Nature Photography

I just got my first digital camera today.

Part of the justification was to do nature photography. This is one whopper of a justification, because I also used it (in part) to buy a top of the line Mac computer and a ton of Adobe software. How could I pass up this package from the Apple education store: full versions of the latest Photoshop, Illustrator, Acrobat, InDesign, GoLive, and LiveMotion......all for $399. That's $200 less than Photoshop alone.

Anyway, now I got all this powerful computer stuff and a fancy camera with buttons and menus up the gazoo and I barely know how to turn anything on. I'm sure I'll never use half this stuff and probably be unable to figure out the other half. But what's a hobby for, if not to waste money and time.

I've been putting my photo interest off too long. The death of Galen Rowell affected me because I met him 20 years ago before he became really famous. For those of you who don't know, he was possibly the greatest mountain photographer since Ansel Adams. He started out as a bona fide mountain and rock climber, taking magical photos while dangling off the noses of Half Dome, Whitney and Everest. He and his wife died in a light plane crash a few months ago. He leaves behind a legacy of a million beatiful pictures. What creative thing will I leave behind. Nothing, so far.

Thus photography. Hopefully, I can take some decent shots, improve my technique, fool around with sinful post-processing, and put pictures up on my own website for my scattered family to see. I'm probably going to need some telephoto and macro capability to get serious with nature.

This is just a rambling way of inquiring whether anyone out there has interest or expertise in nature photography they would like to share in the future.

I enjoy snapping some photos every so often as well. I have a digital camera I use for "fun" stuff, but generally use my SLR if I'm going to take a bit more 'serious' pics (seems that everyone now days makes a SLR/Digital hybrid - e.g. you can use SLR lenses. It would sure be nice to see how things would turn out instead of having to wait to get the film back like I do now... [img]/forums/images/icons/frown.gif[/img] )

Anywho, I enjoy it, even if I'm not that good - but that goes for a lot of things in life! [img]/forums/images/icons/tongue.gif[/img]

What kind of camera did you get?

I bought my Fuji FinePix 6900 in June of 2001 and have taken over 4000 pictures with it -- I have not once taken a picture with my film camera since that day, and I probably never will.

I am wondering if film is going to be equivalent to vinyl records? I think there will be of course a definite use for film, but that market will be very small compared to digital photography.

Morning, Ranchman. I anted up for a digital SLR a couple of months ago, as the cost has dropped from ludicrous to merely ridiculous. Some of the results, all but one or two taken right around the house or at the Hindu temple next door, are here. These cameras require much more attention than a point-and-shoot digital, in particular occasional cleaning of the CCD, but being able to change lenses, use extension tubes, etc. with digital is wonderful, as well as your point about no waiting and no film/processing costs. If you see something you like, you can take 50 pictures of it and delete 49 of them (or all 50 [img]/forums/images/icons/tongue.gif[/img] )! Another caution is that there is a good bit more computer work needed to get the best possible images, because the cameras are not optimized to a "common denominator" like the p&s cameras are. BTW, Sigma is coming out with a digital SLR by the end of the year which will be significantly cheaper than the Canon/Fuji/Nikon models out now, although it will use only Sigma's proprietary lens mounts.

Very nice! I saw from your postings on Pbase that you got a Nikon D100. Sure seems to take great pics! (all assume the operator is OK as well! [img]/forums/images/icons/wink.gif[/img] ) I'd sure like to have a digital SLR, but I'll probably wait a little longer and let prices fall a bit more (like everything else electronic, I assume it they'll continue to "fall like a rock.") Since I've got EOS lenses, I'll probably go with another Canon.

Speaking of lenses, what lenses are you currently using? I have a Canon A2E I got several years back and have had pretty good luck with a Tamron for my zoom stuff and a Sigma for the "everyday" stuff - not high dollar lenses by ANY stretch of the imagination, but I've been pretty happy with them. (I have a Tokina for wide angle stuff, but I rarely use it.) I used the info on this site to help me choose my lenses. (Basically, I made a spreadsheet comparing performance of all the lenses of a particular type <e.g. 300mm zoom telephotos> and cross referenced it with current prices to pick the "best" ones for the money. )

Recently I've been playing with a 2X teleconverter on the Tamron lens and it's been pretty neat. (I know, that's "cheating" and I should just buy better optics in the first place... [img]/forums/images/icons/tongue.gif[/img] ) I've been able to get some macro-type closeups of animals WAAAAYYY away from me @ 600mm.

I've done some night shots of fireworks & such, but would like to get some good star pics. I've yet to find a nice little chart (for free) that gives some basic info on lens speed/aperture/film speed combinations that would work, so its all been trial & error so far. Any ideas on where I could get such a chart?

You will find yourself with a large number of files soon. My advice is set up a good system to store your pictures. The digital camera will allow you to really enjoy the fruits of your efforts.

I have been shooting nature shots just on our land but already have a large collection. Please share some of you pictures.

Good topic. I like to do nature photography as well. I have a digital camera, Canon 2.0 Megapixels, makes nice pictures but for the nature, the lens is not enough so I am using my Nikon SLR with 300MM lens. I wish I could afford the digital Nikon or Canon with interchangeable lenses so I can use my lenses from the SLR. But these cameras are at least $2,000. You did not get one of those, did you?

Nature photography is fun and challenging. I used to be hunter, but gave that up when I realized that what I enjoyed about hunting was being outdoors and seeing the wildlife. What I didn't enjoy about it was the mess I had to deal with once I killed something. Gutting a deer just isn't fun! So, I switched to just observing and taking pictures. I still wear camouflage and use the same techniques I used to use for bow hunting deer, but now I just take pictures.

While I was still making the transition from hunter to observer/photographer I took a good close up picture of a deer about 2 weeks before bow season started (I always scouted for deer a few weeks before season started). I killed the same deer on opening day! So, I have a before (alive) and after (dead) picture of that deer.

I may take up hunting again if they eat any of my newly planted and tediously cared for white pine trees though!

Thanks for the kind words, Ranchman. I've been having a ball with the camera--back to basics like f-stop, ISO, shutter speed, depth of field, etc., which P&S does for you; plus, NO shutter lag!! The Canon DSLRs look great, but if I were you and I could control myself, I'd wait awhile too--I suspect that prices will be down 15-20% by the first of the year. I went with Nikon for no good reason (my film SLR stuff is Ricoh), except that it was easier to get at the time (mid-August). Really, the Fuji looks like the cream of the crop right now, but the differences between the three are negligible, as they've always been with SLRs. As to lenses--18-35, 28-105, and 80-400 (with vibration reduction [img]/forums/images/icons/cool.gif[/img] ). Thanks for the website link--that looks like good information re. lens selection.

There is a "multiplier" with the lenses on a digital body, because the cameras pick up on a smaller area than the film bodies and so only use the center 3/4 or so of the lenses, so the lenses seem to be half again as long as they really are. [img]/forums/images/icons/confused.gif[/img] This is fun with the long ones--the 80-400 acts like it's a 120-600, and with a 2x pretends to be 240-1200--and a pain with the short ones, as you lose decent wide-angle capabilities.

As to astronomy pictures, have you seen this site, Astronomy Picture of the Day ? It doesn't have shooting information, but is mighty neat. I haven't seen a table like you asked about, but here is a link to a site which talks about technique for shooting Hale Bopp, along with some comments from others.

....in particular occasional cleaning of the CCD....

What is this? and what is involved in doing it?
David

What it is, is kind of a bummer . . . you have to open the shutter without energizing the CCD (which otherwise acts as a big dust magnet, and which with Nikons requires a separate AC power supply) and use methanol to swab the dust off the CCD. Some folks seem to freak out about having to do this on occasion (I've done it twice in 4,000 images), but I didn't find it to be a problem. The problem is minimized by not changing lenses, but of course that defeats the whole purpose!

Kilt--

What camera did you get, and have you gotten started with it yet? I went back to your original message and realized I hadn't absorbed your Galen Rowell comments fully. He certainly had a wide influence. Here's a Link to a nice article written in his memory by one of his students, Thom Hogan.

am a bit late and just new to this forum. but as digital camers go they are great. i have 2.1 mega pixel it is a nice camera but don't think it can replace my 35 mm slr, would love to have one of the digital slr's but at this time they are a bit to high. but digital is great, can take a shot just for the heck of it anf e mail it to a friend or take a shot and post to ans, a question. the biggest thing i miss with digital camera in my price rage is the loss of control and the loss of interchangable lens for wildlife i like a really big lens. very nice topic. and hope to see more post as the forum grows. [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

rmorgan,

I got the new Sony F717. Haven't had time to play much with it yet, plus the weather has been absolutely Edgar Alan Poe-ish for days. Thanks for the link on Galen Rowell.

Does this fit in your idea of Nature?

That is my still unplanked footbridge in the background.

Patrick

Here is a sunset from my mom's back porch.

