Amazing techniques of Austin Stevens!

Anyone seen the South African wildlife presenter Austin Stevens on T.V.

looking for snakes? He claims to have made a living from wildlife photography

for the past 10+ years. Yet, when I see him, he has a Canon EOS 50E with

Sigma lenses. Is this the equipment of a pro? He also photographs snakes

with a 20-35mm zoom and pop up flash. The last time I saw him, he was

attempting to photograph elephants with a Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L - holding the

entire rig in one hand without any support! Then, to prove how great he is,

he held the whole lot out with his arm fully extended and fired a few shots

without even looking through the viewfinder - incredible! Any one who owns

this lens knows it needs to be strapped to a boulder to provide sufficient

support! So I ask the question again, are these the actions of a pro?

Show Biz is full of hyperboly, to be sure. In that business, things get exaggreated, dilluted, lots of smoke and mirrors, public relation "truths", etc....I'd take what Austin and others in the business with a grain of salt.

Why not? Of course.

 

There is this saying that women are better photographers than men because they just go out there and shoot with the camera instead of talking endlessly about shooting, and the equipment used for the job.

 

Truth is that many guys (and I'm one of them) who love photography spend more time talking about their equipment than actually going out there and taking photographs. Even worse, some arrogant people will look at you in a negative way from their pedestal if you say you are a professional but don't use the top professional equipment out there. And it doesn't seem to change opinions if you can even prove that you make a comfortable living out of it.

 

In a previous thread I posted to a couple of years ago, I was mentionning that "Joddi Cobb of the National Geographic still works with a Nikon N90 sometimes and uses an older Nikkor 200mm f/4.5 zoom with on-camera flash for fill-in flash". And you know what? She made absolutely amazing portraits and is a successful professional photographer.

 

My opinion on this? Know your camera no matter what you use. Know how far you can take it, and how to take advantage of it's features. The camera doesn't make you a pro and the way you shoot don't make you one either.

 

The fact that photography brings the bread and butter on your table is what makes you a professional photographer. The results are what makes you a good or bad professional photographer. What you use for equipment, or how you use it, is very secondary to making you a pro.

 

I like your question. It reminds me of how many professional photographers are just masters of their art, and so many times you can see that the equipment they use is less than most advanced amateurs have with them. And about the way he shoots? It just shows how good a pro can get when working for pay with his camera on a daily basis.

well if he was shooting during normal daylight (like a sunny day) then f5.6 isn't really all that bad. especially if he has a fast ISO. your speed ends up being pretty quick. SO ,, it isn't too much of a stretch for the imagination. he might even be stopping down anyway, to say f8 or f11.

 

for snakes.,, well so long as you can get close to them (you kind of have to if you plan to fill the frame with the snake) then you don't really need to have a super powerful flash, and as long as his lens can focus up that close then again,, you just need to get close to the snake.. which isn't hard becuase lots of snakes don't run.

 

anyway I thought I would throw in my two cents.

<I>Any one who owns this lens knows it needs to be strapped to a boulder to provide

sufficient support!</i><P>

 

Um.... you're kidding, right? This is probably THE favorite lens among Canon users who

photograph birds in flight. The vast majority of these folks hand-hold their lens, precisely

because it is lightweight and compact. Apparently they haven't been enlightened to the

fact<B><I> that it needs to be strapped to a boulder to provide sufficent support</B>

</I>... and yet somehow, by some inconceivable miracle, they routinely make lots of

fabulous images (check out Art Morris' site for some examples).<P>

 

As others have said, the most important thing in making good photographs is the

'software' (or more crudely, 'meatware')

behind the camera, not the hardware one puts in front of the eye.

I was checking the specs on the 400mm 5.6L. I gotta say I agree with the previous answer.

 

It's even lighter (a little bit) than the 70-200 f/2.8L at 2.9lbs. And I handhold that thing during rock concerts in extremely dark conditions, with fast moving action and constantly changing light. Usually it's up for most of the show (at least an hour) and I take hundreds of shots so it's almost never down. So it's definitely not as heavy as you think. With time, you get used to it, you arms build strenght and you can be very stable even in low light.

The primary actions of a "pro" is that they give people photos and get paid for it.

 

In some fields of photography, the camera is the least important part of the job and sometimes it isn't. Before you go photographing snakes, I'd have thought knowing snakes is *way* more important than knowing cameras / lenses, or even having top kit.

<i>"Is this the equipment of a pro?"</i><P>Questions like this make marketing departments everywhere feel that they have succeeded in doing their job...

'are these the actions [or equipment] of a pro?'

 

Does Michael Jordan need Nike shoes to be a pro? Did Einstein need a Hubble Telescope to make his hypotheses? Does Jimmy Hendrix need the best guitar to produce his unique sound?

 

The tools don't make a pro. What's the one thing they can't take away from you?

 

To me a pro is someone that understands his/her camera/lenses inside and out to produce the best artistic image he or she can.

 

Though still naive, I was very naive only several moons ago. I thought I needed the best lens out there to produce great pictures. The first lens on my Rebel T2 was a Canon 200mm f/1.8 lens! How ridicoulus was that? Not so if that was the lens I really needed. I no longer have that lens due to certain circumstances and I also have a better idea of what I need to take the pictures I want to take. I don't know Austin Stevens but he probably has the equipment he truly needs and uses his expertise push the equipment to the ends of its capabilities.

Yes, Michael Jordon does in fact need good shoes to do his "pro dutys". Withouta good pair of shoes, Micheal would NOT be able to earn his living as a basketball pro. If not Nike, some other brand will have to do. Are we so arrogant to think that a pro can get by without his kit? And often he needs a very capable kit to boot.

 

Too many here think you need JUST skills, and with skills everything will magically fall into place....wrong...we all are at the mercy of our kit, even the best pros in the world are at the mercy of their equipment...

<I> Are we so arrogant to think that a pro can get by without his kit? </i><P>

 

Hmm. I don't recall reading that in any of the previous posts. Of course you need some

equipment that's reasonably appropriate to the task at hand. But someone who knows what

they're doing will come up with excellent photos whether they use Nikon, Canon, Pentax,

Leica, Sigma, Tokina..... or whatever. Someone else, using the most expensive and superb

gear available, will produce garbage images if they <B>don't</b> know what they're doing.

I'll repeat what I said earlier: the wetware between your ears is more important than the

hardware.

<i>Too many here think you need JUST skills</i><p>

 

nobody is suggesting that one does not need a camera dan, just that it's not the most important link in the chain. <p>

 

I find nick brandt's wildlife work to be very interesting. he uses pentax medium format cameras without AF or long lenses. <p>

 

I've no doubt that if he logged onto PN under another name and asked about doing "professional" wildlife work with his chosen kit he'd be ridiculed. <p>

 

I find steve pykes portraiture to be very interesting. he uses twin lens rolleiflexes with fixed 80mms and close up attachments. I'm sure he'd suffer the same fate here (search some of the stupier "which lens is ok for portraits" threads). <p>

 

I'm not familiar with austin stevens, but if his work looks good then WTF difference does it make how he holds his camera?

I completely agree with you Dan that to do a good job you need the correct tools. As someone who literally spends a fortune on equipment and supplies per year (both camera and studio) I'm the first one who would go nuts without my beloved high end lenses and monolights.

 

However I find that too often, the equipment determines the photographer's "pro" level first without even looking further.

 

You might hear people who know nothing about photography say "oh check this guy's camera, he must be one heck of a pro"; however what's most surprising these days is that you often hear the same from advanced amateurs as well.

 

It just suprises me when people are in awe of a professional photographer that uses the regular, all around SLR to do his job. Yes, not all photographers shoot from helicopters and use 12G$ cameras :-)

 

As it was said in an answer earlier. Advertising companies loooove to sell us the idea that the more expensive the camera, the nicer the pictures will be. Unfortunately many people seem to believe that. Doesn't quite work that way.

 

The best recent real life example... I needed a new zoom in the short focal lenghts, so I got an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L about a week ago.

 

As I passed to the cash register with my 1300$ in hand (which happens to be a lot for me even if I use it for work) I saw another guy just before me who was paying for a camera and a lense (won't get into brand names). The total came to 21,800 something (just the camera and the lense). Ok... so no big deal. He's probably a pro right?

 

Well guess what. First thing he asked the cashier (probably because he was shy to ask the salesperson) was "would you know what kind of batteries goes in there?". I did all I could not to start laughing as I'm sure he would have punched me in the face right there.

 

So yes the tools are important but it's not what makes the photographer. There are many things that come before that which defines the professional photographer.

I have a saying, "Its the Emotion, NOT the Emulsion." which meant more when film was king, but basically says its what you create, and how it conveys what you felt when your mindseye first saw it, that matters, not what you use to make it. If it sells, guess what, you made a sale, if you made a profit, guess what, you are a professional. Jeffrey

what I said in a previous post.

 

"Most of us produce nice pretty pictures that will soon be forgotten. Better equipment may result in your pictures being remembered for 30 seconds instead of 20. Truly memorable work in any artform is the product of about 5 per cent inspiration and about 200 per cent perpsiration.

Why do I think this way? Every truly memorable work I have seen is the product of an artist who has practiced day in, day out, over years and years to hone their skills. After 20 years working 12 hours a day, they can make producing incredible work look very easy.

 

Most of us being naive and wanting to believe that there is another way than years of blood, sweat and tears put their success down to 1) true artists must have much more expensive equipment than the rest of us or 2) they were blessed with a rare gift that there rest of us missed out on.

 

Ken Rockwell's article on why your camera does not matter is a good read. See what Ansell Adams did with 100 year old camera technology. Ansell worked all day for about 80 years to produce maybe 100 great photos. He will be remembered. Most of us probably won't."

Just a thought. There's probably a big difference between the way he takes his photos when he is doing a wildlife shoot and the way he acts on camera. I'm not sure that recordings of someone sitting in a hide for hours on end makes the best TV. And yesss I know you probably wouldn't sssit in a hide to photograph a ssssnake.

 

As has been said before, his ability comes from his knowledge and understanding of his subject.

 

I spend a lot of time watching cricket and rugby, the photographers there get excellent results with beaten up gear, some of which is held together with duct tape. Why, because they know the game.

 

My 2p

Geoff, did you ever consider that Ansel Adam's had the "1DS Mark II" of this day? Well, he did and he was a gear head too. He loved to talk about gear, lenses, tripods, films, all things neeeded to make pictures or support the making of pictures.

 

I don't believe the best art is always made with "lots of hard work"....what comes from the heart, the inspiration, does not necessarily mean hard work and lots of hours. I think it can but not necessarily.

 

I tend to discount most of what Ken Rockwell writes....I believe that the kit does matter...which is not the same thing as saying that expensive kit makes someone talented, or in and of it's self makes great pictures.

 

If you glean the galleries on this site, of hundreds of very young artists' works', you will see that inspiration is not a respector of age, nor of experience, or title either. But yes, one's chances of succeeding in making great art might be maximized with experience, years and hard work. On the other hand, many of said that Ansel's best work was during the middle of his life and not toward the end.

 

Will anyone remember me in 100 years, for my work? Yes, of course...many of my progeny might...no one else though...they'll have an optical disk the size of a contact lens, which will contain 100's of thousands of my images which I took 120 years before...sure. Will they think of me as a arteeest? Probably not...no they will not. Will they appreciate the images for their documentary value, of the family? Yes I think so.

 

But does it really matter if anyone remembers us by our work? This is something I never think about....I suspect Ansel didn't either.

<I>But does it really matter if anyone remembers us by our work? This is something I never

think about....I suspect Ansel didn't either.</i><P>

 

I was lucky enough to meet the man once or twice... went out to his house when I was a

teenager to have him sign one of his books. I think he was very much concerned about

being remembered for his work. He certainly didn't mind being a photographic celebrity,

and he's famous for the meticulous care he took in making his prints -- perhaps an indiction

of having a mind for the future.

"He also photographs snakes with a 20-35mm zoom and pop up flash"

 

So do I, both non-venomous as well as venomous. In fact, the 17-35mm is one of my

preferred lenses for this type of work, since I can get so close to the animal and still

maintain an area of background.

 

I cannot comment on whether or not Austin Stevens knows anything about wildlife

photography but I can say the following: You don't seem to, either, and he isn't wasting

our time by trolling internet chat groups.<div></div>

Erik: I have to say that your mountain kingsnake photo is one of the best examples I've

seen of using a superwide to place an animal in the context of its habitat. Very, very nice.

Dan

 

Ansell may have had the 1Ds of his day but it was basically the same technology photographers had been using for the previous 50 years. He is quoted as saying than any modern lens (in the 1940s) is good enough to do what he wanted it to do. More to the point he did better work then than nearly all of us are doing now with 50 years of technology improvement.

 

Sure its fun to talk about technology, but I agree with Ken Rockwell that the job of technology is to get out of your way and the belief that better technology will make you a better photogrpaher is probably the most common and limiting mistake photographers make.

Whooooo cares about his equipment?

 

In any field, the term "professional" has little to do with quality of work, and even less to do with equipment. How often does merit equal income? Almost never.

 

To me, the definition of a professional is anyone who does work that they normally wouldn't do, either for hire or with the intent to sell it. "Professional" means strictly on commission or for sale, while "amateur" means for the love of it. If you can blend the two, more power to you, but I'll bet no one has ever made a living being a true amateur all their life...taking only shots they personally want to take and making a living off of their sale.

 

So...is he a professional? Yes. Does he deserve to be? Well, to quote William Munney: "Deserve's got nothing to do with it." As for the equipment...interesting to note these things, but who f-ing cares? You can't tell anything important about someone by their equipment. I am an amateur and I've got (and USE) so many different kinds of cameras that most "professionals" would have some serious trouble using. Speed Graphic, Brownie, Ansco, Mamiya Super 23, Mamiya C-3/C-33/C-330, Canon F-1, Brownie, Land Cameras, etc., all the way up to a Mk. II. Most "professionals" I have met think I am talking gibberish when discussing these things. They are mostly technically inept...especially the ones who learned on digital or switched to it soon after learning...but they are making a living because of certain personality traits/networking and/or hard work, timing, or a zillion other things...ability being very low on the list. The fact that I have certain cameras and know how to use them doesn't make me professional. What I do with them would make me professional.

 

Keith

Perhaps they aren't the actions of a pro - but I wouldn't bet the farm that he can't produce good results. Lee Trevino used to bet people that he could beat them in golf with a Dr Pepper bottle for a club. He never lost a bet.

Erik, that snake picture is composed well, but it is way too saturated...if that were captured with a DSLR, one would suggest that the post-processing was cr@p....too much saturation, poor lighting. Perhaps this is a scan issue? Had this been shot with a DSLR, it would've turne out much better for the control one has during post processing, to be sure.

Keith, who cares about his equipment? You do, we do, and so do I.

 

That is why you, me, and most of us spend time in this gear thread.

 

Let's not fool ourselves. ;-)

 

But your point is not lost...having pro grade kit does not make one a pro. In fact being a pro does not suggest one has great skills...agreed.