>>4255418>>4255443Cheers.
>>4255453You're entitled to your opinion. Of course I have action shots and wide shots, and lots of prey being torn apart. But it's all incidental rather than the goal. I prefer portraits and animals at rest. I don't even like in-flight shots such as
>>4255372 to be honest but started taking more of them to appease anons in the bird threads.
>pretentiousness warningI prefer having as much control over the situation as possible to make the shot I want rather than just take what I can get. It's a two-way street this way, and I have more things to do. IE select the direction of approach (for lighting, obstructions, and background consideration) and getting there without spooking them. Then there's framing, which direction the animal is looking, etc. That's what I get the most sense of accomplishment from, not spray-and-pray followed by chimping. I'd rather use the time a bird is active to affect the situation and get what I want.
I lose a lot of potential shots (that I wouldn't want) doing this but that's what makes getting one more rewarding. I've gone over it a few times in the past so won't really get into it too much now. As boring as some people feel them to be, each one was a fun experience leading up to pressing the shutter release because I made them what they are with planning.
Backgrounds are taken into consideration. I don't constantly shoot wide open but when you're close you're close... stopping down isn't going to do anything for a treeline 500m away when your subject is within spitting distance. Sometimes when it's a solitary tree like
>>4255305 you don't have much choice. Overall though, I could absolutely stop down more in most of these shots without losing too much light, but didn't want to. I used to but came to appreciate more subject isolation. My pinky was on the DoF preview button for all of these.
