Photographing Waterfowl

Sometimes seemingly simple, often more than somewhat difficult, and frequently all but impossible!

One of the major problems with photographing waterfowl has been brought about as a result of their physiques. They are almost invariably of chunky build, well muscled, with dark and succulent flesh and taste wonderful cooked in any number of different ways. The result of this is, of course, that they have been hunted by man for millennia and have inherited all the nervous dispositions that this kind of lifestyle engenders.

Behaviour patterns exhibited by waterfowl given to gathering gregariously and often frequenting public parks, ponds, lakes and suchlike can, and do, undergo a complete transformation when the same individuals are paired off or feeding in a more natural and rural habitat, for it is there that if they are going to be predated upon it is more likely to occur. The same pair of Mallards that come waddling up to you for a piece of bread in the park will allow you no closer than the first carelessly broken twig if you attempt to approach them on a pond in the countryside.

What does this mean for the potential Waterfowl Photographer? It means, chum, that you’ve got a job of work on your hands particularly if you are “purist” enough to insist on only taking photographs “in the wild” – wherever that may be in this day and age.

How you set about your waterfowl photography really is dependent on what you want from it. There are only 150’ish species in the world. The exact count depends on where you fall among the “lumpers” and the “splitters” (more of this under Photographing Narcissi). The species are then divided into various categories and sub-categories such as Ducks into Diving Ducks, Dabbling Ducks, Sea Ducks and Aberrant Ducks; Swans; Geese; Shelducks and Sheldgeese; and Aberrant Species. This categorical list can vary from publication to publication and from time to time as species are reclassified.

Only a percentage of the species can be described as British Resident whilst others are regular migrants, some are occasional migrants and others are vagrants that have normally been blown off course during migration when strong winds have managed “to get up their tail pipes”.

If your objective is to capture shots only of British species in wild habitats then your modus operandi is fairly straightforward. After you have exhausted parks and public places where some species are regularly present and approachable then you will need to work essentially from hides, often with significantly long lenses to guarantee you any degree of success. I would warn you now that you need to be of a particular temperament to be able to undertake and withstand this as a sole course of action. Many public “hides” provided by various management and conservation bodies, whilst no doubt normally sited in ideal locations, are often like Piccadilly Circus where through traffic is concerned.

There is nothing more frustrating than to find yourself bursting at all extremities, having been installed since dawn, and frightened to leave your gear unguarded whilst you make an ablution break, least it go walkabout during your absence and/or, if you take it with you, you risk losing your hardwon place at the prime viewing window. Often, just as the main object of your desires paddles into view a coach party, or even just some careless soul who allows the door to open and close with a bang, comes stomping in and distracts you or terrifies your subject and all the previous nerve-taut hours of patient vigil are destroyed in a moment. The alternative, of course, is to look for smaller and more private hides, set up your own, hide in the reeds or float flat out in a punt. Unfortunately you cannot, realistically, expect to notch up significant numbers of species using these methods and the time demanded in pursuit of them can be significant. Neither can you realistically expect to achieve a succession of shots of rare and exotic creatures, set against aesthetically pleasing backgrounds, since many of your Waterfowl shots will be merely of your subject, surrounded by water, as it floats or paddles serenely by. Unfortunately water is water is water and the surface of your neighbours garden pond will not look significantly different to the surface of the most photogenic of lakes, set in stunning surroundings and which it has cost you an arm and a leg to get to, when viewing only the microcosm, captured by your lens, on which your subject is floating.

One alternative is to take Waterfowl on an opportunistic basis as you go about your normal Wildlife Photographing activities. This I did for many years, making the most of opportunities as and when they arose. Undoubtedly this approach can result in some nice shots as you only take them when all the right conditions and surroundings come together. The downside of this tactic is that you need to be a far younger person than am I, at the outset, if you wish to acquire a respectable portfolio of species since your haphazard opportunities may be few and far between.

