don_baccus4

May 15, 1997

Well, I certainly loved my old Minolta MD system, and sold it for less

than $1,000. The Minolta line-up of that era were of decent, though not overwhelming, quality. No cheap, long, razor-sharp telephotos, but that was pretty much the score back then (1970s). As good as the best of the current crop of lenses? No. Good enough to make salable photos? I think so - I've got a submission out nationally right now that includes a few photos made with that sytsem (20/2.8 and 28/2.8 primes). If any make it into the article maybe I'll point them out this fall.

Mirror lock-up? SRT 200 metal brick - a favorite of astrophotography fans for slapping on their telescopes back in those days...DOF preview? Most Minolta MD bodies had this - X700, XD-11/5, SRTs, for instance (not inclusive).

I'd hesitate suggesting someone who wants to put together a complete system taking this route, though. While there seems to be an inventory of new lenses still, I get the impression that supplies may be running out. And, finding specific used lenses can be difficult. If you want a vanilla 28/50/105 macro kind of system, no problem, but finding a reasonably-priced 20/2.8 may be tough.

A used FD (Canon) system has long lenses at other exotica available (20-35/2.8L) but won't be cheap unless you stick to vanilla primes. But you can get stuff like a 300/2.8, at least!

All in all, I end up recommending those looking for used gear to go Nikon if they're willing to forgo AF. I think it's important to consider resale value for anyone who's serious and Nikon used gear is probably going to hold up better over a ten-year period...

The MD system I sold included: 20/2.8, 28/2.8, Kiron 105/2.8 1:1 macro, 135/2.8, 200/4 (my Sigma APO 400/5.6 was sold to a biologist friend very cheap). All Minolta MD except as noted.

The only dud was the 200/4, which though not bad for a non-APO design was a bit soft by today's standards. It was typical for early 70s lenses of this type to not include low-dispersion glass, though.

May 12, 1997

You definitely will see a loss of quality with either zoom compared to the macro, not only when shooting close-up but at all focus distances. The EF 100mm macro is one of the finest lenses Canon makes, and I imagine that the FD 100mm macro is also extremely good.

While I've not tried extension tubes on either of those lenses, usually adding extension to a zoom causes it to only be able to focus within a very narrow range at any particular focal length. This makes it very difficult to use as a macro. You can make it work, but you may find that you miss the inconvenience of lugging your true macro lens around...

How often do you shoot at 1:1 or close to that? How critical is sharpness to you?

Before going this route, you should definitely visit your local camera store, and play with the 28-105 with a tube or two and see how it feels to you. Bring your tripod and shoot a few frames at f11 with flash on Velvia and look at the slides, if the store will let you.

That way you can decide if this solution works for you.

May 11, 1997

For birds (since you mention white pelicans) two good starting points are Audubon's Encyclopedia of North American Birds (about 20 years

old, but other than name changes, still very relevant) and The Birder's Handbook.

There's also the Handbook of American Birds, which is not complete. I have the two volumes on diurnal raptors. Detailed species accounts including a lot of research references. Does require some knowledge of technical terminology for one to make effective use of it.

There's also the Stoke's series of books on bird behavior and natural history, non-technical but gives good background information on all North American species in, oh, a dozen volumes or so.

Since you're in the Great Basin, of particular relevance is the series of books on the Great Basin published by University of Nevada in Reno. Gives a lot of information on general ecology and distribution of species. The Birds Of The Great Basin is very good (hey, I know the illustrator, it must be! :), and was the first to appear. I've also got the shrubs and trees volumes, and there are also separate volumes on fish and geology. I'm not sure if the mammals volume has appeared yet. Sagebrush Ocean is the overview volume of the series, and provides an excellent summary of the geology, hydrology, climate, and ecology of the Great Basin. Given your locale, I'd snatch the whole series up. I'm certain you can find them in a good SLC bookstore, if not, you can mail-order from Portland Audubon (503-292-WILD) though we don't always have the whole series in stock. Portland's Powell's Bookstore is also a fantastic mail-order resource, and though I don't have their webpage address (I bike there, myself) I'm sure alta-vista and yahoo! do.

