bob_k

Thanks everyone, for all the great answers...lots of stuff I hadn't thought about...in particular I hadn't thought about the exposure differences between the object and the reflector and how it might help to compensate for this with ND filters.

 

As far as angles, the advice has been really useful. I will think of water as a mirror -- a moving, flowing mirror -- and figure out what angle the mirror needs to be 'held' relative to the object to get the desired framing in the mirror; and then I will set my tripod up for that angle. (I think a lower vertical angle produces a longer reflection and a higher angle a shorter one. I'm guessing a 45 degree angle might be the sweet spot if you want to maintain the most realistic proportions in the reflection.)

 

There can't be too much light on the mirror -- ambient light in a room is better than a light aimed directly at a mirror or a light completely behind a mirror. But the better (but not necessarily stronger) the light on the object, the better the light will be in the reflection. Even in the pitch dark, if a light is cast upon an object, you will see that light and that object in a mirror. This concept should work for the moon and for moonlight shining on objects reflected in water.

 

The examples have been brilliant. I have studied them and have learned a lot from them. This is fun. If anyone has any more great shots like these, please share.

Fantastic shot, Nathan.

 

Yes, please post other examples. Those are very useful.

 

Thanks.

Again, great answers. Please see my comments below.<p>

 

<i>The strongest reflections tend to be when light is relatively low and direct on the object you want to see reflected, but not directly on the surface you want to see the reflections in. That is, the mountain in light and the water without direct light. But that's no hard and fast rule. If you have good conditions, the angle for shooting can be largely a result of your compositional choices. Let your eye guide you as much as the science. </i><p>

 

So you need something that blocks out the sun from the lake but not the objects on the other side of the like? Something like a peak or trees behind you on the near bank, and then wait for the sun to rise just above that.<p>

 

<i>Polarizers are worthwhile when working with reflections because they help control the amount of reflected light you get. Essentially you can slightly enhance the effect or wipe it out entirely. Fortunately, you can see what you're getting in the viewfinder. </i><p>

 

That's a good point -- even though I'm not sure why it would, I can try looking to see if the polarizer can help.<p>

 

<i>The shutter speeds when shooting reflections tend to be dictated by the DOF requirements. Great reflections with long exposures are possible in still water. Of course, moving water is no reason not to try shots, but they will be different. </i><p>

 

I guess it matters how still the water is and how clear you want the reflection or if you want a blurred effect just to capture the colors. I will definitely experiment to see what I can come up with.

<p>

Thanks for the great answers.<p>

Thanks for the great answers. Please my follow up comments below.

<p>

<i>The best reflection shots happen with well illuminated subjects against a clear blue sky. That means the sun should not be in front but in back of your position. </i>

<p>

So in the morning get shots facing northwest (assuming you want the southeastern sun behind you) and towards late afternoon get shots facing northeast.

<p>

<i>Use a circular polarizer and remove it if you don't like it. </i>

<p>

I was thinking that polarizers would just cut through and lessen the reflection. How does a polarizer enhance the reflection?

<p>

 

<i>The angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection, so often--but not always--that means getting at a near grazing angle. Expect to hunker down a lot. </i>

<p>

Okay: get close to the lake and as flat to the reflection as possible (and still get it in the frame.)

<p>

 

<i> Often, but not always, the best shots are with still water. And the best candidates for still water are very shallow ponds, and especially puddles. </i>

<p>

Good point. The place I'm going has very shallow alpine lakes.

<p>

<i>Its often more interesting to have something in the water itself be visible, either by sticking or growing out of it. </i>

<p>

Okay.

<p>

 

<i>Use a tripod. </i>

<p>

It's heavy, but I'm carrying one in.

<p>

 

<i>Smooth out the water a bit with long (1-4 second) exposures. Stop down. Use f/16 or smaller for great depth of field. </i>

<p>

If you want the sharpest reflection wouldn't you want a short shutter speed to reduce blur from the motion of the water?

<p>

<i>Expose for the reflection and then drop down on shutter speed. </i>

<p>

Not sure about this...can you elaborate?

<p>

 

<i>Use a ND filter if you have it, but don't use it as a crutch. Typically an occulting board works as well. I used an occulting board on my 'self similar' shot (in my portfolio) a few weeks back. </i>

<p>

I have a couple good singh-ray filters that I use.

Thanks for the responses.

 

Eric, 11x14 prints would suit my needs right now. If I could get it for $10 a roll of 120/220, I think I would go for it.