Fortunately there is a viable option that can result in an impressive hitlist of species in surroundings that, with care in taking your shots, can often provide natural looking backgrounds. This option owes its existence to other aspects of the Waterfowls’ psyche and appearance. As an overall group they can become quite trusting and confiding in captivity and this aspect of their character, coupled with their often stunning plumage variations, has made them popular for many years as “collectors items”. As far back as the Romans, and no doubt even further, Waterfowl have been kept in captivity and, in addition, certain breeds, almost invariably derived from the Mallard, have been domesticated and/or selectively bred for specific characteristics and purposes. Some, such as the Eider, supplied down for duvets and pillows and the like, some like Muscovies have been used for their egg laying capacity, whilst several others have been redesigned in various ways for eating. Additionally, for centuries, there have been collections of so called “ornamental” Waterfowl maintained simply for their sheer beauty and it is to the modern day equivalent of these that you may be advised to direct your attention if you are after quicker results.

In the UK, apart from those larger private collections that open to the public to help defray maintenance costs, we have the added benefit of the WWT and the RSPB who, between them, own and/or control a significant number of reserves situated across the length and breadth of the country. Many of these, particularly those of the WWT, boast a resident population of both native and exotic species as well as playing host to huge numbers of migrating and over wintering birds.

I thoroughly recommend these as venues capable of bringing a wide range of species within reach of your lens. Huge numbers of overwintering Swans, Ducks and Geese can be found here grazing on the marshy ground where these reserves are normally situated. If your equipment is not up to the task of tackling the sometimes distant grazers then, certainly in the case of the WWT, most of them will be represented “in captivity” in the “home” part of the reserve together with other rare and exotic species from across the world.

Do not turn your nose up at photographing those species to which photographic access involves merely leaning over a fence or setting up your tripod on a tarmac path. In reality, where some species are concerned, this is the only way you can practically expect to photograph them without embarking on long and expensive trips abroad, often with no guarantee of success and, furthermore, even with your subjects well within range, it is not as easy as you might think!

I will first deal with some of the problems associated with photographing Waterfowl per se and then move on to those peculiar to a captive environment.

First and foremost of the problems is posed by the basic patterning of many species’ plumage. The majority of them do tend to be highly colourful, even gaudy, and many of the colours displayed are often a direct contrast to one another. If you have chosen a sunny day for your sojourn then just try balancing the black and white of a male Goosander or Eider and see how you get on! Apart from the dangers of highlights created by the contrasting colours you have to remember that strong sun equals harsh shadows. Much of the time your subjects are going to be sat on, or swimming in, a large expanse of water which, in itself, is a well known exposure hazard in much the same way as snow. You are likely to be somewhat limited in your choice of shooting position and, frequently, will not be able to get the light on your side, in which case you will have to expose for what is, in effect, a backlit subject. If you manage to expose the subject correctly for its own colour patterning then just sit back and be amazed at the kaleidoscope of colours and patterns provided by the water reflections in your shots.

Most water that carries Waterfowl has some degree of colour to it either on its own account or attributable to the Waterfowl themselves. No two ponds, even though adjacent, seem to be the same and can vary from clear to green to brown and all shades in between. In addition they will often have an inordinate number of foreign bodies floating on the surface. Bits of foodstuffs, water vegetation, dust, down, feathers, other unmentionables and lumps of that unsightly mess that seems to continually break away from the bottom of natural ponds and float to the surface. All will conspire to spoil your shot. In reality, at point of shoot, you have to ignore all these, for their number is legion, and rely on your enhancement programme’s healing tools to clean up for you.

In captivity there is another hazard to contend with and that is the “pinioned wing”. To prevent often expensive species from flying away into the sunset captive birds are routinely pinioned. This involves either clipping the primary flight feathers of one wing to put the bird chronically off balance so that, if it does take off, it flies in ever decreasing circles until it disappears to somewhere other than the sunset, or else surgically removing that part of one wing that will carry all, or part, of the primaries. The former is, at best, a temporary measure and will need to be repeated more than once a year causing considerable stress to all concerned. The latter can seem somewhat callous at first glance but I feel that in the long run it provides the best option since, in practice, the Waterfowl quickly learns to gear its life to the loss of some of its flying abilities. In a captive environment it is shielded from the problems of having to find its own food and having to escape from a constant supply of predators. Unless it is a migratory species the above two activities would probably have accounted for the bulk of its flying time and the birds normally seem to settle into a contented lifestyle, since they breed, and otherwise behave, in a natural fashion. Whichever course of action has been applied to our subject in question the net effect is to leave it without all, or some, primaries on at least one wing. This may not offend your eye, of course, in which case it is immaterial, but if it does then the only practical answer is to wait until the subject turns its “good side” to you. After all, unlike in a “wild” setting, you can afford to wait since, in the circumstances, it is hardly likely to fly away!

