Wildlife Illustration

The place to talk about fieldtechnics, the stuff you use in the field and everything else

Re: Wildlife Illustration

Postby Jeroen Speybroeck » Tue Feb 17, 2015 1:25 pm

A 'good' (field guide) drawing has artistic interpretation at a lower priority level than optimally showing what characterises a species/taxon/... No picture can ever attain that. In training, a biologist learns that drawing is a way to distill the diagnostic essentials of an animal, freed of the imperfections of photography. In addition, please note that there are tons of badly drawn field guides out there :twisted:
Jeroen Speybroeck
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3161
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 10:18 am
Hometown: Merelbeke
country: Belgium

Re: Wildlife Illustration

Postby Kriss Kaspersen » Tue Feb 17, 2015 3:00 pm

Jeroen Speybroeck wrote::?: The toad is by a different person than the other drawings.

Maybe it makes for an interesting debate, but as a biologist I obviously do not agree that photos are better than (good) drawings :!:


I agree to disagree with you on that matter, because it´s sometimes important to identify the species right away, in stead of later on based on a dead holotype. As for venomous snakes and especially those who have related mimicking species like south and central american species like coral snakes and southeast asian kraits. I find good detailed photos with right coloration and pattern based on location much more important than a illustration no matter how good it is! This is a matter wildlife illustrators should have in mind when drawing venomous snakes and their mimicking species.

But as Jeroen here already has mentioned there is tons of field guides to different animal groups, with bad illustrations :)

As I see it, a good field guide should containe both good photos and detailed Illustrations combined with heaps of information on all the species :)

Sorry about the the understanding about the toad. But a good drawing done by a talented person anyways :)
Kriss Kaspersen
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 3:22 pm
Hometown: Oslo S
country: Norway

Re: Wildlife Illustration

Postby Jeroen Speybroeck » Tue Feb 17, 2015 4:49 pm

Kriss Kaspersen wrote:it´s sometimes important to identify the species right away

Sure (although "importance" is a sentiment, not of scientific fact or necessity).

Kriss Kaspersen wrote:based on a dead holotype

How is this relevant here in a discussion of drawings versus photos? For sure, no one is advocating drawings based on holo- or any type material only. More specifically, holotype features often have proven to be misleading, as the describer may consider certain features to be diagnostic based on misconception (e.g. limited sampling) of what truly is diagnostic.

Kriss Kaspersen wrote:for venomous snakes and especially those who have related mimicking species like south and central american species like coral snakes and southeast asian kraits. I find good detailed photos with right coloration and pattern based on location much more important than a illustration no matter how good it is!

Pattern is easily adopted in a drawing. Colouration is a notoriously poor guide in species identification of any kind. Furthermore, how can a single picture suffice to summarise intraspecific variability? Not saying that a drawing will (always) do that, but a good drawing should offer some sort of average/mean/median which can be chosen, while pictures are flawed by light conditions and settings. Also, it is so easy for a photo to miss out on correctly showing all(!) diagnostic features.

Kriss Kaspersen wrote:This is a matter wildlife illustrators should have in mind when drawing venomous snakes and their mimicking species.

What is? The fact that you think that detailed photos are better than illustrations :?:

Kriss Kaspersen wrote:As I see it, a good field guide should containe both good photos and detailed Illustrations combined with heaps of information on all the species :)

Imho, a book that contains heaps of information on all the species, is usually a lousy field guide, because stuffing a book with facts quickly renders it impractical to drag along in the field etc.