 

Guy, I will research the quality of the Epson 3200 transparancy scanner. That also sounds like a pretty good alternative.

 

Thanks for the answers!

Next month I will go to a place famous for its lakes, granite, peaks

and color. There should be some dramatic reflection shots available

with color and peaks reflecting in the water.

 

Has anyone thought out the science and technique of water reflection

shots? I would appreciate any tips you can think of.

 

-What causes good reflections? Do you just have to be lucky and be

there when good reflections occur?

 

-What are the best conditions for the best reflections. I.e. where

do you want the sun to be (angle from the surface, angle between the

sun, the target and you, do you want it behind you to the side,

etc.) If I want to get good reflection shots what time should I

plan my visits to the lakes and which side of the lakes should I be

on?

 

-Where do you want to be (what angle do you want to shoot relative

to the water and relative to the sun)?

 

-What kind of filters (e.g. no polarizer)?

 

-What kind of shutter speeds produce what effects?

 

-What kind of film? I assume Velvia 50 is good.

 

-How do I get a reflection of the moon and a peak in the water? Is

there anything different for night shooting?

 

Anything else?

Have the prices for scanning 6x7 slides come down? I know they were

about $20-25 a couple years ago. I'm looking for something in the

much less than $5 range. If there are any such services available,

where I can mail in my slides, I would appreciate some

recommendations.

 

If the prices are still too high, can someone recommend a good

medium format slide scanner in the less than $1500 range?

 

Thanks.

I agree that some of the posters here have been too harsh on Weldon Lee before they have bothered to learn all the facts.

<p>

Here is a post Mr Lee make on the subject a couple years ago (last one on the page): <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000Vvk">Permits for conducting workshops in National Parks (July, 1999)</a>

<p>

In his message, Mr. Lee seems as conscientious as anyone and expresses his frustration caused by the ambiguous actions of the park department. Let's give him a chance before comparing him to a drunk AA president.

<p>

[so how long before they start requiring every professional and semi-professional photographer to go through the same permit and insurance process?]

I agree with Karl and Shun: definitely get a zoom. It is the most flexible for the long run. I'd say get the best glass you can afford. The quality of zoom lenses nowadays is great and in some cases better than some of the best prime lenses.

 

That's pretty much my advice to everyone: just get the best wide-angle (17/20-35), normal (28/35-70/80) and telephoto (70/80-200) zoom lenses you can afford, then concentrate on going out and getting the shots. Don't screw around and waste money collecting all the different prime lenses.

 

With those zooms, you will basically have 3 great lenses (plus maybe a good macro lens) to learn, so learn them well. Not only will you never miss a shot because one lens is too long to get the entire scene and the other is too wide to cut out that garbage on the side, you will also get in the habit of framing your shots perfectly. You don't have to change lenses as often, you get a much greater artistic variety of shots, you don't have to buy as many separate lens accessories like quick-release plates, shades, filters, etc. Zooms add great flexibility to your abilities as a photographer and that greatly outweighs any minor quality differences, if any.

 

Forget about equipment issues like the differences between the 20mm and 24mm lenses and just buy the zooms so you can cover it all and concentrate on photography.

First of all, I think it's good to take the time and go after the masterpieces. I'd rather have 1 true masterpiece than 100 shots of just acceptable quality.

 

But it's a good exercise to look at the numbers.

 

Let's see...10 publishable images a day over 200 days of shooting a year will give you 2,000 images a year. Do it for 50 straight years and that's 100,000.

 

20 publishable images a day over 200 days of shooting a year over 25 years would also give you 100,000.

 

It seems hard, but doable, especially if you can get more than 10-20 publishable images a day or if you spend more than 200 days out in the field.

 

So what are the real numbers? It probably depends where you are -- you'll probably get more images on an African photo safari than just driving around the country side -- but on average, how many publishable images a day can/should a good nature photographer be able to get? And if you're a pro, how much can you expect to make on average per image over its lifetime. I have a feeling it's not that easy becoming a full-time professional nature photographer.

 

That guy who said size doesn't matter might have a point: if you have thoughts about breaking into the business, it's probably better to concentrate on quality (and getting noticed for it) than quantity. Although I think you do also need quantity nowadays, I think it's quality that people still notice first and what sets you apart.

Shun Cheung: You are right that digital photography technology will improve and drop in cost drastically in the next few years. It's happened with every other form of digital technology, so this shouldn't be different. How far will prices drop? I'm guessing that in 3 or 4 years the top-end digital cameras will be cheaper than today's prices for top-end non-digital 35mm cameras. The question is how long will it take them to be better or at least close to equivalent as far as quality?

