It's kind of disheartening when you post a photograph and there isn't any comments.
Yes, it can be.... but please know that it happens to every regular poster on occasion - look at the first page right now, there are several nice posts with no responses - it just goes that way sometimes. Also, overall activity on most forums is WAY down right now.... things will pick-up - it cycles around like that.
And, the reality is, some images do not stimulate responses, period - on this forum, that is a form of comment in itself. Take heart and keep trying!.... your "masterpiece" is just a click away!
And, the reality is, some images do not stimulate responses, period - on this forum, that is a form of comment in itself. Take heart and keep trying!.... your "masterpiece" is just a click away!
Possibly so but not a particularly constructive form of comment and one which requires a degree of mind reading. I hope that didn't sound petulant as I didn't mean it to be.
Possibly so but not a particularly constructive form of comment and one which requires a degree of mind reading.
Please don't get me wrong (I should have been more clear) - that is just my opinion and by no means always true or a convention on the forum - just my observation of human nature.
As the old saying goes, sometimes, "The silence is deafening"
Take, for example, the Mini-Challenge (#172) I'm running right now.....
It's OK you were clear enough and I understood what you were saying was your opinion.
That the picture's rubbish comes across loud and clear but without any feedback as to why it isn't a particularly constructive message, though of course, that's just my opinion. I think it's possibly reasonable to assume that there isn't anybody here, or on any other forum, who posts their photographs to be ignored and when they are, yes, it's disheartening, upsetting and leads to you questioning whether there's any point to posting them and, indeed, whether you should be selling your camera and lenses.
I didn't think this photograph was fantastic and wasn't expecting any 'wow' type comments, but I did think it was a reasonable one.
That the picture's rubbish comes across loud and clear but without any feedback as to why it isn't a particularly constructive message, though of course, that's just my opinion. ... // ...
I didn't think this photograph was fantastic and wasn't expecting any 'wow' type comments, but I did think it was a reasonable one.
'rubbish' isn't exactly a word I'd have used to describe it - I for one have seen (and taken) far, far worserer ones.
To get a couple of wildlife subjects in frame - and in focus - is pretty good going and not to blow the highlights in subjects as these is also a good start, imo.
The fact? that there appears to be some sort of 'back story' with this pair is likely to be of little consequence to the average viewer, who will judge the pic on what they see, however.
The flat lighting - which helped with the exposure - is of less use if trying to capture a more 'dramatic / 'better lit' shot tho.
Better / more separation between the upper bird's tail and lower bird might have been a plus, together with better eye contact / head angle of both birds (esp the upper).
Don't know the circumstances - but there's the usual (from me) re low angle shots too
If it's been taken at a regular venue (for you) - I'd suggest that you keep going there, become even more familiar with sight lines / backgrounds, light source etc ... and use this knowledge to your advantage - especially for when the weather is somewhat more 'interesting', shall I say.
(whereabouts are you, btw?)
Worst thing to do is give up though - apart from anything else, you might stop going out watching nature at work, getting some fresh air / exercise etc.
In my case - on a 'dot ball' day - I just consider it as a decent bike ride, slightly spoilt by all the gear I'm lugging around.
Forum participation / feedback (or lack of) is being discussed elsewhere, btw ... so you're not alone - all combined with the apparent inability of some sections of society to be able to string a few 'proper words' together in order to express their thoughts / views - probably doesn't help either
At the end of the day, it also depends on what sort of pic you'd like to take - presumably you've seen other's work, tried to analyse what it is about such pics you like - and then try to achieve something that appeals to you, without actually copying theirs (any links to such pics that you find inspiring?)
(I knew I wanted to get down to bird's eye level before I could -and seeing pics taken from floating hides re-inforced my wish - even tho many floating hide based pics I now see are not as low as they could be )
All imo, of course - in this highly subjective field of human malarky /endeavour
.....I think it's possibly reasonable to assume that there isn't anybody here, or on any other forum, who posts their photographs to be ignored and when they are, yes, it's disheartening, upsetting and leads to you questioning whether there's any point to posting them and, indeed, whether you should be selling your camera and lenses.
I didn't think this photograph was fantastic and wasn't expecting any 'wow' type comments, but I did think it was a reasonable one.
A couple more thoughts/suggestions....
Most practitioners of the creative arts, hit-the-wall creatively at some point - I think the fact that the situation/outcome seems to (still) be important to you, may be a clue that you can/will work your way through the rough spot.
If you have not already (and such exists in your area), think about joining a local Camera Club. I belong to an Interweb based group that meets in-person, once a month, for photo-shoots - we then post to a group gallery for C&C.
I think the most fascinating aspect of this activity is to see how differently - given the same venue/lighting/subjects/tools - each photographer's captures turn-out.
However - as with all social activites [whether there or here (DGrin)] - keep other's comments/opinions (or lack of) in perspective and of less intrinsic value than your own, personal reasons for doing this photography thing.
Time permitting, look at lots of images - it helps to "train" your brain to recognize what works and what resonates with other photographers/viewers.
What a "good/great" photograph is, will always be highly subjective, but, notice that favorable opinions do converge on some images - I try to understand why and incorporate that information into my "seeing".
Paul, thank you for your comments. I'm with you where the low angle/eye contact is concerned and most of my wildlife photographs do follow that, but sometimes it's OK to veer away from that too.
I like to show the animals' natural behaviour and, sometimes, environment, with my photographs.
Gannet colonies get very crowded and I perhaps should have included some of the colony for context - the picture would perhaps have made more sense and told more of a story if I had. The two immature birds in this photograph are both looking in the same direction, towards and down at the colony, trying to find space to land and, possibly, claim nesting sites of their own when they're ready to breed themselves - it takes five years before they are and I think, looking at the amount of white, these two birds are in their fourth year so will possibly be breeding next year.
There's a school of thought at the moment that also veers away from the usual separation of the subject by throwing the background out of focus - it may not be everybody's cup of tea, but that's possibly because the out of focus background has become so ingrained that people find it difficult to think out of that particular box. A 'good' wildlife photograph must have an out of focus background, it must be taken at a low angle, there must be eye contact, there must be a certain type of light - it's getting a bit like following a recipe for a cake.
Although there isn't any eye contact with the second bird, there is with the first. I know there's a little motion blur in the tips of the wings, but I'm OK with that - sometimes, a completely frozen flying bird can look a bit like a cardboard cutout that's been glued on to a background.
I'm trying to get used to using just Lightroom to process my pictures and possibly my processing hasn't shown what light there was at its best - it was bright overcast so shouldn't appear flat. During daylight, it's the kind of light I prefer for wildlife as you often get more detail and bright sunlight is too harsh.
By the way, personally I like that you choose to photograph "common" wildlife. Because something's familiar to us, doesn't make it any less beautiful or worthy of photographing (just my humble opinion, of course).
Thank you, Eric. Remember though, that a hundred people agreeing and one person opposed doesn't necessarily mean the hundred people are right and the one isn't. It's more difficult to swim against the tide than swim with it, after all.
I've been reading through these comments, and I'm really torn. I enjoyed seeing your young gannets, having never seen them before and not having them around here. So thanks for sharing them. Getting two birds in fair focus in flight...not so easy, so I appreciate that...well done! The only adjustement i would make is maybe darkening the background a little to make your subject pop a bit. That's strictly personal taste.
As to the lack of comments, I'm right in there with you. It happens to me too. I'm not close to being a great photographer, but you could always count on this forum for an encouraging and kind word, and that seems to have radically changed. Very sad.
It seems that there's an element in wildlife photography that is so bent on perfectionism that they've forgotten this isn't studio photography. The light is rarely going to be perfect. You can't direct your subject to kindly change their wing position slightly for you, or repeat that flight again please, and just slightly to the left. The amount of post processing that goes on borders on silly, with people removing every stray object, making the final result look like an Audubon painting rather than something real and alive.
