Hunting with a Camera?

[The Blue Boy]

Photographing wildlife means you like wildlife, right?

Good. So the first thing to think about is "it's" welfare. Whatever "it" might be.

For those of you that think using a mobile/cell phone birdcall apps is a "good" thing please read this;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-22863383

It's not really difficult to understand if you think about it. Many birds have enough to worry about without being tricked into thinking they've got a possible intruder/mate wandering into their territory. And then having to expend vital time and energy into exploring the issue.

Here in Britain the RSPB (The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds) is actively discouraging this practice to the point of looking to make it illegal.

So, PLEASE DO NOT DO THIS.

Right, rant and hissy fit over.

[The Blue Boy]

Also,

A link to the BTO's (British Trust for Ornithology) Birdwatcher's Code, PDF;

http://www.bto.org/sites/default/fil...health/bwc.pdf

The second column on page one is relevent.

[Saorsa]

Wildlife photography is a lot like hunting. You need to be in position in the proper habitat early in the day. The use of a blind is very useful. You can use your vehicle as a blind, I usually drive backroads and keep my eyes open.
Another favorite trick is to find a nice stump in the woods, have a sit and wait for the action to start.
I always have aperture wide open, shutter speed around 1/1000 sec, iso is generally 1600. I generally shoot birds with these settings.
I would think that a trip to the lake shore would be productive. The stretch of shoreline from Leelanau to Ludington has a wealth of subjects. Wilderness State Park is another good spot for wildlife, I have seen deer, black bear, and lots of ducks there. There are also elk to be seen north of Grayling.

Good Luck hunting

Absolutely. If you learn to sit quietly, nature will come to you. The advise to go where animals are exposed to humans is also good.

I often wonder at the lengths some people have to go to to photograph an Osprey or Sandhill Crane. Ospreys nest on parking lot light poles here and sandhills wander vacant lots that are a bit low after a good rain. In fact, for entering nature comps keeping the hand of man out of the picture is sometimes difficult.

[Nicks Pics]

Good. So the first thing to think about is "it's" welfare. Whatever "it" might be.

For those of you that think using a mobile/cell phone birdcall apps is a "good" thing please read this;

Thank's for the caution about not disturbing the birds.

Absolutely. If you learn to sit quietly, nature will come to you. The advise to go where animals are exposed to humans is also good.

I often wonder at the lengths some people have to go to to photograph an Osprey or Sandhill Crane. Ospreys nest on parking lot light poles here and sandhills wander vacant lots that are a bit low after a good rain. In fact, for entering nature comps keeping the hand of man out of the picture is sometimes difficult.

Thank's, perhaps getting a good shot of an animal is usually more realistic when done in areas where animals are closer to people. Getting a shot of one in the wild, if you can though, might give you an opportunity to capture the wild environment around them.

[flashback]

Photographing wildlife means you like wildlife, right?

Good. So the first thing to think about is "it's" welfare. Whatever "it" might be.

For those of you that think using a mobile/cell phone birdcall apps is a "good" thing please read this;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-22863383

It's not really difficult to understand if you think about it. Many birds have enough to worry about without being tricked into thinking they've got a possible intruder/mate wandering into their territory. And then having to expend vital time and energy into exploring the issue.

Here in Britain the RSPB (The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds) is actively discouraging this practice to the point of looking to make it illegal.

So, PLEASE DO NOT DO THIS.

Right, rant and hissy fit over.

Mark, I can certainly understand the premise behind what you're saying, but if you look at the larger picture, pretty much any human activity is going to disturb wildlife to one degree or another. At least here in the states, walking anywhere near wetlands and you're almost guaranteed to be harassed by red wing blackbirds, who are very territorial. Simply walking a path through the woods may disturb (and thus 'stress') any number of wildlife.

For those people that put out bird feeders, summertime feeding is unnecessary as food is (in most cases) abundant. And it's far better for the young to be fed natural food that it will eventually have to find on its own. Feeding in winter can be beneficial, but stopping feeding, or skipping a few days or weeks can be detrimental to birds who -as a result of readily available feeding stations - no longer bother to seek out natural resources. So the disappearance of feeding stations can cause starvation for those birds who have become dependent upon human supplied resources.

For anyone that allows their cats to roam freely outside, studies show a connection between domestic cats and declines in song and ground nesting birds. In fact cats allowed to roam outside are likely the greatest threat to song and ground nesting birds, likely exceeding loss of habitat (at least in the U.S., as woodland/forests have regenerated significantly from the open farmland up through the early 1900's).

To my earlier point, winter (as well as summer) feeding stations for birds very realistically can become grand buffets for roaming house cats as well as for birds of prey. So even when doing something 'beneficial' for wildlife, the law of unintended consequences can quickly kick in.

So without being an alarmist, the occasional person walking through the woods and playing bird calls is going to have limited, if any affect on the overall well being of a given population of birds or even a particular bird. Tromping through the woods, binoculars and life list at hand is certainly going to be disruptive at some level, to song birds as well as other wildlife. And from personal experience I know of a number of instances where a rare bird species is spotted, a telephone chain is activated and within an hour or so bird watchers are descending in the hope of adding this specie to their life list. And it's been done without regard for private property, an expressed sense that they are on important (and thus entitled) business and subsequently have caused the bird to take flight. And this from members of a very large, very well regarded Bird/Environment organization.

Just my thoughts from someone who has worked in the fields of wildlife research and environmental education, appreciates wildlife and the environment and has at least a decent working knowledge of it.

[The Blue Boy]

Hello Jack,

I agree with almost all you have just said, except; "So without being an alarmist, the occasional person walking through the woods and playing bird calls is going to have limited, if any affect on the overall well being of a given population of birds or even a particular bird."

That's just it, it isn't just the "occasional person" doing it now mate. With the iPhone being so popular and these apps being readily available this has become a problem. They're meant for educational purposes only and are now being misused. Which is why many RSPB sites across Britain now have signs asking for phones and devices to be turned off. And they should know.

And it's totally unnecessary. If people took a bit of time to learn about their specific environment and species they are looking for, it makes for a far more enjoyable experience in the long run. Just ask any wildlife photographer who sits for hours at a time. It's field-craft that will achieve better results.

Also, "Mark, I can certainly understand the premise behind what you're saying, but if you look at the larger picture, pretty much any human activity is going to disturb wildlife to one degree or another."

Exactly. Which is why it's in so much trouble all over the world, to whatever degree.

[flashback]

Mark, no need to become annoyed.
We may be talking apples and oranges as I suspect there may be a considerable difference between the UK and the US in terms of open space, wilderness and human impact.
No doubt human activities have major environmental impact but short of discussing climate change, people (at least here in the US) going out to bird watch or photograph birds I believe have a greatly limited impact on the local bird population as a result of using canned bird calls. And just sitting quietly on a stump may not appear to be having an impact, one might ask the grey or red squirrel chattering overhead who has noticed you and is now spending some of its time and energy chastising you for being there
So I understand and appreciate your points and concerns and wholeheartedly endorse good environmental stewardship. It's just that I don't see that great an (if any) impact from the use of bird calls. And in this particular discussion I think offering a suggestion to Nick or Christina that smartphone apps of bird calls as a possible assist in photographing birds is innocuous enough. In fact based on my earlier response, I'd much rather see someone using calls than setting up a bird feeder for the reasons I listed earlier.
But our discussion in the broader sense may have opened up people's eyes to some issues that they may not otherwise have been aware of, which proves the point that an open discussion of ideas is always a good thing. I believe the advice is, "Leave nothing but footprints, take nothing but photographs."

[Brownbear]

Thank you Mark for advising about the use of bird calls on cell phone. Truly appreciated.

After I read you reply I Google-ed the topic and found quite a bit of info... Here are three links (the 3rd includes some humourous cartoons about photographers)

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ne-app-ethics/

http://www.sibleyguides.com/2011/04/...ck-in-birding/

http://focusingonwildlife.com/news/n...vation-issues/

At the time having just returned from patiently waiting for about 2 hours for an eagle to take flight (and not having ever heard of the use of bird calls to attract bird/initiate flight) it sounded highly appealing and seemed harmless. Given the information and potential stress/detrimental effects on wildlife caused I will forget about the idea.

Nick...

Just FYI I've managed several good wildlife photos just by being out there, being familiar with the area and subject, being quiet, patiently waiting, and perseverance. (several visits) I even have a few shots of eagles in flight just not the shot of one over water, yet. I will try again this winter during the spawning season.

Jack..

I truly appreciate your taking the time to advise in great detail and to present the big picture, and agree. But I can also see how the use of cell phone bird calls could easily get out of control with photographers at wildlife/bird refuges and spots where rare birds are sighted, and wildlife photographers leading by example (ie; no flash, baiting, not disturbing nesting birds etc) so for me the use of bird calls just doesn't feel comfortable. Thank you for sharing and enlightening me on the topic.

