Plus a rant against setup bird photography…
Something a little different from me this morning. In all these years of daily blogging I believe I’ve only posted photos of this species once.
1/4000, f/7.1, ISO 800, Canon 7D Mark II, Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM + EF 1.4 III Extender, not baited, set up or called in
But two days ago while I had my lens on a poorly lit Swainson’s Hawk in a fairly remote area of northern Utah this female Black-headed Grosbeak unexpectedly landed right in front of me on a perch I really enjoy.
This perch reminds me of the kind that some bird photographers (with different ethics than I have) often use as in their artificial setups. They typically pick an attractive natural-looking perch, cut it off from its living source and use a clamp stand or spare tripod to place it in good light with an attractive (often artificial) background. Then they use electronic bird calls and/or seed or other types of bait (hidden just out of view) to attract birds to the perch and then fire away using photo gear already set up on tripods at the perfect light angle and distance.
So, needless to say I rarely get a perch like this. I even like the single dead leaf left over from last year because for me it somehow adds character and provides a touch of authenticity. Setup photographers would have removed it but I prefer it in the image partly because it provides a clear distinction between my work and that of the “setup crowd”. If that attitude makes me an elitist, so be it.
It isn’t a perfect photo but it still brings me satisfaction.
- For those who may be curious about the techniques of setup bird photography here’s a video clip that shows how one of the “experts” does it. These folks are absolutely ingenious in their methodologies designed to fool both birds and the human consumers of their photos (seldom do they ever disclose their devious methods). If you’re a bird photographer and that type of photo is your cup of tea, go for it I guess… As for me I prefer my birds in settings that are truly natural and their behaviors unaltered.
1/2500, f/7.1, ISO 500, Canon 7D Mark II, Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM + EF 1.4 III Extender, not baited, set up or called in
When the bird took off it launched in my direction which gave me a slightly unusual flight posture. The sidelight in both of these photos is a little strong but I thought they were interesting enough to post.
Just before this shot was taken I did something unusual for me and I wish I hadn’t. I inexplicably decreased my ISO which lowered my shutter speed from 1/4000 to 1/2500. As readers know I like to err on the side of too much shutter speed rather than too little, especially for potential flight shots. Little birds like this have buzz-saw wings that require very fast SS’s to prevent motion blur and as a result her wings are not sharp. Wing motion blur doesn’t bother some folks but I nearly always prefer them sharp and crisp so for me it was an error to change my ISO.
I’m mystified as to why I did it. It was very unlike me but it did reinforce one of my already entrenched preferences.
Ron
Addendum:
I’ve been out shooting all morning so I haven’t been able to respond in a timely manner to some of the comments on this post. And now I have an appointment to keep in just a little while so I’ll attempt to address some of the concerns expressed in the comments below in this addendum.
I should have been more clear about what my position is regarding setup bird photography. I have no problem with back yard bird photography or feeder photography. Occasionally I do both of them myself and I’ve posted some of those images here on Feathered Photography.
My issue is with those who “essentially set up a “studio shoot” that just happens to be outside” (Marty’s words in a comment below) and then deliberately withhold their methods from the consumers of their photos (whether it be on social media, personal websites or any other public forum where those images are actually or potentially for sale or open to critique or comments of admiration). These photographers know that a significant portion of their potential customers wouldn’t buy their images or comment positively if they knew how they were taken so the don’t “disclose” their methods. Some of them go to great lengths to hide those methods.
Alan Murphy (the photographer featured in the video link in my text) is a case in point. Both Alan and I used to post images to Nature Photographers Network (NPN) for critique. NPN guidelines required that images that were setups be disclosed. But time and time again Alan would not disclose obviously setup shots. When called on it by others who critiqued his image (including me) he would either ignore the comment (his usual tactic) or apologize and say he “just forgot” to disclose. But he “forgot” many, many times. No matter how good the photos are (and Alan’s setups are usually very good) setup shots seldom get as positive a critique as non-setup shots so he and a few others just kept conveniently “forgetting” to disclose, ad infinitim…
Opinions vary on this controversial subject and I was (and am) expressing mine. Others obviously feel differently and that’s just fine. But IMO a photographer should ALWAYS be honest with his or her viewers/consumers so I think any methods involving baiting, feeding, calling birds in electronically or using elaborate setups that aren’t natural and alter the behavior of birds (and potentially discourage sales or even positive comments) should be disclosed whenever those images are displayed publicly.