This is a start. There are literally thousands of useful books to own, these just came immediately to mind.

Since you're located on the Great Salt Lake, how come we've never met at the Goshutes, the hottest raptor migration site west of the Big Muddy??? :) You're only about three hours away!

May 1, 1997

As has been pointed out, reversing the center column sucks. Bogen does make a head that is flexible enough to let you use the camera rightside up with the post upside down, but this doesn't solve the fact that three legs are still in the way. Probably works OK for leprechauns, but not me! Take that option off the list!

Tripods like the Gitzo 310 and 410 come with no center column. The plate or column assembly are interchangable, so you can buy one of these with a column and switch to the plate if you want to get low. They get really low without the column. Not all gitzos feature this interchangibility, I know those two do for sure.

And the Bogen superclamp on a 'pod leg works well, too. It's such a useful gadget and so cheap that it's worth having in any case.

April 30, 1997

If birding's the focus, you should really head to SE Arizona, which

is where you'll find most of the species which can't be found anywhere else in the US. Things like whiskered screech owl, painted redstart, numerous others - I picked up 40 life birds on my first birding trip down there years ago.

Bosque's a big detour from the Big Scenics you seem to want to hit. From Phoenix, you could easily zip down to Saguaro Nat'l Monument and at least pick up the local trash birds like cactus wren and verdin and the like. This would be more productive from the birding POV and better shooting, too than Bosque. Bosque's decent spring birding but doesn't have the unique avifauna that SE AZ has, and isn't particularly scenic (you mention landscape photography, not wildlife), and is at its best in winter when thousands of sandhill crane winter there. The crane won't be there when you're planning to be.

So, my suggestion is to skip Bosque and spend the time you'd spend there to at least hit Saguaro Nat'l Monument for (preferably) a morning. Once you're down there, though, I don't know how a birder can pass up the one hour drive down to Madera Canyon and its painted redstarts, magnificent and blue-throated and broad-billed and other hummers (you can pick up a dozen hummingbird species in SE AZ), and

the like.

If you want more details on a quick Saguaro/Madera Canyon trip let me know and I'll provide them if skipping Bosque makes sense to you.

Note that you've set an agressive driving schedule to hit and adequately enjoy the Big Scenics you want to visit given that you want to put together what sounds like about 75% a birding trip (how much input does your 100% birding friend have?)

You don't say where you're from, but if you're from the east and haven't been out west before you can see a ton of new bird species

by visiting the areas I mention for desert specialties then hitting the plateau country (like around Grand Canyon) for pine forest and other species, etc.

April 30, 1997

It would be helpful to know where the workshop is based. Oly NP is

big, and the roads that cicumnavigate it are windy and slow-going

in places, so you can't necessarily just jump in the car for a

quick two-hour ride/hike up, say, the Dosewallips if you're situated

over at Lake Quinault or whatever.

And, what are you interested in? Flowers? Rainforest? Bears? I imagine

the workshop will point you towards the wildnerness coast, the

Hoh river valley, and Hurricane Ridge. There are a bunch of other

possibilities, but without knowing more specifics it's hard to make

just a couple of suggestions.

Oly NP varies from beaches to glaciers...

April 27, 1997

I use my home-made shoulder stock with my 300/2.8, sometimes with the 1.4x converter, quite frequently. Most recently yesterday, out on a 65 ft boat in 6 ft swells - tripods and diesels don't mix, IMO. The shoulder stock is also much quicker for getting on stuff which might be on the bow, or the starboard quarter, or directly astern, or all three in rapid succession. Quarters are generally tight and you can't just pan in place when things like the wheelhouse, other passengers, the cabin, etc get in the way so it's almost a necessity to handhold in some manner. Plus you're bouncing around and ducking random big swells that break over the boat and stuff.

You can see an example of a black-footed albatross taken underway with diesel blasting (on an earlier trip, a 42 footer with swells 8+ ft) with my shoulder stock at http://donb.photo.net/photo_cd/d/b17.html.

