[John Bennett]

Don’t forget naturephotographers.net, of which i am the editor-in-chief.

[John Bennett]

I’m actually surprised as many magazines have survived as there are. I recall all too fondly buying every fishing magazine I could religiously. Often saving a couple issues to take with me on my yearly trips. Nothing I loved more than to sit on the dock, coffee/beer in hand and go through some magazines.

Now I buy one, sometimes two and as often as not its a case of hibitualisation and supporting my two favorites. Much the same way I refuse to gear, terminal tackle and the like online and only rarely buy anything more than clothes from Big Box like BPS, preferring always to support my local small shops.

With sites like this and others all the information one might need is available + features you cant get from magazines.

Ditto Photogrpahy.Luminous Landscape, Fred Mirandas, Nature scapes are just 3 I routinely visit and read. PS tutorials abound and on and on and on.

Really when you think about it there virtually no need at all to buy print anymore.
🙁

[John Bennett]

Yeah, its hilarious 🙂
I knew Grahams work was good but thats unreal. Oh the irony 🙂

The shooter who caught Apples eye is Keith Rankin. He lives in Alberta Can and primarily shoots Birds of prey. He has some unbeleivable Hawk, Snowy and Great Grey Owl work.

J

[John Bennett]

The P for Professional thing came from Jay Meisel or some other famous photographer. A lot of Pros have lost income and others have benefited. I was a early adopter and it has helped me somewhat. I hear a lot of complaints and when peoples incomes are on the line it can get serious.

I don’t for a moment doubt that advancements in technology haven’t seriously put a crimp in alot of Pros incomes. Just look at any number of “contest” the ensuing rights grabs and just how many people still submit images and you start to get a sense. Likewise theres no shortage of people willing to “sell” images at rock bottom prices. My goal this year is to get a few images published, only time will tell whether I make or succeed that but yes, money isn’t part of the consideration for me. Its the experience and gratification from making/exceeding that goal I really want.

However, consider a publications PoV, the net is killing print mediums. They to, have to adapt and if part of that is saving a bunch of money on their photo purchasing cost who can blame them. If its a choice between accepting less money for my images, assuming in a year or twos time I’m somewhat established vs magazines I like going the way of the dinosaur I wont blink an eye.

In fact it can be argued that websites just like Zachs are causing alot of publishing “Pros” to lose money. How often have you seen in response to book recomendation questions…Save yourself money and Google it on the net
🙂

I guess what I’m driving at is I’ve read from Pros on various sites the harsh economic realities of being a Pro and I can see and emphasise but its not unique. The only winners are Canon and Nikon 🙂

[John Bennett]

Of course now that the P on a DSLR apparently stands for Professional its getting harder and harder to make a decent living.

Lol, I hadn’t heard that before 🙂
Everyone has to start somewhere though. Most will probably be content to use DSLRs largely as PnSs and not bother to learn anything about composition and light. Some will take to the next step and fewer still will put the effort into really trying to learn the craft. Yes, technology has no doubt made things alot tougher on Pros but speaking as someone who is trying to take it as far as I can. Theres a still a world of difference between myself (Id classify myself a serious amateur) and a Pro.

With regards to copyright infringement. I don’t worry about it, in truth I think I’d be flattered. That said it is rife and more I get into this, the more I see and hear about it. Some of the guys I’ve mentioned are having their work turn up all over the net, especially in Asia.

Ive seen a thread recently, where someone was ripping images and using them on some web based photogrpahy contest site where winners got 20-100 bucks per.

And if you want a good chuckle, Ive mentioned this before read this link/story. To truly appreciate it check the imbedded links near the bottom about the images and Grahams work
http://bluecollarscientist.com/2008/01/09/atlas-of-creation-by-harun-yahya/

Somehow, I suspect infringement is alot worse than people think. Id never watermark any images going to an editor but for what I upload to the web I do. It may not stop the truly determined but if it stops people like the person who was ripping images, entering them in offshoot contest and pocketing a few hundreed bucks then its worth it.

[John Bennett]

My meagre contribution is ready early this month. All shots from last weekend.

First another kick at the can for first light shots on the North Shore

Once the sun was up I was off stalking Coyotes and White Tails.

Lastly a little PS experimentation

[John Bennett]

I mentioned this book in another thread recently. Of all the books I own it is by far the best and despite having read it cover to cover and digesting all the information numerous times, I still refer to specific chapters on occassion. Say if I’m shooting a brook in a forest with alot of greens.

I can’t recomend it enough.

Bryan Petersons “Understanding Exposure”.

[John Bennett]

Speaking as someone whos currently learning all of this first hand all I can say is that it really depends on who exactly your selling yourself to.

[John Bennett]

We need a green with envy emoticon, in leiu of that

[John Bennett]

Ive learned far more from taking shots, evaluating what I like and what I dont, what works/doesnt from feedback et al than anything my various books try to impart. The other thing is that just like there are alot aspects to fly fishing ( from nypmig, to dries for Brookies to Salt and double haulaing) each differnt flavor of photography while sharing many principles has its own set of things to “master”. macro photography is as different from wildlife, as landscape is to studio.

Right now Im trying to learn the basics of landscape. From Rules of thirds, lighting, leading lines, anchors and on and on. Its enough to drive you mad 🙂 Keep it simple and have fun. I figure I have enough to learn to last me a lifetime and I still

[John Bennett]

Thanks Rolf.
Im pretty happy with it, despite some technical flaws including a bit of a blue colour cast but its all part of the learning process.

Chad.
With regards to processing the different light values do mean something like wanting to make separate selections and layer adjustments for each of the sky and foreground? If so, I think I’m at a point where I can do that.

With regards to HDR Ive to try it because a) many of the images I see posted look almost surreal/cartoonish b) Ive yet to try my hand at composite/merging and more importantly, given the elements Im in for these I dont know/think its condusive to setting up on a tripod. While the tripod and bracketing would work for the sunrise shot Im not sure about doing at the water line.

Im toying with the idea of donning my waders and studded boots this weekend for another go at it (weather permitting). That should allow me to get a few feet out into the water for better angles and the boots should take care of the slips Ive had. Also thinking about using my monopod as a make shift wading staff and as support for the body once Im set.

[John Bennett]

Thanks again Chad.
While trying to process them the thought that a split ND might work crossed my mind but I know even less about using them correctly 🙂

Its funny when John mentioned using some flash a little light went off as Ive long struggled trying to get sun beam shots and exposing the entire image. The classic being while walking through forest. Think about good use of fill for wildlife and people all the time when they are side and back lit. Never entertained the idea that flash could be used for landscape as well
lol.

J

[John Bennett]

See we learn all the time. 🙂
Thanks John, using fill to cast some light on the foreground never crossed my mind. That type of shot (facing into a rising sun) has been problematic to me for awhile.

Re 1st and 3rd.
the 1st I knew was trash right away, if not for the water spay hitting the body and me in bottom right Id have not kept it at all 🙂

The 3rd.
Ive come across some stuff washed up on shore that acts as good anchors for ice to form. Some are stumps, most are logs and fallen trees. Each I find wants for a different perspective. With boulders/stumps ive been walking into the water so as to get more of a face shot but still trying to retain the shoreline. With fallenor washed up

[John Bennett]

No problem and thanks Chad.

I don’t do alot of landscape shootng, in fact very, very little. Just because I can see an image in my mind doesn’t mean I can produce it………yet. 🙂 You don’t get there without experimentation and learning.

Aside from the colours (nothing quite like winter skies and dawns first light) I’m also trying to capture ice formations which, in and of themselves can be interesting but also the way the light plays off them at first light. Im litterly on or in the water and done within 20 minutes of the sun cracking the horizon. Thats creates some probems with WB and colour cast but its not insurmountable. And yeah, the image thats currenty in my mind is done at a slow shutter speed so as to blur the crashing wave.

The first shot was destined for the recycle bin for the reasons you stated. Its soft because I started moving to protect the camera and/or missed focus when I repositioned. I pre focus then drop the body such that its bottom is kissing the water line. The only way to get the low angle I want is to lie down and while Ive been doing that on the beaches, Im not about to do that in a few inches of near freezing water :). Also, if I recall there was steam coming off the log which could very well be playing havoc on iq.

Either way its was to be deleted until I decided to keep it as a reminder. I recall all to well how wet the body and I got, as the wave broke over me, not to mentioned the near miss slipping on the slick rocks trying to avoid worse  🙂 . The water did freeze on the lens barrel and body within moments.

The 3rd shot is indicative what Im trying for. While not exactly what Im after, its “close” to it. All the elements, blue sky, strong directional light with the sun barely over the horizon, etc, except Id prefer more violent wave action, a better ice formation and somewhat better execution.

2nd. Agreed there to. But without using HDR (which im not really crazy about) theres no way to underexpose properly to get the sunrays. Any more exposure to capture more detail in the foreground and the sun becomes a super nova and I also lose the rays. So its clip some blacks or lose the rays and the sun becomes a hot spot, hotter than it is.

