First wildlife pictures

Re: First wildlife pictures

On 2008-05-11 02:48:06 -0700, "Focus" <focus@home.pt> said:

> Portugal seems to be flooded with birds: I hear them everywhere, but I can't
> see them!
> So I found some other wildlife that might be interesting for you:
>
> http :// photos-of-portugal,com /Wildlife/
>
> Comments welcome.
> (Please be gentle: they are my first wildlife attempt ;-)

A good start -- I think I see what you are trying to do here, so I have
a few comments.

First of all, toss anything that has a blurry head or eyes. We all get
those pictures; few of us show them. That particularly means head or
eyes obscured by brush, trees, or whatever. Remember, in wildlife
photography you are likely to take hundreds of shots, but only one will
be THE shot.

You will notice that deer have this maddening habit of standing with
their bodies in the shade and their heads in sunlight. So you either
get a low contrast picture with over-exposed heads and under-exposed
bodies, or you get something where you can't see part of the animal at
all. Small wonder that people want to shoot them with real weapons
instead of cameras! I think they are deliberately mocking us.

Well, I expose for the highlights if I have to, but understand, these
will not be your best shots. They sure are not mine. Generally, if you
have enough patience, the animal will either move fully into sun or all
the way into the shade, but he will stay there for only a few seconds.
Have the camera set to motor drive and when you have him where you want
him, let 'er rip.

You are doing good at getting close enough for environmental shots like
these. You will eventually want to get closer for portraiture, but have
patience with that. Get the technique down with the environmental shots
first.

A good way to practice is to use the Moose Peterson teddy bear training
tool: get three teddy bears: a white bear, a brown bear, and a black
bear. Then photograph them together (preferably using a 200mm lens and,
say a 70mm lens) in all kinds of light against dark, light and neutral
backgrounds, lit from the front, with back lighting, and with light
overhead. Bracket your exposures in 1/3 stop increments to a full stop
both up and down. Keep careful notes on which exposure is which. Then
compare the results. This will calibrate your eye and your camera to
get the exposure you want in almost any kind of lighting.

One thing you will learn is that the background, if it is dark, will
often drop out entirely if the animal is properly exposed. Great if you
are trying to get rid of a distracting tangle of brush behind a jack
rabbit. Terrible if you are trying to show the animal's environment.
Things to remember when you are trying to express your artistic vision.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

Re: First wildlife pictures

Thanks for your lengthy reply, CJ.
I'll comment in your post to keep it a little easy to read.

"C J Campbell" <christophercampbell@hotmail,com > wrote in message
news:2008051108324911272-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
> On 2008-05-11 02:48:06 -0700, "Focus" <focus@home.pt> said:
>
>> Portugal seems to be flooded with birds: I hear them everywhere, but I
>> can't
>> see them!
>> So I found some other wildlife that might be interesting for you:
>>
>> http :// photos-of-portugal,com /Wildlife/
>>
>> Comments welcome.
>> (Please be gentle: they are my first wildlife attempt ;-)
>
> A good start -- I think I see what you are trying to do here, so I have a
> few comments.
>
> First of all, toss anything that has a blurry head or eyes. We all get
> those pictures; few of us show them. That particularly means head or eyes
> obscured by brush, trees, or whatever. Remember, in wildlife photography
> you are likely to take hundreds of shots, but only one will be THE shot.

In these cases, the blur is caused by some tree or twig in front of the
animal and I did that on purpose.

> You will notice that deer have this maddening habit of standing with their
> bodies in the shade and their heads in sunlight. So you either get a low
> contrast picture with over-exposed heads and under-exposed bodies, or you
> get something where you can't see part of the animal at all. Small wonder
> that people want to shoot them with real weapons instead of cameras! I
> think they are deliberately mocking us.

It might be much more rewarding too: I tastes both animals and they are
great! ;-)

> Well, I expose for the highlights if I have to, but understand, these will
> not be your best shots. They sure are not mine. Generally, if you have
> enough patience, the animal will either move fully into sun or all the way
> into the shade, but he will stay there for only a few seconds. Have the
> camera set to motor drive and when you have him where you want him, let
> 'er rip.

I don't see that much shade. Could it be a problem with the monitor?
Gamma maybe?
Unless others agree.

> You are doing good at getting close enough for environmental shots like
> these. You will eventually want to get closer for portraiture, but have
> patience with that. Get the technique down with the environmental shots
> first.

I haven't decided yet what I like more: portrait or this "landscape" way.

> A good way to practice is to use the Moose Peterson teddy bear training
> tool: get three teddy bears: a white bear, a brown bear, and a black bear.
> Then photograph them together (preferably using a 200mm lens and, say a
> 70mm lens) in all kinds of light against dark, light and neutral
> backgrounds, lit from the front, with back lighting, and with light
> overhead. Bracket your exposures in 1/3 stop increments to a full stop
> both up and down. Keep careful notes on which exposure is which. Then
> compare the results. This will calibrate your eye and your camera to get
> the exposure you want in almost any kind of lighting.

I'm 100% sure you're right, but I don't have the patience to do all that.
I'll just learn "on the fly" ;-)

> One thing you will learn is that the background, if it is dark, will often
> drop out entirely if the animal is properly exposed. Great if you are
> trying to get rid of a distracting tangle of brush behind a jack rabbit.
> Terrible if you are trying to show the animal's environment. Things to
> remember when you are trying to express your artistic vision.

