I had a comment recently over on my other blog. It was a comment that was very complimentary about some photos I had taken, and it annoyed me a great deal. Here's why. Following on from the high praise was this - you must have a very expensive prime lens. Ah, you see, that's not the right thing to say, at least not to me. They went on to say that their attempts with a different, less-expensive but still pro lens, hadn't delivered results that were as good. I went and checked, and they were spot on. So what is being said here exactly? That the reason my photos are sometimes good is because I have an expensive lens? That therefore if all people had expensive lenses that their photos would all be good? What a load of rubbish! I see heaps of people in the field with large expensive lenses, all the gear. When I get home I sometimes look some of them up. By far the majority, and this is no exaggeration, have with all that gear taken a pile of complete garbage fit only for the trash. It ain't the lens, and it ain't the camera. Dear commenter, do you know what it is? Don't get me wrong, the lens helps, a camera with a great autofocus system helps, using support helps, but without a competent photographer at the other end of it who knows how to use it, none of it is worth a thing. And that is what people sometimes fail to grasp, and that without fail annoys me. Would you compliment a chef on a lovely tasty meal, and then tell him he must have a great cooker? No. Would you remark that an artist must have wonderful brushes? No. I'm not claiming to be a top-notch bird photographer, but I am claiming that I'm competent. And that's the important part. I'd be willing to bet money that if I swapped gear with any person who said the reason I got better results was because I had a better lens than they did, that with very few exceptions, perhaps none, I'd still take the better photo. That's because I have practised for hours, I have abused shutters like you would not believe. I understand exposure theory, I know what a histogram is, and I know my camera like the back of my hand. My camera has 45 focus points, I use one. It has several exposure modes. I use none. I know what angles can deliver the most pleasing images, I get low, I use a monopod for support with speed and flexibility, I spend hours with a single subject. I get wet, I get cold, I get uncomfortable and I walk miles. And sometimes I come home with NOTHING. If I do get something worth keeping, I work on it on the computer for ages. Hours in Breezebrowser, hours in Photoshop. Tweaking, cropping, cloning, learning. Learning all the time.  These are the reasons why the images look good, not because I also happen to flog my guts out in the City and can therefore afford top quality kit. So to anyone that thinks the reason their images don't stack up is because they don't have the gear, whatever you do don't go out and buy it all, as that's not the problem. Rant over.

Whilst twitching the Lesser Grey Shrike in Suffolk at the weekend, team East London was made aware of a nice and showy Arctic Skua on the beach at nearby Sizewell. With the Shrike not giving itself up for any type of meaningful photo, I was pleased to at least have something else to point the camera at. The bird, unfortunately, was not well. Some clear oiling to the plumage, especially on the left wing. Nothing too serious, and it was flying around pretty nippily doing all the usual Skua stuff, but it was clearly not comfortable, spending a lot of time preeing and bathing, and this no doubt explains why it has spent a whole week on the beach. I've never photographed this species before, and assumed it was silly tame - more fool me. It was anything but tame, extremely wary indeed of advancing humans, and a very careful and low approach was needed if you wanted to get really close. The bird was fine to about 20 metres, but I wanted a lot closer than that, and eventually closed to perhaps six or seven. It watched me the whole way in, and the eventual successful tactic was to shuffle in a bit more every time it returned to preening. Ideally I would not have had the bird against either the featureless sky or north sea, but it seemed to like perching on a shingle ridge which made anything else virtually impossible given the low approach and the need/desire to be at the same level as the bird. Had I approached from the seaward side, which was also into the light, I could have had a shingle background whilst standing up - I opted for the white/grey-out instead! All photos taken with the 800mm, either handheld or on a monopod at its shortest setting. For a few of the images I created a little shingle mound on which to balance the camera, so this may have helped get that bit sharper. Dull light unfortunately, but I was still pleased to be so close to this species. I wasn't able to read the ring, but hope it recovers and gets to wherever it is going.