[texbirds] Re: Photography versus sketching
- From: Steve Gast <segast23@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "antshrike1@xxxxxxx" <antshrike1@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 20:02:36 -0500
I am reminded of a skill that was practiced regularly in the Boy Scouts where
you are shown briefly a large group of objects from under a blanket with a 10
second or so chance to look. Each in the group is then given a pencil and paper
to write down everything that could be remembered. The winner was the one with
the best photographic memory.
To win this requires organized and methodical observation skills. We might have
a natural tendency to look a bird in the face and don't automatically or on
purpose make the effort to consciously register the bird tracts as detailed
inside the front section of virtually every field guide.
When confronted with a strange bird I find it helps, especially if observing
with a friend, to vocalize the description of each part of the bird under
observation. This greatly facilitates remembering, looking at each part of the
bird and inspiring those around you to observe and make mental and verbal notes
before resorting to the field guide. If your mates join in in the verbal real
time description then you don't have to have the photographic memory to be able
sketch a quick collective drawing.
I do like the camera though when the opportunity arises.
Steve Gast
Houston TX
> On Mar 18, 2014, at 6:46 PM, 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:
