[John Bennett]

Just my two coppers.

Don’t rush into lens purchases when your first starting out. There are litterally dozens of top notch lenses available, that when bought will seem like the cats meow. I know and understand how difficult it is not to get some but rushing out and spending $$ on a lens or two is a fast way to spend $$ where you dont want to. I’m not suggesting what you buy won’t be good (that possibility exist) what I’m suggesting is you buy something that in time, you discover isn’t suited to what you really enjoy shooting and thus ends up being a paper weight.

IMO the fastest way to fall into that trap is to replace your “kit” lens.
Is it the best glass in the 17-50 range? No, but the glass itself isnt bad, its surprisingly good. It is built cheap and might fall apart in a stiff wind but both Canon and Nikon’s kit lenses atleast optically are more than up to the job while your learning/starting out.

I used my kit lens for 2 years, acquiring my 400mm first, (what I really wanted to do…wildlife), then the 85mmf1.8, and then my macro (180 f3.5) before replacing it.

Fast glass is invaluable and the nifty 50s by both Canon and Nikon are worthwhile. You may not use them alot but they are dirt cheap (relatively) and when you do need them you’ll thank every star you have that you have a fast lens in your bag

70-200mm
For arguements sake lets say you have $1,000 burning a hole in your pocket. You *could* spend that on a lens to replace your kit lens. Ok, so you have a better lens but what else? You could buy a 70-200mm giving you focal range coverage from 17 right out to 200mm.

I’m in year 5 of my plan. A plan I mapped out around the same time I bought my first body. I’m one lens away from completing my lens line up. Map out the types of lenses you’d like to own, then prioritise them.
It takes years to get the lenses you want and doing it ad haoc

[John Bennett]

John sometimes when you get a string of very similiar images you have to look for the tiniest of details in order to decide which one to keep. This is normally my 2nd and 3rd culling pass.

I get this alot just bcase of the nature of what I do alot of. Sometimes I’ll have 4 to 10 images that are exrtemely similiar and its a blade of bass in the breeze that determines which one I keep.

Thoughts
#1) underexposed, I’d delete it

#2) Exposure is good, but Due to the shallow DoF the reel is OOF. Nothing wrong with that if that how you want it.

3) Not sure Id want the view of the fly from he back end

#4) Kind of flat with the straight on perspective, could stand with a 1/3 more exposure or lightening of the shadows.

Of them, I like 2 the most

[John Bennett]

Cheers David.

[John Bennett]

Night security at Augusta is about to increase Im thinking 🙂

Theres an exective coarse about 10 minutes from my house, it has a stream running through it. These shots were either taken on the coarse grounds, or within a hundred yards. Right now anglers and winter rules golfers share the course.

FORE!

[John Bennett]

CS3 is pretty much perfect for me.
LR I think might have a slightly better cataloguing system but lacks PS.

CS3 or LR though I DETEST their “loupe”. Its such a clumsy and awkard way to view enlarged files when checking for critical sharpness. It’s not uncommon for me to come home with hundreds of files after any given day. My first pass deletes anything I simply don’t like or has obvious problems.

That can leave me with 2, 3 or more shots that are very similiar, where the only difference may be wing position/head turned this/way that…Small minute differences. Thats when I start enlarging photos to begin my second cull. The best one I ever used was RAW Shooter which LR was based off.

Basically Adobe bought what was probably the best RAW converter on the market as they were developing LR, many thought it was to get rid RS before bringing LR to market. Used some of it, and did away with the rest.

What a shame

[John Bennett]

Weight is a huge factor for me, assuming quality of the items are similiar. I passed up on a Sigma 300-800 at consible savings (read a couple grand) in favor of the 500 f4 because it’s gasp 4 pounds heavier. Theres simply no bloody Im bushwhacking for Deer/wildlife for a few hours (more) with 18 pounds ( lens + body) vs 13pounds.

Im strongly considering either the Canon 5DmkII or 50D as my second body over a 1DMKIII or MKIV due to the weight differential.
A 1D with its frame and battery and a spare batery is considerably heavier than either of the above.

It boils down to what you do, how you plan to use them

After two years of lugging 20 to 40 pounds of camera gear while wearing boots/waders/fannypack/water bottles/terminal tackle to rivers. It is very likeky the #1 consideration for any future purchases……*now*.

