I'm guessing that it was mostly the capabilities of their cameras that drove
people to use these techniques, and that the cameras lots of us now own have
far longer lenses, sensor speeds they could only dream of with film, and cost a
fraction of what they paid for theirs.
I'm also guessing that all the more obvious tricks have been abandoned, for
fear of ridicule.
I photograph road kill too, spreading the wings and tail to see the feathers
properly. It would be pretty hard to capture that level of plumage detail in a
photo of a free flying bird. All for my own education - I'll never be a
reasonably well known naturalist.
> -----Original Message-----
> On Behalf Of
> Greg and Val Clancy
> Sent: Thursday, 6 June 2013 11:13 AM
> To: Tony Russel;
> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] Fwd: Re: Ethics in Bird-Photography
> I have a 'treasure' of a book by a reasonably well known
> naturalist from some decades back. It is a great example of
> what not to do with bird photography. A number of the birds
> are obviously dead, either recently shot (by the author?) or
> found dead or are mounted specimens. Of particular interest
> to me is the Black-necked Stork photo which shows a bird with
> a broken neck leaning up against a sapling eucalypt. The
> Ground Parrot appears to have a glass eye and a Crimson
> Rosella shown climbing up the trunk of a tree using its bill
> and claws has a broken tail. One photo of the author shows
> him crouched at a Brush Turkey mound, with rifle across his
> lap! Other photos are of young birds that couldn't get away.
> With modern cameras it is unlikely that
> photographers/naturalist will need to resort to this sort of
> behaviour but it was an interesting part of our history.
> I should also admit that I, often, take photos of road killed
> animals for research purposes but never try to pass them off
> as living individuals.
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)