[The Blue Boy]

Jack,

Not annoyed at you mate,

It's just a bit frustrating that this bad practice is being endorsed anywhere let alone here. Apart from people who participate in these forums, there are many more who don't and just read these discussions. This is still the internet, even though it feels far more comfortable and intimate at times.

Yes, I was being specific to the UK and yet I still feel it's just unnecessary.

Let me put it this way; last week I was spending quite a lot of time up on some steps in our kitchen putting up some textured paint on the ceiling. It was a horrible and awkward job. The phone kept ringing. Can I interest you in this, that, the other. Call centres. Advertising. PPI. Car insurance. I unplugged the damn phone.

The birds don't have that choice.

[Nicks Pics]

As Jack said, I think the perspectives about tactics for attracting birds are probably both correct in their own contexts.

For anyone that allows their cats to roam freely outside, studies show a connection between domestic cats and declines in song and ground nesting birds. In fact cats allowed to roam outside are likely the greatest threat to song and ground nesting birds, likely exceeding loss of habitat (at least in the U.S., as woodland/forests have regenerated significantly from the open farmland up through the early 1900's).

Yes, I think cats should not be allowed to roam about a neighborhood or countryside. Afterall, if people want to keep cats for their enjoyment, that's fine, but they aren't enjoying them while they are away from the premises anyway. Roaming cats also lead to having a feral cat population, which nobody wanted.

Just FYI I've managed several good wildlife photos just by being out there, being familiar with the area and subject, being quiet, patiently waiting, and perseverance. (several visits) I even have a few shots of eagles in flight just not the shot of one over water, yet. I will try again this winter during the spawning season

Waiting for animals is probably largely what I should expect to do. Maybe animals won't notice you as much if you were there first. At the Kirtland's Warbler tour, the warbler stayed back in the trees mostly while there were about 20 people there, and when they started to leave, it got more comfortable. I stayed behind.

[The Blue Boy]

Christina,

Good links all, especially the first. Done very briefly by a guide is all well and good but even he mentions the "slippery slope."

Basically, my reasoning comes from being a member and an on/off volunteer for the RSPB for nearly 25 years and I've had nothing but positive experiences from this. If they say this action or that action might have a detrimental effect upon anything, then I just won't do it.

Edit; A brief word about cats. I like cats but if you own one, stick a bell on it. Or three.

[Brownbear]

Mark,

Thank you for sharing.

Nick, Jack & Mark - As it happens I do own a cat but he is an inside cat, an ancient 24 years old as of this June 2014, nevertheless he wears a bell as about 20 years past he brought me a present - (yes, you guessed right)

Nick... Warbler - A very wise man!

A brief word about Jam Jars - when you place these in the recycling bin place the lid on top. Skunks love the scent of jam! Most recently a lady while out walking her dog came across two skunks strolling along the sidewalk, one who had a jam jar stuck on its head. She says the other skunk had a cloud caption on its' head that said, "Please, help my friend!

At the time she decided to avoid a skunk encounter (based on two prior stinky experiences) and walked on by. A while later her compassion welled up and she went back to find the skunk, and did. She held the skunk who didn't resist a bit. She says the skunk helped her pull the jam jar off of it's head with its' body movements. The skunk knew she was helping him/her, didn't spray her, and strolled away happily with its pal. She says skunks are incredibly soft to the touch.

[NorthernFocus]

Getting back to the original thread, yes wildlife photography can definately be hunting with a camera. I'm a former hunter turned photographer. So arguably I guess now I'm simply a "non-lethal hunter". A couple of things that haven't yet been mentioned:

First, wildlife photography is about more than taking photos of animals. To see what I mean simply look at wildlife photos and pick out a few favorites. What do you like about them? Is there anything in common? Shooting animals in zoos, on light poles, etc. is invaluable practice. But it won't likely produce any award winning shots unless it's a shot of an ivory billed woodpecker or a traveler pigeon. That's why some people may go to great lengths to find the creatures in their native element. Plus it's more fun.

Second, if one has taken up nature photography out of a love of nature, be careful not to love it to death. Animals spend 24 hours a day doing two things, surviving and procreating(and considering mating behavior the survival is only in order to procreate). And survival is all about staying safe from threats and obtaining more energy(aka food) than they expend. As a photographer one should avoid disturbing feeding, making animals take flight(IOW expend energy), or interrupting breeding behavior and/or nesting.

