot like that.
Today sharp photo of BIF against a blue sky are becoming “boring”, may be as much as BOS, not because we have developed some great skill, but because technology makes it far easier than in the past.
Shots that only a decade ago were considered challenging are done with ease today.
Shasoc wrote:
Once upon a time....... getting a sharp photo of a bird in flight against a blue sky was a rare skill possessed by only a handful of the most proficient action photographers.
The first time I saw a photo of a bird in flight in a magazine (long time ago) I was blown away with the mastery required to pull a shot like that.
Today sharp photo of BIF against a blue sky are becoming “boring”, may be as much as BOS, not because we have developed some great skill, but because technology makes it far easier than in the past.
Shots that only a decade ago were considered challenging are done with ease today.
Having shot BIF with manual focus (single shot, even) ... the investment was in time, effort, energy, practice, film (missed shots).
Not so say that $$$ makes someone a great birder these days, but the investment curve is different if you have the $$$ for today's top performing gear. Getting a good capture with manual gear and FPS of 1 is far different than 30 FPS, also.
So, yeah AF acquisition / focus tracking and FPS are technologically advanced by orders of magnitude from days of yore. Although, if you like a good challenge, you can still shoot single shot, manual focus.
I realize I'm late to this party, just discovered the critique forum. But I'll throw out a few thoughts because I've tried to get some bird pics occasionally. I'll start with the conclusion: If you like your BOS pics, show them!
Birds are attractive subjects for photographs because they are so skittish or even elusive. But bird pics, either BOS or BIF, can be controversial for several reasons. For one, long lenses make getting bird pics pretty easy, so the world has lots of bird pics. Lots and lots and lots of 'em. Birds generally have limited behavior so technical details aside bird pics tend to all look alike. I get a sense of accomplishment when I get a good one but I also know they are neither unusual nor as good as so many others. I'm just trying to do what other photographers have already done better, and that goes for most other bird photographers too.
A second reason for controversy is that while getting a clear, detailed, up-close-and-personal picture of a bird is far easier than it use to be before monster lenses with AF and VR, getting one with a bird in a photogenic environment is much harder, and getting one in a photogenic natural environment is even harder. As a result some bird photographers tend to over-edit them trying to create a photogenic image rather than a photogenic photograph. That opens a whole new room for argument! From what I've seen in the Nature & Wildlife forum, I would neither go that direction myself nor give most of them my stamp of approval. But the folks who create them are understandably proud of their work.
After that preamble, here are two my own BOS shots, both taken with Nikon manual-focus F-mount lenses and a Z5ii with FTZ. Neither pic is edited beyond cropping, resizing, and sharpening to remove jpg and resizing artifacts. Both might be controversial for different reasons, but I like 'em.
This first is a typical portrait, taken with a Nikkor 300mm f/4.5 AIS, the sort of pic you could find hundreds of by "googling" for bluebird pics.
This one was with a Nikkor 200mm f/4.0 Q, a lucky shot because I was ready when the nuthatch stared at me. An atypical view of a nuthatch.
I like both of these and I'd gladly display them. If you like your BOS pics, display them!
JMHO
.