Some of us may be very talented, extremely skilled, patient, but fundamentally we are just plain lucky to be where we are and get what we do.
So, congrats on your capture! And don't let an apparently dwindling forum stop you. It won't stop me from trying...
Thank you, Eric. Remember though, that a hundred people agreeing and one person opposed doesn't necessarily mean the hundred people are right and the one isn't. It's more difficult to swim against the tide than swim with it, after all.
In an idealized concept, and for the sake of discussion I see your point... However, as a practical matter - if you are marketing a product and the
potential customer base has a (positive) disposition ratio of 100 to 1 (regardless of the labels "good", "bad", "right", "wrong", etc.), which viewpoint are you going to care about?
Curiously, if entering a wildlife photography competition, one of the stipulations they make is often that processing should be minimal and photographs shouldn't have anything cloned out of them.
Eric, it would depend if you were catering for mainstream or a niche market. For example, I have a feeling that at least some of Tracey Emin's 'art' doesn't appeal to the masses and yet sells for rather a lot of money to those who do appreciate it.
Gemma - yes, I accept I rant on about 'low down' (guilty as charged, m'lady ) and whilst I adopt such a position on a regular basis - when I consider it to be the appropriate pov for the particular subject - I also use whatever other route(s) for other subjects too ... so we're on a similar page there, methinks.
I also include a bit of the environment too - occasionally ... but yes, I generally prefer (on the whole) the oof bg approach - because, apart from anything else, I share my normal venue ( a council country park) with the usual mix of walkers / runners / dogs / buggies etc etc and in the bg of some sight lines, there are factories / houses and all manner of crud ... so unless am considering taking an entry for an 'urban w/life' theme ... well, you see where this is going
One other place I visited last year - as there were several short-eared owls only let me get 'environment' pics, btw - hence the subject size of such on my site. I also like the 'small subject in frame' approach for such as this.
So, why not go somewhere more conducive ... I hear you ask. Well, it's a 5.5 > 8.5ml round trip on the bike (depending on which part I visit) ... and, tbh, I enjoy the challenge of trying to get half reasonable pics of subjects that many consider to be boring / common. A decent pic is always available, imo - the fact that I fail to get one is down to me ...not the lack of subject matter.
Whilst Eric's comment re the 100:1 ratio is a pertinent one from a commercial pov ... I'm one of only 2 snappers I know @ my venue that adopt a low-level approach to waterfowl (esp when on water) ... I've seen cam club outings with members all using tripods set up on the bank. I never say anything, but I'm certainly in a minority there.
Pear - I dunno if your comments re 'encouraging and kind words' was aimed at me ... but I can only comment about pics as I see them, and as I see / judge my own - assuming ppl want comments (as did the OP here) ... doesn't mean that my (or any other's viewpoint) represent the 'gold standard' of course.
Re my pics - I do very little fancy PPing - if any - the bgs (and fgs) are as taken - I don't blur in PS, I don't add eye catchlights, I don't bait the situation /environment - I just set-up and hope that something will happen. I'm using relatively old kit (1Dm3), don't like going above 1600 iso and will certainly hang on to frames that aren't technically 'perfect' - I look at the pic as a whole, and if I like the texture / colours etc ... even if the subject is very small / not quite 'there'... I'll keep it.
Yes, there's luck involved - but there's also - sometimes - on a good day - a tad of grey matter employed (not much in my case, as not much to start with) - which is how I got a particular pic (of a swan, back lit*) ... I'd noticed it's behaviour for a couple of days previous to the day I got the pic ... but was always in exactly the wrong position ... 3rd day I set up in the 'correct' position ... and yes, it was good luck that it it repeated the behaviour ... but was it also good luck that I was where I needed to be, with the right kit etc?