My ideal light purpose pack.
Body (1D or 5D)
24-70 f2.8
70-200 f4 IS
400 f5.6
Carbon Fibre Tripod.

Add flash, flash bracket, batteries, heads and even that is going to weigh on you heavily if your walking a river for a day, or hiking into a marsh on a shoot.

[John Bennett]

I have spent this Easter afternoon with my Father watching one of the best final rounds of the Masters in recent memory. The problem is every time they show the ponds on 13 and 15, I am focused on the proliferation of rise rings on the water. Great golf is happening and all I am thinking about is casting dries to the rising fish in the pond. My name is Shane and I am an addict.

The problem isn’t you, it’s the golf courses.

Years ago, long before the popularity of Golf exploded, I used to play a course that didn’t mind the odd person fishing their ponds. On a few occassions I put a light rod in my bag and would make a few cast into a couple ponds as we played the hole. Back then groups weren’t stacked every 5 minutes trying to push as many foursome through per day as possible and you could easily spend 10 minutes on holes looking for balls (making a couple cast) without people fuming on the T box behind you.

/sigh
So glad I gave up golf

I guess for the Pros putting a 4wt in the bag would mean one less legal club in the bag though  ::)

[John Bennett]

My questions are these: At my entry level experience, should I stay away from the spring creeks and concentrate on “friendlier” water? What kind of water should I target? What skills can I work on help increase my odds of success? Should I work on my casting accuracy? Water reading skills, etc…? I want to go into this with realistic expectations, but I also want to give myself the best shot at experiencing one of those glorious days.

As others have suggsted I personally would make arrangements for a guide on day 1.

With regards to the balance you get out what you put into it. A tough technical water may be too much for me, but that won’t stop me from going and trying. I’ve been skunked before in my life, I’ll be skunked again.

For me, Yellowstone would be a once in a lifetime trip (it is very high on my bucket list) . My expectations going in would all about the adventure and scenery, the fish might possibly be the absolute least of them.

Best of luck if you put it together, no matter what happens, you’ll be happy and that takes any pressure with regards to fish off.

[John Bennett]

Nice set Eric. Might be wetting a line myself for the first time in 09 tomorrow.

Re PP. a couple seem overdone for my taste (contrast??) but not over the top

[John Bennett]

I’m not Nikon so I won’t comment on the D90/D300 pros and cons. What I can comment on are two things that I try to live by for myself and I tell everyone whos starting out.

1) Spend where you have to, save where you can
2) You lenses are an investment, unlike your body they may be wih you for life.

Unless *you* have reasons for wanting the d300 over the d90, or if at this point its a toss up and you just dont know which way to go.

Id give some extra thought to #s 1 and 2. Theres nothing wrong with saving some money buying the D90. The $$ can either stay in the bank or go towards a nice lens and get your lenses started. A body is only half the equation.

you use the d90 for 1,2,3,4 years (whatever). In the meantime your learning, not only photography but where *your* main interest lie and acquiring appropriate glass and accessories to further that interest.
Then when your ready you replace the D90 with the D400, 500 or whatever it is at that point down the road.

Is there a danger you migth feel the D90 is holding you back?
Yes, but the same holds true with the D300 t an extent and either way somewhere down the oad you will replace which ever you buy now.
lastly nothing will make you feel like your being held back than not having a lens for the kind of images you really wat to do.

Getting the itch to do macro?????
You could have a D3 but w/o a macro lens………..

[John Bennett]

Funny I just finished up a rather rediculous thread on another board because I had the audacity to suggest that anyone considering one of Canons 70-200s (f2.8 vs F4) should give serious thought to the weight differentials.

Alot of people shrug off wieght considerations (whats a pound or two) until they slog a long day lugging 10,20,30 or 60 pounds. Or have to leave a $2,000 lens at home because they are over weight alllowances on planes, when a lens half the price and half the weight migth have made a big difference.

That said.
My 24-70 f2.8 is glued to my body, its my work horse when I’m not shooting wildlife. But it’s a lens I take 90% of my images with, so I can “justify” the weight. For a secondary thats going to be in the pack, on hand for those occasions where its range is needed, weight imo is a real issue not enough people pay close attention to until its too late.

[John Bennett]

great stuff Will.

[John Bennett]

Michael, your welcome.
If you have photoshop (CS2,3 or 4 ) what I did is very easy, you could do it in 2 minutes. Mainly it was a small effort to bring out (emphasise) the fish a tad more.

