anthonty_debase

I have learned some valuable lessons from how the local dog owners behave at the local wetlands park. About 50% of them are scoflaws who don't obey the leash law (Sorry, if I offend fellow photonetians who are dog owners.) On many occasions I have seen these folks and their dogs scare and frighten the wetland wildlife. Now, when these people approach me and I have a subject in my viewfinder, I point the camera away and act as though I am bored by the lack of action. Yes, I miss some shots but at least the animals aren't harrased due to any action or inaction on my part. I don't like doing this but dogs are not on the endangered species list in my area.

Daniel, the 3021 will do fine for you. Plenty of good things have been said about it and I won't waste time by repeating them. You might wish to spend an extra $10-$15 and get the 3221 which is the black leg version of the 3021. The black legs are supposed to help at times when doing closeup photography since they don't reflect light. And besides, the black legs look cool. People will think you are a "pro" or an "artiste". :)

I see nothing wrong with helping the turtle across the highway. Given that road as highways have made animal migration tough on many species I think what you did was "good". Please allow me to impose my morality on you this time.

As far as the photos are concerned, I assume that the lake is part of the turtles natural habitat and that the turtle was behaving naturally in the lake. That seems OK to me. Now if you had digitally cloned the turtle and then digitally put seven turtles sunning themselves on a snowman in the Yukon during winter, and you tactfully forgot to mention the manipulation, then you would not want me to impose my morality on you.

"Marty Stauffer is ruined and Art Wolfe,"

 

<p>

 

Can somebody please give us the details of what these people did and how it was discovered? Just the facts please, we can make our own judgements. Thanks.

Frank asked:

"That means,

should both kinds of images be competing for the same market share? Is there more value to an unmanipulated image? Do editors have a right or duty to warn readers of manipulated images? "

 

<p>

 

Let's suppose we are talking fine dining instead of photography. Should a restaurant inform its patrons that it used imitation crab meat made from bottom fish instead of real crab in it's Crab Soufle' (sp?)??? Should they tell the patron that the turkey dinner is chopped,pressed turkey instead of freshly roasted turkey? And, for you vegitarians, should they state that the black berry cobler uses frozen berries instead of fresh berries? I think the answer is yes.

I have a relatively new B1 (less than 1 year old) and I have never experienced the lockup problem. It will flop if I don't tighten it enought but, at least with my 400mm Sigma, once tightened the head does not flop at all. It's a very rigid setup. Adorama sells a $20 clip that can be used to lock the ball head in place and help prevent flopping. I haven't tried it but perhaps that is the answer for you lucky fellows with the 600mm f/1.2 lenses.

Thanks to all who offered advice and comments. I believe that this question arose because of comments made to me by my point-n-shoot friends. They think the grebe shots are great and that I ought to market them. I attribute this more to their own limited abilities rather than any great skill on my part. Nevertheless, I was fascinated by the fact that they did not see the cluttered background as being significant. They focused on the cute animals and their parents.

 

<p>

 

I went back with some ISO 400 print film and reshot the grebe babies. This time they were swiming and thus I was able to shoot them away from the dead and dying plant life. I was also able to use a polarizer with some shots to cut down reflections from the water, plants and feathers. I suspect that saturated colors from the plant life will not be as distracting as the brighter reflections from the unpolarized plants. Hopefully, the prints will prove me right.

 

<p>

 

My hat is off to those people who get great shots of wildlife using ISO 50 films like like Fudgie Velveeta. This is a real learning process. I can't remember when I had so much fun being frustrated!

I have been photographing the local grebes whose nest is now full of cute little babies! I like the grebes but they have rather poor taste in the asthetics of nest location. The background is a collection of bent, broken, dead and generally unphotogenic reeds and other plant material. It is impossible to find a camera position that does not have a read or leaf coming out of the grebes head. The stuff is close enough to the nest that they cannot be rendered sufficiently out of focus to blur them into non exsistence. But then what can I expect from an animal that builds its home from decaying plant matter!

 

<p>

 

I hope that those of you who have been published or displayed at a show or competition would comment on how important a 'clean' background is when photographing animals in the wild. I use simple background sheets in my yard, but, wisely, they are not permitted in the local wetlands preserve. I do this for my own pleasure so I will probably have a print or two made despite the messy background. But I am curious as to the general standards for publishing, shows and competitions.

Several points to remember when visiting Yosemite:

 

<p>

 

1. Due to severe flooding earlier this year accomodations in the park may be hard to get. Both campgrounds and rooms are in short supply. Many roads are damaged or washed out. The Park Service may restrict entry into Yosemite. Perhaps some of the California people can update us on this.

