[texbirds] Re: Photography versus sketching
- From: Cameron Carver <c.o.carver@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "antshrike1@xxxxxxx" <antshrike1@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 19:26:53 -0500
If your goal is to study the bird, do whatever you like. Different people learn
birds differently. If your goal is to document a bird, getting a photo will go
a long way. I am not a big fan of written descriptions or sketches to
corroborate a report. People are prone to exaggerate, misjudge, lie or allow
themselves to be influenced by what they read or expect to see. While photos
can be manipulated, they tend to do a much better job of capturing reality.
This all comes back to Heidi's bird(s). Her sketch helps ID the bird, but
knowing her ability to identify the species is more important to accepting the
record. Now she has a second bird that she believes is a new bird. While we
could put trust in her sketch that it matches what the bird actually looked
like, a photo would actually show reality. We could then compare that bird's
photo with the bird from today and draw a much better conclusion. Instead of
"possibly two different birds" it could be "definitely two different birds" if
there was a photo.
So, sketching to study? Do it. Personally, I like to simply observe the bird
and store it in my mind palace. Sketching to document? Practically obsolete.
As one last argument against sketching: I had an observer document a rare bird
with a sketch. It was a beautiful sketch - it looked just like the book. The
next day another observer found the same bird and photographed it. The two
observers agreed that the bird photographed was the same bird as the day
before. It was a completely different species than what was sketched...
Cameron Carver
Lubbock, TX
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 18, 2014, at 18:46, antshrike1@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
> I thought Cameron's comments were a bit simplistic. Of course a good photo
> beats a sketch (usually). But anyone who carries a camera regularly in the
> field knows that you don't always get the shot. And in fact getting the shot
> often takes a lot of experience and sometimes politically incorrect methods.
> Newbies in the field are probably safer to study the bird first and worry
> about the shot secondly. There's always a debate in my mind for a split
> second when I have to make the decision, do I study as much as I can for
> descriptive details and possibly a sketch later on or do I go for the photo.
> In fact my experience in the the field is extensive enough that I can ID the
> bird without really seeing it well enough to be able to sketch it. In such a
> case I would be sketching what I thought I was supposed to have seen. And If
> I make that split second decision to go for the photo, sometimes I get
> nothing. And I don't really have much to write in the way of details, even
> thou
> gh my ID was correct, because I didn't really note any field marks.
>
> Relying on a camera in the field, as I usually do, can result in poor
> observation skills. So studying a bird to the point that you are able to
> sketch it means that you have learned something about the bird. This leads
> to experience and making that next identification more quickly.
>
>
> Lastly not everyone can afford a quality camera. Many the time in the past I
> had to make the decision, do I get a good camera or take a trip to Mexico.
> I'm glad I took all those trips to Mexico and got the camera later. Point
> and shoots, digibining and digiscoping are OK for cooperative birds. But
> when that bird doesn't sit for the shoot, it's good to be able to rely on
> some observation skills and sketching ability.
>
>
> Dan Jones, Weslaco
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Edit your Freelists account settings for TEXBIRDS at
> //www.freelists.org/list/texbirds
>
> Reposting of traffic from TEXBIRDS is prohibited without seeking permission
> from the List Owner
>
>
Edit your Freelists account settings for TEXBIRDS at
//www.freelists.org/list/texbirds
Reposting of traffic from TEXBIRDS is prohibited without seeking permission
from the List Owner
Other related posts:
