Including birds with tails and front legs.
You guys have to go outside to see wildlife?Meanwhile, here I am indoors in my bed watching tits.
>>4474472Cute, you should do some setups with that.
Chilly mornings in England now!
>>4474457>Including birds with tailsI sure hope so, most birds have tails
>>4474470>>4474481Great shots
Taken this morning
>>4474493
>>4474495Rolling shutter moment
>>4474498
>>4474493>>4474495BeautifulHow long did you wait and how far were you positioned?
>>4474501>How long did you waitA dozen minutes after I spotted him. I could hear his high pitched calls but all I could see was a blue dart crossing my FOV at incredibly high speeds>how far were you positioned?I was in a birdwatching post. After a while he landed on a branch next to the window about 3 meters away.
>>4474502>a dozen minutes, 3 meters awayI envy you, I've had one come 12 meters away after half an hour and then tried at a different (closer) spot multiple times, waited for 6-7 hours in total with no luck. Cheeky bastard finally cam right when I was done packing up. That makes me want to try it again! Great shots in any case
I love tits so much
Genuine question, how do I edit this to be more tasteful? Or should I take these shots differently?I don't often take birdshots, so I'm a bit out of my comfort zone.
>>4474540No idea it looks fine to me, I'd say that what would make the shot better would rather be a different pose to see a bit more of the bird and a larger dof
The image quality was not good, the position of the sun really messed up the image, but I couldn't move to another position cuz it was very difficult to photograph one of these still.
>>4474503Kek. They're very easy to spook and they move a lot. I just had enough time to take my pictures before he took off. Then he was chilling about a hundred meters away, right in front of me but he was too small and too far away to get a decent pic even at 640mm (pic rel)Good luck next time
>>4474516Luv me sum long beaks
>>4474566>small tits vs. long peckersto each his own
>>4474542Thanks man, I appreciate the feedback.This is the one other picture I took, I'll look into playing around with dof so it looks less flat.
got a bunch of squirrel pics this morning but unfortunately all the photos where the squirrel is doing anything interesting suck as pictures
>>4474594Damn, I can smell this picture. A lot of my childhood was spent around pines like this.
>>4474700
this guy was very shy. pretty bird though
>>4474566oh you lucky bitch
peep season is sadly coming to a close. hoping to get a close shot of two winter birds this year: horned lark and snow bunting. Anyone ever get close to these guys?Anything else fun to go after in the winter? There are some cool ducks on Ontario but I've never had luck getting close and I feel like i could kill myself real easily fucking around down by the water
There were like 20 people watching this fucking thing, so i didn't want to get any closer than this. This is 600mm and heavily cropped.I want to respect their view so i didn't get any closer, but why they gotta stand like 200 feet away. Peeps run right the fuck up to you, they don't care.
>>4474809>>4474810>>4474811>>4474812>>4474813>>4474814god damn these are nice
>>4474819Thanks, beautiful shot you have there anon.
>>4474815>>4474815should i just ignore the people who say don't approach megafuana?I don't really care if i die, I just don't wanna habituate them or whatever, so then they get shot.since we doin other shit now here's one of the minks of sandpiper island
>>4474828>megafuanaAnon ... are you a time traveler?
>>4474828Everything is always scared here and runs away, and I avoid places with human activity besides me. Ignore everyone.
>>4474835sick photo anon
We doing this too?
>>4474840TY
stop spamming retard
>>4474857Be new somewhere else.
>>4474833it just means big animal, like >100lb
>>4474871I enjoyed your dump greatly. you're not the film guy right?
>>4474888>checkedCheers. Not sure which film guy you're referring to but I do shoot mostly film nowadays, I just don't digitize it anymore. The last film shot I uploaded here was probably 2 years ago, all of these were with DSLR. Good shot, by the way.
Are the photos you're spamming shot by yourself or did you gather them online?
>>4474836>>4474822>>4474818Best ones. Rest are snap shits, although interesting animals. >>4474857 anon is right. Stop spamming. Post quality, and at least add some flare in pp...
>>4474836All the pics you posted are fantastic but this one has me intrigued, how did you pull off the bokeh surrounding the squirrel? >>4474945>>4474953You guys (or guy) are jealous and/or new. Most likely jealous of the based tripfriend. Had he posted them anonymously you wouldn't be trying to derail.
>>4474957Didn't even notice he was tripfagging, and I simply asked a genuine question without judgement yet, although spamming is annoying. The photos are definitely great.
>>4474957>how did you pull off the bokeh surrounding the squirrel?My guess is that it has been cropped. As for the rest of your post. It's not that they aren't quality photos of wildlife, it's that they are for one, mostly out of season, two lack interesting composition, or even an artistic flare, like this one >>4474823, they're just good quality photos, that's it. We've gone through this with the birders many times.
>>4474962You mean flair? Because the composition is quite artistic to me. >My guess is that it has been cropped. It's clearly telephoto, what intrigues me is the way it's surrounded by white bokeh. Either some lens effect I don't know or something white right behind it framing the squirrel which would be amazing.
>>4474962I'm also suspecting that he's not the author of these photos, which isn't a problem but should be specified. The spamming tells me that he doesn't care about feedback.
>>4474953>>4474962nigga you are really fucking jealousartistic flare, lmao
>>4474965Where's the jealousy? It's called criticism. I can Google these animals and see thousands of similar quality photos. They just aren't unique that's all. There's no playing with shadows or lighting, they're all just photos of animals taken in mid day.
Crow being an annoying prick
>>4474968yeah yeah, sure you can but the reason you'll have to google instead of showing everyone your artistic flare, shadowplay n' lightwork, is because you've never shot anything like this in your life and are just making up empty criticismsu jelly
>>4474973Well at least you admit you only see this as playing Pokémon with a bazooka lens and fancy camera.