 

On storage: There are at least two different types of storage we need to look at: long-term storage and short-term storage for when you are in the field. For short term, there are already small hard-disk units for offloading photos, so I don't think it will be a problem. Having used a Sony Vaiao out in the field, I think people will want portable high resolution viewers as well. The technology for long-term storage will also improve: writable DVD's; tape drives; and as bandwidth improves, online storage of photos.

 

With online storage, you can set it up so that images in a certain directory on your hard drive are automatically uploaded to a "digital vault" site that has all the protection and back-up you can possibly imagine. (I know there are companies doing this for corporate documents, but I don't know if there are any yet specializing in photo images.) It is safer than slides, where you are susceptible to fire, accidents and natural disasters. Storage and handling for digital images will be easier, safer and cheaper than film.

 

On the motivation for going digital: Total price (including equipment, film, storage, etc.) is important, but I think the primary road block for going totally digital is still quality. It's getting there, but the quality of digital pictures is still not close enough to traditional pictures for many professionals and serious amateur to switch. But digital quality and price will be here soon.

If weight and size for travelling is not a problem, I don't think the 600mm is too long. I almost always have a 1.4x on my 400, and I often wish I had brought the 600mm.

 

In theory, it's usually easier to move farther away from the bears to get about the same shot. Unless you are forced to work closer than say 60 feet because of, for example, a platform right next to a feeding area, the 600mm is probably a safer bet.

 

The only reason I usually take the 400 is because my 600mm is a monster and it really inhibits my mobility, both in the field and in getting to the field. My usual kit is long zoom (80-200), medium zoom (35-70 or 28-70) and wide zoom (17-35 or 20-35) and possibly a macro lens or extension. For wildlife, I add a 400mm. A 1.4x for the 400mm and the 80-200mm is so lightweight and useful, it is a must. Along with a Gitzo 1348, Arca-swiss B1, flash equipment, filters (warming, polarizer, neutral density), and a small variety of film, I'm set for just about anything with a relatively small pack of equipment. Sometimes I will take a 400mm even for non-wildlife nature sessions. It's surprising how useful it (along with 1.4x) is for background perspective, background blur, and getting tighter shots of just about anything.

 

A couple trips to a local zoo or wildlife park during the early morning might be useful to choose your equipment and to practice with things like focusing, filters, flash, setup, etc.

It's not only the number of pixels, but also the color range for each pixel. That's probably even more important. Then there's the ability of the camera to detect and record different ranges of light.

Also, other than the slightly lower quality of the pictures, my conclusion was that digital is a very usable solution for wildlife photography. The extra 4 or 5 pounds of weight for the computer and battery packs was almost negligible compared to the weight of the tripods, heads, super-telephoto lens, cameras, etc. The extra weight was not really noticed on daily hikes of up to 4 or 5 hours each way. And you might even be better off as far as space when you consider the space your film takes up.

 

Digital is also a much better solution as far as the hassles of aiport baggage security x-ray checks on your film.

I think the Gardner and Wolfe book is the best guide, and I carried it around for a while when I was beginning, but I never used it, at least when I was out in the field.

 

I do still carry around the manuals for my cameras and flash, and find an occassional use for them.

Simple answer: don't carry your equipment on. Just put it through checked baggage.

 

Be sure you have insurance that covers it and that it's packed in something (like a Pelican case) that can stand abuse. It's true that you could end up without equipment when you get to your destination, but it's an acceptable risk for me. It's a hassle lugging all that stuff through airports.

I use both a Nikon 35mm system and a Mamiya 7.

 

There's no question that the Mamiya produces the better images, but the 35mm wins hands down because of its versatility. I use the Mamiya 7 occasionally for landscape photography or when I really really need that extra size.

Is it too strong to say that *ALL* of the great nature photographers of recent years use 35mm?

 

I know Art Wolfe pretty much uses exclusively 35mm and in my opinion, he has become the greatest nature photographer ever.

I experimented with wildlife photography in the back country of Alaska a year and a half ago when the Nikon D1 first came out.

 

The biggest problems were 1) storage for a large quantity of shots taken over a week in the backcountry 2) power, because the D1 only had a rechargeable battery pack and did not take batteries and 3) quality.

