BG Wildlife Photographer of the Year

Just in case some of the guys outside the UK didn't know, the results

of the best wildlife photography competition in the world have just

been published in Britain. I urge you to see the most moving and

powerful wildlife image I've ever seen - Karl Ammann's image of

slaughtered lowland gorillas.

Take a look at http://www.nhm.ac.uk/WildPhoto for the winning pics.

This picture already made the New York Times Magazine, and also upset some of the readership of Outdoor Photography. Some of the other images were even more graphic. Sure, they won't make good greeting cards, but I think they needed to be shown.

Kind of puts all talk of shutter speed, metering and focal length into perspective, don't you think?

I just returned from Kenya. Got a poor still photo of a baboon which had its hand hanging from a few threads of flesh with a snare still attached. I saw it the day it happened, red fresh blood, etc, but didn't get the shot. Next day, the blood had coagulated and the hand was flapping. The baboon was a mature adult and semed to be getting along fairly well. If that happened to a young one, its survival would have been more difficult. I do have a video of it, but don't know where to show it. It is also a graphic example of what is happening. tThis was inside the Lake nakuru National Park, Kenya

Steve Bein

I wanted to make a few comments while this question is still a recent one. First, I think that everyone should look at these images before concluding that a big lens is a necessity to do good wildlife photography. Some of the wildlife shots were made with very short lenses! Next, and this probably should have been first. I'm not certain that it is clear from the website that these images can be viewed at a larger size with storyline and technical detail. Most websites require that you click onto the image to see a larger version rather than onto a magnifying glass (that looks more like a lollipop) off to the right. So, for those who have been there and said, "Would probably be interesting if you could see any detail." Be persistent. It is worth it. Last, "The World in Our Hands," category is always disturbing. The winner, "Slaughtered Lowland Gorillas" is a particularly haunting image because gorillas are more closely related than many other mammals and because of the "family portrait" composition.

"<em> First, I think that everyone should look at these images before concluding that

a big lens is a necessity to do good wildlife photography. Some of the wildlife shots were made with very short lenses! "</em>

 

<p>

A good photographer with knowledge of the subject can get great shots with any lens - some of the time!!

 

<p>

The big problem however, as all of us know, is that those with inadequate equipment to get the shots they want cause problems. Many, many times I've seen people with P&S cameras or SLRs with short zooms get WAY too close to an animal in order to try to get a frame filling shot. They only succeed in stressing the animal, spoiling the photo op for those who are using adequate equipment and generally giving "wildlife photographers" a bad name.

<p>

So while you can get great wildlife shots with a 20mm or 50mm lens, I certainly wouldn't encourage it. Most people's idea of a wildlife shot is a frame filling animal. Experienced photographers know there's more to it than that, showing interactions with the environment for example, but if you know that, you're not the problem!

In a recent thread about what to do if one had $8200, I made the point that one doesn't have to own the latest 600mm/f4 to shoot great <B>nature photographs</B>. However, by no means I am suggesting that you don't need a long lens to become a good bird photographer.

<P>

Occasionally, you can shoot wildlife in their environment with a short telephoto or perhaps a wide angle and get excellent results. However, if you do shoot a lot of wildlife, you reaaly need a good 300mm and perhaps a 500mm or 600mm. Just take an African safari as an example, typically you are confined to a safari vehicle so that you need a longer lens to get the reach. (If you get out of the vehicle, you can be eaten by lions. And there is the minor issue that getting out of the vehicle could be against the law.)

<P>

But nature photography is more than just shooting wildlife with long lenses. Most landscape work is done with a wideangle or at most a short telephoto. There is the wonderful world of macro work, underwater photography .... Just because most of us cannot afford the latest 600mm/f4 IS or AF-S, there are still many other opportunities out there.

"A good photographer with knowledge of the subject can get great shots with any lens - some of the time!! "

 

My point exactly. The "any lens - some of the time!!" would, of course, include the 600 mm f/4. Great shots are always only some of the time. Although I don't recall any of the mammals, behavior or portrait, which were actually shot with a 600mm, I'm sure a few were. I do recall that the longer lenses were used more often in behavior than in portrait. But the shorter lens which I was referring to was the winning Leopard image shot with a 300 mm ,no extenders, and several which were shot with zoom (?) to 200 mm lens.

 

As to the other collateral comments, yes there are a lot of problems in nature, those who feed and bait wildlife, those who approach wildlife, and those who poach wildlife (The latter so hauntingly portrayed by some of these images.) It is doubtful, however, if penalty of immediate death on the spot for an armed poacher; signs "Don't Feed the Wildlife," "Don't Approach the Wildlife," posted all over state/federal parks, NWR, preserves; huge fines and forfeitures of vehicle and hunting license for various offenses, does not solve these problem that even one of these offenders is going to read a nature photography forum much less decide not to engage in the practices you describe. While I recognize the futility, or at best the preaching-to-the-choir of your statements, I also sympathize with the compulsion to say it.

 

Chris

This particular example is a bit misleading, though. A leopard is a fairly large animal, and a lot of leopards in Africa are quite approachable by vehicle since they are so used to cars. So in this case a 300mm lens is very appropriate. In fact, I have shot some leopard images with a 80-200 zoom because I was quite close.

 

Again, a 600mm lens would be primarily for birds or smaller mammals that are somewhat far away.

Saying you don't need long lenses for wildlife photography is

a bit like saying you don't need 4x4 to drive off road,

or that you can run Windoze 98 on a '386 machine.

Sure you can do it, but if are serious about it and

you don't want to limit yourself too badly, it's not the best idea.

 

There's no way around the fact that 90% of the time, if you want those frame filling shots, you need a long lens. 10% of the time you might get lucky with a 70-200 zoom. 1% of the time you might get lucky with a 28-70 zoom. In fact I got some decent shots of moose in Maine this fall with a P&S using a 28-70 zoom lens! I got many, many more shots with 300 and 600mm lenses of course, just as you would expect.

 

If you don't mind the limitation, you don't need a long lens. But if you don't have a long lens you'd probably be much better off specializing in other areas of nature work than wildlife. Macro, landscapes, environmental studies can all be done without ever craving a lens over 200mm! Start shooting wildlife and you'll never be happy, no matter how long a lens you own :-(

I think the point of this thread was lost. It seems to me that lens size isn't the most important thing that Marcus and Karl were trying to point out. The fact that any animal that is dead, or severly injured, could be shot with a pin hole camera!!! The fact that the animals are dead, or injured, by man, is uncalled for. I believe thats what Karl and Marcus were trying to get across... Not what lens to use. If you shoot wildlife thats wild and alive, you should KNOW what lens to use. Mike Mc Ardle