>>4474809Why are you posting pics you found on the internet? What's the intent?https://giulianodomenichini.com/2025/06/06/%F0%9F%93%8Dquando-la-natura-chiama-in-silenzio/https://giulianodomenichini.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/fagiano.jpg1000x668 is exactly the size of the pic from this article.
>>4474974at least you admit you are a nophoto fraud pretending to be le artiste du jelliehere's some advice, friendly critiquestop that shit and start taking photosthen maybe, after years of hard work and dedication, you will be able to post anything half as good as what this tripfag postedboth in terms of quality and la artistica visione.
>>4474962Interesting composition is secondary when you're birding, doughbeit. Shooting animals and shooting mostly static scenes are very different styles of photography.Same with sports photography, composition doesn't matter that much.
>>4474977I posted two of my relatively recent photos itt from my last trip out. Went out for birds, but got nothing worthy of sharing. Lots of chipmunks tho. >>4474696>>4474695I can easily give critical analysis of these photos, for one, can be sharper, always. Two second one is a bit bland, I should have spent more time in post working with highlights. But notice how I tried to frame the little guy picking his head up with foreground, I thought that was kinds neat. >>4474978You're just documenting animals at that point. Which is fine, but it's not interesting or photo contest worthy or even attempting to make a photo of something you'd want on your wall.
>>4474980These threads are about photos you took recently and want to show to other anons, it's not a photo contest. Maybe they're great, maybe they're just uninteresting pics of pigeons, who cares, it's about showing photos you took yourself.Then we hit image limit, thread dies, we create a new one. Rinse and repeat.I won't blame anons for posting "uninteresting pics", at least they can get inspiration from more skilled anons. Though I will blame retards for posting photos they stole somewhere on the internet, it defies the point of these threads.
>>4474980jesus christyeah, maybe decades not years
>>4474982I agree and I even mentioned about the recent part, most of those photos aren't even recent, unless it's spring or winter where they live right now. And yea, stealing photos doesn't make sense... posting here suggests you the poster took the photo. All I was saying initially was there were a few really good photos out of the many that were dumped. >>4474983What?
>>4474974>Pokémon Chaffinch and blue tit facing off with a yellowhammer watching
Ambush: the man who can cause a shitstorm just by posting his photographs on a photography board. The legend is true, he really is this powerful
>>4474953>just fake your shit with photoshop and aifound the soulless and talentless zoomer
>>4474995>ai.No.>photoshopNo. Photo editing software like lightroom are the norm nowadays. Get with the times old man.
>>4475000If you can tell a photo has been post processed you're doing it wrong, you need to have some restraint and develop better taste. I know you are used to desperately polishing turds but more experienced photographers see right through your efforts. You will too with time. You'll look back and cringe.
>>4475012Increasing exposure and altering some white balance isn't going to be noticed. All that shit can be done in a camera nowadays anyways. Besides mirroless does all the work for you, there's literally no differnece anymore unless it's heavily edited, which is usually done to have fun and alter the photo completely. Post processing has always been part pf the photography experience even in film.
>>4474975As I suspected. If the goal is posting photos taken by other people do it on >>>/an/ or make a different thread desu. Good thing he's namefagging so he can be filtered easily
>>4474945It's called a photo dump. They are mine. Calm down, everything's ok.>>4474953>ppI shoot RAW so they are all processed. I process them to look how they did in reality while I was looking through the finder... that's what I want so that's what I do.
>>4474957That was taken with a 70-200 f/2.8 on a FF body up close. I don't usually go for too much bokeh but sometimes it's nice. Squirrel was in the center of the branch so everything else was well in front of or behind it. Made it easy to isolate like that.>>4474975>some random esl on the internet stole my photoImagine my shock.>>4474990The power isn't with me, it lies in the emotions of the children that pass through this board.>>4475012This, but people should also just do what they want. Be a Ken Rockwell tier slider masher if you want, I don't care.Also OP said nothing about recent photos, that's just the aforementioned children making up arbitrary rules mid-tantrum. I have some recent shots but they'll be going in their own thread in the spring.
>>4475022>in the springAnon it's not even winter...
>>4475019holy cope lmao. fuckin newfags man
>>4475021>>4475022You posted some fucking awesome shots, thank you! I hate to use the term 'butthurt' because it's so dated but nothing else comes to mind when I see some of the responses here. Ignore them, they are just extremely jealous and will now be actively trying to ruin your life every waking moment instead of taking photos lol.
>>4475022>some random esl on the internet stole my photoIs that the best you could come up with?
>>4475034I'm sure he's gonna post the raw to make you shut up
>>4475022They're all about 1000x668 in size, which is in line with what you can find on that website.If those were your pics, you would post the originals, in various sizes if they are crops, and not some "[4chan_filenumber].jpg" that are all conveniently formated for wordpress publishing.>Some Italian back in June stole a picture I posted in October!!!!Kek
>>4475037He stole even more and even named the species incorrectly:https://giulianodomenichini.com/2024/10/02/falco-pellegrino-il-rapace-piu-veloce-del-mondo/>calling an osprey a peregrine falconIf you haven't had your shit stolen by a 3rd worlder with brown eyes yet, I don't know what to tell you.>you would post the originalsI think you just proved why I don't post originals, anon.Picture, if you will, how funny it is to see someone kvetching this hard over your own photos. You are more emotionally invested in someone stealing my work than I am, kek.
Cool thread, have a duck.
>>4475040Damn, even a year ago he stole pictures you posted only today????>I only post 1000x668 pictures that are perfectly formatted for wordpress articles instead of the originals so they can't be stolen!!!Can't make this up. You could have at least claimed to be the owner of that website, it would've been more believable.
>be me>on a 2 week boating/hiking trip>get a cell signal on day 5>what's /p/ up to?>oh, a wildlife thread>post some pics to kill time before sleep>sleep>wake up>thread has gone to shit>people calling each other names>find out some italian stole your shitKek, /p/ never disappoints.>>4475037They are numbered like that because I pulled them from my last thread that I posted them in. I am not at home. I have network access but the drives that most of my photos are on are not NAS so just pulled from archive.https://archive.palanq.win/p/thread/4255241/I used to make yearly photo dumps of new shots, but then just started making little drops in the RPTs scattered throughout the years. I've been posting on /p/ since at least 2011. I'll be making another thread in the spring though. There won't be as many shots as there used to be though since I shoot mostly film now and don't digitize it. I print it and hang it on my walls. Digital is usually reserved for very low light situations, that's what I'll be posting.
>>4475050>a year agoYou can find my archived posts from a decade ago:https://archive.palanq.win/p/thread/2621506/#2623322>1000x668https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/tripcode/%21%21zJbpV0948%2Bw/width/1000/height/668/
I applaud you for trying to uphold some level of standards here, but if you're going to sleuth you could at least begin with our own archives... also you just learned that photo theft exists. It's a thing that you'll have to be ok with if you want to stay sane. Take it as a compliment, even if it's coming from a hollowed out NPC with no life in the form of theft and deception.
Not the other butthurt anon but I suspected they weren't your shots precisely because I had a feeling of déjà vu (quite understandably). I still think spamming and namefagging are gay but whatever. Great shots in any case but I'd rather see something new even if it's not great.
/p/ is a pathetic shithole with mostly bitchy underage snapshitters who try to drag one another down out of insecurity
>look, mom, I'm a beaver!
Watch out.The moose is on the loose.
And that is kinda nuts.
BEYOND nuts actually, enough to give one a heart attack.
>>4475051So you just dump the same photos over and over? Which of these photos that were dumped were taken within the last month. Any?
>>4475060More hait in the ear than your average russian grandpa
>>4475063You need to get over him lol. He takes beautiful shots and lots of them it seems
>>4475065It's a simple question... were any of the photos taken recently?
>>4475052I can see that you post the same photos with the same wordpress size every time. Why, are you always out of home and away from your NAS each time you post?
This is actually a wildlife photo.
>>4475067>wordpress sizeI'm not actually trying to embarrass you here, remember this. This is all you requesting these conversations.The original /p/ sticky (newfags like you wouldn't know) specified to post pictures no larger than 1000px wide. It became a meme. My very first post here, I resized to 1000 pixels wide per the rules and kept it that way. At first it was DX camera, then I moved on to FX. Scaling these down results in ~1000x66X depending on the sensor. You should know this.You don't even know sensor formats, anon... on a photography board.
>>4475070>depending on the sensorAren't basically all dslr sensors 3:2?
>wordpress sizelmao
>>4475071Yes but there is slight variation between models. Even different editors will scale images from the same camera differently, especially Gimp
A jay.Perhaps of all time.
snapshitters always shit all over the floor when ambush shows up and then blame it on him
>>4475060>>4475062The squirrels around my way aren't nearly that cute
>>4475070So you went from "I don't post original size pics because someone will steal them" to "actually it's an old rule you can't remember and it became a "meme""Still not answering why you repost the same pictures everytime you show up in the past decade KEK>You don't even know sensor formatsStrawmanning now?
>>4475076>An impoverished proletarian squirrel, begging for breadcrumbs on top of gulag's barbed wire fence.vs>Bourgeois squirrel, hale and hearty, gleefully stuffing it's face with the biggest nut you have ever seen.
>>4475079vs>Philosopher chud squirrel, pondering the reason why some squirrels can stuff their face with food while others are destined to suffer
>>4475080vs>Politician squirrel noticing that chud squirrel has begun to notice
>>4475082vs>Glowie squirrel monitoring chud squirrel's every move, waiting for the opportunity
Squirrel politics is brutal.
>>4475080Based philosopher squirrel
>>4475078You are very jealous and coping hard. He has posted new photos every year and began the wildlife threads and challenges on this board. You'd know this if you weren't such a noob. I'm glad he's triggering your nophoto dweeb ass and can't wait to see your fresh cope in the spring :^)
>>4475095No need to remove the trips each time to pretend it's someone else supporting you>in the springIt's "in spring" unless you're referring to spring of a specific year in your sentence. Guess who makes that mistake on this thread >>4475022>I'll be making another thread in the spring thoughOh yeah, (you)At least change the way you write if you want to pass as someone else, KEK
>>4475095>>4475097you should wait longer between posts if you want to set someone up retard. this lack of patience is why you don't have any photos
>>4475098You should wait longer between posts if you want to pretend it's not you pretending to be someone else, retard.
Please stop wrecking my thread. We are going to reach the reply limit long before the image limit.>>4475022Please post more.
>>4475100Anon you have some crackhead posting the same fucking pheasant for like the last decade. Don't encourage them.
>>4475097>schizopostinghttps://archive.palanq.win/p/search/text/%22in%20the%20spring%22/order/asc/https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/text/%22in%20the%20summer%22/order/asc/https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/text/%22in%20the%20winter%22/order/asc/
>>4475103I said "IN THIS THREAD"Among the 56 posts on /p/ that contain "in the spring", less than half misused it in the past 12 years and only 3 in the last two years, meaning that it's especially incriminating if we encounter it twice on the same thread in the span of only 4 hours.Thanks for the proof, and thanks posting again without your trips
There's way too much estrogen to address here, but this is a good example of broken logic: >>4475078>So you went from "I don't post original size pics because someone will steal them" to "actually it's an old ruleI never "went from" anything; I don't post originals because they are mine. I went with 1000 pixels wide because that was the max and I felt fine with it. I occasionally changed to 1200 or 1500 when the cap was lifted later on.Remember, you're the one with this grand conspiracy theory about "wordpress size" kek. Just pulling terms out of your ass out of desperation, hoping everyone is as clueless as you. Then you got rekt and completely lost your mind.>>4475101Well it was stolen in 2024 as you pointed out. I guess it still holds up, huh? What's the matter anon, offended that nobody steals your snapshits? I'll post whatever I want whenever I want and there's nothing you can do about it.This year's been great, I got through 9 rolls of Portra despite shooting very conservatively and gave my DSLR a workout too. That's what happens when you go outside instead of seething at others.>>4475095Thanks bro. I dropped a few shots in the RPT this year, I'll put them in the next photo dump with whatever I get this winter.>>4475103Kek. Thanks for the entertainment at night, anons.
>>4474911there was a fella who shot wildlife really impressively using like an f100 or something, his muted colors looked like yours and he always uploaded board rules sized pics as well hahaha
>>4475095Why are you referring to yourself using third person, weirdo?
>>4475112>Well it was stolen in 2024 as you pointed out. I guess it still holds up, huh? What's the matter anon, offended that nobody steals your snapshits? I'll post whatever I want whenever I want and there's nothing you can do about it.This year's been great, I got through 9 rolls of Portra despite shooting very conservatively and gave my DSLR a workout too. That's what happens when you go outside instead of seething at others.I'm not that anon you think I am, but I am this anon >>4475066 what photos, itt are rather new. Because again, it seems like you have been posting the same stuff for a while.
>>4475108Kek, you really are a schizo. I love /p/.Let's just cut through all the bullshit and get right to it: I take photos and you don't. I spend a lot of time outdoors, you spend it indoors. You are a loser. You know this which is why you're so tilted. I implore you to keep making fake statistics from archive posts. Please make spreadsheets and post them for me. I'll make a thread in the spring and you can post them there.
>>4475115I already answered that: I shoot mostly film and none of that will ever get posted. It is for the walls of my house only. I also dump my shots in batches every year, either in the winter or the spring usually. Been this way for years before I even tripped. Very rarely, I will post something new in a thread by itself. The most recent occasions I have done this were July and August:https://archive.palanq.win/p/thread/4452845/#4453966https://archive.palanq.win/p/thread/4452845/#4464083I've only posted maybe 5% of my favorite shots on /p/. I could post a few hundred of them that haven't been posted before but I choose not to. It's healthy to have boundaries and to set goals. I didn't make a photo thread this year because I shot only film all last year. Now that I'm shooting some digital again, I'll make a dump of some digitals next year. Does this clarify things for you?TL;DR: I live my life how I see fit.
>>4475119>"n-n-no u"Can't wait to see the same pics you've been posting for the past 10 years "in the spring"
>>4474775>>4474777that is a… considerable amount of chromatic aberrationwhat lens did you use?
>>4475122>trust me I shoot new pics all the time, I just won't show themOk so what's the point of spamming a thread with the same photos you've showed us for the past decade? All you're doing is wrecking the thread by reaching image limit faster.
>>4475123You're a loser and everyone can see it. If you actually looked at the archives you'd see new shots every year but you won't do that... you'll keep forcing your narrative forged from insecurity. Anyone who reads through this thread in the archives will see right through you.This was my view today, for reference... what was yours? Your screen, seething at me? We all know the answer. You don't go outside, you don't take photos. You just get extremely jealous. >>4474957 nailed it.
>>4475078You know who else post the same size? cANON and cinefagomegalul
>>4475083I thought it was a hand rubbing squirrel
>>4475130Damn, and apparently I'm the schizo who's seething KEKSee you in a future thread to see the exact same pics as today and 2024, 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015
>when you're a snapshitter you can post photos every day and nobody cares>when you're a wildlife photographer people will literally beg for themGood to have you back, Ambush. Keep showing them how it's done!
>>4475131Not surprising, tripfags are all lying weirdos living in their basements, it's a common trend on every board. I wouldn't expect less on /p/
>>4475021>I process them to look how they did in reality while I was looking through the finder... that's what I want so that's what I do.The cANON mindset is contagious... Or you're him
>>4475133>quadruples down on the liesImpressive cope. I already posted shots in this thread that I took this year. Every year you just listed there, I had posted new shots as well and anyone can go and look for themselves. You know what though? They won't because you're the only one wasting his life on me, kek. They are normal, you are not. You are obsessed. You are my bitch.>>4475135Beautifully put, anon. Glad to be back.
>>4475139If this anon is a schizo seething and lying, why do you feel obliged to answer him and avoid my question >>4475129
>>4475137>you're not the only tripfag i obsess overWeird flex, but ok.
>>44751311000x667 isn't 1000x668, Poop.
>>4475130> >>4474957 nailed itIt was me but I went anon because I didn't want the thread to become the usual drama but it was clearly hopeless.
>>4475141>>4475142>cinefag suddenly appears, posting at the same time to pretend it's not youGood old smartphone on LTE technique to post on a different IP
>>4475129Maybe your comment was too retarded to register, ever think of that? Every photo was taken in the past. I display shots IRL all the time and am constantly seeing people enjoy them regardless of when they were taken. It even happened in this thread. I still sell old prints. People still stop and look at 20 year old photos on my walls when they come over. This is normal behaviour.Any normal person would understand this. Get off TikTok for fuck's sake. Grow an attention span. Read an old book, watch an old movie. Look at old photos, remember taking them. Be a human instead of a reactionary drone constantly stuck on the current thing.