I can respect and even admire a setup shot that has been disclosed. If it hasn’t I cannot.
Ron,
At the recent Wasatch Camera Club annual meeting one of the photographers, Adam Jones, displayed incredible photos of hummingbirds in particular: perfect lighting, lovely background and glorious hummer on a groomed and beautiful flower at its prime bloom. He had several. I finally asked about it in the Q&A and only then did he admit that it was an artificial background in an area of “20 feeders” that had all been taken down and replaced with one feeder (his). Then to top that he took the feeder out and placed his perfect bloom in the spot (after the hummers were used to coming to the single feeder) and filled the throat of the flower with sugar water! This was coupled with five–count them–five flashes to illuminate the bird. NO WONDER he has unbelievable shots. Honestly I am somewhere in between but I honor you for the integrity of the shots you take. They are as good as the set up shots for sure. I don’t think he would have ever told the crowd how he accomplished his shot if I hadn’t called him on it.
Stephen
I am sympathetic to Ron’s view although I am not a photographer. I am reminded that in the absence of modern photographic equipment and setups, whether by choice or necessity, the itinerant naturalist/painter John James Audubon used to shoot live specimens and then pose his dead subjects into “life-like”positions by thrusting wires through their bodies prior to illustrating them. This was the expedient he chose to presumably to document nature with painterly accuracy and sensitivity. How horrific! and by today’s standards, extreme! And while we may forgive Audubon, at least historically for his unenlightened trespasses in the unfair treatment of birds and animals, today we must always question, if possible disruption or harm is caused, the means and motives behind the aesthetic and creative license used by humans to document that perfect pose or artistic vision no matter what the medium.
WHEW! Guess I knew what you were talking about so didn’t get excited – we all have to “practice” on something………. Disclosure is the key.:)
Beautiful, beautiful Grosbeak, and what a lovely perch she chose for her close-up. Black-headed Grosbeaks are my favorite birds of spring, singing my favorite bird song, so melodious! Makes me smile just to think about hearing them in the morning. Alas, they seem to have disappeared from my yard in just the last 2 weeks, but they often return for part of the summer, so I remain ever hopeful. I’ll never get as wonderful a picture as you have with these two shots — even with them chowing down on my safflower seed cylinder. “Set-ups” do me no good! 🙄
Your last sentence provided a much-needed smile today, Chris. Thanks for making me use those smile muscles!
I guess I was naive, I did not know photographers did this. I will be looking at photographs differently from now on.
Love the grosbeak, I have raised many orphans and soft released about 30 in my yard through the years. One of my favorite due to their behavior as nestlings.
Now, which shall we discuss next: politics, religion, or sports? 😉
*Ducks and runs for cover!*
Lovely shots Ron! Maybe it’s just me and how I see the bird in the 2nd pic but it looks like it has a smile on it’s face under the beak. 🙂
Yes.
On all counts.
Honesty/integrity are hugely important to me. And need preserving. Sometimes I think they are endangered species.
Loved the grosbeak too.
A note to all interested in this discussion regarding setup bird photography – please see my addendum to the original post.
Thank you ALL, no matter your stance on the subject, for your participation in the discussion.
I couldn’t agree more with your rant. Not only do you have a clear conscience (you have a conscience where the photographers who do those set-ups probably don’t), you also have a way of capturing the personalities of the birds you photograph, something that most photographers don’t have. As I see it, honesty, patience and talent pay off. And those of us who follow your blog appreciate who you are.
I agree with your rant AND I see the difference between what you’re describing and a person who sets up feeders in their yards and captures the animals who take advantage of them. The feeders are there — relatively permanent structures — and provide for wildlife whether or not there’s a human and a lens. In these cases, I feel like the feeders become part of the natural surroundings, just like the butterfly garden some students planted on campus a few years ago or the birds of paradise in our yard that attract humming birds pretty much year-round. The birds or butterflies are there anyway, and if I happen to snap a few shots (and manage by some miracle to get anything focused and in the frame!), that’s a bonus.
