Bird Photography with LF

[Drew Wiley]

Well, Lachlan, that Z setup does indeed weigh just as much as my Phillips 8x10 with a typical lens on it, and twice as much as my Ebony 4x5. Of course, add holders and so forth. But additional individual compact LF lenses weigh FAR less apiece than tube construction teles, a weight savings which more than offsets a few film holders. And who SERIOUSLY shoots handheld anyway? Even sports photographers prefer to have at least some kind of monopod support despite fancy stabilization. Of course, the only way to get serious depth of field control with a long lens is via view camera tilt movements anyway, though recent tilt/shift smaller format lenses allow a little bit of that with less extreme focal lengths.

Different ballgame indeed. But it's a valid challenge to the notion that recent digital innovations are inherently superior. Then there always that eighty square inches of photon capture versus and inch and a half. What did you spend, and what will it be worth in a decade when the necessary software upgrades get behind? Hundred year old view camera lenses are still in use, even some of the cameras themselves. But I'm not against innovation. Just look at that trend Dick Phillips started when he cut that Dorff weight nearly in half without sacrificing stability, probably even improving it.

Different styles. I've got wildlife tucked away in big complex scenes waiting to be discovered by the patient viewer as yet another reward beyond the general composition. A wildlife magazine cover photographer wants the critter instantly right in your face. Different goals, different tools. I loved the way Porter eventually ended up weaving the critters into his general tapestry of color and composition.
Not the postcard method, but heck, it sure justified the larger gear.

[pdmoylan]

My conceptualization of LF bird photography starts as an outdoor still life at the bird’s nest or otherwise in its natural environment. I prefer natural light and enough DOF to provide a sense that most everything as reasonably possible is in focus. To realize this motion of the bird would have to be nill assuming very small apertures and slow shutter speeds.

My own examples are of a Canada Goose on a raised nest in a wetlands sitting quietly and of a woodcock frozen on its nest under some red osier dogwood branches. In each case the best light would be at lower light which would further challenge obtaining the sharpest image.

In each case flash could be introduced as fill or as Porter chose (out of necessity) using highly powered flash to stop action when using extraordinarily slow film (Asa 12).

Provided one does not flush/spook the bird on the nest, they frequently will sit tight rarely moving until the mate arrives with food or to change guard.

Using multiple flashes as did Porter requires quite a bit of experimentation and calculation as to powers, location and distance from the subject. There is also a need to consider lighting foreground and background to give the impression of only one light source. Introduce flash color output and polarizing filters and you have a veritable nightmare or more rationally, a problem to solve optimally.

[pdmoylan]

Generally it takes much time, patience and very slow maneuvering to get in position for the photograph via a blind. Longer FL lenses would be key to avoiding flushing the bird from the nest. Think one or more hours to get in position unless the bird is already acclimated which doesn’t always happen.

[Alan Klein]

4 pages of posts and no large-format pictures of birds! Medium format anyone?

[pdmoylan]

Alan, my examples noted above were on 35mm Kodachrome 25. Those experiences and again Kraseman's work with Red Knots, Ruddy Turnstone and others in the Arctic Circle got me to consider LF.

These shorebirds (Arctic Tern is another possible subject) tend to nest in the open on bare or sparsely vegetated ground.

As I mentioned in my opening post, I am not aware of COLOR work using LF to photograph birds other than Porter's. Porter was independently well off and obsessed with the subject.

Looking at what he accomplished with color LF: birds, landscapes, and then cutting-edge printing techniques, he is clearly undervalued compared to Ansel.

Portra 400 opens doors to reconsider this type of work once again it seems to me.

I would try it locally if I could find an appropriate subject, but living in the mid-Atlantic region, there would be few opportunities, knowing species nesting habits here. Very few nesting scenarios would be conducive to this type of work.

A month in the Arctic circle is just not feasible without a team, deep budget, and strong personalities willing to accept the challenging environment.

[r.e.]

I would try it locally if I could find an appropriate subject, but living in the mid-Atlantic region, there would be few opportunities, knowing species nesting habits here. Very few nesting scenarios would be conducive to this type of work.

A month in the Arctic circle is just not feasible without a team, deep budget, and strong personalities willing to accept the challenging environment.

Porter did a lot of his work on an island that his family owned, and it appears still owns, in Maine

[r.e.]

Looks like Porter started making 4x5 colour photographs of birds, using very low speed Kodachrome, around about 1940. I'd like to see some original prints. Looking at copies on the internet, my impression is that the technical achievement tends to be outweighed by the consequences of using flash. I like the black and white photographs more, as well as a few of the colour photographs. For me, the photos of birds at their nest work less well than others.

Black & White




Parula Warbler (Maine, 1968)




Blue-Throated Hummingbird
This print is owned by New York's MoMA. It may have been part of a show held in 1943.



Porter and his Linhof

[pdmoylan]

30+ years ago I similarly photographed Least Tern, Piping Plover, Killdeer and Oystercatcher on nest using blinds on Kodachrome film with a 400mm lens in each case.

All but the Killdeer are protected species now. With reduction of fallow fields, Killdeer nesting is much less frequent.

[pdmoylan]

Imagine the amount of film Porter went through to get one decent image of a moving bird on Asa 12 Kodachrome? Bird movements are not predictable and you are limited to one shot per each movement. He would have prefocused and likely stopped down to F45 to make sure all was in sharp focus. Not sure if he used triggering beams as did Stephen Dalton with his then cutting edge color images of frogs and insects in motion (terrarium). Btw, Dalton used Hasselblad and Leica macro lenses for his work, not 4x5 as far as I know.

Compared to today’s tech, Porter’s color bird images seems less appealing.

[Dan Fromm]

Re the mentions of using flash. I used to do a lot of closeup work out of doors. Flowers, fungi, insects. KM (ISO 25), Nikon SLR with 1/250 sync speed, small flashes, 105/2.5 MicroNikkor (usually) at f/13.5 - f/22 set (as small as f/45 effective). I cried when Kodachrome went away and I had no alternative but ISO 100 E6 (sorry, I can't abide Fuji's Velveeta). In many situations overpowering ambient light with flash required much too small effective apertures with ISO 100.

I moved up to 2x3 because 35 mm was too limiting. I could get good detail in the subject but not enough of the setting or enough of the setting but not enough detail in the subject. I used 2x3 Graphics, soon gave up. Too much subject movement (wind, usually) between focus, compose and shoot. Focusing frame not practical.

I tried shooting hummingbirds on a feeder in Lost Maples State Park in Texas with a 2x3 Graphic. Yes, with flash, at distances of 6 - 10 feet. Same problems.

I'm now shooting fish in aquaria with a D810, same old 105/2.8 MicroNikkor (yes, manual focus) and flash (darkened room, Vivitar 283s turned way down). Sometimes I get a good in focus shot, sometimes not. Modern digicams that automatically do multiple exposures for stacking seem a better solution for what I do, also for birds with good stalking ("don't get a longer lens, get closer") and a suitably long AF lens seem a better solution to the problem.