That was just me thinking it was 'worth a punt' and yes, being patient / prepared to wait for a particular shot ... and not doing what i often do - start shooting at other stuff ... and missing the main event
Returning to the same environment (on a regular basis) lets me get an idea of what's happening and sight lines (as well as being free) etc - but I accept it'd be too boring an approach for many
Eric, it would depend if you were catering for mainstream or a niche market. For example, I have a feeling that at least some of Tracey Emin's 'art' doesn't appeal to the masses and yet sells for rather a lot of money to those who do appreciate it.
Mainstream or niche, unless one is independently wealthy, a philanthropist, or willing to be a "starving artist" (in the actual market environment, most self-supporting artists don't have the luxury of doing it solely "for the love of it"), profitability is necessary to continue to operate. High-volume/ low unit cost or vice-versa, no matter - either one has to pencil-out on pay-day.... Again, my example is in terms of people who depend on unit sales and need better than a 1-in-100 chance to engage a customer.
As a humorous(?) aside about niche markets, Charles Manson and others in his "Family" (convicted serial-killers) were musical recording artists and managed to actually sell some records - not to me though, I was listening to The Monkees back then.
I still consider myself to be a relative newcomer to photography, but it was very early on that I was taught to take shots from a low angle and I'm surprised the members of the camera club were using tripods. I tend to prefer an out of focus background myself too - what I was trying to say was that the usual ingredients for a wildlife photograph don't have to be stuck to rigidly.
Personally, I don't find your approach of revisiting the same place etc. boring as it's one I adopt myself already and if it's somewhere i haven't been to before I'll often go without my camera to begin with, usually more than once, and just watch the animals which is easy for me to do as I enjoy it. Unfortunately, the gannet colony is about a hundred and thirty miles away.
Eric, the wink was supposed to indicate I was making a tongue in cheek comment, I'm sorry. Having said that though, realistically your odds probably wouldn't be much better than the one in one hundred for the niche market - the market has been flooded since the onset of digital.
Eric, the wink was supposed to indicate I was making a tongue in cheek comment, I'm sorry.
No, no, no, worries Gemma... It's an interesting discussion and I was feeling extra chatty today!
Also, there's not much going-on in the forum regarding Wildlife, so, we might as well have fun otherwise!
And to further digress... you mentioned the advent of Digital - I have a Pet Theory - that, with 6 Billion cell phones plus all the digital cameras in-use, and with what must be MULTI-BILLIONS of images
captured around the world - every day and night - the photographic proof of UFOs, Ghosts, Nessie, Big Foot, Elvis-is-Alive, and just for the UK - Crop Circles, must be imminent (presuming no photo-manipulation).... waiting.....waiting....waiting.....
And BTW, in all this chatter, I forgot to mention that I do like your image... the Gannets' head positions imply inquisitiveness and personality!
Gemma - re the upper bird ... something I had lurking @ back of mind - but wasn't voiced - was that at a quick glance it's not as easy as it could be to identify its head and what it's doing, from a silhouette pov. as only its beak tip is protruding from the outline. At this angle the eyes could easily be part of the darker bits of plumage.
As mrs pp was a special needs teacher (now retired) I was frequently on the receiving end of comments re 'shapes of words' being important for word recognition / ID purposes - especially when dealing with visually impaired individuals. (why using all caps isn't good)
Half closing eyes / squinting was often used as a check to see if something was going to be suitable for use in these circumstances - I did the same here.
Just part of my way of looking at stuff - especially if asked ... doesn't make it right (or wrong) ... just how it is.
Comments
Yes, it can be.... but please know that it happens to every regular poster on occasion - look at the first page right now, there are several nice posts with no responses - it just goes that way sometimes. Also, overall activity on most forums is WAY down right now.... things will pick-up - it cycles around like that.
And, the reality is, some images do not stimulate responses, period - on this forum, that is a form of comment in itself. Take heart and keep trying!.... your "masterpiece" is just a click away!
Possibly so but not a particularly constructive form of comment and one which requires a degree of mind reading. I hope that didn't sound petulant as I didn't mean it to be.