>>4475122Anon... just point out which photos are rather new that's all I wanna know.
>>4475144You summoned me with your namedropping, schizo. Last reply, go play with your Millennium Falcon or your life changing office chair.
>>4475146Asking you why you're dumping the same old pics to ruin a thread's image limit instead of only posting the new ones is retarded?>blablabla I still sell old prints, blablabla people look at my walls, blablabla tiktok blablabla read booksI'm starting to believe you're the only schizo ITT. Maybe you've been arguing with yourself all along at this point.
>you're spamming>you stole these>ok you didn't but they suck>they are old>i bet you don't even take photos anymore>you're canon and cinefagThe eternal nophoto tragedy.
What does /wfg/ think about gulls?
>>4475148I'm not the one who "summoned you". Keep it down, basement dweller.
>>4475146Based. Good things stand the test of time. Everyone will forget whatever disposable cuckflix propaganda slop is the hot thing today, but people will keep enjoying celluloid masterpieces like Rear Window.
you know after hearing stories about how much of a trouble causer ambush is and then seeing this thread its obvious that he isnt the problem
>>4475137Don't talk shit on cANON, he's the only decent tripfag on this board. All the others are trannies
>>4475154The problem are street snapshitters who get jealous of true artists. The problem is they mistake quantity for quality so they randomly snap like their idol Winogrand. Then they see stunning photography by someone with a vision and good subject selection (Ambush is really good at this regardless that compared to street almost anything is good, it's such a low bar) and they feel impotent rage.
>>4475154It's always been obvious. Great photos, great advice, great stories.... Ambush is GOAT
>>4475156Can confirm, just got my neovagina yesterday.>>4475158>>4475159Thanks.Anyway, let's let people post photos now.
>>4475165You shoot mft right?
>>4475146You may take great photos but you're way too full of yourself>namefags appear>thread derailsEvery time
>>4475234imagine going to /p/ to namefag instead of posting on dpreview, fm, bcg ... I guess this retard gets mugged there so he has to show off his snapshits here
>>4474973stop being a faggot caught up in the early 2000s. everyone can shoot technically good "wildlife" photos nowadays. the skill ceiling now is in artistic expression when doing so. I know guys who free-lens when they're out shooting wildlife. creating beautiful almost abstract images. your dumb technically perfect sharp snoy boomer images are from the past. go somewhere and post on a boomer board where all counts is how expensive your telephoto was.
>>4475238I learned this real quick when I ventured into the birder threads.
>>4475234The green eyed monster derailed it
>>4475234Of course it's the namefags. All boards have their permanent resident namefags craving attention like trannies, sometimes with multiple names. It's probably the case here with ambush, cANON and cinefag as they all three have the same writing style. Using a smartphone to post simultaneously on two different IPs and trips is easy, but changing the way you unconsciously write your posts is much harder.Notice how he took great care at answering people accusing him instead of answering legitimate questions, and when he did answer, he deflected with aggressivity. Attention seeking, the thrill of derailing a thread, but when things go south it's never their fault, the poor things!
/p/ just isn't the place for good photographers. people here would rather post as anons so they don't have to face scrutiny and anyone who challenges that concept is dangerous. people like to pretend 4chan is dangerous but it's actually a safe space for retards with low self esteem and no confidence. even redditors have bigger balls
>>4475284>p is a snap shitter safe spaceLmao you're right I never thought of it like that before. I wish my pics were good enough to derail threads and make ppl rage :(
>>4475284>people who post on an anonymous imageboard want to remain anonymousShocking, more at 10.
AMBUSH IS BACK!Man I missed you. Don't disappear again and definitely do a dump whenever! Ignore the guy pretending to be an angry mob lol.
>>4475296Damn, look who's back after 7 years of absence, again to ask ambush to not leave and ignore "the angry guy"
>>4475296>>4475298>no trip just the nameWait longer between posts kek
>>4475122This lighting is beautiful anon, gorgeous shot
>>4475299Apart from his last post, ambush hasn't used trips either
>>4475303ByronJamesBignell has never posted without his trip tho and ambush has since forever. Nice plan to fill the rest of the thread with fake samefag shitposting so you can start a new one and be safe from the big scary good photographer kek
>don't worry kiddo the /p/ detectives are on point to figure out who fingered freddie fucktardYou exhausting shitheels, we don't give a fuck. Post photos.
>>4475308>WRONG PHOTO LEL
>>4475296>>447529810 minutes between these posts>>4475303>>447530610 minutes between these postsWhy is ambush such a schizo?
>>4474516>I love tits so muchMe too, got any photos?
>>4475312>11:48 to 11:56 is 10 minutes>when you get so butthurt you perceive time differently
>>4475315Wait longer between posts
>>4475122I don't even like you ambush but that lighting is bare tasty I must say.
>>4475314Just took this one, I know it's shit, blurry and technically not really a tit but whatever this thread is already lost
>>4475330Lost? Take my crows!
>>4475331Are they guarding the thread?
>>4475332No, this guy is.
>>4475348>red on greeenUnironic glowie
>>4475350You think you're birdwatching, but actually birds are the ones watching us
>>4475356I'd say about 86% of the time the birds are indeed watching you before you see them.
>>4475362Do you think they share pictures of us to their fellow birds?
>>4475364Well this one time I came across some Redwings all huddled around a puddle, as I was getting my camera up, one spotted me and they all freaked out and flew away. I looked at the puddle and it was filled with like 200 small tadpoles, they were feasting in them. So i set myself up in a bush, and the like five Redwings all flew around me chirping at one another, they did this for about 20 minutes... they were clearly shit talking me to one another.
>>4475370I thought you were gonna write "I looked at the puddle and I saw my face indeed" kek
>>4475370they definitely do talk to eachother, i mean hack trick number one is to play a mob call on a bluetooth speaker and chuck it into the bushes
>>4475389>play a mob call on a bluetooth speaker and chuck it into the bushesAnon... you aren't engaging in unethical wildlife photography are you?
>>4475396Unethical snapshitting, definitely
>>4475397Wut?
>>4475396nah i see people do this though
>>4474814>>4474830>>4474867>>4474871Man, it's my quest to get a picture of an owl, but I'm such a novice and I don't think my lens is powerful enough. How do you get motivated to just get out there and hunt around for them?
>>4475414My first owl was with a cheap 70-300 and I've gotten them with 105 before, you don't need much. Have been within 15 feet of one a few times over the years.>motivationIt isn't something I have much control over, I just like what I like. Might find 1 per year, sometimes 3 or 4 if I'm really lucky. Same with moose, the other thing I am always trying for. I like them and like being innawoods and that's about all there is to it. If I don't find one for a year or two that's cool. Sometimes I'll make it a mission and focus really hard on it but most of the time it's just one of several goals. There's plenty of other stuff like thrushes and jays, plus macro and general exploration and camping. Many days out I take no photos apart from some landscapes. Is what it is.
>>4475420those are technically nice images of owls. do you have some owl photos that don't look like something AI would generate? like something a little artistic and with more soul than "sharp owl sitting on stick"?
>>4475421Obviously. Caught some epic sunsets, poses, compositions, and interactions. Moonlight/twilight silhouettes, purple cast from birch stands in the snow, all sorts of stuff that I hope and strive for. I choose not to put my favorite stuff online, it is rare and goes on my walls. Some of the more abstract stuff is fun but not really my style. I've dropped tiny amounts of it here over the years, mostly stuff I care less about like the more common animals. Making passive-aggressive comments isn't going to force my hand either. I post what I want to post, the internet is an HIV positive cesspool and my walls are sacred places for me. Have all the fun you want with this.For the most part I stay away from action shots or in-flight stuff too, because I like having control over everything rather than just holding down the shutter release and then seeing what I got afterward. That's taking not making. I used to be obsessed with action and my first 3-4 years were mostly that, and on film which was ridiculous. I don't really hold much of those photos dearly. Action is fun to watch but offers little in the way of sense of achievement. Sometimes I still do it but just to mix things up for a day if I come across an opportunity, and I always choose the backdrop like here >>4475130 rather than being led all over the sky. And I only did that because it was raining.I prefer to get as close as possible from a particular angle and get portraits because it's a challenge. Most of my "missed" shots are actually sacrificed to get closer. Most of the time it doesn't work but I don't care about those shots anyway. I like all of the shots I post here but love what's on my walls. It might take a year or two before something else gets framed and it makes it even more satisfying when it happens. Now with shooting film again it's even more rewarding and challenging, like the good old days but better and more focused with actual goals and experience.TL;DR: Yes. No, I won't post it.
>>4475426>not existing purely to squirt out whatever crap you can get on /p/ every dayGigabased
>>4475426>obviouslythe fucking balls on this guy lmao
>>4474813>>4474869>>4474914Crazy nice lighting man, nice colors.
>>4475420>I am le epic sportsman hunterBro judging from the deer shots you're using a giant telephoto and aren't getting 15 fucking feet away form owls.
>>4475462 i actually know him and he puts a lot of effort in. he used to post full resolution crops here with every shot and you could see the lattice feather structures and eyelashes so he definitely gets very close. he has shown his setups at perches and posted selfies with the animals in the frame, there was a barred owl one a couple years ago. calling out ambush just results in him proving you wrong because he isnt a liar. hes just good at what he does and the results speak for themselves. lots of people on this board have long lenses there is a lot more to it than that. you can tell a lot of his shots are shorter lenses at very close range if you know cameras and telephoto compression.
>>4475508They're either engaging in some unethical shit, or are on some sort of animal reserve that are in constant contact with humans. Which is fine I guess. But owls don't like when people get close, especially wild ones, and they always know you're there before you do.
>>4475522I have gotten within 20 meters of owls a dozen times without trying, just walking around trails and shit. Like, no camera, not trying to, but hey look a fucking owl is right there on that branch. Yes they're eyeballing you and if you get closer they're gone, but I'm sure someone with some experience and intent could do better than I am just walking along without a fuck to give.Birders are the pacifist gun wannabes of our time; they enjoy the hunt and adapt accordingly. You need to employ some fucky ghille-suit tier tactics but if you want results your dedication to the craft is a big factor.
>>4475522Ethics are a cope >noooo you cant get close to animals this is unethical habitat disruption muh deep ecologyInjuns were catching crows like chickens, burning forests to relocate buffalo habitat, feeding wolves and domesticating coyotes before you showed up white devil. It doesn’t matter. Imagine not doing cool shit because some neo pagan pseudointellectual said man has to revere nature from a distance only
>>4475538They did that survive. You're doing to find some temporary meaning in life through beauty and thrill of the chase.
>>4475553I don’t care pseud. I don’t follow your religion. Your ethics are logically consistent with themselves in your own belief system but meaningless in reality.
>>4475522he travels a lot and doesnt go to preserves. sometimes he gets dropped off on the trans canada and walks into the woods, he did this in ontario a lot. he follows the coasts with his boat towing a smaller boat and gets into remote coves and woodlands. its in the archives, he built a custom boat and posted the whole process on at least 3 blue boards. he found snowy owls in the tundra up north where there is no human population and could only use a satellite phone to check in. his wife is from the arctic circle lol. i fill his animals autofeeders when hes gone for more than a week.
>>4475420That's a good take, I think I need to just actually get out there and the pictures will come. Thanks anon
>>4475396Is trying to imitate them unethical too? I sometimes try to call owls and they tend to respond
>>4475556You shouldn't fuck with animals in their habitat, I think you know this is a pretty shit thing to do
>>4475234It's a shame, p used to have much more namefags and much less derailment
>>4475593>because it is mmmmkay?Antifa is now fighting for the owls lmao>i speak for the trees like i spoke for the POCs
>>4475598>antifaWhat does this have to do with Antifa at all? I'm literally saying try not to disrupt nature intentionally
>>4475599>dont stand by that bird, you’re oppressing biodiversity!
>>447553720m is understandable, not 15ft. >>4475538Hunting isn't the same as photography, we don't go out killing animals for sport or food. What I mean by unethical is playing distressed sounds on a speaker, or laying out food to lure in prey, or break a beavers dam so they come out to fix it. >>4475591You making the noises? I don't see an issue. >>4475560I get what you're saying, and I do the same thing. I go moose hunting every other year, if you're out there and for a good amount of time you'll see them. I'm just pointing out that even up in a hide or in a blind wild owls don't just get close I've never seen it. Well, I got attacked by one once, that was creepy.
>went for a wander>took zero photosMaybe someone stole the animals?
>>4475556>meaningless in realityFuck with ecosystems and nature hard enough and humanity goes back to the stone age. You might no see the effects directly but they build up over time
>>4475601>complains about and accepts making noises simultaneouslyLaying out food can be fine alsoIt’s a valid means of controlling deer and hog populations when done repeatedly on property but proper wild animals can only be baited once or else they form a habit and get eaten
>>4475560Do you also suck his dick when he tells you to?
>>4475603Nature is effectively gone from the tech centers of the world (singapore/hk/uk/japan) so more like no going back to the stone age. Cyberpunk dystopia at the worst. And maybe upsetting a bird is not even comparable to this. You’re just being an ideologue.
>>4475600I'm glad you find the time to post between fighting Captain Planet
>>4475606Consistently upsetting wildlife ends up with said wildlife fucking off somewhere else. Then the ecosystem gets more imbalanced until it's just fucked beyond repair. We depend on ecosystems have sustainable living conditions. This has nothing to do with ideology, it's just that the scales involved are not easily grasped by the humans in their daily life. And that is only the purely utilitarian viewpoint, one could also argue that disturbing living beings is bad in itself for many other reasons
>>4475611>nuhhh muh ethics standing near a bird is going to destroy the ecosystem and what about the ethical oughts given my principles? Meat is murder! Pseuds like you are the fuel for anti-environmentalism and climate change denial lol
>>4475604The whole point of luring prey is to lure the predator. Which is the unethical part.
>>4475612What the fuck are you even talking about, I'm not a vegan or even a vegetarian. Seems like you simply have a hard time facing reality anon
Yeah but check out this mudskipper
robin.
he is watching.
>>4475816Oi
>>4475957>>4475816Scraggly youth.
>Missed me with that gay shit, lmao.
>>4476050Got at least 10 photos like that with long-tailed tits a couple of days agoThey really like to mess with us
I'm not going to address the weird comments.>ethics talkImportant stuff. We're part of nature too though... you have just as much right to walk through the woods as any other mammal. If your actions cause an animal to momentarily change its course, so be it. That's life and animals do it to one another constantly. It's no different than a bird in your backyard flying away when you open a door, or the act of driving down a highway. It's constant interaction. The key is not to harass and also understand the consequences of your actions. If they seem too dire, don't do it. Don't interrupt hunting, eating, nesting, or mating at all. Keep your distance. For most human activities this isn't an issue and there's just one interaction, but obviously if you're trying to get a photo of something you could become a nuisance.If you get too close to something and it runs/flies away, you can follow it but don't get that close again. It isn't hard to read animals when it comes to their comfort zones. Do it right and you can watch something catch prey all day long. If you can't get a shot without repeatedly disturbing something, move on and find something else. Sure it's all very subjective but you'll definitely know when you're being a dick. It's your responsibility to know when to call it. 0-1 interactions is preferable. Bonus points if you can get as close as you need, get the shot you want, and then back off without even disturbing it. You can do this with most animals if you don't get greedy and pay attention to an animal's body language or use a blind. As we all know though, most of the time you'll just be watching something run away long before you can do anything, and many times before you even spot it. If the distance was doable approach again and don't pass that threshold.>>4476075It really do be like that.>pic from todayI can't see shit on this screen, my bad if the exposure's fucked or if there are artifacts, I just resized it on my phone.
Found this giant sea turtle too.
>>4476211AmazingShame about the branch/trunk otherwise it would've been perfect tbqh
>>4476179A lot of people will set down food and bait in one specific spot for days even weeks on end and it will attract all sorts of animals and then one day a brawl erupts. While you sit there with your camera snapping shots of animals going crazy. You saying thats ethical?
>>4476229I don't see how you get that from any of the things he said, rabbi
>>4476234Because nothing what that anon was talking about was even stated as being unethical, that's just typical tracking or hunting. So the question of what unethical nature photography still stands, as baiting, or entrapping, or putting unnecessary stress on animals to get a photo.Now to, say some other random racist shit. Do it.
>>4476241>Now to, say some other random racist shit. Do it.So you argue like a jew but supposedly aren't one? He stated what he does and you go and pretend he's implying he lies bait, fuck you kike.
>>4476242No I'm not Jewish. Why are you obsessed with Jewish people? I asked that anon a question, and it's pretty simple. Now again, go, call me a mean racist slur again. I love making you people jump. You just can't help yourself but get that rush of typing racist things because you're too pussy to say to someone's face.