It will give you an idea, at least, of how well this technique works.

1/60th of a second, though? Not by my standards of sharpness, I think. I go for the 1/focal-length rule normally, with the stock just making it a lot easier to use the lens and letting me fudge a bit, perhaps. But not down to 1/60th! Maybe 1/200 or something...

Brian Wheeler, well-known for his photographs of raptors in flight, eschews use of a shoulder stock altogether, just handholding his Canon 2.8 + 1.4x. However, he's built on a bigger, more rugged frame than I and I find the shoulder stock makes doing this kind of shooting much easier for me.

My stock is a variation of the stock modeled by John Shaw in his book (the one with the egret on the cover).

March 27, 1997

OK, Frank, tell us about this Photo Safari outfit in Churchill. Also, can you give us a rough idea of what costs are like, where to stay, how to get there, when to go? I've heard bits and pieces of this from birders and photographers but would love a description of how you've gone about this trip. My primary interests would be polar bears and nesting shorebirds/waterfowl, which I realize implies different trips.

March 27, 1997

I'm with Frank, I use both, as I mentioned over in Usenet. I also shoot a lot of birds from my car. My personal experience is that I get a higher percentage of sharp photos at lower shutter speeds using my Kirk window mount than I do using a beanbag. I have enough confidence in it that when driving slowly through a refuge I'll just leave the whole shebang mounted, making my response time very fast (I don't do this if there's other auto traffic, especially on gravel!).

I also use a QR system on it, so if the lens is in the passenger seat I can mount it and shoot nearly as fast as with a beanbag.

The Kirk mount also folds in such a way that you can use it on the ground, prone, which combined with covering yourself with something (my olive-drab blind cover, in my case) makes your profile very low and inconspicious. I don't have a tripod that goes all the way to the ground....

March 23, 1997

I'm not familiar with the SB 27, being a Canon user, but for my own macro use I use Canon's smallest TTL flash (the EZ 200). You don't need a lot of power for macro photography, nor do you need features like tilt and swivel heads. The EZ 200 is tiny and fits into a coat pocket. Something similar from Nikon would be ideal for Macro work, IMO. These tiny flashes lack the power and flexibility of larger flashes, so if you're looking to buy just one, general purpose flash this approach may not be for you. However, the small Canon unit is powerful enough to provide a reasonable fill flash capability, and I often use two mounted on either end of a flash bracket I built to provide fill with passerine (songbird) photography, when my shooting distance is usually less than 20 feet.

I use a bracket I made consisting of a typical flash bracket, a small ball head mounted where the flash would normally go, and a length of aluminum to mount the flash on. This gives me a lot of flexibility

as to where I put the flash in relationship to camera and subject when doing macro work. Which brings up another advantage of using a small flash for this kinda stuff: doesn't torque out the little ball head the way a large, heavy flash might, making it easier to position it.

March 19, 1997

The area was open last October when I was there, and I didn't hear of any plans to close it. There's been a ton of snow this winter, perhaps you've heard of a temporary closure or something like that?

March 10, 1997

Different camera systems and bodies within systems vary in their TTL flash skills, so to speak. Nikon is thought by many to do better than Canon in this regard, and the N90 is one of their more recent bodies with sophisticated flash metering.

Some general hints. Try to get the bird filling as much of the frame as you can, and covering much of the center since I don't think your Sigma is a "D" lens. Remember that, like all meters, it wants to make things 18% gray. You might want to practice on neutral colored birds like house finches rather than, say, blackbirds until you get some practice. When shooting dark or light birds you have to compensate just as you would when spot-metering for ambient exposure.

You have to decide if you want the light for the exposure to emphasize the flash, in which case choose the highest synch shutter speed (probably 1/250), or a more-natural balance of ambient and fill flash.

The latter requires more experimentation but will give more pleasing results as long as there's enough ambient ight for you to use a reasonable shutter speed. The N90 is reputed to do a good job of computing fill flash exposures, so you might begin by letting it do everything for you just to see how well it does. If it fails badly in some cases, those exposures will begin educating you as to the limitations of your camera for this type stuff.

On my EOS 1N I've learned that it does pretty good if I tell it to give me -2/3 stop fill for many normal bird subjects. That took some experimentation and I've got a lot more to do, since I seek natural light when possible in my own bird photography.

But details will vary, as I said, by brand and body. Hopefully some N90 owner will chirp in and add pertinent details.

March 9, 1997

Another possibility, if you aren't buying immediately, is to keep your eyes open for a used EF 300/4. This is a great lens and works well with the 1.4x converter. It is possible that some of these may start showing up on the used market if the new image-stabilzed version is a hit.

March 9, 1997

My ratio depends entirely on what I'm shooting. Even when shooting birds at times I luck into a quiescient victim and and burn a roll and get nearly 100% success. That's uncommon, though. Usually birds are "twitchy" and don't hold pose as models due. That fraction of a second delay between pushing the shutter button and exposure ruins a lot of good photos of birds that are doing major head-turning activity.

Also, when shooting birds in open terrain, i.e. shorebirds, I often start shooting before they are really in range. This gives them time to get acclimated to me and the camera and associated noise. This also allows me to gauge their reaction. I suppose if I were really smart I'd do this without film in the camera, just to raise my success ratio :)

And, of course, my standards vary. I got a good lesson in this recently. This winter has seen a large number of snowy owls invade the Pacific Northwest. I managed to shoot one down on the beach near Tillamook (Oregon) a day after it was discovered and before hordes of birders began chasing it for their state list. I wasn't at all pleased with the results - it didn't let me get close enough, and heat shimmer and the wind on the beach meant sharpness just wasn't up there.

I almost tossed the lot (three rolls). About six weeks ago, though, I learned from a writer friend that WildBird was trying to locate a publishable photo of a snowy owl from the PNW and this year's invasion. They're printing one next month. So I'm glad I didn't toss all of them!

I returned from New Mexico about two weeks ago and thus far have just had time for one quick sort of the slides. The slides left vary from about 3-4 in a box to nearly a full box, again, depending on subject. I rarely have to toss landscape shots unless I've bracketed, or have made a boneheaded error. The next sort will probably cut this down by 20% or so.

When I do get a lot of photos of, say, one particular bird, I often get rid of quite a few frames that are good (sharp, well-exposed, etc) and just keep the cream. I figure that I'll just be sending out the best ones anyway, so why spend all that time labelling, etc? But these would be "keepers" if other frames weren't noticably better.

March 5, 1997

I use the Bogen Q/R base described by Bob Atkins on my monopod, I guess I assumed folks knew about this option when I said there was no reason to get a head.

I'm unfamiliar with the long lens plate someone else mentioned. It may just be a hex plate with a beveled stop to keep the lens from rotated. For my 600/4, I just got the 3/8" flat-screw plate and torqued it hard with a big screwdriver. It's never twisted or budged once. As I mention in my review of the EF 300/2.8 on photo.net/photo and my own site, my one minor beef about this lens is the lack of a 3/8" threaded hole.

I've stuck with the hex plates because, as Bob mentioned, nicer systems cost about five times as much. I Q/R everything: my homebuilt shoulder stock, my macro flash bracket, the two-flash bracket I use for fill flash with my telephoot, etc. I put a hex plate on the bottom of each gizmo I put together and a Q/R base (which can be had for more like $25 from B&H, last time I looked which has been a while) on top. I can then, for instance, slap my fill-flash bracket on my tripod and my lens on top of the bracket. Big, bulky, ugly, works.

When I've counted up my bases and plates and priced a similar Arca-style set, it's priced out to about $600-$700! Ouch. I've decided to let hex plates be my trademark :)

Besides, I've talked to one shooter who dumped something big when a bit of dirt in the Arca set-screw that tightnes the plate fooled him into thinking it was set. The lens/camera combo slid to the ground. Kirk, at least, makes Arca-style plates that have a stop to prevent this particular disaster from happening.

March 5, 1997

You've set yourself a tough assignment.