Please don't get me wrong (I should have been more clear) - that is just my opinion and by no means always true or a convention on the forum - just my observation of human nature.
As the old saying goes, sometimes, "The silence is deafening"
Take, for example, the Mini-Challenge (#172) I'm running right now.....
That the picture's rubbish comes across loud and clear but without any feedback as to why it isn't a particularly constructive message, though of course, that's just my opinion. I think it's possibly reasonable to assume that there isn't anybody here, or on any other forum, who posts their photographs to be ignored and when they are, yes, it's disheartening, upsetting and leads to you questioning whether there's any point to posting them and, indeed, whether you should be selling your camera and lenses.
I didn't think this photograph was fantastic and wasn't expecting any 'wow' type comments, but I did think it was a reasonable one.
'rubbish' isn't exactly a word I'd have used to describe it - I for one have seen (and taken) far, far worserer
To get a couple of wildlife subjects in frame - and in focus - is pretty good going and not to blow the highlights in subjects as these is also a good start, imo.
The fact? that there appears to be some sort of 'back story' with this pair is likely to be of little consequence to the average viewer, who will judge the pic on what they see, however.
The flat lighting - which helped with the exposure - is of less use if trying to capture a more 'dramatic / 'better lit' shot tho.
Better / more separation between the upper bird's tail and lower bird might have been a plus, together with better eye contact / head angle of both birds (esp the upper).
Don't know the circumstances - but there's the usual (from me) re low angle shots too
If it's been taken at a regular venue (for you) - I'd suggest that you keep going there, become even more familiar with sight lines / backgrounds, light source etc ... and use this knowledge to your advantage - especially for when the weather is somewhat more 'interesting', shall I say.
(whereabouts are you, btw?)
Worst thing to do is give up though - apart from anything else, you might stop going out watching nature at work, getting some fresh air / exercise etc.
In my case - on a 'dot ball' day - I just consider it as a decent bike ride, slightly spoilt by all the gear I'm lugging around.
Forum participation / feedback (or lack of) is being discussed elsewhere, btw ... so you're not alone - all combined with the apparent inability of some sections of society to be able to string a few 'proper words' together in order to express their thoughts / views - probably doesn't help either
At the end of the day, it also depends on what sort of pic you'd like to take - presumably you've seen other's work, tried to analyse what it is about such pics you like - and then try to achieve something that appeals to you, without actually copying theirs (any links to such pics that you find inspiring?)
(I knew I wanted to get down to bird's eye level before I could -and seeing pics taken from floating hides re-inforced my wish - even tho many floating hide based pics I now see are not as low as they could be
All imo, of course - in this highly subjective field of human malarky /endeavour
pp
Flickr
A couple more thoughts/suggestions....
Most practitioners of the creative arts, hit-the-wall creatively at some point - I think the fact that the situation/outcome seems to (still) be important to you, may be a clue that you can/will work your way through the rough spot.
If you have not already (and such exists in your area), think about joining a local Camera Club. I belong to an Interweb based group that meets in-person, once a month, for photo-shoots - we then post to a group gallery for C&C.
I think the most fascinating aspect of this activity is to see how differently - given the same venue/lighting/subjects/tools - each photographer's captures turn-out.
However - as with all social activites [whether there or here (DGrin)] - keep other's comments/opinions (or lack of) in perspective and of less intrinsic value than your own, personal reasons for doing this photography thing.
Time permitting, look at lots of images - it helps to "train" your brain to recognize what works and what resonates with other photographers/viewers.
What a "good/great" photograph is, will always be highly subjective, but, notice that favorable opinions do converge on some images - I try to understand why and incorporate that information into my "seeing".
Best of luck to you!
I like to show the animals' natural behaviour and, sometimes, environment, with my photographs.