 

<p>

 

2. The water falls tend to dry out by August and do not return to reasonable levels of water until the rain and snow start in October. Depending upon weather and how late in September you visit you may get lucky and see water in the water falls. I have been in Yosmeite in mid September and seen nothing but dry rocks.

Perhaps some of you may be able to suggest solutions to a problem I am having shooting water fowl. Recently I was shooting a nesting grebe. I used Sensia 100 (I have several dozen rolls of the old stuff left) in my FM2 with a 400mm f/5.6 Sigma. She had recently been diving in the water and had numerous small water drops on her feathers. The sky was partly cloudy but the grebe was in direct sunlight. Many of my exposures was right on so I got nice detail in the feathers, but the water spots reflected so much sunlight that they appear as burnt out spots on the grebe's feathers. Fortuneately the clouds came around and reduced the unwanted reflections. But the issue of how to deal with water spots that burn out still remains since one can't guarantee the exact level of clouds that will reduce the harsh light while allowing a decent shutter speed.

Any suggestions on how to deal with water spots that reflect more light than the film can handle would be appreciated. I have also had this problem with ducks, geese and coots. I suppose I could buy one of those butane hair dryers and blast away, but I have a feeling the grebe would not have stayed around. :)

Paul, as a newcomer to photography I think you can consider your technique as the main cause of unsharp photos. The odds are great that your lenses are of higher quality than your technique. I say this based upon my own experience. Every time I get an unsharp image I find that the fault is mine, not my equipment's. And I get lots of unsharp images, so I must know what I am talking about. :) VBG!

 

<p>

 

I also get very sharp images. So use that tripod, shoot with a quality film that is fast enough to freeze subject motion and take your time to do it right. I find that when I rush I do foolish things such as forgetting to tighten up the ball head. As far as 50mm is concerned I don't think that focal length is any better or worse than any other. Proper focal length depends on your distance from the subject and what you want included in the frame. The number is just a uniform way of labeling the lens.

Dan, you have some good points but aids such as blinds are not always usable to we amateurs. And I agree with you on studying the animals first. I am slowly learning were and when certain birds nest and search for food. But,if I tried to put up a blind at the local wetlands preserve I would probably be fined. Regulations require that all persons stay on the well marked trails. What I am looking for is refuges whose layout and design is such that I don't have to break the law to get a decent photo.

Recently I e-mailed one of our fellow photo.netians about a local wild life refuge in my area. His reply indicated that while there are lots of birds in the refuge, the layout of the refuge does not allow the photographer to get close enough to get many good images. So I am wondering what wildlife refuges are layed out so that a photographer can get close enough to get a decent sized image on the frame when using telephoto lenses in the area of 400-800mm. Any suggestions are welcome.

Utah. Near Brigham City I think.

In regards to the old Nikkormat EL one of our fellow contributiors said:

" They also have depth-of-field preview and I do believe they have mirror lockup, too."

 

<p>

 

You are correct. DOF preview was on one button and a small lever on side of the the lens mount raised and locked the mirror in place. The camera was very well built, solid and rugged. I sold my EL last year along with the 55mm f/3.5 Micro lens. One of my many mistakes.

Digital simply offers another tool to the photographer. No doubt the time will come when it replaces silver, but that is not today. Current digital images do not guarantee that the image will be around in 20 years. The biggest change that I see is will be the need for a new standard of authenticity. Today, ethical photographers will clearly identify animal photos taken at a zoo or at a ranch with a handler. Digital images will require the same level of honesty. Check out the review of Sam Abel's class done by Glen. When National Geographic moved a pyramid they caught a lot of flack. Other than that I don't see digital as much of a threat to photography. Color correcting an image via filters or software is still color correction.

I am wondering how one classifies nature images for storage and retrieval. For example, I take a picture of Soleduck Falls. Potentially, I can put it in my 'Olympic National Park ' group or my 'Waterfall' group. I am curious how we nature photographers classify our images so we can easily find them years from now. Is the place you take the picture more important to you than the subject or visa versa?

 

<p>

 

I am sure that different people prefer different methods. Hopefuly, we can learn from each other.

Our fearless leader has asked:

 

<p>

 

"Just before you press the shutter for your 136th image of a Canada Goose, do you ever pause and ask why?"

 

<p>

 

Yes I do. And the usual answer is that I am trying to improve on my previous work. There is always the possiblity that the next image of a Canada Goose may just be a little better than my current best. I guess it's sort of like golf. Until, you can routinely shoot 18 on an 18 hole course you always have room for improvement. And that is fine for me. Purchasing a calendar with nature photos in it reminds me of sitting in a narrow seat on CattleCar Airlines. Making my own photographs reminds me of siting in a wide seat with plenty of legroom on the Coast Starlight as it heads down the California coast or chugs over the Cascade Range. For me the train is part of the experience and making a photograph is just as much a part of the experience as viewing the image on the wall.

