[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "The Digital Divide" and bird ID
- To: Leah Campbell <faeriemaiden@hotmail.com>, carolinabirds@duke.edu
- Subject: Re: "The Digital Divide" and bird ID
- From: Sidney Maddock <smaddock@biologicaldiversity.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 15:59:09 -0400
- Delivered-to: pardo@metalab.unc.edu
- In-reply-to: <Sea2-F644adQmoE8hSC0002c3f5@hotmail.com>
- Sender: carolinabirds-owner@acpub.duke.edu
I switched over to digital cameras from film cameras, and combined with a
large telephoto lens, I found the the digital technology to be a big help
with documenting birds.
In addition to the regular spotting scope, I bring a Canon 10D body and
telephoto lens on the piping plover surveys that I do, to identify and
document the bird band colors and alpha-alpha codes. While there was an
initial learning curve with the computer software that is used for opening
and processing the pictures, I have mostly figured that out, and the
ability to enlarge the image and adjust sharpness and contrast on the
computer has really helped with identifying the difficult (usually
impossible in the field) letters on the band that ID particular Canada
piping plovers. A Nova Scotia bird that I was looking at yesterday on
Ocracoke, I couldn't tell what the codes were, but last night, looking at
the pictures, it clearly was A over S. I have seen details with the camera
that I have never seen with my spotting scopes, and if there is a question
about whether a bird is a particular species -- if there is a good picture
-- the camera can help solve it.
The only downside is that unless the bird is located almost at your feet,
the bird will come out looking like a small dot if a telephoto lens isn't
used. A lot of bird pictures are taken with a 400, 500, or 600 mm lens,
often with a 1.4 or 2 extender. Unfortunately, the cost starts at a bit
over $1,000 for the least expensive Canon 400 mm and goes up sharply from
there, and the large (500 and 600 mm) telephotos are very heavy -- around
13 pounds, without including the heavier tripod that is needed.
I'm very happy with my decision to change formats, and my bird photography
has improved dramatically.
By the way, Arthur Morris has a book called "The Art of Bird
Photography" with amazing bird pictures and, for me, a very helpful
discussion of bird photography techniques, and he has a good web site too:
www.birdsasart.com
Sidney Maddock
Center for Biological Diversity
Buxton, NC
At 12:17 PM 8/13/03 -0400, Leah Campbell wrote:
C-Birder's,
Anyone remotely interested in digital photography MUST read the article
"Crossing the Digital Divide" by Arthur Morris in the latest issue of
Living Bird magazine (by Cornell Lab of Ornithology). He makes some
excellent points about the advantages of digital cameras, including the
following:
1) They're fun to use!
2) Creative experimentation is ultimately cheaper and easier.
3) Digital handles contrast better.
4) Instant gratification & invaluable feedback (yes!!!)
5) Wonderful teaching aid
6) Save $$$ on film and processing
7) Digital equipment is not harmed by airport x-rays. (I never considered
that!)
8) Eliminates bulk of waste from film processing
Mind you, the author of the article uses a Canon EOS 1D, which I dare you
to find under $3000! However, there are some great cameras out there now
under $500. I have yet to purchase my own, but I've been playing with my
boyfriend's "pocket" Olympus (~$100) and my soon-to-be father-in-law's
Fugi Finepix 3800 (<$400). I still have a lot to learn about
them. Hopefully the experience will help me decide on my final purchase.
Leah
Leah Campbell