Notes on the content of the site:
The images here are mostly of birds, animals, plants etc. and a few are landscapes, although the latter really only work well, I feel, as large very wide images, something not really suited to the vast majority of computer screens, and are utterly ridiculous on phones and the like, I've put a few in, but it is frustrating because I know they won't come across in the way I visualised them. Ho hum.

In terms of the rest the site it is obviously not intended to be an ID guide, or a catalogue of birds. The illustrations in such books and websites are invariably viciously cropped from arse to bill. To me, such pictures of birds always seem forlorn and trapped! Caged by the picture's edge and unable move, or even breathe. And the caging of a bird defiles everything it is: intelligence, movement, freedom and flight. Such pictures don't look in any way a part of nature. Now, this is not really a criticism, because this suits the publishers need, i.e. to get the most bird detail in the smallest space, fair enough I guess. But it always makes me feel uncomfortable, almost want to cry!

Neither are the pictures here a record of rarities 'wot I saw' (indeed most are common), this is why I have selected the humble Chaffinch to be the first species illustrated. In the same way this is not my 'personal list' of everything I've seen (oh, there was so much, you don't know, you weren't even there, man! *). * with due respect to Ron Kovic. 

So, most of the images are here because I think the pose, milieu or lighting somehow makes each a 'picture'. Those with birds, for example, are not intended as ' a picture of bird' or a 'bird picture', rather I want, hope, for them to stand perhaps as 'pictures with birds in', That goes for the others too, whatever the subject. I hold onto this difference, even if I am clearly unable to articulate what I mean! I really want to show:

       the 'beauty in nature'


Although given that I treat the common equally with the rarity perhaps I should have called the website 'prettiness in the prosaic'.

Whatever, as I believe the young say. There are some pictures here, have a look if you want. If you don't, then don't!

Please note for the odd words on bird names preceding each species I have drawn from Rev. Charles Swainson's excellent 'The folk lore and provincial names of Britsh Birds' of 1885, Thomas Bewick's 1826 edition of 'A history of British Birds' and the odd little bit from Mark Cocker's gorgeous 'Birds Britannica' of 2005. All are excellent and recommended, although the latter is of course the more colourful!

Oh, I suppose I may as well add for completeness, all images are taken in nature of wild birds etc and 'developed' by myself. I do not use remote automated cameras, contrived 'artificial' backgrounds or faked situations. I will wrap up in camo sometimes and lay in a ditch or something, but that's it. I strive not to do anything to harm, disturb or alarm any bird, if I can't get a picture by fair means, then so be it. I'll try another day.

A note on the images:
Most images here have mostly had to be adapted in some way from their original form to make them suitable for display on a website. Firstly, I always compose pictures to suit the subject, not to fit a particular aspect ratio. This obviously works fine where a print can be made to any format you want (think guillotine!) long and thin, fat and wide etc. Electronic screens come in a few fixed apsect ratios and this compromises the original desires. As said above is most destructive with landscapes, but all the rest suffer to some extent.

Secondly, all the final 'full-size' images have been reduced in size (to 2500px wide) as well as jpeg compressed. This really does degrade most of them but is necessary to limit server-side space to reduce my costs, 'tis as simple as that. I wish there was another way.

A note on the website itself:

Yeah, but why is this site here?:
Well I really have no idea on that one, sorry !

I do enjoy making picture of things I find uplifting, or beautiful I suppose, that's a start. Perhaps others might find something similar in some of them. What are the odds?

Of course, I am sure it's deeper than that, I have always felt a part of nature, more so than 'society' to be sure. From a life in conservation and ecological science to a chance now retired to combine this with an interest and training in photography from a (much) earlier life, although things have changed somewhat since the days of film and knocking over trays of chemicals in a dark room.

So, I take pictures of things I am lucky enough to see (while carrying a ton and a half of camera and lens) and wonder if they're worth sharing. Only you can tell that.

Of course, it is also true that I do spend ages taking pictures and editing them (we will come on to this in a methods section much later). I look at some of my images and go 'aaaaarh' (99.999% of course evoke urrgh). And that's it, I see them, now you can too, and may your cup runneth over with joy!

And so, have we found out why? No. I still clearly have no idea, but I suppose it does provide some sort of an excuse to carry on doing what I do. Look it's this or knitting, and I aint got the patience for that. Besides I'd put an eye out.

Given that I have often been asked questions about techniques, equipment etc. I have at times pondered something along the lines of some guidance (what arrogance) and maybe 'how to do this or that' (pretentiousness too now, get over yourself). My only excuse here is much of my life was spent lecturing, perhaps I can't shut up now. However, until the contact link burns hot with demands and questions, I shall sadly have to remain humble.


A note on the author:
I mean there's not much to say is there, and more to the point, who really gives a ..........? Look here's a picture: owing to legal advice it has been deliberately blurred to limit public outrage.



That's all, more than, anybody really needs to be exposed to. The background. of course. is part of the beautiful archipelago of Shetland. Do go there sometime.

If you still want to know more you probably should seek some sort of professional help. If the drugs they give you don't work, then I guess you could use the contact page link at the bottom of the page. Happy to answer any real questions.

As a side-note that camera (Canon 350D) and tripod head (Manfrotto Grip ball-head) were pretty terrible. Or I was naively expecting too much from them. The lens (Canon EF 100-400 f4-5.6 usm) and tripod (Manfrotto MT055 carbon-fibre) were very good tho'.