Gannet colonies get very crowded and I perhaps should have included some of the colony for context - the picture would perhaps have made more sense and told more of a story if I had. The two immature birds in this photograph are both looking in the same direction, towards and down at the colony, trying to find space to land and, possibly, claim nesting sites of their own when they're ready to breed themselves - it takes five years before they are and I think, looking at the amount of white, these two birds are in their fourth year so will possibly be breeding next year.
There's a school of thought at the moment that also veers away from the usual separation of the subject by throwing the background out of focus - it may not be everybody's cup of tea, but that's possibly because the out of focus background has become so ingrained that people find it difficult to think out of that particular box. A 'good' wildlife photograph must have an out of focus background, it must be taken at a low angle, there must be eye contact, there must be a certain type of light - it's getting a bit like following a recipe for a cake.
Although there isn't any eye contact with the second bird, there is with the first. I know there's a little motion blur in the tips of the wings, but I'm OK with that - sometimes, a completely frozen flying bird can look a bit like a cardboard cutout that's been glued on to a background.
I'm trying to get used to using just Lightroom to process my pictures and possibly my processing hasn't shown what light there was at its best - it was bright overcast so shouldn't appear flat. During daylight, it's the kind of light I prefer for wildlife as you often get more detail and bright sunlight is too harsh.
By the way, personally I like that you choose to photograph "common" wildlife.
Thank you, Eric. Remember though, that a hundred people agreeing and one person opposed doesn't necessarily mean the hundred people are right and the one isn't. It's more difficult to swim against the tide than swim with it, after all.
I've been reading through these comments, and I'm really torn. I enjoyed seeing your young gannets, having never seen them before and not having them around here. So thanks for sharing them. Getting two birds in fair focus in flight...not so easy, so I appreciate that...well done! The only adjustement i would make is maybe darkening the background a little to make your subject pop a bit. That's strictly personal taste.
As to the lack of comments, I'm right in there with you. It happens to me too. I'm not close to being a great photographer, but you could always count on this forum for an encouraging and kind word, and that seems to have radically changed. Very sad.
It seems that there's an element in wildlife photography that is so bent on perfectionism that they've forgotten this isn't studio photography. The light is rarely going to be perfect. You can't direct your subject to kindly change their wing position slightly for you, or repeat that flight again please, and just slightly to the left. The amount of post processing that goes on borders on silly, with people removing every stray object, making the final result look like an Audubon painting rather than something real and alive.
Some of us may be very talented, extremely skilled, patient, but fundamentally we are just plain lucky to be where we are and get what we do.
So, congrats on your capture! And don't let an apparently dwindling forum stop you. It won't stop me from trying...
In an idealized concept, and for the sake of discussion I see your point... However, as a practical matter - if you are marketing a product and the
potential customer base has a (positive) disposition ratio of 100 to 1 (regardless of the labels "good", "bad", "right", "wrong", etc.), which viewpoint are you going to care about?
Curiously, if entering a wildlife photography competition, one of the stipulations they make is often that processing should be minimal and photographs shouldn't have anything cloned out of them.
Eric, it would depend if you were catering for mainstream or a niche market.
I also include a bit of the environment too - occasionally
One other place I visited last year - as there were several short-eared owls only let me get 'environment' pics, btw - hence the subject size of such on my site. I also like the 'small subject in frame' approach for such as this.
So, why not go somewhere more conducive ... I hear you ask. Well, it's a 5.5 > 8.5ml round trip on the bike (depending on which part I visit) ... and, tbh, I enjoy the challenge of trying to get half reasonable pics of subjects that many consider to be boring / common. A decent pic is always available, imo - the fact that I fail to get one is down to me ...not the lack of subject matter.
Whilst Eric's comment re the 100:1 ratio is a pertinent one from a commercial pov ... I'm one of only 2 snappers I know @ my venue that adopt a low-level approach to waterfowl (esp when on water) ... I've seen cam club outings with members all using tripods set up on the bank. I never say anything, but I'm certainly in a minority there.