I had a feeling the camera was not very consistent with light measuring and
color.
Strangely enough, nobody seems to see that. Some pictures the grass looks
more green, others more blue. Some pictures are light, others dark. This was
a big problem with the trees (other post) and also when I made pictures on a
ship on the river in Lisbon. Two shots of the same scene in rapid
succession, gave two very different shades of light.
Although the 40D is very sharp for a 10 MP camera, I decided to exchange it
in favor of the Sony A350. After looking at the JPG's of the 40D, I
understood there are no in camera JPG's that I like at all. The better
consistency in light, the tiltable screen and a few other things made me go
back.
For now that's it, because the people at the store where I exchanged the
camera's, don't like me anymore ;-) LOL!
No wonder: I wouldn't want a lot of customers like me either....

Thanks again, CJ!


--
Focus

Re: First wildlife pictures

Focus wrote:
[ ... ]
>> On 2008-05-11 02:48:06 -0700, "Focus" <focus@home.pt> said:
>>
>>> Portugal seems to be flooded with birds: I hear them everywhere,
>>> but I can't
>>> see them!
>>> So I found some other wildlife that might be interesting for you:
>>>
>>> http :// photos-of-portugal,com /Wildlife/
>>>
>>> Comments welcome.
>>> (Please be gentle: they are my first wildlife attempt ;-)

[ ... ]

I liked the pictures. They are like the views you get from riding a
monorail through the Wild Animal Park. It was nice to see all the
colors and the animals against the background.

The pictures are not particularly good in a "photographic" sense.
Documentary-wise, they are a good trigger for someone who was there
and can add context and "feeling" from memory. Of all the photos,
there are two I might go back at and look at again. Throw away all
others. OK, maybe all but three.

If I were a curator or a publisher, none of them make the grade. If I
were a brochure-maker, maybe a couple. If I were a close relative of
the photographer and we were in his living room looking at a slide
show, I'd tolerate them once. When he tried to waylay me into seeing
them again, I'd get a phone call and have to leave.

Nice pictures, but busy and not grabbers. Good practice. Practice.
Practice.

--
Frank ess

Re: First wildlife pictures


"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs,com > wrote in message
news:Hvadnf5hhIv5yrrVnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@giganews,com ...
> Focus wrote:
> [ ... ]
>>> On 2008-05-11 02:48:06 -0700, "Focus" <focus@home.pt> said:
>>>
>>>> Portugal seems to be flooded with birds: I hear them everywhere,
>>>> but I can't
>>>> see them!
>>>> So I found some other wildlife that might be interesting for you:
>>>>
>>>> http :// photos-of-portugal,com /Wildlife/
>>>>
>>>> Comments welcome.
>>>> (Please be gentle: they are my first wildlife attempt ;-)
>
> [ ... ]
>
> I liked the pictures. They are like the views you get from riding a
> monorail through the Wild Animal Park. It was nice to see all the colors
> and the animals against the background.
>
> The pictures are not particularly good in a "photographic" sense.
> Documentary-wise, they are a good trigger for someone who was there and
> can add context and "feeling" from memory. Of all the photos, there are
> two I might go back at and look at again. Throw away all others. OK, maybe
> all but three.
>
> If I were a curator or a publisher, none of them make the grade. If I were
> a brochure-maker, maybe a couple. If I were a close relative of the
> photographer and we were in his living room looking at a slide show, I'd
> tolerate them once. When he tried to waylay me into seeing them again, I'd
> get a phone call and have to leave.

Just to be a little funny: I'm guessing you're not any of the above, right?
So how would you possibly know, what you would do, if you were what you are
not?
Something like:
"If I was a doctor, I'd remove his apendix." ;-)

> Nice pictures, but busy and not grabbers. Good practice. Practice.
> Practice.

Absolutely true. I try to learn everyday.
Thanks!


--
Focus

Re: First wildlife pictures



Focus wrote:
> "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs,com > wrote in message

>>
>> If I were a curator or a publisher, none of them make the grade.
>> If I were a brochure-maker, maybe a couple. If I were a close
>> relative of the photographer and we were in his living room
>> looking at a slide show, I'd tolerate them once. When he tried to
>> waylay me into seeing them again, I'd get a phone call and have to
>> leave.
>
> Just to be a little funny: I'm guessing you're not any of the
> above, right? So how would you possibly know, what you would do, if
> you were what you are not?
> Something like:
> "If I was a doctor, I'd remove his apendix." ;-)
>

A /little/ funny? Even less than that.

As a matter of fact I /am/ both a curator and a publisher, as well as
a brochure-maker; the unstated " ... considering your snaps for
inclusion ... " must have been beyond your grasp. Sorry. I should have
known.

>> Nice pictures, but busy and not grabbers. Good practice. Practice.
>> Practice.
>
> Absolutely true. I try to learn everyday.
> Thanks!

'Welcome.

--
Frank ess

Re: First wildlife pictures


"Focus" <focus@home.pt> schreef in bericht
news:Pu6dnSCX0vbZ3rrVRVnytAA@novis.pt...
>
>and I did that on purpose.
>

Lol............................

--
www .dicasa.nl