With regards to the sky. I wouldn’t sweat it. It doesnt detract from the image and the fact of the matter is your image has data present right across the spectrum. From 0 to 255 (dynamic range), any attempt to hold back the sky at image capture would have resulted in clipped shadows. Most notably in the sweater (theres already some in the neck area). Of the two, capturing the detail in the sweater is far more important in this case. Have a look at your histogram, exposure is pretty much spot on and any deviation what so ever would have compounded the shadows areas, at which point PS work would have been required vs not.

[John Bennett]

Nah not so good or glamorous. Just fill out an entry form and forget about it, becase no one ever wins these things 🙂

I’d forgotten about it, but remember now, I thought wow
Alqonquin Park one of my favorite places on earth.
3 day trip into the interior shooting Moose
Workshop with Pro.

What the hey I’ll throw my name in hat
🙂

[John Bennett]

Hopefully manufactorers stop the insane MP race. So whether it’s FF or “crop” theres really little need for these huge files, beyond maybe commercial print.

full frame vs crop?
I think both have their relative merits, nor do I think the manufactorers will “drop” crop. Right now I’m strating the mental gymnastics for deciding my next body. It could be my “main” body if I decide to hold out for a 1DMKiv next year, or I might opt for the FF 5DmkII, or the 50D. Either of those would serve as a second body, in order to maximise their strength.

1D for people/landscapes/action
50D with super tele for wildlife

or
5D for FF landscape, short focal length stuff
1D for action/wildlife

These days noise isn’t much an issue, I mean really. Even if you “can” shoot fairly clean images at ISO 6400 without fast glass, would you want to???? And how often would you need to???

Bells and whistles are bells and whistles. Whether its FF or crop Id like to see advancements in dynamic range thresholds vs 20MP+ files, ISO 12,000, video etc.

There’ll always be a market for crop sensors imo.

[John Bennett]

Michael heres 2 quick and dirties to give you a visual. Both were done in Photoshop. The first with very basic adjustments, if you have PS you can do them easily. The second using some more advanced sotware.

Either way, as I said the photo is technically sound…No need to spend time on it. In all I spent maybe 5 minutes on both making very subtle adjustments.

First thing I did was check your histogram. Doing so revealed some minor clipping in the highlights. Namely in the sky and the white seat. I could have spent time trying to fix that, but for simplicities sake I just bought the histogram back a hair.

Second thing I did was to warm the picture a hair

Third thng I did was selectively increase the saturation on the fish only a bit

Fourth thing I did was give it some “pop” with a simple, very slight S curve.

Next up and instead I globally
1) I warmed it a hair
2) I gave it some pop by replicating a polarising filter
3) Added a little contrast
4) cropped it something approaching vertical framing more for visual reference (removing some distractions)

Any of those ajustments you could ramp up to taste or not..The photo is good as is.

[John Bennett]

Grats Kendal.

I found out this afternoon I’d won the grand prize in a National Geogrpahic contest. 3 Glorious days tripping in Alqonquin Park with an award winning Nature photographer workshop and a ton of camping equipment.
http://photoclub.canadiangeographic.ca/cg/Contests/moose/default.aspx
After last weekend’s cover, new lens etc this is continuing the roll.

So seeing as how news comes in threes.

Who else got good news recently?

[John Bennett]

You can punch it up a bit and there are some more advanced things to can do to keep the viewers eyes where you want them but technically speaking theres zero wrong with it.

Exposure is spot on.

Artistically, theres a million things that might be changed most of which are subjective. From lowering the perspective to framing tighter and removng some of the distractions, and or narrower DoF etc. The possible list is quite long, none of which are right or wrong. Its a persons taste that decides those things.

[John Bennett]

Don’t sweat it, Im not a thread dictator. Threads go where they go.

I know the current live release (est 65 pounds) was just caught this past fall down around Ganonaque on the St. Lawrence. That area is really hot in recent years for Musky chasers. Thought about going there, but I like the Moon river, have fished alot for Walleye and have tied into a couple Skis before kids came along 🙂

The Moon I can’t recal if its the current record or if it was the old live release…I want to say its the current record around 68 pounds and was caught ometime in the last 10 years.

J

[John Bennett]

Georgian Bay, Moon River area.

[Author]

Posts