Pear - I dunno if your comments re 'encouraging and kind words' was aimed at me ... but I can only comment about pics as I see them, and as I see / judge my own - assuming ppl want comments (as did the OP here) ... doesn't mean that my (or any other's viewpoint) represent the 'gold standard' of course.
Re my pics - I do very little fancy PPing - if any - the bgs (and fgs) are as taken - I don't blur in PS, I don't add eye catchlights, I don't bait the situation /environment - I just set-up and hope that something will happen. I'm using relatively old kit (1Dm3), don't like going above 1600 iso and will certainly hang on to frames that aren't technically 'perfect' - I look at the pic as a whole, and if I like the texture / colours etc ... even if the subject is very small / not quite 'there'... I'll keep it.
Yes, there's luck involved - but there's also - sometimes - on a good day - a tad of grey matter employed (not much in my case, as not much to start with) - which is how I got a particular pic (of a swan, back lit*) ... I'd noticed it's behaviour for a couple of days previous to the day I got the pic ... but was always in exactly the wrong position ... 3rd day I set up in the 'correct' position ... and yes, it was good luck that it it repeated the behaviour ... but was it also good luck that I was where I needed to be, with the right kit etc?
That was just me thinking it was 'worth a punt' and yes, being patient / prepared to wait for a particular shot ... and not doing what i often do - start shooting at other stuff ... and missing the main event
Returning to the same environment (on a regular basis) lets me get an idea of what's happening and sight lines (as well as being free) etc - but I accept it'd be too boring an approach for many
PP
*search on 'scooting swan'
Flickr
Mainstream or niche, unless one is independently wealthy, a philanthropist, or willing to be a "starving artist" (in the actual market environment, most self-supporting artists don't have the luxury of doing it solely "for the love of it"), profitability is necessary to continue to operate. High-volume/ low unit cost or vice-versa, no matter - either one has to pencil-out on pay-day.... Again, my example is in terms of people who depend on unit sales and need better than a 1-in-100 chance to engage a customer.
As a humorous(?) aside about niche markets, Charles Manson and others in his "Family" (convicted serial-killers) were musical recording artists and managed to actually sell some records - not to me though, I was listening to The Monkees back then.
I still consider myself to be a relative newcomer to photography, but it was very early on that I was taught to take shots from a low angle and I'm surprised the members of the camera club were using tripods. I tend to prefer an out of focus background myself too - what I was trying to say was that the usual ingredients for a wildlife photograph don't have to be stuck to rigidly.
Personally, I don't find your approach of revisiting the same place etc. boring as it's one I adopt myself already and if it's somewhere i haven't been to before I'll often go without my camera to begin with, usually more than once, and just watch the animals which is easy for me to do as I enjoy it. Unfortunately, the gannet colony is about a hundred and thirty miles away.
Eric, the wink was supposed to indicate I was making a tongue in cheek comment, I'm sorry. Having said that though, realistically your odds probably wouldn't be much better than the one in one hundred for the niche market - the market has been flooded since the onset of digital.
Also, there's not much going-on in the forum regarding Wildlife, so, we might as well have fun otherwise!
And to further digress... you mentioned the advent of Digital - I have a Pet Theory - that, with 6 Billion cell phones plus all the digital cameras in-use, and with what must be MULTI-BILLIONS of images
captured around the world - every day and night - the photographic proof of UFOs, Ghosts, Nessie, Big Foot, Elvis-is-Alive, and just for the UK - Crop Circles, must be imminent (presuming no photo-manipulation).... waiting.....waiting....waiting.....
And BTW, in all this chatter, I forgot to mention that I do like your image... the Gannets' head positions imply inquisitiveness and personality!
As mrs pp was a special needs teacher (now retired) I was frequently on the receiving end of comments re 'shapes of words' being important for word recognition / ID purposes - especially when dealing with visually impaired individuals. (why using all caps isn't good)
Half closing eyes / squinting was often used as a check to see if something was going to be suitable for use in these circumstances - I did the same here.
Just part of my way of looking at stuff - especially if asked
pp
Flickr