A monopod is sturdy enough though as you've noted you need a sturdy one. Gitzo makes some heavy-duty ones.

Your problem, though, is going to be the fact that light levels will be very low, and a monopod doesn't let you shoot at as slow a shutter speed as a tripod does. Fill-flash will help as you can underexpose the background a bit and get away with a higher shutter speed. Of course, the more you fudge by underexposing and rely on the flash to provide the illumination, you'll get further from a photo that looks like its lit with ambient light with a bit of fill, and the closer to a shot that looks like a flash-only exposure (i.e. "yuk").

You mentioned "5 1/1 feet without head" - this makes me wonder if you are expecting to put a head on it. There's no need to put a head on a monopod, you can just use your lens' rotating collar to rotate it around one axis, and move the monopod for the others.

You'll want to take every opportunity to brace yourself and/or the monopod against tree trunks, railings, building walls, etc and you might want to experiment pushing sensia or E100SW to ISO 200...

It sounds like maybe you live in or near the environment you describe? If so, you might consider looking for someone/someplace that has feeders up, or put up your own. You'll have to do some research to see what the species you want to photograph would be attrated to. I bet many would go for fruit, here in the States I've seen grapefruit halves attract orioles, for instance. This would give you a static

area to shoot in, making use of a tripod more practical...

March 4, 1997

I guess I'm assuming the person's shooting grizzly bear in a controlled situation. In those situations, actions by photographers and others are highly managed/restricted. If anyone happens to know if use of flash is prohibited at McNeil, then we probably can assume it's not a safe idea to use fill flash. On the other hand, if they (or the National Park Service at their big bear site) allow flash, then it is undoubtably a safe practice, at least with acclimatized bears.

March 1, 1997

First of all, if you're having that much trouble, just bring me along at let's talk about it (having never had the opportunity to view, much less photograph, this phenomena) :)

Seriously, though, it doesn't really sound as though metering's your actual problem. The most relevant part of your question is whether you should underexpose the bear to keep detail in the water. It doesn't matter how you get there - you can calculate such an exposure with either your built-in spot meter or an incident meter.

The problem here is contrast. If you get the water looking good, the bear will be so dark that you'll lose detail. If you expose to maintain detail in the bear, the water washes out. If you've been

shooting Velvia, you might try something a bit less contrasty and see if that helps. I like the new E100SW's color pallette and it seems less contrasty than Velvia to me, at least. Sensia's a possibility, too.

Another possibility is to use fill-flash - you may be a candidate for one of those project-a-flash gizmos discussed elsewhere in this forum!

February 26, 1997

I'm going to add a bit more about cougar in particular. Not really photo oriented, but will perhaps give an idea as to just how difficult it is to find them in the wild.

As at least a few of you know, I band raptors in the fall, primarily at a remote migration hotspot on the Nevada/Utah border, the Goshutes (information about this and another site in Oregon can be found via my homepage at http://donb.photo.net and we do welcome visitors).

The Goshutes site is within the range of a local cougar (which like most big cats are solitary creatures). One year one of our banders was exploring the ridge on her day off, and came across half a deer carcass stuffed into a cave (this place is built of limestone). Last September, I went out behind the blind I was leading for a noontime nap, leaving it in charge of another experienced trapper. It had been raining slightly so I went off to a wooded area in a small ravine. Upon awakening, I got up and saw that I'd fallen asleep just a few feet from a pile of dried cougar scat.

About three or four weeks later, one of our trappers was bringing some additional gear up to one of our blinds mid-morning. Again, it had been wet, and she could see the bootprints of the crew that had gone up that morning. Overlaying those prints was the very clear and easy to follow tracks of a cougar. The tracks went to about fifty feet behind the blind, then veered east down the ridge to a point where the trapper lost the sign in rock.

We've seen other sign and have smelled that wonderful cat smell they use to mark their turf as well.

We average about 20 folks on our crew for about 10 weeks, and the project's been active for just under 20 years.

Yet, no one has actually ever seen a cougar there.

You can see why researchers, hunters, and photographers who want to find cougar on demand use hounds.

On the other hand, I know someone who saw a cougar run across Interstate 84, in the heart of the tourist-infested Columbia Gorge in broad daylight. Not much of a Kodak moment, though :) I never get lucky sightings like this, pisses me off!

Regarding danger, the best defense is knowledge. Pepper spray is now allowed in Yellowstone, at least, and it works. I spoke with a photographer who specializes in 4x5 landscape photos of "the Bob" (Montana's Bob Marshall wilderness), which not only has griz but receives relocated problem griz from Glacier. He's used spray once, not on bear, but on a bull moose. Some touron in Yellowstone walked up to an obviously rutty and short-tempered bull, which pinned him to a tree. The guy would freeze, the bull would back up, but the slightest attempt to leave caused the bull to pin him again (those suckers are BIG). The photographer came close and gave the moose one shot of spray in the nose - and it immediately fell to the ground. The touron got lose, about 30 seconds later the moose stood up and that was that. Moose and touron were both a bit more wary afterwards.

Of course, the photographer pointed out that despite years of camping in grizzly country and being around a lot of big mammals, he's never had to use spray in self-defense because he uses the number one defense method instead, as mentioned above: knowledge. He carries

it because, as anyone in griz country should know, you can get within sniffing range of a griz guarding a carcass or (less frequently) with cubs and get attacked without every being aware you've transgressed. Big males guarding a carcass in particular will go after transgressors at least a couple hundred yards away, in very rare cases.

February 26, 1997

I've been there, many years ago when my camera system was an Argus C3, unfortunately (it almost hurts to admit this in public). I'd like to go back!

Going on a photo-oriented tour, as Bob suggests, is a good idea. Since you have to go on a guided boat anyway, might as well go on one which caters to photographers. It is also possible for a group of people to rent a smaller boat and guide, but then you need to find a boatload of friends to go with you. At least go on a smaller boat, they're allowed to go to some spots which are closed to the larger boats and tend to be more flexible. The Lonely Planet guide gives some specific recommendations for boat owners that are reasonable and somewhat flexible. You must understand and respect the fact that the place is heavily managed, to conserve the wildlife in the face of heavy visitation. Because of this, from the photographer's point of view, all visitation options are a compromise because you won't be free to roam at will at times of your choice. Despite this, you'll have a great time.

Regarding gear, this is a spot I'd love to go back to now that I'm seriously into bird photography. Though you're restricted in many places to trails and must be with a guided group, many birds such as boobies and albatrosses nest right on or next to a trail. This is a great place to indulge oneself in what I consider to be a rare and unusual treat: intimate photographs of wild birds eye-to-eye on the ground with short lenses.

Since you typically get your feet wet when going from boat to island, you want to be able to carry all of your gear. This is a place where a 300/4 + 1.4x, and 80-200 zoom, and 17-35 zoom would make a great kit. The 300 + 1.4x would give you a very adequate 420/5.6 for shooting some of the birds which are at a distance. They're all very acclimatized to people, but not all are on the trail, of course. As I recall, for instance, we were about fifty feet away from displaying

frigate birds.

Though Bob mentioned the perils of noon-day sun, it is also frequently cloudy. We had sun fierce enough to give me one of the three or four episodes of sunburn I've had in my life (I'm somewhat olive-skinned), but also overcast weather.

Oh, you also want some sort of close-focusing lens - I'd bring my 100/2.8 macro on a return trip. There are interesting crabs and the like along the shore.

Of course, once you've bought a ticket to Ecuador, you might as well explore the Andes villages for a few days or weeks. I suggest spending as little time in Guayaquil as possible, like zero outside of switching planes at the airport if you choose to take Tame' airlines to the islands. If you're into exploring more of Ecuador, as I suggest, Quito is much nicer. I flew down on Ecuador's airline, on an old 707. I was fascinated the entire flight down, watching a rivet in the wing which was wiggling crazily the entire time. It disappeared upon landing, leaving a little hole in the wing. The

approach involved complicated twists and turns around the peaks surrounding the plateau that Quito's built on (at about 8,500 feet). The mostly-Ecuadorian planeload of passengers literally gave the pilot a standing ovation when we landed, which made me wonder.

Some of our checked bags disappeared. After returning, I went after the airline for money, and they stonewalled. Came home from work one day six months later and my bag was sitting on the porch as though some magician had been in the neighborhood.

Flying to the islands, on Tame' airlines, I was humored to find I was flying on a Lockheed Electra, a turboprop that became famous in the 50s for a couple of accidents in the US where the wings fell off mid-flight...

I found Ecuadorians, especially the rural people in the Andes, to be amazingly friendly and outgoing. In one grill (kind of a national fetish) the head of a family insisted on buying my ex-wife and I all sorts of food treats to be grilled at our table. Had all sorts of interesting experiences like eating at a Korean restuarant in the middle of nowhere in the Andes.

February 24, 1997

Yaquina Head is a BLM natural area, I suspect this is the area Bill described as a "National Park or something". Oregon only has one National Park (Crater Lake).

I don't remember offhand which lighthouses are open to the public. They're usually staffed by volunteers and raise money for their preservation via the usual gift-shop stuff. Because of this, they tend to be open during the high visitation months. I think, but can't guarantee, that Yaquina Head is one which is open during the summer.

Just off Yaquina Head is an islet which is home to a massive colony of nesting seabirds. Common murres, all three of the northern cormorants, and tufted puffin nest there. Along with a lot of western gulls to happily munch their chicks. Too far off for good photos, but worth looking at.

February 24, 1997

Kodochrome 200 is relatively grainy, but very sharp with (by today's standards) relatively subdued color. I've got a coyote photo on my web site you can check out to get an idea of what I mean by "subdued", though jpegs are useless for evaluating grain. It's at http://donb.photo.net/photo_cd/c/b62.html.

ISO 100 speed Sensia pushes well, and the new E100S and E100SW films are said to, also, though I've not tried these yet myself. The ISO 200 films themselves, unfortunately, don't seem to be a priority of the manufacturers at the moment. Any of these ISO 100 films pushed a stop will show a little increase in grain and contrast, but not bad. Those of us with fast lenses tend to push in situations where there's not much light, like on overcast days, where a little increase in contrast is not necessarily a bad thing. Most working nature photographers I speak to carry Velvia and one or two kinds of ISO 100 film, and freely push when necessary. This may explain why manufacturer's don't pay much attention to ISO 200 films - the professional market is a big chunk of the slide market, and most working photographers don't want to carry several kinds of film,

which perhaps limits the market for these faster films.

The suggestion to burn film at ISO 100 is OK, but there's not much point in doing so if your shutter speed is so low that you know camera shake or subject movement will blur the result.

I suggest you buy a roll of each of the ISO 200 films, and a roll of your favorite ISO 100 films. Push the latter and shoot the former at their rated speed, and compare the results and see which you like better. One advantage of the faster films is that your lab will charge you a $1 or so to push the slower film.

February 24, 1997

You've picked the hardest subjects, perhaps, to shoot!

Let's break down your urge to learn to photograph big cats into two parts:

1. Learning to photograph. You've described yourself as a novice who's done "some shooting locally". Before you can learn to produce excellent images of big cats, you're going to have to learn how to produce excellent images. At this stage, I'd suggest you consider burning film on a wide variety of subjects until photography becomes second nature to you.

2. Photographing big cats, the subject of your choice. Finding these critters in the wild is exceedingly difficult, and the same is true of wolves. The majority of photos you see of these critters are of captive animals, many kept in facilities which cater to professional photographers. There are two schools of thought on the subject. One holds that shooting captive animals is cheating and should be discouraged. The other holds that many of these critters, such as cougar, when photographed in the wild are subjected to harassment (cougar are often run down with dogs) and that this is worse than keeping some individuals captive. Many of us take a position somewhat in the middle of these two extremes.

Regardless, the easiest way for you to gain experience photographing big cats is to begin hanging out at your zoo. A good one can be a great place to practice.

You might also consider learning by photographing, say, coyotes in Joshua Tree rather than holding out for wolves. Wolves in the western portion of the "lower 48" are scarce, with the most accessible by far being those in Yellowstone - but these all have radio collars on them.

Field biologists do often seek helpers, either on a volunteer basis or for very low pay. The way research is done on these predators, though, won't be conducive to good photography - to learn of movements and predation patterns, individuals are generally radio collared and then followed at a distance. After all, trying to keep the subject in sight constantly while they hunt is first of all extremely difficult, and second of all their prey isn't going to hang around to be stalked if humans are seen in most cases. And satellite telemetry is beginning to make inroads into radio telemetry.

This probably sounds very discouraging, but two years ago I did have the chance to talk to a professional who makes a big chunk of his income selling images of wolves to Germany and Japan companies for use in advertising. He works with wolves in game farms in Montana, though, i.e. captive models.

Of course, Jim Brandenburg made his reputation photographing wolves in the wilds of Alaska, but I've heard rumors that his techniques at least border on harassment.

February 21, 1997

Let's see, from south to north:

o Crescent City, California (10 miles south of the OR/CA border)

Oregon:

o Cape Blanco (north of Port Orford)

o Coquille River Light (north of Bandon)

o Cape Arago Light (south of North Bend)

o Umpqua River Light (southwest of Reedsport)

o Heceta Head Light (north of Florence, probably the most photographed)

o Yaquina Bay and Yaquine Head Lights (Newport)

o Tillamook Light (on Cape Meares, southwest of Tillamook)

Washington:

o North Head Light (north jetty, Columbia River)

o Cape Flattery Light (on Tatoosh Island, good luck!)

Guess which state wins? :)

I can't resist a little geology lesson, here. The Columbia River dumps a gazillion tons (give or take a few bazillion) of sand into the Pacific Ocean. The northern Oregon and southern Washington coasts consist of sandy beaches, particularly those of southern Washington which consists of a couple of sandy spits and shallow bays of little use to shipping. The bulk of the sand runs north because the Japanese current runs north just offshore.

Further north lies the rugged Olympic Penninsula. There, too, there's a lack of navigatible waters. At the northern end of Washington lies the Strait of Juan de Fuca, which leads to Puget Sound and the largest port in the Pacific Northwest (Seattle).

In contrast, the Oregon Coast is dotted with medium-sized harbors which host anything from fishing fleets to full-sized ships used as lumber carriers. Thus, more lights.

I don't guarantee the above list of lights is correct, I skimmed the Oregon and Washington DeLorme Atlases.

Do folks know about these Atlases? These are topo maps of entire states, with complete lists of National and State public lands (forests, parks, refuges) and a bunch of other stuff. Very valuable when poking around. The birding community in Oregon now lists rare birds on e-mail and phone hotlists by DeLorme reference - we just assume everyone has one.

The series was begun a few years ago, and a couple of new state atlases have been published each year.

There's a rival series which has just begun with an edition on New Mexico (as yet uncovered by DeLorme). I was just down there and bought it, the publisher's Benchmark Maps. This atlas isn't nearly as good as the DeLorme ones are, though. Haven't decided if this is

"unfortunately" (since DeLorme has no New Mexico atlas) or "fortunately" (as I'm not sure the market's large enough to support two publishers!)

DeLorme has a webpage - can you figure out the URL? :)

Don Baccus(http://donb.photo.net)

February 20, 1997

I pretty much agree with Glen's response, but would add that this might be a good situation to use flash. Many newer cameras synch at 1/250th. Flash will allow you to stop down to f11 or f16, which will help with depth-of-field. No matter what your target, the snake's not likely to strike predictably enough to nail a sharp eye at, say, f2.8!

While flash gives a somewhat artificial look to macro shots, this kind of photo depends on freezing the action at exactly the instant of the strike for its impact. I generally avoid flash for static macro subjects when I can use a tripod or other support, but use flash for macro shots involving action.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by don_baccus4