I think you’re referring in your rant to people who essentially set up a “studio shoot” that just happens to be outside, where they’ve manipulated the environment just to serve their purpose. This is done often by damaging living organisms — the ends justify the means, like cutting off a branch, which is going to die; thus, once they’ve gotten what they want from it, it become garbage, essentially. Or they “fake out” birds and other animals by using calls. And then don’t pony up the goods on how they got the shot to purposely deceive the viewer into thinking he or she is witnessing the photographer’s lucky shot. It’s the not “‘fessing up” about the techniques that burns my cookies the most.
I guess it’s the scientist or naturalist in me. I know my mere presence and the process of observation is going to change outcomes anyway, so I’d much rather sit for hours waiting and watching and enjoying the natural scenery. I also get mad when people tap on the glass at the zoo or aquarium. And yes, I know zoos/aquariums are the ultimate in “contrived environments,” but they don’t pretend to be otherwise. I do animal training too. But, I don’t pretend that the dogs and cats I work with just happen to do tricks or follow my cues. I readily talk about the hard work, partnership, socialization, and bonding that goes into the process and that the purpose is to get the animals ready for a “fur-ever” home.
Holy crap! I really want off on a tear! Sorry about that. And I didn’t talk about how lovely your shots of the Grosbeak are, which they are, indeed! What a cool takeoff shot! 🙂
Tethering a helpless, terrified, crying goat can be a really great way to attract big cats, like lions, tigers, leopards, etc., then you can watch them tear the goat to shreds, shoot the cats with a camera or a gun. If with a gun, you can cut their heads off to put on your wall….
Ron, with this post I’m excited to say that looking sleepily out the window with the morning coffee in hand, I saw my first Black-headed Grosbeak for the year, a gorgeous male. 🙂 They arrive with the Monarch butterflys every year in Santa Cruz. Following the interesting conversation too…
One of our cousins was the Assistant Diector of the Rochester Museum and a photographer. He often used set-ups to photographically document various wildlife…there was no attempt to deceive, just to document. They had short-term live exhibits…I think some animals came from the Rochester zoo. One of the things I like best about your photography, is that it’s what I might see, in its natural surroundings, should I be that lucky!
Beautiful images! I feel I could almost reach out and catch the bird in the second frame….looks so very 3D! Love the foliage, too…
Might you be at least a little distracted today……?
Fully and completely agree with your rant and your overall ethics! I hate bating! Just hate it.
That said, WOW! This is a species I’ve never seen before, or if I did, I didn’t know it. What a little beauty! And there’s my something new learned for today. LOL!
As for changing your settings, isn’t it odd how we sometimes do inexplicable things like that for no reason whatsoever? I think that’s a human thing–part of our flawed nature 🙂
Forgot to add that taking photos at feeders is excluded from the bating discussion.
A beautiful perch and photo of your Grosbeak..as always, stunning photos from you Ron 🙂 About your rant (and is seemed more like an opinion than a rant to me). I don’t think I agree completely with your position. If a person is honest and discloses what they did to obtain the photo, I’m good with most any technique that doesn’t harm the bird (and that’s a whole box of worms in and of itself). I only post on FB and don’t sell my photos. If I do drastic post processing, I always post the original in the thread so readers will know what it looked like SOOC. It’s the honest thing and the right thing. But set up, calling in (modestly used), arranging a nice background…I am ok with all of those actions. I am looking to make a “glamour shot” of the bird as best as I can. If I can accomplish that in the wild, great. If I have to “set up” in my backyard, I am ok with that as well. If someone were to ever ask “how did you get that shot”, I would be 100% open to explaining as I’d be at peace with how I obtained the shot. I look up to you and what you do. Thank you for opening up the discussion and allowing others to voice their opinions.