In an additional, more circumstantial point, I think there's a reason all quintessential European bird guide books of ... forever have been based on drawings.
Jeroen Speybroeck
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3161
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 10:18 am
Hometown: Merelbeke
country: Belgium

Re: Wildlife Illustration

Postby Carl Corbidge » Tue Feb 17, 2015 9:20 pm

I have always preferred a field guide with good illustrations rather than photos, but like Jeroen says there are loads of guides with crap illustrations, normally for me it's the proportions they get wrong. However when they do get it right as in the Collins Bird Guide I don't think using photos could ever achieve the same level of accuracy in a book small enough to be used in the field. Keep up the good work Ilian.
Carl Corbidge
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 8:44 pm
Hometown: Sheffield
country: England

Re: Wildlife Illustration

Postby Ilian Velikov » Tue Feb 17, 2015 10:46 pm

No need to say that I much more prefer illustrations to photos but even if I was not an artist I'd still go for illustrations. I'm not going to explain why because I'll have to repeat what Jeroen already said. I don't think there's need to say that the illustrations need to be good because the same goes for photos, doesn't it? There are also a lot of guides with crap photos out there.

I'd like to see a mammal photographic guide better than one with drawings...not to mention insects or plants :lol:

Of course there's no harm in having some photos too but the main thing has to be illustrations for me.

Jeroen Speybroeck wrote:In an additional, more circumstantial point, I think there's a reason all quintessential European bird guide books of ... forever have been based on drawings.


Well said.

Carl Corbidge wrote:Keep up the good work Ilian.

Thank you Carl, I will ;)
Ilian Velikov
 
Posts: 1216
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 12:19 pm
Hometown: Pravets
country: Bulgaria

Re: Wildlife Illustration

Postby Jeroen Speybroeck » Wed Feb 18, 2015 8:02 am

It is an interesting debate, all the same. I've had this discussion quite a few times before. Hoping not to sound too elitist, I have always had the impression that "wildlife professionals" are rather in the drawing camp. Drawing allows you to get rid of the imperfections of pictures and to get rid of the often confusing or distracting background.

Elaborating Kriss' example, for more exotic areas, the material to produce a comprehensive guide of either kind is often lacking. For example, Peninsular Malaysia has over 160 species of snakes alone, all with their own array of incompletely documented intraspecific variability. An amphibian guide is totally out of the question. Taxonomy of all herps is far from settled. In such cases, perhaps I might also rather have a picture guide because any illustrations guide book would only be based on a limited number of specimens/pictures. However, if pictures are scarce and intraspecific variability high, chances are that the result will be disappointing.

Let's also not forget that most people are lazy - they watch imagery and don't read text. In that perspective, drawing an animal allows you to bring forward diagnostic features (within the extent of a lifelike representation of the animal, of course).

Besides my attempt to defend my viewpoint with semi-hard argumentation, there is of course also the matter of taste.
Jeroen Speybroeck
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3161
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 10:18 am
Hometown: Merelbeke
country: Belgium

Re: Wildlife Illustration

Postby Kriss Kaspersen » Sun Feb 22, 2015 7:47 pm

Jeroen Speybroeck wrote:Kriss Kaspersen wrote:
it´s sometimes important to identify the species right away

Sure (although "importance" is a sentiment, not of scientific fact or necessity).

I see I have to clarify what I meant regarding illustrations and photos. When I read my last post I can see why you questioned some of the points I was trying to make. Sorry for the bad grammar, it´s not always easy to have a point and trying to explain it on another language. I will give it another try. Why I said important, was because i was thinking of a bite scenario where the id of a venomous elapid or a mimicking colubrid was in question. In a situation like that, a fast and a correct id could be the question of life and death, ref: the late Joe Slowinsky.

Regarding the holotype I meant that field biologist often collect the animal for further identification. And under these circumstances you get more time in controlled conditions and good lighting, to make a correct identification. Event though I know biologists spend more time in the field than in a lab, i was just making an example.

And when I wrote "thats a matter illustrators should have in mind", i was referring to the fact that a venomous snake who has know mimics which sometimes is hard to tell apart even for experts. It´s highly important that these snakes is described as correct and down to detail as possible. I seem to have hangup on illustrations on elapids and mimic colubrids ;)

I speak for myself, and my own use and experience with reptile field guides. So don't take my opinion in any other way. I like illustrations, but I like to see both good illustrations and detailed photos in a field guide.
Kriss Kaspersen
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 3:22 pm
Hometown: Oslo S
country: Norway

Previous

Return to FIELDHERPERS CAFE´

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests