Re: Photographing Wild Life (was Technical Evaluation)
Never seen a fox in the wild myself, cool! I did see a pair of wolves about 15 years ago in East Texas, but didn't have a camera on me (too young then...). I think this goes back a few threads to when someone mentioned to me that photographers were sometimes experts in the fields they photographed. In particular, lightning. The same goes with wildlife, it helps a great deal to know the biology of the animal(s) you seek to photograph. I'm no biologist myself (computer programmer, actually) but I have wandered the woods and swamps of Texas a bit. I've noticed a big difference between the manner in which my wife and I go through the woods (my wifes from Toronto). She is a good 50 lbs. lighter than I and shorter but has a much stronger presence when going down the trails. I tend to take lighter, quiter steps and take my time going down the trail despite our size difference. When I am alone I sometimes approach deer within distances of less than 30 feet. The area has much to do with it too. In wild/hunted areas the wildlife will be much harder to approach, less find. Preserves are much more forgiving. Tracking and spotting wildlife is an art in itself aside from photography which requires much study and practice I think. But it is all fun for me too either way, I enjoy the journey, walking through the forests and other scenic areas. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Eactivist said: I've noticed with foxes, though, that sometimes you can jump up and down and wave your arms, and they'll just watch you. But if you try to talk to them, they'll run. I figured talking would reassure them because predators try to sneak up on their prey, but I was wrong. Interesting. Very few foxes around here. There may be more than you realize. I'd lived more than 20 years in my home town in Minnesota and seen foxes there twice, but I'd assumed they were just passing through. One winter when I went back on vacation, and I was a little more interested in that, there was an inch of snow on the ground, which let me go everywhere and see every track, pounce, and butt print. And the foxes were everywhere, along railroad tracks, on the community college grounds, the YMCA grounds, a cemetary, behind a strip mall, behind a library, basically every place that I thought to look. They must have literally been coming into my back yard every night, and I didn't have a clue. But that's the way they are. Where I am now, I count myself lucky if I see them once in ten trips to the woods, but I find their signs everywhere-- tracks, scat on the sidewalks, scent marks on light poles, etc. Quite possible. I have seen about two foxes traveling through since I've been here. One of the things on my to-do list is get a little more familiar with various animals and find out information like that -- what the signs are, what the scat looks like, etc. There is a wild life museum here, but they seem more into animal rescue. When I visited I found very little actual information on animals. Maybe a good book would be better. Or what Lon suggested, hunting magazines. One thing I figure, where there are deer there are mountain lions (or whatever the local equivalent is called). But I couldn't recognize the signs if you paid me. (Not that I actually want to see one, I think. And it is very unlikely I would see one, they avoid people and usually are night hunters.) Sometimes, yes, I can jump around and wave and the deer won't move, usually when they are laying down pooped. Other times if I move, they move. Depends I think how much the see the territory as their territory and not just a passing through territory. But I am not sure about that. I may say under my breath about a spotted fawn, Aren't you cute, but it never occurred to me to talk to them. Hehehehe. Marnie aka Doe Okay, I can nix that one before even trying it. ;-) Good luck with your future shots and good luck to me too. Deer are weird. But if they don't just run when they see me, they don't seem to mind me talking to them. Well, I sort of said it backward before. What I have noticed is, if deer consider it their territory they are much more likely to run. If it is passing through territory, they are less likely to. They wander the asphalt parking lots, sidewalks, and lawns here, and are approachable around those people areas. But if you actually go into the hills where they retreat to late day and at night, in those areas they will run. Laying down, they hardly ever run. I suppose it is a lot of trouble to get up (that is one way deer are slow, getting up), and if you present no threat they don't bother. Eating is also another time they are unlikely to run, unless they feel you are challenging them for the food or something. But I've noticed most animals don't run when eating. Eating is more important than feeling possibly threatened. And if you want deer to freeze for a shot, then
Re: Technical Evaluation
Her Chong asked: just what is the maximum focal length of your zoom? Herb... 80-200mm zoom, 2x TC. - Original Message - From: Gregory L. Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 16:21 Subject: Technical Evaluation I'm sure a lot of it is just me. But I do use an old zoom with a cheap, teleconverter, and I've never had really good optics to play with.
Re: Technical Evaluation
Eactivist said: I've noticed with foxes, though, that sometimes you can jump up and down and wave your arms, and they'll just watch you. But if you try to talk to them, they'll run. I figured talking would reassure them because predators try to sneak up on their prey, but I was wrong. Interesting. Very few foxes around here. There may be more than you realize. I'd lived more than 20 years in my home town in Minnesota and seen foxes there twice, but I'd assumed they were just passing through. One winter when I went back on vacation, and I was a little more interested in that, there was an inch of snow on the ground, which let me go everywhere and see every track, pounce, and butt print. And the foxes were everywhere, along railroad tracks, on the community college grounds, the YMCA grounds, a cemetary, behind a strip mall, behind a library, basically every place that I thought to look. They must have literally been coming into my back yard every night, and I didn't have a clue. But that's the way they are. Where I am now, I count myself lucky if I see them once in ten trips to the woods, but I find their signs everywhere-- tracks, scat on the sidewalks, scent marks on light poles, etc. Sometimes, yes, I can jump around and wave and the deer won't move, usually when they are laying down pooped. Other times if I move, they move. Depends I think how much the see the territory as their territory and not just a passing through territory. But I am not sure about that. I may say under my breath about a spotted fawn, Aren't you cute, but it never occurred to me to talk to them. Hehehehe. Marnie aka Doe Okay, I can nix that one before even trying it. ;-) Good luck with your future shots and good luck to me too. Deer are weird. But if they don't just run when they see me, they don't seem to mind me talking to them.
Re: Technical Evaluation
Lon Williamson said: Greg, I've notice grain gets butt-ugly on any speed of color neg film if that film is underexposed. I have also noticed that using a 2x TC on a consumer zoom (in my case, a Sigma APO 70-300) gives horrible sharpness no matter what tripod tricks I use (take your pick: any combination of MLU/Timer/CableRelease/HandOnLens/Face AgainstCamera). Since I don't have a lot of experience, until now I've been working on the assumption that I'm a bigger limitation than my equipment is. In a sense it's reassuring to think that I don't need to spend more money than I have. But even when I thought I'd done everything right, I don't seem to get the sharpness I want. I own two 500mm mirror lenses, both of which give better results than the Sigma @ 300mm with TC. The trick with mirror lenses is: don't use them with slide film. The contrast and saturation loss can be depressing. Use neg film and darkroom contrast control or Photoshop to put the snap back in. You might want to try an old mirror lens. The Spiratone ones labled Plura-Coat can be had for under $100 (same cost as a cheap new 2x TC) and deliver acceptable 8x10s, as far as I am concerned. I have a Kalimar 500mm reflex, and all that telephoto was exciting at first, especially with a TC. But all the photos I take with it seem to be grayish and low contrast. Longer shutter speed helps, with all the side effects of a long shutter speed on 500mm or 1000mm of telephoto. I wanted to try pushing film to see if that improves contrast, but none of the shops near me can do that. It's summer now, and our extended rain seems to have passed along. I should take it out again in the sunshine and try some birds.
Photographing Wild Life (was Technical Evaluation)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Eactivist said: I've noticed with foxes, though, that sometimes you can jump up and down and wave your arms, and they'll just watch you. But if you try to talk to them, they'll run. I figured talking would reassure them because predators try to sneak up on their prey, but I was wrong. Interesting. Very few foxes around here. There may be more than you realize. I'd lived more than 20 years in my home town in Minnesota and seen foxes there twice, but I'd assumed they were just passing through. One winter when I went back on vacation, and I was a little more interested in that, there was an inch of snow on the ground, which let me go everywhere and see every track, pounce, and butt print. And the foxes were everywhere, along railroad tracks, on the community college grounds, the YMCA grounds, a cemetary, behind a strip mall, behind a library, basically every place that I thought to look. They must have literally been coming into my back yard every night, and I didn't have a clue. But that's the way they are. Where I am now, I count myself lucky if I see them once in ten trips to the woods, but I find their signs everywhere-- tracks, scat on the sidewalks, scent marks on light poles, etc. Quite possible. I have seen about two foxes traveling through since I've been here. One of the things on my to-do list is get a little more familiar with various animals and find out information like that -- what the signs are, what the scat looks like, etc. There is a wild life museum here, but they seem more into animal rescue. When I visited I found very little actual information on animals. Maybe a good book would be better. Or what Lon suggested, hunting magazines. One thing I figure, where there are deer there are mountain lions (or whatever the local equivalent is called). But I couldn't recognize the signs if you paid me. (Not that I actually want to see one, I think. And it is very unlikely I would see one, they avoid people and usually are night hunters.) Sometimes, yes, I can jump around and wave and the deer won't move, usually when they are laying down pooped. Other times if I move, they move. Depends I think how much the see the territory as their territory and not just a passing through territory. But I am not sure about that. I may say under my breath about a spotted fawn, Aren't you cute, but it never occurred to me to talk to them. Hehehehe. Marnie aka Doe Okay, I can nix that one before even trying it. ;-) Good luck with your future shots and good luck to me too. Deer are weird. But if they don't just run when they see me, they don't seem to mind me talking to them. Well, I sort of said it backward before. What I have noticed is, if deer consider it their territory they are much more likely to run. If it is passing through territory, they are less likely to. They wander the asphalt parking lots, sidewalks, and lawns here, and are approachable around those people areas. But if you actually go into the hills where they retreat to late day and at night, in those areas they will run. Laying down, they hardly ever run. I suppose it is a lot of trouble to get up (that is one way deer are slow, getting up), and if you present no threat they don't bother. Eating is also another time they are unlikely to run, unless they feel you are challenging them for the food or something. But I've noticed most animals don't run when eating. Eating is more important than feeling possibly threatened. And if you want deer to freeze for a shot, then do stare at them (in the eye), and do present a full body image (face them directly). This, in fact, seems to work on a lot of animals. Freezes them for a shot. However, as far as I know, it is aggressive behavior. (They are probably waiting to see if you will attack.) But if you want them to behave more naturally and not be staring into the picture like a bad old-fashioned people pose, then present a sideways body image (as Lon said -- I actually hadn't consciously realized that, but I do tend to turn sideways), and don't stare them in the eye. Also being aggressive is not that great an idea unless one is pretty sure nothing will result. Since they run around here in people areas a lot, I figure it's usually pretty safe to take the aggressive stance because they are very used to people and people staring at them. However, one must be careful approaching a doe with a fawn or two in tow. And I am always fairly careful with bucks. Deer attacking people isn't very common, but it has been known to happen (as far as I know doe defending fawns). Squirrels can freeze in the same way -- if you stare at them. Though actually I find squirrels the hardest to shoot. I haven't really gotten a good picture of one yet. Anyone who know more, feel free to jump in. Marnie aka Doe :-)
Re: Technical Evaluation
At 03:21 PM 7/6/2003 -0500, you wrote: I'd like some pointers on evaluating technical aspects of my photos. I take a lot of pictures of animals, and some of them I ask the shop to do a crop equivalent to about an 8x10 to get some faux telephoto and remove background I didn't really want. They always look so much bigger in the viewfinder than they do in the prints. I'm not sure I've done anything that's worthy of real enlargement. But even if it looks okay in the 4x6, the crop always looks kind of blurry and grainy. So I'm wondering how to determine which effects are due to the film, the cheap optics that I use, possibly something not quite in focus at the developer, and how much is just me. You have several things working against you - the zoom combined with the teleconverter, the high speed film, etc. I'd suggest setting up your rig and taking some test photos. Pick a subject that has a lot of detail, shoot in good light (i.e. bright but not direct sunlight) and test your lens at various apertures. You should to this on the steadiest tripod you can get, using a cable release, etc. Use a stationary subject with lots of intricate detail. Weathered wood, with lots of grain and surface texture works well. Make sure that the subject is relatively flat parallel to the film in your camera so you do not have things falling out of the depth of field. Ideally, you should do this with ISO 100 slide film so you can check the accuracy of your exposures as well as the sharpness. But, if you don't have a way to make enlargements of that, use a fine grained ISO 100 print film, like Reala or Supra. After you shoot the roll, pick the best photo, have it blown up to the size you want. Is it still unsharp? If so, you know that your basic setup is not giving you the sharpness you want. Repeat the test without the teleconverter. If the results are then OK, think about either buying a longer lens or getting closer to the animals. For good hints on how to get close, go to a library or used book store and look for old (1930 - 1950) books on wildlife photography and cinematography. A lot of those folks were working with 200mm lenses, and so they got clever about getting close to their subjects. If your first test looks good, you know that holding the camera stiller, and using a finer grained film, will get you the results you want. So, start working on those things. Look at using beanbags or some other way to support / weigh down your camera. Work on your timing to try to get the subject in that split second when they freeze so you can use slower film. If you do this test with print film, at some point, you should also do a test with slide film to make sure your exposure is correct. If your exposure is off, you may get a useable print from color negative film, but the grain may be way out of wack. Good luck! - MCC - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Kalamazoo, MI [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - - - - - - Photos: http://www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - -
Re: Technical Evaluation
I'd like some pointers on evaluating technical aspects of my photos. I take a lot of pictures of animals, and some of them I ask the shop to do a crop equivalent to about an 8x10 to get some faux telephoto and remove background I didn't really want. They always look so much bigger in the viewfinder than they do in the prints. I'm not sure I've done anything that's worthy of real enlargement. But even if it looks okay in the 4x6, the crop always looks kind of blurry and grainy. So I'm wondering how to determine which effects are due to the film, the cheap optics that I use, possibly something not quite in focus at the developer, and how much is just me. I'm sure a lot of it is just me. But I do use an old zoom with a cheap, teleconverter, and I've never had really good optics to play with. I'd been planning a new lens for a while until the real world slapped me silly, and now that's going to have to wait. I'm often sure if my focus was off or if the camera was shaking. I often take photos in bad lighting but I have some recent ones in good sun, I think the exposure was good. Is grain caused by anything besides the film and poor exposure? It seems most obvious in out of focus areas. I try to use a tripod when I can, it's a cheap one but I usually keep it as short as it gets, it seems pretty stable that way. With a remote release when I can, but sometimes mobile subjects make that impractical. Or I use it as a monopod. I tend to use faster film, 400 or 800, because of lighting and telephoto work. The last was Kodak High Definition, I don't know how high definition it really is. How large should I expect the prints to get before grain becomes obvious from a few inches away? Okay, some people have already made recommendations about film. I have tried both Provia 100 and 400 -- slide film. The 400 looks a lot like the 100, actually. And, for deer and other things that tend to freeze when they see one, I think a ISO of 100 is enough. For birds and squirrels and other faster moving things, 400 at least. I've done the same thing, tried wild life photography with a cheap zoom. Results are not that good. Though as far as grain goes, you should be able to get 8x10's with minimal grain. Maybe you need to dump your cheap zoom and get a better cheap zoom. The animals around here, again, are often in shade. Just the local conditions. I stop down (up?) if needed. Go one stop bigger (say from 4 to 5.6 ) if the animal is in shade (stop down from what the meter says) and let the highlights burn out and crop later. Tripod is not always helpful if the animals are moving around a lot. And most TCs fail in deep shade and with the aperture stopped down (up?). Most of my stuff is still cr_p, but I find I am improving a tad. So I figure, just practice. Take lots and lots of shots and hope one is a keeper. Taking pictures of wild life may be one of the hardest areas of photography. Not that landscapes aren't hard, they have their own trickiness. It's just that animals don't really cooperate. ;-) And I have figured, for myself, somehow someday, I have to get some good big glass. I see no way around it for achieving decent shots. HTH, but probably not. Also, it is nice if there are animals you can sort of revisit, where they can get used to you coming around at the same times of day and things. Makes them less spooked on the whole. Also no sudden moves, don't look them in the eye, and turn off the beep on your camera if it has one, but I am sure you know all that. Marnie aka Doe :-) I have concluded, IMHO, anyone attempting to do it without top notch equipment is basically nuts. OTOH, no one ever said I was completely sane.
Re: Technical Evaluation
Using the high speed film is probably your first mistake. If you are blowing this stuff up to 8X10 you are going to begin seeing grain with 400 and certainly with 800. Taking pictures of animals is certainly made more difficult with a slower film asa 50-or 100. But that's what making wildlife photos is all about and why many serious nature photographers use fast lenses. That's not to say you can't do it with slower, cheaper zooms. You just have to be very careful. Use a 100-speed film. Take off the doubler and work harder on getting physically closer to your subject either by finding subjects that are less skittish (in parks, or other areas where they are in close contact with people), or using some type of blind (your car can work nicely.) No one said it is easy getting good wildlife shots. It's possible with the equipment you own just a little harder Vic
Re: Technical Evaluation
Hi, it sounds to me as though you're making life difficult to start with because most of the variables can be a factor in the problems you're having. You need to eliminate as many as possible, get your technique right at the simple level first, then add variables one at a time, getting your technique right with each one before you move on to the next. Here are some recommendations which might help. First, use slide film. Use prints later when you've eliminated other problems. This gets rid of most of the problems you might be having with the lab, and means you can easily see the first generation image - you will need to have access to a good projector or a good light box and lupe. Do some comparisons of the same subject shot at the same time on slide and print film. This will give you an idea of whether it's the lab or something else that's a problem. Next, shoot with a prime lens. This is likely to be of higher optical quality than the zoom + TC. If you shoot with slides and a prime and still have problems it's likely to be your camera or something else in your technique. Use a tripod to shoot some static subjects in reasonably bright light so you can stop down and use a fairly fast shutter speed. Stopping down helps to eliminate any problems with focus; the tripod and fast shutter are to get rid of vibration problems. If you still have problems sometihng may be wrong with the camera or lens. Try again with others in combination. If you still have problems, it's you. When you're happy that your technique there is right you can try the zoom without a TC, again in bright conditions with a static subject. This should give you an idea of degradation caused by the zoom. Then add the TC to see what difference that makes. Remember to shoot at a faster shutter speed to compensate for the extra focal length. Also, use a cable release when the camera is on the tripod - maybe you shake it a bit when you press the shutter, if you don't already use one. When / if you're happy with the zoom and TC technique, try some moving subjects in bright light, then eventually go back into low light. When you eventually go back to print film buy the highest quality you can afford and try and find a good lab. Bad labs can really mess up your photos, but a good one can make them sing. The other thing, whatever stage you're at, is to try always to be aware of the frame. Look around it, and try to fill it with your subject, then you won't have to rescue it with crops and enlargements, and always check the background. While you're practising your technique write a checklist of stuff to do, and try to make sure you're doing it. Becoming aware of the importance of the frame is one of the most important steps towards making good photographs, in my opinion. Hope this is some help. Bob Sunday, July 6, 2003, 9:21:10 PM, you wrote: I'd like some pointers on evaluating technical aspects of my photos. I take a lot of pictures of animals, and some of them I ask the shop to do a crop equivalent to about an 8x10 to get some faux telephoto and remove background I didn't really want. They always look so much bigger in the viewfinder than they do in the prints. I'm not sure I've done anything that's worthy of real enlargement. But even if it looks okay in the 4x6, the crop always looks kind of blurry and grainy. So I'm wondering how to determine which effects are due to the film, the cheap optics that I use, possibly something not quite in focus at the developer, and how much is just me. I'm sure a lot of it is just me. But I do use an old zoom with a cheap, teleconverter, and I've never had really good optics to play with. I'd been planning a new lens for a while until the real world slapped me silly, and now that's going to have to wait. I'm often sure if my focus was off or if the camera was shaking. I often take photos in bad lighting but I have some recent ones in good sun, I think the exposure was good. Is grain caused by anything besides the film and poor exposure? It seems most obvious in out of focus areas. I try to use a tripod when I can, it's a cheap one but I usually keep it as short as it gets, it seems pretty stable that way. With a remote release when I can, but sometimes mobile subjects make that impractical. Or I use it as a monopod. I tend to use faster film, 400 or 800, because of lighting and telephoto work. The last was Kodak High Definition, I don't know how high definition it really is. How large should I expect the prints to get before grain becomes obvious from a few inches away? -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Technical Evaluation
Eactivist said: I'd like some pointers on evaluating technical aspects of my photos. I take a lot of pictures of animals, and some of them I ask the shop to do a ... I've done the same thing, tried wild life photography with a cheap zoom. Results are not that good. Though as far as grain goes, you should be able to get 8x10's with minimal grain. Maybe you need to dump your cheap zoom and get a better cheap zoom. The animals around here, again, are often in shade. Just the local conditions. I stop down (up?) if needed. Go one stop bigger (say from 4 to 5.6 ) if the animal is in shade (stop down from what the meter says) and let the highlights burn out and crop later. Tripod is not always helpful if the animals are moving around a lot. And most TCs fail in deep shade and with the aperture stopped down (up?). I have a cheap reflex lens, but the cheap zoom plus cheap TC seem to give brighter, more contrasty pictures. Which says something about the quality of that cheap reflex! Most of my stuff is still cr_p, but I find I am improving a tad. So I figure, just practice. Take lots and lots of shots and hope one is a keeper. Taking pictures of wild life may be one of the hardest areas of photography. Not that landscapes aren't hard, they have their own trickiness. It's just that animals don't really cooperate. ;-) I like to play with the animals, and photography is one way to do it. For me, it's more the case that photography is something to do in the woods, rather than animals being something to do with a camera. But I have noticed that they usually don't take directions very well. And I have figured, for myself, somehow someday, I have to get some good big glass. I see no way around it for achieving decent shots. I've feared the same thing. But I know in some ways I'm self-limited rather than equipment limited. I took a photo of a young fox that was looking over its shoulder at me, and it's incredibly cute. Composition-wise it's the best fox photo I've taken, except that the weeds in the foreground are in good focus and the fox is blurred. I might never get that pose again in my life. Oh, well. Even out of focus, it's still darn cute. HTH, but probably not. Also, it is nice if there are animals you can sort of revisit, where they can get used to you coming around at the same times of day and things. Makes them less spooked on the whole. Also no sudden moves, don't look them in the eye, and turn off the beep on your camera if it has one, but I am sure you know all that. I'm starting to work on the young foxes. They don't seem especially alarmed if I keep some distance, but it's completely up to them where they want to be at a particular time. When we met, they actually ran up and sat down to watch me, but they didn't stay long. For a too-short while we had this little game where they'd meet me at one end of a brush pile, run away, and meet me again at the other end. I've noticed with foxes, though, that sometimes you can jump up and down and wave your arms, and they'll just watch you. But if you try to talk to them, they'll run. I figured talking would reassure them because predators try to sneak up on their prey, but I was wrong.
Re: Technical Evaluation
just what is the maximum focal length of your zoom? Herb... - Original Message - From: Gregory L. Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 16:21 Subject: Technical Evaluation I'm sure a lot of it is just me. But I do use an old zoom with a cheap, teleconverter, and I've never had really good optics to play with.
Re: Technical Evaluation
I've noticed with foxes, though, that sometimes you can jump up and down and wave your arms, and they'll just watch you. But if you try to talk to them, they'll run. I figured talking would reassure them because predators try to sneak up on their prey, but I was wrong. Interesting. Very few foxes around here. Sometimes, yes, I can jump around and wave and the deer won't move, usually when they are laying down pooped. Other times if I move, they move. Depends I think how much the see the territory as their territory and not just a passing through territory. But I am not sure about that. I may say under my breath about a spotted fawn, Aren't you cute, but it never occurred to me to talk to them. Hehehehe. Marnie aka Doe Okay, I can nix that one before even trying it. ;-) Good luck with your future shots and good luck to me too.
