Views on Bird Photography

I know this is going to provoke discussion, and I hope it doesn't get personal, or grow into a flame war.

Some of Chris Packham's views in a web article (http://www.warehouseexpress.com/Chri...ham/birds.html) on a photography equipment supplier's website I find disturbing, some I just disagree with.

"If you are a budding bird or wildlife photographer may I take this opportunity of offering you one genuine piece of advice. Don’t bother to compete with us."

Now I could have taken that out of context and left it at that, but he has another possibly controversial viewpoint too:
"My advice is this, embrace life’s most important rule and avoid competition at all costs."

Finally, still on his non-competition theme:
"Develop an ability and some style in that niche and you will not fail. Use Darwin’s theory of natural selection to envolve into a new species of wildlife photographer."


Then he goes onto something I think will elicit strong reaction here:

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/Chri....html#artistic

But I suppose it's natural when there's money at stake.

This guy is no more a wildlife photographer than the man in the moon. It would appear that most of his work is staged.

I browsed his banter here and there and came to this conclusion. While I feel his images are no greater than mine(and far below my trash files in a few cases), his statement of "If you are a budding bird or wildlife photographer may I take this opportunity of offering you one genuine piece of advice. Don’t bother to compete with us." is quite true....IF.

If "us" means PRO nature photogs like..... Frans Lanting, B. Moose Peterson, A Morris, Brian Small, Kevin Karlson(little known, but great), Greg Downing, E.J Peiker, ..............



These are people who nature shooters strive to be like...... not that mediocre french guy :)

http://jimmygsnaturephotos.homestead.com/gallery.html

http://www.alanmurphyphotography.com/

http://www.ejphoto.com/EJPhoto.htm

http://www.gdphotography.com/gallery.htm

I didn't look at the link. But Just reading the last couple lines of what he said, suppose he means, "don't try to mimic someone else's work. Go out and shoot your own way, in your own style, rather than trying to "compete" (do someone else's style better than them) with others."


Now I'll go look at his work. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swmdrayfan

This guy is no more a wildlife photographer than the man in the moon. It would appear that most of his work is staged.

---

And, just to play Devil's Advocate, what exactly is wrong with staging photos?

It would seem to me to be the same argument as the current controversy over the digital darkroom.

Well i for one should be staying out of this thread , but i wont lol . I myself feel that nature photography should be just that , nature photography without all the props bells and wistles . Guess you cant say his images are not good , because most are very good . But its not the same as capturing a real Eagle or Hawk or Owl taking a rest or stalking his next prey. Sure you may not succeed the first time Hell you may never get that special capture right , but God it `s fun trying to :)
In my mind all we wanna be nature photog`s have him beat 100% :)

Just my 2 cents hehe!

I thought this would provoke discussion !

He does seem to be successful.
Leading tours, getting published, on the BBC, judging competitions.

Props, bells and whistles are part of the job I think.
At least when you're doing illustrative work rather than photographing nature.

I think that's the difference - between photographing nature and illustrating it.
For illustration it doesn't need to be real, just set up in the studio, or even a cardboard cutout !

I have had my images viewed by Cornell, Brian Small and a famous guy who wrote a book too(His name is David .... .....y) and they thought the few rare bird images I took were GREAT. I have led a few tours for free too(had a bunch of 600's following me) and a few people have sent me images that they made $10,000+ selling to advise them on(does that make me a judge?).

I still think I am a mediocre at best photog, as are the images he has on his site, so would not claim to be a pro or do I plan to be anytime soon.

Stages WILDlife is quite lucrative and nice to view, but WILDlife IMHO, should be WILD :)

I truely hope the images on his site aren't representing his best images. If so.... I need to market myself in europe :)

Thanks for bringing it up.

I think that guys is .... basically French (no?). I mean his posture seems stereotypical. Thus, I'm not much offended by it.

Paul, thinks for those great links too.

Tim

I have plenty of links, but those were just 4 I grabbed fast. Am I wrong in saying those links have PRO quality images?

French or not, he is a bit pompous in his wording at times ;)

I will not stereotype, but I am NOT willing to bail out france if they need me ;)

I meant to type:

"Paul, THANKS for those great links too."

Sorry,
Tim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kellybean

And, just to play Devil's Advocate, what exactly is wrong with staging photos?
It would seem to me to be the same argument as the current controversy over the digital darkroom.

---

Similar, yes. For me, it depends how the images are presented.
In his book, the image of the cardboard cutout was accompanied by text describing nightingales.
I suppose he has the "my editor wanted it" defence, but that is a bit too like following orders...

Some wildlife can only effectively be photographed in the studio, or in some other controlled environment that looks as natural as possible. Some cleints just want photos of the animal, and don't care if it's done in a studio.

But portraying a staged shot as natural, or a total fake as real, that's crossed the line to me.