Another hazard of bright light is reflections from ripples in the water which manifest themselves in highlit lines along the sides of your subject. I’m afraid that you are stuck with these but, with diligence, should they prove offensive to your eye you can probably minimise their effect, if not eradicate them altogether, with your enhancement software. They are exacerbated by using a flash, even on only a fill-flash setting. You will have to way up the pros and cons of using flash and, bearing in mind that the problem is worse the brighter the weather, it may well be that you do not need the added boost of flash in those conditions.

All Waterfowl, whether divers or dabblers, that derive any part of their diet from underwater will, almost inevitably, be covered with water droplets. In certain light conditions, particularly if using flash, these droplets will show up in your image like searchlight beams. Again there is not too much that you can do to circumvent this but draw comfort from the fact that they are normally perfectly round and, as such, lend themselves ideally to the touch of your healing brush tool. I would advise you here that, if you are determined to erase them completely, do not zoom your screen image up to work on any larger than the size you intend to view or print. If you close in too much you will end up having to take out hundreds, if not thousands, of mini droplets that wouldn’t have shown up anyway at normal image display sizes.

Remember also to set a decent shutter speed. Waterfowl are almost constantly on the move either swimming or looking around. Their motion tends to be very jerky and so the fastest shutter speed that conditions allow is the order of the day. Having said that I have just realised that with today’s technology the fastest shutter speeds can be enormous and not worth the compromises that you have to make to get them. I would, therefore, probably change my advice to read that a shutter speed of at least three times your lens length should suffice.

Having read what I have written thus far I realise that I probably sound like a prophet of doom. There is, however, light at the end of the tunnel which I will come to shortly but, before I do, there is one more scenario to bear in mind.

Many of the problems outlined above pertain to fine sunny weather and they can be reduced by operating under less clement conditions. However, in winter and on duller spring/summer days, there is a further problem that manifests itself – that of “noisy” backgrounds. Unless you are prepared to accept a highlight burnout you must expose, or underexpose, your shot accordingly. Unfortunately on dull days, and in the case of most Waterfowl, your potential highlight danger is posed by a very small percentage of your overall image. Just a white wingbar, forehead or chest patch may be the only white in a sea of dark colours. To avoid the burnout you will have to underexpose the shot to such an extent that when you attempt to brighten the overall image in your enhancement programme you are likely to generate very noisy water and/or other background features.Unless, as I have said above, you are prepared to accept burnouts there is not much you can do about this at point of shoot and you will have to rely on your enhancement programme to put things right. One thing that you can do to alleviate the problem is to make sure that the subject is as large as possible in the frame. That will mean that the water and background will have less effect in your finished product and is one less contrasting feature to worry about. Don’t rely on cropping during enhancement to achieve your ideal sized subject – try to get that size outlined through your lens.

Having listed many of the potential pitfalls involved I feel obliged to offer some, or partial, answers to them. I am always loathe to offer specific and definitive enhancement tips, if only for the fact that I cannot cope with the deluge of email traffic pointing out the error of my ways every time that I attempt it. There is no single quick fix but there are many, many partial remedies that can be undertaken to suit both your own capabilities and those of your various software programmes.

