nature-photography

<p>It is already mentioned to get as parallel as possible to your subjects, this will enable you to use a smaller aperture number if you need it. But it must be in combination with having a good subject to background distance. If it is a butterfly in a cluttered bush, you are either going to get shallow DOF or a cluttered background. If it is a butterfly on a single flower, with the background a good distance away - you can crank up your aperture to f11/f16/f22, get the DOF you need, and still have the blurry background you want to achieve.<br>

All the other solutions above are fine and good, but this "in the field" approach has been working for nature photographers for decades. It is really going to be the background that makes or breaks these types of images.<br>

Mark<br>

blog: http://www.grafphoto.com/wordpress<br>

site: http://www.grafphoto.com</p>

<p> </p>

Manoj - It is pure speculation on what the future will hold for long term archivability of digitally captured images. One storage media never completely vanishes when a new one shows up to replace it. There is always a transition where you could migrate your photo archives over if you were concerned about longevity.

Alex,

Although it is certainly a big leap from considering a D70 to a D2X, and throwing in big glass on top of it, you might want to bite the bullet. It could possibly fulfill your landscape needs as well. I am not sure what you shoot landscapes with now, but D2X files certainly blow the socks off of 35 mm Velvia scans.

 

I haven't been this excited about a camera body since I first got my F5. It is certainly a lot of money to spend on a camera body, but when I think of all the rolls of film that I have thrown away, particularly in shooting wildlife - it is slightly less painful.

 

Don't overlook the hidden costs of digital though. Backups, storage, field storage, flash cards, software, AC adapters, etc, etc, all add up to the bottom line. It just doesn't stop with the camera and a lens or two.

 

Mark

Good to see your site back in action Gloria.

Well - I see I screwed up my HTML in my post, so here it goes again;<p>

 

Sophie's site: <a href="http://prismes.free.fr/index.htm">Sopie</a><p>

 

Mark<p>

<a href="http://www.grafphoto.com">www.grafphoto.com</a>

Sophie Thouvenin is who Gloria was referring to. I also find her work to be quite stunning. You can see her sight <a ref="http://prismes.free.fr/index.htm">here</a>. She definitely has the creative eye.<p>

 

Hans made a very good point which I think it at the root of your answer. I see a lot of flower images that are just shot in bad light, which kills it instantly. Shoot in good light, well, it could make it a lot better, but still perhaps "boring" to some. You really have to capture the character of the particular flower (or flowers). I think when you emphasize that, many people will connect with your image.<p>

 

Mark<br>

<a ref="http://www.grafphoto.com">grafphoto.com</a>

Dave, if you want to create your own - here are some tips;

 

http://www.grafphoto.com/articles/order1.htm

Personally, if someone "does no harm" I don't care too much about how much they removed from a scene. There are various extents that some go to in adding to a scene as well. As long as nothing is being hurt in the process, who is anyone to judge? Photographs are a manipulation and abstraction of reality to begin with.

Ultimately it is going to depend on what you want to communicate with the image. Though some may be tired of seeing the silky waterfalls, I still think they portray a more serene environment than freezing the water in place, which usually shows 'power.'

 

If you have some fine details within the stream, exposing for too long tends to wash them out (ie. >1 sec). I tend to like the 1/8 - 1/2 second range. Just like with exposure, you will want to bracket a bit (as you have already done.) So the 'optimal' shutter speed is this - the one you like best!

I was in Cades the first week of December last year, and they said we missed the rut by about 2 weeks. Late November, early December does seem to be a good time to go as you have a better chance for getting frost in the morning. The frost makes for great conditions to photograph the deer in. Despite being past the rut, several bucks were out and about. I have a few random shots on my site. Your lens setup should be fine.<p>

<p>

Mark<p>

<a href="http://www.grafphoto.com/index.html">grafphoto.com</a>

I have never seen a good explanation of why dry mounting devalues a photograph. Who cares if it can't be removed from the mounting board - and why would you want to anyway? I can see how this would apply to an original painting to keep it on its original substrate, but not a photograph.

 

I have also never had a gallery or curator from an art display indicate that dry mounting my work was lessening its value. I really don't understand the fuss about it - and it certainly provides a better guarantee for flatness of your print. (There is no problem dry mounting inkjets either.)

Jeremy pretty much summed it up - good advice.<p>

 

I have a trip report from when I was there on my site; <a href="http://www.grafphoto.com/articles/machias.htm" >Machias Seal Island</a><p>

 

It is a good idea to have a couple of days planned just in case weather won't allow you to get out there. Weather can also severely limit the time you have on the island.<p> Going a second day will also allow you to go to the second set of blinds and give you a little different setting. We weren't allowed to rotate blinds at all - once they stuck you in one - you were there for the duration.

John,

I give some basic advice in an article I put on my site for housing your SLR <a href="http://www.grafphoto.com/slrhousing.htm" >here</a>.

<br><p>

It is really doing to depend on how much you want to spend. You have a nice selection of lenses - only the 17-35, 105, and 28-105 would be of any use underwater.

<br>

Aquatica and Ikelite are probably your lowest cost solutions for housing your existing cameras. I would go for the housing the F100 over the F5 - just because the housings are generally cheaper and smaller. I also think you are better off buying a dedicated u/w strobe vs. housing your current flash.