Dan, thanks for the information on Astia. I am wondering if you have had any prints made from your Astia slides and which printing method you used. One assumes that a less contrasty film will produce a 'better' print with more details. Please let us know what you have found.

Thanks to all who offered advice. I found that the best way for me to carry the tripod is also the simplest and cheap. I use two velcro straps to secure the tripod to one side of my mini-trekker. The top strap hold two legs securely and the bottom strap hold all three legs. This arrangement is very secure. I have turned my pack upside down and shaken it with great vigor and the tripod does not come loose.

Most modern cameras come with three metering methods: spot, center weighted, and matrxi/evaluative. I am wondering what metering method has proved better than the others when photographing landscapes, scenics, waterfalls, sunsets, animals and so on. No doubt different metering methods work better or worse on different subjects. Perhaps we can share our collective wisdom on what works best for us when photographing different nature subjects.

I have yet to find a loupe that I really like. For some reason most of the loupes I have used do not focus clearly on the slide. I ended up taking my old Peak 8x and looking at the slides with from the opposite end of the loupe (ie. the rectangular side). This gives me a very sharp image. For some reason I can't get loupes to focus correctly when I use them right side up. Strange, but true.

I have the Sigma 400mm f/5.6 APO Macro (WOW, what a name!). These are my thoughts on it.

 

<p>

 

One of the things that makes it good for nature photography is its ability to focus down to about 4 feet. I can take nice photos of flowers and critters that are a few feet off the trail or that will run away if I approach then any close. It's also a lot lighter than a 400mm f/2.8 lens so you can lug it around on a hike.

 

<p>

 

The build quailty seems good to me. I have heard bad reports of cheaply built Sigma lenses but this one seems to be very well built. Of course, since I have only owned it for 6 months I can't make any claims for its long term durability but I have no reason to think I won't last a long time.

 

<p>

 

Optically, it is sharp. I have never compared it to a similar Canon or Nikon lens but its hard to imagine my 11x14 enlargments being much sharper. Some people claim that the Sigma has a yellow cast to it. Again, the colors and contrast look fine to me but since I have not compared it side by side with a Nikon or Canon lens I don't know about the yellow cast. I do use a multi-coated Hoya 1B on it, perhaps that reduces the yellow cast (if it exists!).

I really like the built in lens hood. I can't forget it like I do some of my others. :(

The only negative thing about this lens is its speed. F/5.6 is rather slow if you are shooting ISO 50 or 100 film in poor light. Sometimes I lose a shot because the shutter speed is to low to stop subject motion. Still, if I used an f/2.8 lens I would have lost all of my 400mm shots because it would be at least 4 more years until I can afford to buy it!

I don't know if there is a satisfactory answer to this problem but I will throw it out and see what we can learn. A few weeks ago I was photographing the local beaver family. The beaver have nice, dark brown fur. It was late in the day(about 1&1/2 hours before sunset) and the and beaver were on a submerged tree trunk. The beaver were shaded by trees so that no direct sunlight was on them. As far as I can tell the water was reflecting a relatively bright blue sky. My problem is that in order to capture the detail in the fur of the beaver I had to wash out the water. If I exposed so as to give the water a light blue color then the beaver became so dark that much of the detail of their fur was lost. I could not find a good compromise despite extensive bracketing in 1/3 stops. The film was Fuji Sensia.

 

<p>

 

I am considering using fill flash but I am wondering if the water might not also reflect the flash. Does anybody have any experience using fill flash on a subject on the water? Also, if the flash

scares the beaver away my fellow citizens might not appreciate their loss!

 

<p>

 

Perhaps I have to face the fact that I am exceeding the range of the film and search for better light conditions. But, unless the beaver decide to come out during the middle of the day that will be

tough.

 

<p>

 

Your thoughts and comments will be appreciated.

I am glad that somebody brought up this subject. Ten years ago (in the days of new kids and first house) any new equipment I might have bought would probably have been used. One thing I would watch very carefully is what you pay for used equipment. In my area some of the used equipment sold by local dealers is not much cheaper than new, grey-market equipment sold by New York mail order houses. In the case of my Nikon FM2 I found that the local used dealers were actually more expensive than grey market prices for a new FM2! Still if a local dealer offers you good advice then don't scrimp on rewarding him. He's earned it. Of course, you can also buy private party which is usually cheaper but takes more time and effort.