So ---- whilst I would not wish to be seen as trying to teach my dear old grandmother to suck eggs, nor would I attempt to advise those many readers who are undoubtedly far more proficient than I at handling the vagaries of Photoshop and the like. I will, nevertheless, take the liberty of outlining what I do in various circumstances. For those of you to whom it is a help I would say that I am grateful for your existence, and for the many of you who can do it better, differently, quicker or more correctly I beg your indulgence and ask you not to read further. (Of course a secret inner part of me, which I would never dream of disclosing, wonders whether many of the more proficient enhancers have become so since the quality of their recorded images is such that they demand an infinite degree of enhancement expertise to make them acceptable? Or is it simply an innate conviction that you can improve upon nature, or whatever your chosen subject is, and a refusal to accept that the billions of pounds spent in development costs has still resulted in cameras that are not capable of accurately recording what is “shoved in front of them”?

I have known people who will spend days and days, or even weeks, working on an image. If the Bible is to be believed even God only took 6 days to get it right!)

I can accept that many digital “creations” can take an inordinate amount of time but in this article we are dealing only with producing presentable images of Waterfowl and so I would hope to put across what my own experience has taught me and how I obtain and process my images without seeking to inflict my ways upon you by suggesting that this is the one and only way to go about it.

Basically my gear for Waterfowl consists of a digital SLR and an 80/400 zoom lens with a flash unit that offers a “fill flash” option. This length of lens allows me to take the odd “wild” shot, distant “captive” shots and certainly helps me achieve frame filling images of closer subjects. If you do not have this length of lens then shorter zooms are OK – you just have to learn their capabilities and work within them. Even “point and shoot” and, sometimes, phone cameras can capture perfectly acceptable images, especially if taking them at somewhere like the WWT at Slimbridge, Arundel or Martin Mere where subject distance is not always a problem. However, to obtain prolific and consistently high quality images my personal recommendation is an SLR and appropriate lenses. Whilst accepting that not everyone can afford, or even cope with such gear, I would not wish to seem to belittle the results of the enormous variety of picture taking gadgets on the market. Photography is a very personal thing and if you are happy with the images that you are producing then there need be no further argument. It is only when you, yourself, cease to be content and decide to improve either your technique or your equipment that the problems begin.

Armed with, compared to some, my fairly cumbersome gear which, by its very nature, also needs a tripod for support, I try to set out on a day that is preferably not too sunny. Many of us cannot choose our days with such abandon and so will have to make the most of our allotted time despite the prevailing conditions. I set my camera to give me a flashing highlight/lowlight display and work entirely to that. I start off with camera settings that are a mixture of what I think that they should be and what the camera thinks, set on full matrix metering. I then work entirely from the display and adjust the settings until there is not even the slightest highlight flicker shown. Lowlight is nothing like the same problem and can almost be disregarded. If you work this way at least all parts of your image will contain some detail. As explained above I take care of potential movement of both myself and my subject with a tripod and a high shutter speed.

Water ripple reflections I leave till later. There is not much that you can really do about it at point of shoot and you’re often left with the choice of either taking the shot under adverse conditions or going home without one. Careful work with whatever “healing tool” your system offers can usually reduce this to an acceptable level and, indeed, some of it doesn’t look out of place anyway.

Water surface kaleidoscopes can be minimised to a degree with various of your enhancement tools and if you keep your subject image as large as possible in the frame you will be able to live with all but the most futuristic of the effects.

Noise anyway, but engendered by lowlight in particular, is a pain. All I do if I feel that it affects the image display, or would show up in a print, is as follows:- I section off the subject in its entirety and there are, of course, normally several ways in which you can do this depending on the limitations of your software. Having sectioned it I then apply the “inverse” command which puts my “line of ants” around the outside of the frame and limits any work done to the area between the selected image and the overall image boundaries. To this area I then apply up to the full “noise reduction” facility that my software permits. I then deselect and keep my finger well away from the “image sharpen” controls. Whilst this process does tend to soften the background this is normally incidental in most Waterfowl shots and the subject image itself is sharpened by default as all around it softens.

The normal lighting and colouring effects can then be applied before, during or after the above as you see fit.

Whilst all the above will not necessarily lead to National Geographic front pages, or maybe not even win at your local club competitions, it will, nevertheless, provide you with a portfolio of Waterfowl pictures most of which, apart from one or two of the more pedantic viewers, will satisfy most of the people most of the time.

Good Shooting!

Brian Pettit