Camouflage

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by Chris_Johnstone

Out of interest, those who use camo, would you describe yourselves as hobbyists or serious photographers? I'm trying to gauge a level.

I'm strictly amateur in that I've never sold any of my pictures (although I have submitted some to a stock photo site) so I guess I'm in the hobbyist camp. Having said that, I do take my hobby very seriously and invest a lot of time and effort (and money!) into trying to improve the standard of my images.

So I'm a serious hobbyist! Probably not helpful, sorry.

Dave P.

[ron1863]

Originally Posted by Chris_Johnstone

This thread is really interesting in that quite a lot of people here use camouflage. Maybe I should get it on the Christmas list. Out of interest, those who use camo, would you describe yourselves as hobbyists or serious photographers? I'm trying to gauge a level.

I'm just a serious amateur but I happen to live next to a forest where I can put up some camo net and feeders well away from the trails.
It's a really good way of ensuring you get a few good shots.

[Rookie47]

I have just checked out the tent mh68 mentioned the Gelert Quick Pitch looks a light and cheap option. Has anyone tried it out?

[JeffH]

Originally Posted by paulthomas

I too found the WWS bag hide unsatisfactory as you either have to sit with your face right next to the camera (very uncomfortable) or have to do a lot moving, ducking and diving to locate the camera body under all that cloth. My solution has been to cut a big hole about 2 foot from the front and big enough to get the camera body through so now I can sit in a more relaxed posture and easily move my eye to the viewfinder when needed. It seems to work quite well. I almost had a Snipe land on me a couple of months ago

Funnily enough I've adapted mine as well Paul, but just by scrunching (if there is such a word ) up all the excess material between the viewing hole and the lens hole and putting a cable tie around it. I think the original design must have been for a rather obese photographer as there seems to be acres of surplus cloth

Haven't had anything land on me yet though .

Turning to Chris Johnstone's question, Like Dave P I guess I'd consider myself a serious hobbyist. Having said that, I'm really more interested in the subject matter than the medium of photography and prefer to think of myself as a wildlife enthusiast with an interest in photography rather than a photographer with an interest in wildlife - if that makes sense?

Jeff

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by JeffH

I'm really more interested in the subject matter than the medium of photography and prefer to think of myself as a wildlife enthusiast with an interest in photography rather than a photographer with an interest in wildlife - if that makes sense?

Makes perfect sense to me Jeff and I think it may be at least part of the reason why your images are so top-notch. Whenever I read books or magazine articles about wildlife photography they are all unanimous in saying that rule no. 1 is "know your subject". And you've certainly proved the value of that advice with your photos.

I'm coming (at least partially) from the other direction in that although I've always had an interest in wildlife, I have been a photographer first and nature lover second. I tried my hand at the occassional wildlife shot when I was using film cameras but could never afford the film and developing costs to get really serious about it. And that being the case I didn't bother to invest in hides and camouflage nor spend much time researching subjects or learning fieldcraft. Affordable digital SLRs have changed everything. Now I find I'm in a kind of virtuous circle where every half decent wildlife shot I get increases my interest and inspires me to find out more about the subject which in turn leads to better images. Long may it continue!

Dave P.

P.s. "scrunching" is a fine word.