I would also assume it has the new LBCAST type sensor that was announced today on dpreview. From the details in the article, it sounds like it will definitely be used in the D2 series and be available in fall!

The most interesting part of Shaw's article on Van Os's site was about the workflow of editors and the conditions they work under. It would seem that ultimately digital needs to become a positive business case to justify the capital these companies are going to need to upgrade.

I wouldn't think so - purely for the reason that Nikon recommends the VR being turned off when on a tripod. Isn't this the case where you have to worry about mirror slap, if any?

For what its worth - John talks a bit about digital in this latest article on Joe Van Os's site; http://www.photosafaris.com. Don't worry - he hasn't converted - far from it.

Fred - since you are going to be snorkeling, you can probably get by without the flash. Colors really start to disappear after about 10 feet. Just remember that you need to get close, and when you think you are close enough, get closer! Shooting subjects from far away underwater will result in a lot of blue pictures.

 

For your needs, you might actually want to look into a little digital P&S with a small housing for it. Canon makes them for some of their small P&S digitals. Nice little package, and you get all the advantages of a digital camera.

 

I think the Motormarine type cameras are on the downhill slide because of the increasing popularity of small digitals.

 

Mark

 

www.grafphoto.com

Except in Scott's case for underwater shooting, and the subjects he wants to do - the strobes will be for fill light, not the primary light source. Therefore, shutter speed does matter.<br>

<br>

If it is only 1/60 - I would say that isn't enough for sea lions and dolphins. Both of them move very fast. At 1/125 you are probably 'ok' - at 1/250 even better if you are in shallow, bright conditions. I don't think you can avoid it no matter what strobes you get. (I personally use dual SS100's).<br>

<br>

Low Flash sync was one of the drawbacks of the Nikonos V at only 1/90 sec. It made it sometimes difficult to use fill in very bright conditions.<br>

<br>

Mark<br>

<a href="http://www.grafphoto.com" >www.grafphoto.com</a>

Matt,<br>

Adobe Photoshop Album software allows you to create something a bit unique from the traditional web photo galleries - a virtual 3D gallery walkthrough.<p>

I just added one to my <a href="http://www.grafphoto.com/GrafGallery/vrgallery.htm" >site</a>, it is pretty slick. Although I wouldn't want to make it my main format for showing images due to compatability problems with Netscape and Macs, and load time on dial-up connections.

All good suggestions so far, plus plenty of help in the archives. I pulled a lot of good info when I went to Big Sur last year. I would definitely hit Julia Pfeiffer Burns Park (McWay Falls) and Point Lobos for otters, seals, tidepools, and scenics.<br>

 

I went in early April. One caution though - bring tick protection! I ended up with Lymes Disease from a tick bite I got while hiking around the coastal cliffs of Big Sur.<br>

 

Plus - be careful about leaving valuables in your car along the coastal pull-offs. It may seem like no one is around, but some folks must make a living off of drive-bys.

<br>

Mark

<br>

<a href="http://www.grafphoto.com" >www.grafphoto.com</a>

Steven -

I can understand the point you are trying to make, but I also think you underestimate the amount of skill and programming knowledge that is in a program this complex. Heck - I won't even claim to know the first thing about creating a piece of software like this, but just look at the list of programmer credits on the title screen of the software. I don't imagine one person could take credit for the development.

 

Adobe isn't forcing anyone to upgrade each time they release a new rev. If the new features are worthwhile to you, you will fork out the $100. Personally, I found the healing brush a welcome addition to working on film scans. It is a nice tool to have in the arsenal, though certainly not the only one.

 

I know as a photographer I don't use the program to its fullest potential, but I am constantly learning new ways of doing things and it is certainly a program you can grow with.

 

It will have its drawbacks like any other piece of software, and certainly its competitors will try to capitalize on its weaknesses. But like others have said, Adobe was in there first, and didn't manage to keep that position by turning out a product with little value.

I have been drymounting my 2200 prints for awhile now, no ill effects on Luster, Watercolor, or Matte papers that I have tried. 45 seconds at 185 deg F in the press seems to be all you need to get a good bond to acid-free mounting board. The heat has not been a problem.

 

I know dry mounting is referred to as losing your future options, but what options would you want to have with the print? I can always re-mat to another color if I want - the size of the image isn't going to change. I have used hinge mounting also, but have begun to prefer to the guaranteed flatness that dry mounting offers.

 

Mark

 

www.grafphoto.com

I think you need to use the same precautions as with traditional prints, mostly the coated papers to make sure the temps are not too high. (I melted one with a bit too much vigor with a tacking iron!) I have been mounting Epson 2200 prints using Archival Matte and Lustre papers with no problems (185 deg F for about 45 sec), and about to do some trials with Professional Glossy.

 

I haven't seen any color shifts whatsoever - I suppose it depends on the inks and papers you are using. Definitely try it for yourself, the experiences seem to be pretty varied on this.

 

Mark

I used to be happy with Archival Matte, until recent test reports began showing up saying the paper turns yellow in 30 years. Sure the inks are lightfast for 60+, but it doesn't seem to help when the paper itself turns bad on you.