>>4476248Yet another namefag being a retard and confusing /pol/ with other boards. Good thing filters exist
>>4476248>I'm not JewishThen denounce the Talmud
>>4476229I don't even consider that stuff, it's so retarded. I'm on the move 99% of the time to cover lots of ground. Very much a walker/explorer and generally don't sit for more than an hour. I don't even use a blind unless it's raining hard.
>>4476241>>4476229Animal ethics is a meaningless idea for meaningless peopleIt has never mattered if a bird got extra food or eaten by a cat. Ever. Nature is not holy, untouchable, and unchangeable. You are either a bosmer, a vegan, a pagan, or a terrible pseud.
>>4476268>using advanced monke-brain tactics to incite multi-disipline non-GMO FFA MMA fightsDoesn't matter got photo
>>4476268>I fully understand the implications of what my actions might turn into>Oh well I'll just dump this toxic waste into the river anyway.
>>4476279>what were you looking at here
>>4476279I always These birds would look great with a mossy setting around them.
>>4476225thanks :D
>>4475151I like it please post more
>>4476391are you flashing birbs?
>he focused?
>engaging warp speed
>>4476438>>4476439kek
caught this fella yesterday :p
Gully bop
>>4476391Amazing sharpness. What's your setup?
>Yo, /p/
>Check out d33z m0v3s
>HFFWWOOOOSH
>pretty sweet, huh?
>lmao girl u suck, those are drunken seagull's moves
>WHATDIDYOUSAYOUFATSLUTCOMEBACKHEREEEEE
>>4476446M4/3>>4476449>>4476450>>4476451>>4476452>>4476453>>4476454Please be less plebbit
>>4476446Z8 with the 70-200>>4476436No lol
>>4476477I VILL make up silly stories to go along with my pics whenever I please & nothing you can do about that & nothing reddit about that>Pictured: photo of a cool spider with some dumb bird ruining the shot.
>>4476504>when your photos are so shitty you need to add childish entertainment narrativesAt least you know
>>4476506It's called having fun & you should try it>Pictured: very serious thrush looking seriously at the camera, no fun to be had here, greentext-armed fun police is watchin'
>>4476512>denoising>ai sharpeningyou are looking at ai slop slathered on top of your photo
>>4476517Just denoise actually, although who knows what kind of AI algorithms it uses under the hood, eh?Kinda remarkable you can get nice shots with it even if lightning conditions are absolutely terrible.Dark forest, cloudy weather, yada yada.Oh, btw.Those cool two pics you posted >>4476211 >>4476391You said they are taken with an MFT? Can you name the model? I'm not an expert on those, never heard of one with 45Mp+ sensor.
>>4476504Jokes aside, back then I was very mad at my camera losing focus for seemingly no reason and refusing to focus on the bird again.Only when I reviewed the shots I noticed that little spider crawling across the frame, somewhere in between myself and the wren, that my camera tried it's very best to focus on.Hard to be mad about something like this, lol.What I can be mad about is how hard it is to engage manual focus on these newer mirrorless bodies and lenses with electronic focus rings.Simply rotating it did nothing, but maybe there in an option for that you have to find in tge settings.
>>4476541I did get him a bit later tho
>>4476525>ai algorithmsClarity and sharpness to compensate for the detail that is inherently destroyed with noise reduction. That's why it looks nothing like the photo you actually took. Not that you care.
Image limit, darn.Had a couple more to share from that weekend walk, oh well.>>4476543It was also taken by a digital sensor, and processed with camera's algorithms before being packed into a proprietary "raw" format, and that is before any processing, jpeg conversion, downsampling and optimization.In other words, that "actual" photo I took exists only in your mind. nOt ThAt YoU cArE.Can you at least name the camera you took those two shots with?Are they even yours, or are you just a resident schizo shitposter?
>>4476545>lists all of his excuses for using ai instead of being a photographerImagine my shock
>>4476551So I was right again, huh.Just a schizo.
>>4476552>anyone who upholds standards higher than mine is a schizoLazy and pathetic
>>4476551If you're using any sort of mirroless camera that isn't "entry level", every photo is gonna come out sharp unless you have the shakiest hands of all time so using an ai tool to just clean up the edges or reduce some isn't going to make much of a difference... I personally don't care about the ultra sharp photo fetish that wildlife photographers seem to obsess over, I like good composition with a focus on the animal, and the animal doesn't need to be ultra sharp to where I can see the reflection of the camera in their eyes or shit.
>>4476554So far your only standards seem to be talking shit and stealing other people's credit.Here >>4476574I still had RAWs on my camera so I quickly re-edited the photo again, this time without any denoising applied, just +0.5 or so stops of exposure and some +200 WB, same I did before.That's it. Now it's your turn to pixel peep and tell everyone how denoising my photo with some evil AI algorithms completely transformed/ruined it. Cause what I see, is that denoising made it slightly better while reducing the filesize by half, because noise = additional visual information that cannot be optimized easily by JPEG's algorithms. So not only do you make you photos worse by not denoising them, you are also being a cunt to everyone else who has to download your noise for no good reason.This simple truth was preached here before you were even born, probably.
Image limit reached>>4474697>>4474697>>4474697
>>4476575>denoising made it slightly better while reducing the filesize by half, because noise = additional visual information that cannot be optimized easily by JPEG's algorithms. So not only do you make you photos worse by not denoising them, you are also being a cunt to everyone else who has to download your noise for no good reasonKek, this is a new copypasta it's so retarded and full of NPC cope.
>>4476639Lmao it's like listening to a junkie justify sleeping in the gutter to spend his money on heroin
I shoot M4/3 and pretend to shoot FF to fuck with you.
>>4476893we know lol