Third (and a bit more tactical) animals avoid perceived threats. Though I'm not aware of any scientific basis for it, through 50 years of wildlife observation, I am convinced that animals can "sense" when we pose a threat to them. When I was a young man and still hunting for keeps, I often noticed how much less shy of human presence animals were when it wasn't hunting season and/or I wasn't armed. As a photgrapher, early on I applied my hunting field craft. Camo clothing, face covering, blind, on occassion even a semi-gillie suit. But I have mostly changed my approach. What I now find is that the most important thing is to BEHAVE IN A NON-THREATENING MANNER. And be patient.

Don't sneak up or approach directly towards animals. And don't make eye contact. Make youself visible and stay put. By observing you can quickly learn to pick up the cues that animals give when they are comfortable with your presence or otherwise. If they are showing signs of discomfort, simply stay put and be patient. Or back off/leave. If they settle down and look comfortable, work closer by approaching at an angle and NOT looking directly at the animal. Sometimes I will even turn my back on them completely and take a few steps backward in their general direction. Some cues to watch for:

Birds, uncomfortable: stop feeding(or whatever they were doing) and glance in your direction every few seconds; between glances at you they look around for an escape route; perhaps reposition to a higher spot with better sight line and or clear flight path; small bird move away into thick cover; before taking flight many large birds (eagles, herons/egrets, pelicans, etc.) will "squirt" (little guys might too but you're less likely to see it)

Birds, comfortable/unconcerned: continue/resume feeding with occasional glances in your direction; move laterally or perhaps even closer to your position; if perched only look at you occassionally, preening/bathing in you presence is really a good sign. Going to sleep is even better yet but you might as well pack up an leave as no one cares about photos of sleeping birds

Mammals can be a little tougher to read because depending on the critter, their response might not be to run away

Mammals, uncomfortable: Many of the same things apply as with birds though many large mammals will continue feeding, even coming closer to you as they do so. Three nearly universal indications with mammals that are not good, ears laid back, eyes WIDE opened, and fur standing on end. Heavy breathing, snorting, or other vocalizing is also typically not good. Even if they continue to feed but move only directly away from you, that's usually not good. Many mammals (bears, bison) won't look directly at you but rather will give you sidelong glances to keep an eye on you. Many times I'm unaware of this until I review photos after the fact and see the eyes turned my way. Many mammals will also "lighten their load" if they anticipate the need for either fight or flight. If they stare straight at you and take a dump, they're probably telling you something

Mammals, comfortable: Again many of the same things apply as with birds. If the creatures seem to be mostly ignoring you or only occassionally looking your way, they are likely OK with your presence. Many mammals, particularly in locations where they have frequent contact with people, appear to be very comfortable in our presence. That's great for photography but can be dangerous. Don't EVER confuse the behavior of wild animals with that of domestic pets and/or livestock. Early man chose to domesticate certain species for a reason. Wild mammals tend to have what I call their invisible "fight or flight" space. Don't assume that you have to be the one to violate the space to elicit the fight reaction. Large animals that aren't scared of you may feed close to you then suddenly charge at you. Bison are bad about that as are moose. Animals that have been fed by people are probably the worst in this regard.

Sorry to be so long winded. But there are a few thoughts.

[Brownbear]

Dan,

Thank you for sharing your expertise and knowledge, and especially for being long winded about it. Truly appreciated, and very helpful.

[Nicks Pics]

Hi
Dan, Cristina, any others I haven't responded to yet,

Thanks for the tip about jam jars! Your ancient cat is probably of little harm to anyone

Getting back to the original thread, yes wildlife photography can definately be hunting with a camera. I'm a former hunter turned photographer. So arguably I guess now I'm simply a "non-lethal hunter". A couple of things that haven't yet been mentioned:......

It was very interesting to hear the experience you have with watching animals. I am interested to watch for those signs as I go out looking for critters. I have indeed seen your images, and, based on what I see, you do seem to know how to capture great wildlife shots, and with the atmosphere of their home environment. To make your self visible is an interesting contrast to hiding, but perhaps the worst would be to be seen snooping


I have enjoyed reading the many responses I have gotten about this topic. It helps me get a better idea of what the strategies behind great wildlife shots may be, which is what I was looking for!

Thanks for your helpful suggestions, perhaps they'll make my excursions more successful! Speaking of which, so that it won't seem like I'm ignoring people, I might not be able to respond again regularly to this thread for a bit.

[Nicks Pics]

Hi folks. Perhaps one of the survival tactics an outdoors man should learn is how to survive without inter net access for a week... but oh, it's not that hard So now that I'm back, I just thought I'd get back to this thread with a few thoughts from my recent trip with some of these great hunting strategies we've been talking about in mind.

Some animals seem to disappear almost as soon as they see you, like deer or beaver, but these ducks just went about their business like I wasn't there as I took bunches of pictures. I wasn't that far away either.


Not edited yet, could probably use a crop.

Since taking up wildlife photography Iv'e seen a new kind of animal photo which I expect most wildlife photographers have seen, but most other people haven't. It is the mediocre animal picture. Yes, it's a picture of a real Pine Warbler, but it doesn't look like the ones in the field guides. I'm sometimes out with people birding and we see a bird and they ask me "Did you get a picture of it?" Well, yes and no. It's harder to get a good photo of a bird than to it is to get a good look at it with binoculars.

Speaking of small birds, I don't always find a tripod helpful for shooting them. They are so flighty that having the camera anchored to the tripod usually makes the camera too slow to catch the bird.

One more comment for now, There may not be a single answer to this, but at what focal length are most of your animal photographs taken? I'm just curious, because I find my 1200 mm equiv. focal length to be not too short for many animal sightings; however, I usually don't get great quality from that range. Better when the subjects are close enough for less magnification than that.

[Brownbear]

Hi Nick,

I use a 300 mm lens on a cropped camera. Usually enough to fill the frame sufficiently for large birds like herons, pelicans, frigates, geese, egrets, ducks and sometimes even gulls, terns, etc. (when I'm familiar with the location/behaviour (where and when they fly etc) And enough for whales/deer/racoons/seals/squirrels/crocs, etc... (big critters or fairly tame critters) I also have an extender that gives my camera a focal length of 500 mm, sometimes enough for small birds like red winged black birds, but not enough for swallows, hummingbirds, chipmunks, and eagles depending on where they are.

I do wish I had a longer lens because there are many times that I can't get close enough but my best shots are always the ones where I manage to get closer. ie; higher quality with my 300 mm lens (a great lens) without the extender on it. I don't use a tripod for birds, etc because I would miss too many moments.

All that said, the majority of my images end up in the trash bin.

[Nicks Pics]

300-500 mm doesn't sound like much for wildlife, but supposing you crop often, I guess I see how that could work sometimes. I personally zoom in more often than crop but this is probably best because I have a small sensor on the super zoom. That in interesting though.

[Brownbear]

Hi Nick,

Cropping effects image quality so I try my best to avoid cropping, and if I crop it is typically minimal. And yes, with a small sensor camera I agree that it is best to try not to crop. Uncropped including some older photos, quickly processed just to share that it is possible to get close enough.

It often is not enough...

Tree Swallow 300 mm (yes, headed for the trash bin eventually)




But sometime it is...


Nikon D80

75 mm ( Saskatchewan, hid in a tent in a field, presunrise)





Sony Alpha 200

135 mm (lucky day on a boat in Mexico)





Sony Alpha 200
135 mm (hung around on the beach with this bird for about an hour)




Nikon D7100

300 mm (from a rocky peninsula - too close!)






500 mm Red Winged Black Bird (ISO 3200 - I didn't denoise the background - normally I would do this for such a high iso)

300-500 mm doesn't sound like much for wildlife, but supposing you crop often, I guess I see how that could work sometimes. I personally zoom in more often than crop but this is probably best because I have a small sensor on the super zoom. That in interesting though.

[Nicks Pics]

Hi Cristina,

Thanks for sharing, all those were great shots, and I didn't think many of them were in any need of cropping, except for maybe the black bird for positioning.

I'm not sure if you were indicating that the tree swallow was flying into the trash bin, but there's really no need that he do so


I would probably trade a little bigger sensor for a little of my zoom if I had a chance, or hypothetically anyway, as these things compete for proportions in super zooms. Saying that though, I do continue to tell myself that I couldn't get some of the shots I do without all of that 1200 mm equiv. I wonder if there is a factor involving a crop frame sensor which makes a mm length on a DSLR not really equivalent to the mm equiv. focal length on my P&S, because I'm still just not sure how those subjects appear so close with only 75-500 mm. Wait, now that I test it out on my camera, though, I see that 500 mm equiv. is at about 20 out of my possible 50x zoom and so that doesn't seem too odd after all. For some reason the remaining 30x after 20x zoom seem to be less affective than the first 20x on my camera. I'm just not technically savvy enough to know if there is any validity to these points.