HDR for sure but all in good time. Im still trying to learn the basics of landscape 🙂

J

[John Bennett]

I like them Chad.
No need to appologise about the watermark one cant be too careful these days. I don’t worry too much about it myself, in my position I might consider it flattery but do know infringement is more common than most might think.

Funny but true.
On another fly fishing site I frequent a wonderfully gifted “realistic” fly tier recently discovered a few images of some of his ties (1 was a caddis) had been ripped and used in a book that was published by some science hack as examples of the real things.

[John Bennett]

I’m using this book having come highly recomended. It takes you setting for Bridge, ACR and PS. Global adjustments in ACR and pretty much everything you need in PS. I like it because its one of the few books written for an by Nature Photographers. I find most books, includingthe ones by Scott Kelby ( good book all the same) to include too much information thats not applicabe or rarely used because it targets a broad audience.

http://www.amazon.com/Photoshop-CS3-Nature-Photographers-Workshop/dp/0470119896

Its an option if you want one thats targetted for the type of photography we would do. If you want the Cornucopia type than certainly Scot Kelbys would at he top.

/edit because its way too ealy in the am and my brains functioning faster than my fingers type, omitting entire words 🙂

[John Bennett]

Political aspects aside thats one heck of a powerful image

[John Bennett]

Aaron I can’t sing the praises of fast focusing lenses enough. For alot of types of shooting, focus speed really isnt an issue but when it counts, it really counts. Its the difference between getting the shot and simply not. With some lenses and bodies ( different bodies focus faster than others to)  the difference in focus speed might only be a wee fraction of a second but that wee fraction can be the difference.

As for VR/IS whatever label is maker uses, its useful, certainly not the be all and end all, and has its limits. What it boils down to is insurance vs camera shake the rest is marketing hype. In a word camera shake can occur in images when your shutter speed is too low for the length of lens your using.

Rule of thumb.
The average person can handhold a lens at 1/focal length and avoid shake. Meaning the average person can handhold a 200mm lens and avoid shake at 1/200th. Do you know how dim it would need to be for a fast lens like a f2.8 not to manage 1/200th at ISO 800? So with a 400mm the threshold typically is 1/400th. If your at 50mm you should be ok at 1/50th and so on. In bright conditions depending on your f/stop and ISO acheiving 1/1000th isnt that hard. At 1/2000th you could put my 400 on top of a washing machine during spin cylce and it should still be sharp.

That said the RoT is for the average person. Someone whos just starting out or not used to long lenses may need 1/800th but as with anything hand holding technique improves with practise. I dont mind shooting under 1/400th with my 400. Sure some shots are soft ( a bit of shake) but others are fine.

Ive got tack sharp shots that are as low as 1/50th and 1/25th with the 400 and a Bushhawk. Would I try that on a money shot? No, Id be on a tripod.

So is IS/VR nice to have. Absolutey if your commonly in low light and under your focal length and dont have access to support like a tripod, monpod, Bushhawk, fense post, etc. Do you have to have it? No.

Consider Canons 70-200 f4 and 70-200 f4 IS.
Same lens both are wicked sharp. The IS version is doube the price coming in around 1500.00

my 2c 🙂

[John Bennett]

Id still go digital.

With the SLR you have to buy glass for each application (for the most part). The cost of film and processing is high. Depending on how much you shoot the digital would pay for itself in no time. No idea what it cost to process/print a roll of 24 these days but even if it cost you $10.00 all in (flim/process/print 4×6) the digital would pay for itself in 20-30 rolls.

[John Bennett]

Can’t help with the lens although Ive only ever heard great things about it.

Do want to chime in and say that while the lens will probably still function with a TC, in my experience a TC takes a heavy toll on IQ when mounted on a zoom. Zoom lenses are quite a bit different than primes and your asking alot of the lens to cope with the extra glass.

Thats not to say you can’t use one. If theres a distant subject that you simply can’t get closer to and want an image of it better to add the TC and get the shot than not. However if critical sharpness is of concern I wouldnt use a TC.

Canons 100-400 L is one of the best long zooms out there and while I would on occassion add the TC just to get a record, the dropoff in IQ was very noticeable. Where as with my 400mm the only time I hesitate to use a TC is when focus speed and the reduction thereof might be an issue (birds in flight).

If its reach you want and dont want to blow the bank on one of Nikons 400+ the 300 f4 is a sweet lens and takes TCs reasonably well. While that won’t address your mid range dilema when added to what you have you’d end up with full coverage out to 300 and then you could replace what you have later.

[Author]

Posts