Ron
Very nice image of the grosbeak. I agree that the big issue is not disclosing how the images were captured. As we both know setup images are posted all the time on nature forums without disclosing the obvious (to you and I) setups. The images look very sterile to me. Seeing the same perch over and over again with different birds is comical at best to me. I love shooting hummingbirds at my setup, but disclose the facts whenever I post them. It is great that people get out and capture nice images, but credibility is important to me and my photography and I know it is to you as well.
I agree with your rant. WIld birds are wild and should be depicted in natural, not guided behavior, in public photos unless the photographer honestly states differently. As you say, if course its ok to photograph them at feeders or other setups. The mistake is when those images are published to purportedly suggest “natural behavior.” Thanks for the photos and the rant.
Thanks for the great Grosbeak images.
I agree with your concerns about public deception by some photographers. Technology is such today that public deception is quite easy. Being upset about it in my case is probably an understatement, which causes suspicion when I look at a lot of published pictures today. Consequently, your honesty, work ethic and willingness to share is why I love your pictures and blog and look forward to it every day!
The launch shot really grabbed me. Loved it b
I am a fan of your photography and like you I do not like anything that could possibly harm a bird or any wildlife. However, I think you are painting with a broad brush here. I have known of two photographers who love birds and photograph them on their property. They have feeders and often set up branches near for good photos. One person is in a wheelchair and it is a little more difficult for him to reach areas where he can photograph birds in their more natural settings. The other person has agoraphobia and finds it very tough to leave his property. I don’t think cutting the branches or using dead branches hurts or endangers the trees or shrubs from which they come. I am glad these two individuals are able to do something they love. I agree with you as well about how it is not genuine when the techniques are hidden. I am a little surprised you have placed people into this category as if they are somehow not quite as decent or pure a photographer. It is a pleasure to see your images.
Once again you’ve got beautiful photographs! I especially enjoy seeing your pics of birds I have never seen before. I can’t wait to take a birding/photo trip out west. I prefer the natural look in your photos to the very clean, shiny look of set up photos or flash photos. I love hiking and so have been slinging the 100-400 with 7D (your “baby” lens) over my shoulder. Needless to say my photos are often a tangle and jumble of vines with a bird somewhere among them. Kind of like a “Where’s Waldo” of bird photography. Anyway thanks again for sharing the beautiful photos and your candid thoughts!
It’s great when you can get nice images of birds in a natural situation with attractive surroundings but that also don’t have too many distractions in the background. But that isn’t very typical especially with songbirds in the wild. I too have to disagree with the rant. Slight bias because I’ve spent the past 30 years of my career photographing songbirds and woodpeckers in my yard using exactly the kind of setups you describe, with feeders to attract the birds. On the other hand, I agree that many setup photos we see these days are “too perfect” i.e. contrived, especially with regards to perfectly clean, featureless backgrounds. I can spot a “Rio Grande Valley” bird image a mile off! The trick is to make these kinds of shots seem natural and spontaneous. I don’t use calls in this type of photography, but I do set up branches and allow the birds to land where they may. I also put feeders near existing trees on my property to entice birds to land there and that provides a very natural look. My clients are calendar companies and birding/gardening magazines and I’m not ashamed to say that I am shooting with them in mind.
I was not aware of photographers who set up .. I think that takes the fun away … part of the fun for me is jumping in car or hiking to see what I will find.. love driving around on back roads ..dirt trails .. all part of the excitement .. love those grosbeaks …
Beautiful, Ron – even with a bit of wing blur 🙂 I know many bird photo’s we see are TOO perfect. Particularly with Macro and flower photography the instructions are clear on getting rid of any “distractions” as they are referred to……… Keeping it “real” is more important to me even if I grumble a bit upon occasion about the perch or setting. 🙂
SupershotsRon! I have to say that i disagree with your rant,although I don’t do it. I do feed birds in my backyard and photograph them on nearby trees. I think as long as no harm comes to the birds, photographers should be able to exercise their personal preference. It we be a dull world if we were all alike.
Charlotte
Charlotte, I’m in the field so I’ll attempt to explain from my phone. You misunderstood my point. Perhaps I should have explained myself better. I have no problem with feeder photography. Occasionally I do it myself. My problem is with techniques that deliberately deceive the viewer when they’re not disclosed.