Brett Colvin
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hi Tom,
At times I use a Lowepro Dryzone backpack but it kind of depends on the likelihood of heavy rain or how treacherous the wading is expected to be.
The Simms Dry Creek hip pack might be an option for you as well.
Frankly, these days I just carry my camera buck naked on something like a CarrySpeed Strap:
Years ago I used to worry quite a bit about hauling a naked SLR out on the river, but after trying a lot of impractical solutions I finally just decided to insure my camera (which is very reasonable through your homeowner’s/renter’s insurance provider) and became mentally OK with the fact that I may dunk it someday and have to pay the deductible.
Zach – brown trout eggs x brook trout milt. They are very aggressive and have been used successfully in many areas to manage chubs and other unwanted denizens.
I have never seen a brown/bull hybrid. In Montana, brook/bull trout hybridize in the wild to some extent and the results I have seen wind up looking a lot like a brook trout or splake (lake trout x brook trout).
I’d be interested in any info on the brown/bull as I haven’t come across that scenario before.
As an add to Mike’s comment – the Tokina AT-X Pro 16-28mm is optically outstanding and on par with Nikon’s offerings. Tokina has always made great wides, and my favorite wide by any manufacturer on DX was the 11-16mm Tokina.
However, like Nikon’s 14-24mm, the Tokina 16-28 does not allow you to use filters due to the front element design.
If wide is your thing, the 16-35mm f/4 VR or the 17-35mm f/2.8 would be your options with both being outstanding. The VR module on the 16-35 makes it fairly comparable, capability-wise, to the 17-35 f/2.8. The 17-35 is a pro lens, so it’s a tank with all metal build quality where the 16-35 is the more plastic-intensive variety common in Nikon’s consumer products like the 18-200 zoom (also making it lighter and less expensive).
The 14-24mm f/2.8 is the one you are probably thinking of where the front element protrudes and does not allow for screw-in filter use.
In testing, the 16-35mm is a touch sharper but the decision point is probably your budget and whether or not you want the pro build quality along with the far superior resale value that accompanies it.
Happily both options give you the 9-bladed, rounded diaphragm for sunstars and so forth. Sometimes Nikon’s less expensive optics scrimp and give you a 7-bladed diaphragm such as in the new 85mm f/1.8G vs. the 85mm f/1.4G. You would not go wrong with either the 16-35 or 17-35.
May have to check that out Zach. There was a fascinating article not long ago in National Geographic about a researcher in Siberia who successfully domesticated silver foxes. At one time the prevailing wisdom was that domestication of wild canids took place over expansive time periods – but in these real-world experiments foxes began to show not only behavioral (tail wagging, etc.) but physical traits of domestication (like piebald coats) by the 4th generation.
Incredible stuff.
Thanks Tim, I’m with you on brookies and tigers as far as the striking visuals, and I also enjoy the savage takes that seem more common with tiger trout than other species in the area. It’s hard to beat a gorgeous setting with colorful fish in the water.
Thanks Zach – yeah the markings that some tigers present are pretty amazing. Here’s a more impressionistic shot I took with a gold/blue polarizer:
Crazy how buttery these things get in certain waters.
Zach: If you are interested there is a great read out there called Minimalist Lighting: Professional Techniques for Studio Photography by Kirk Tuck.
There are some very useful diagrams of setups and techniques that helped me out quite a bit in the early going.
Minimalist Lighting for Studio Photography
In this series there is a second title called Minimalist Lighting: Professional Techniques for Location Photography that is also outstanding. The author was a full-time pro who traveled around with a Suburban-load of studio strobes and a full-time assistant. Basically this describes how he transitioned to doing most of his location work with 3 speedlights and a complete kit that fits into a single airline roller bag.
Minimalist Lighting for Location Photography
I found both of these worthwhile and each book contains concepts that are applicable to studio or field work.
Ben – Nice work man, that’s a well-lit shot with a single speedlight.
Zach – Thanks for the props, I appreciate it. You are correct, I’m using one strobe in a soft box on either side of the camera and slightly above. The table is up against a wall so that the poster board creates a 90° curved sweep. This eliminates any line, you just have a continuous surface starting flat on the table and then ending up vertical against the wall. Here I’m shooting a 100mm macro, and even the slightest elevation of the lens above the front of the table will clear the field of view.
My exposure depends on what I’m trying to do. Like Ben mentioned I sometimes intentionally leave shadow detail to anchor my product shots. Generally, I have to dial back my strobes from full power if I am shooting at f/8 to f/11, and then I’ll shoot at full power from about f/22 on down. At larger apertures it doesn’t take a lot of flash to blow out the white poster board.
You can get a lot of effects this way. Laying some diamond plate down over the poster board but leaving the vertical sweep intact, I can simulate 3 light sources for something like this:
Ben – it has been fun getting to know you a little better through this exchange. Again, my sincere thanks for your comments and encouragement. The article on dark field imaging was a nice read and very informative as well, I’m glad you passed that along.
I also love the Ezyboxes, as well as the Ezybox II – great line of products.
Incidentally, back in the day I shot an extremely simple DIY setup for relatively small objects that was almost identical to this Strobist post:
http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/07/how-to-diy-10-macro-photo-studio.html
My sweep was also posterboard, which I mounted using Velcro so that I could switch out backgrounds quickly and easily. Having one light shooting through the side and one from the top was a very workable and dirt cheap solution.
The diffusion material I liked the best for the sides of the box was vellum paper, fairly heavy such as 30-pound.
It’s a remarkably flexible approach, even using the box flaps essentially as aperture flags. You could certainly fire the on-camera flash up the middle for fill too.
Sounds like Zach is in good hands if you are on the case. Have a great weekend.
Ben: Thanks for the appreciation man, I can tell you have a keen eye.
My softboxes for this setup are pretty good-sized (24×36) which gives me a lot of wrap. I position them a little higher than the subject on either side and very slightly in front – perhaps about 10° relative to the reel. The top light is a result of having about 50% of the softbox higher than the reel. There is no 3rd light source from above.
My poster board is a 90° sweep, and it gives me bounce from the rear. The up-sweep begins about 2 feet behind the subject – far enough to avoid texture in the BG but close enough to easily return light from the boxes.
The reels are not suspended, but sitting directly on the posterboard which I blow out as much as possible with the strobes. In post, I make sure my white point is set where I want it and if any tweak is needed I can bump the levels on the surface with an adjustment layer.
Same type of setup here:
My advice is: No sheet Sherlock.
Poster board as has been mentioned or a sheet of white Formica will give you an inexpensive and re-usable sweep. I am not sure what you are diffusing your SB600s with, but something like a Lastolite Ezybox will wrap the flash around your subject and eliminate a lot of the post effort.
Setup here is a softbox camera left and camera right, poster board sweep:
<cite>@david anderson said:</cite>
Cute – pity they’re such a pest here.What’s your lens set-up for them ?
Yes foxes hammer the waterfowl and upland birds up this way…
In this case the den is adjacent to some cover, and we are able to approach to within 10-15 yards depending on which entrance the kits are using. I’m shooting a 400/2.8 and Jay is on the 300/2.8. Due to the proximity, the 70/200 with the 1.7x TC would work nicely, as would a 300/4 or 80-400.
The challenge has not been reach due to the covered approach, but the kits do spend a lot of time in the den so mainly it has been waiting and hoping for activity during the right light. Here is a shot from last night at sunset, with the distance from lens to subject at 10 yards:
This guy is laying very near ground level, and the approach is 4″ deep in swamp water. I wanted an eye-level perspective and had to “assume the position” by kneeling down and soaking my jeans and elbows in some very nice, sulphurous rot to get this angle. Jay can speak to the mosquitoes that bombed the scene as well.
Congrats on the switch David. You will enjoy the new gear and I’m sure there will be a few things missed as well. The 85mm f/1.4 is stellar and with the ISO range on the D800 I doubt you will find much fault with it even wide open.
One new toy you might consider that Canon lacks is the TC17EII 1.7x teleconverter. It is amazingly sharp on any prime or f/2.8 zoom, and superior in every way to any 2x TC on the market as well as only costing you 1.5 stops. If you pick up the 70-200 this creates a versatile combo for extra reach.
Looking forward to seeing some shots.
Mike – today’s DX bodies are stellar and you should not think twice if you are eyeballing the D7100. My simple take: If you can afford it, go full frame. It’s now the professional standard and will continue to be.
Generally FX glass will be more expensive and the bodies will be physically larger, where in the DX consumer world light plastics and increasingly compact size are the norm.
I shot with the D300 for many years and was happy with it – the D7100 far outclasses that body in every way.
Ultimately I’m so happy with the results I have been getting from my full frame bodies that I never shoot crop anymore – but it’s just a function of having FX in the arsenal already.
A few recent images from the Nikon FX:
Holy smokes the canon equivalent is like 5k lol. No wonnnnder!
http://www.borrowlenses.com
http://www.lensrentals.comOr you can rent ’em for $50/day.