 

For storage I ended up taking a Sony Vaio to offload shots off of 340MB microdrives. It worked well and I was able to evaluate the images in the field as well. It was kinda weird using Photoshop in the middle of nowhere on shots I had taken within the past hour. To me, this is a huge payoff for digital. I can see eventually using a firewire from the digital camera to a small computer (or similar device) so that you can see your shots at high resolution as you shoot them, even if you are a 3-hour plane ride away from civilization.

 

For power, I just brough extra battery packs for both the camera and the Vaio. I still had to really conserve on power. A better solution using batteries is needed.

 

The quality was still nowhere near slide film. Pictures just aren't as good. Also, I never bought the idea that you are getting free telephoto. It's the same as the free telephoto you get if you crop your slides.

 

Seattle, Washington

I generally take a Nikon 400 f3.5 and 80-200 f2.8, along with a 1.4x TC that fits both. The 400 f3.5 is a beautifully sharp lens even with the teleconverter, and is also relatively lightweight. It's fast enough to get salmon jumping and bears fighting even with a teleconverter on overcast days, although on some occasions you might need to push to 200 on your film.

 

There are shots where the 400 is too big, but for most of the shots you'll want the 400 x 1.4x. Even that won't be long enough for some shots but a 600mm lens is a big hassle to haul all that way.

Thanks for the really great responses, everyone. I can't wait to go. I will go for 5 days and stay at the Captain's Choice motel and rent a car from them. I will try to drive up the highway to Haines Junction on one of the days.

 

I would also appreciate comments on the system I am planning to haul up there:

 

I will have a Nikon MF 600mm f4 so I might miss some in-flight shots that an AFS would give me. I will also use 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. I can use the 1.4x on my 80-200 AF f2.8 if necessary. I will have a sturdy tripod and ballhead supplemented with a Wimberly sidekick for the big lens. I'm hoping there isn't a lot of walking involved.

 

The current plan is to use mainly Fuji Provia film, possibly pushed up to 400 if there is low light or lots of motion. Not sure if this is good enough when using the teleconverters. Also, I'm wondering if I'd get more definition in both the white and the black feathers with print film. Seems to me that one or the other (or both) tend to get washed out in eagle shots. Any suggestions?

 

Not sure how well the Nikon 3D matrix metering will handle the snow and grey cloudy skies, but I will test it against spot metering on grey before I start shooting. It would be nice if it did the right thing, but I'm guessing that it will try to overexpose a bit in that environment. Any comments from Nikon users?

 

I don't suppose I can see the Norhern Lights from there. Since I'm up there anyway, how much farther north (from Juneau) do I have to go to see (i.e. photograph) them well?

I am thinking of heading up to Haines, Alaska for a few days to

photograph bald eagles. I've never been there and know next to

nothing about the place so I would really appreciate some advice on

logistics. Do I need to hire a guide? If so, can you recommend a

good one. If not, how do I find the eagles myself? Are there blinds

already set up that I can use? Do I need to rent a car? Where's a

good place to stay?

 

What are the tricks and secrets for getting great eagle shots around

Haines? What else in the area is good to photograph this time of

year?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Seattle, Washington

I am about to get into MF and was considering purchasing a Mamiya 7

(or 7II) when I read a couple threads here about the Bronica RF645.

Now I'm wondering if I should wait and buy one of those instead.

 

Can someone please summarize the advantages (and disadvantages) of

the Bronica RF645 compared to the Mamiya 7. Is it just size and

weight? If so, how much smaller and lighter will it be? How will

they compare as far as accessories, cost of operation and image

quality?

 

I will be using this MF system mainly for outdoors photography and

hope to be able to hike and climb with it.

 

Seattle, Washington

I've heard and read enough complaints from different people that I'm thinking there has to be a significant problem with Arca-swiss B1 ballheads manufactured within the last year or two. Of course, not everyone has experience problems (yet), but there are more than enough reports about this issue to warrant a high degree of suspicion.

 

Quality no longer comes to mind when I see an Arca-swiss ballhead. Just the opposite -- we're probably getting really shoddy merchandise for our $400+.

 

And the problem is exacerbated with the prospect of facing terrible to non-existent customer service. The alternative, Kirk Enterprises, doesn't seem to be any better and may be worse, at least as far as customer service.

 

We're dirt. Please take our money and walk all over us.

The service from Arca-Swiss sounds absolutely awful. For the amount of money we pay for this stuff, we shouldn't put up with this garbage.

 

If they are going to treat us like that, let's do business elsewhere.

 

The Kirk ballhead is probably the way to go. It's slightly less expensive, just as good, and the service can't be any worse.