Question to the bird photographers - what is more important: the species of bird or the quality of an image?

[JohnPD]

I've been wondering about this for some time. It seems to me that the species of bird counts higher than the quality of the image taken. A bird of prey seems to be the highest ranking bird while a pigeon or a gull seem to be all the way at the bottom.

I wonder about it because I sometimes see a so-so shot of a bird of prey that will get more appreciation and admiration than a much better shot of a gull. That surprised me. I thought a bird photographer would be a photographer first and a birder second. But it seems this is not the case.

So which are you: photographer first, birder second. Or a birder first and a photographer second?

 

[pcs]

For most people it's a mix, I'm photo first and started shooting birds for the challenge but a lot of birders start out just trying to document their finds and evolve into photographers.
Besides, for al photographic subject:, the more interesting(or rare) subject, the more interesting photo.

 

[Jack Dawe]

I've never really thought about it. I'm a bit of both, I think. I started out as a plain birder in the pre-digital age, lugging telescope and binoculars around with me. Then I became a bit of a twitcher (a chaser of rare birds) and started buying photos of the rarities I'd seen, shot on film by people who knew how to photograph. Eventually, with the improvement of digital cameras, I decided it would be more fun to take my own snaps. That was relatively recently (2009). I had more or less given up twitching (or at least travelling long distances). While I have some really terrible photos of birds that were interesting to me, I've never found much pleasure in what birders refer to as 'record shots'. So I try to get the best quality shots I can. That said, there are species that are of little or no interest to me. Feral Pigeons are one—I hardly regard them as 'real' birds—and I'm not fussed about Canada Geese either.

 

[Jan1977]

For me it is photography first, but I'm not a real birder. Shooting birds for is a mixture of practicing photography skills in combination with being outdoor. Walking around with my camera, is more fun than just walking around.
So I never go for specific species and just see what I encounter. I alter locations sometimes a bit, just for variety, not so much to see different species. That being said, it is fun to get some new species every now and then, but a 'better' photo of my regular species is also nice.

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

I'm a photographer first. But I don't think you can be a bird photographer without a certain love for and interest in birds. But yeah, the quality of an image comes before the species for me. I much rather look at an outstanding image of an everyday gull than a crappy shot of some predator. Although I too get excited about certain birds more than other birds, sure. I mean if I have to choose between shooting a Kestrel and a Feral pigeon I will choose the Kestrel.

 

[K9Kirk]

I'm with Levina on this, I've been on web sites where people seemed to be infatuated with any eagles and when I put what I knew to be good, quality photographs of other birds, it's as if people scoffed at them but gave the crappy eagle pics more likes. I think that just goes to show there are a lot of people online that should never be photo contest judges.

 

[Jack Dawe]

I'm with Levina on this, I've been on web sites where people seemed to be infatuated with any eagles and when I put what I knew to be good, quality photographs of other birds, it's as if people scoffed at them but gave the crappy eagle pics more likes. I think that just goes to show there are a lot of people online that should never be photo contest judges.

Yeah. Been there, got the T-shirt.