I have gigabytes of photos from last 18 months of using my wifes Kodak digital. Jillions of flowers, animals, scenics. MY personal photography runs to astrophotography (just more distant nature) with totaly manual cameras Olympus OM-1 (I have 3) and about 50-60 pounds of lenses and accessories. My longest tele is 2000mm, 8 inch reflector telescope. Will focus as close as 25 ft or so. Gets you up close to the shy and wary animals or difficult to get places where telephoto is safer than climbing. I have been intending to try my wifes digital with the telescope for more instant gratification.

I have done my own lab work including enlarging prints as well as processing and mounting my own color slides but find digital manipulaltion smells better and is way cheaper. Still, I like "REAL" photos with wet chemistry some of the time and it will be a while yet before digital cameras compete with fine grain color neg film for larger enlargements.


Patrick

RMorgan, Sorry I'm so late on this... Congratulations on your photo layout. Some of those shots are really superb. I'm jealous of your cardinal shot as I have not been able to get a good tight shot of ours, not enough tele. Well, I could use my 2000mm telephoto on one of my SLR that I use for astrophotography (AKA Celestron 8 inch reflector telescope) but haven't done much wet chemistry photo work since buying my wife a 4 meg pix digital. No adaptor for her camera to my scope. One day I will spring for a digital for myself but will wait for the breed to mature a bit and "struggle through" with her camera for a while.


Patrick

Very nice picture. I like to take pictures of both nature and animals. I have a Minolta Maxxum 700si SLR and a Sony MVD_FD91 digital. I like the sony because I can take a picture and put the floppy disk in the computer and send emails. A picture will answer a multitude of questions.

JHB, Thanks for your kind words, not everyone apreciated the textures and composition but I like it. Good to have a photo record as I will be removing 2/3 or more of the dead stuff. The winter bridge scene was taken with my wife's Kodak 4800 digital snapshot camera. I have been too busy lately to do anything with my REGULAR cameras. I have some Olympus OM-1 manual 35mm SLRs and an OM-2 that are the staples of my astrophotography and even nature stuff. I have everything from fisheye wide angle to 8 inch reflector telescope(2000mm tele) that I use with the OM B U T lately (last year), I bought my wife a coma camera (so automated you can run it while in a coma), a Nikon SLR and a decent zoom lense 35-200 (approx)
B U T she doesn't use it anymore now that I got her a digital. She could care less about all the finer points of being able to choose metering variations, and override of the automation for artistic control and so forth. She likes to point, zoom, and shoot the digital and get fair results most of the time A N D not have to go through the film development hassle.

Later when the price/performance point drops sufficiently I will probably get an interchangeable lens digital SLR. Meanwhile I borrow her Kodak.

I'm sure there are lots of nice things about the floppy disk storage for your camera but I didn't want to have any more moving parts than neccessary so went with compact flash mem. With 3 each 128Meg cards you can get oodles (hundreds) of high res pix and the camera is recognized by Windows as a drive (read only) so downloading pix is trivial and pretty fast.

Good clicking to you,

Pat

Hi All, I'm new to the forum. Just bought a Canon EOS 10D myself, had it about a week and love it! It's rained mostly since I've had it, so haven't really had a chance to play with it outside.
I love nature photography, and both hubby and myself enjoy macro photography.

Can anyone tell me how to post a picture that is over 150k?

Possibly crop and resize it. 640 x 480 pixcels seems to work.

Egon

Do you have Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro? Save the image using more compression. It will reduce the filesize without shrinking the image dimensions. Digital Photos for use on websites do not need the high dpi number that is needed for printing photos.

Well, you can't post one that big.

But as Gaterboy says, you can resize it or use more JPG compression to make the file smaller. JPG compression of 30% will make a reasonable small file with little decrease in picture quality.

Another good program to resize and/or change compression is irfanView. It's a free download.

It isn't the most convenient method but you can chop a large high res picture into smaller pieces and post the pieces. Then the recipient reassembles the original from the pieces using any of several applications. A good one for free as already mentioned above is IrfanView available free from IrfanView.com Irfan Skiljan is one technosavy dude and has done us a great service.

In IrfanView simply click on the drop down menu bar selection "Image" and then select "Create Panorama Image" which lets you join images from vertical or horizontal components.

All compression methods used to seriously reduce file size "LOSE" quality. For most purposes on this forum, 150K is enough. It isn't likely anyone will want to make a poster size from a posted picture and if they insist you can negotiate regarding sending the full res file to them by other means such as email or...

Although the technology to put the pieces toghther again is readily available this is not likely a good choice of forums for this activity.

Post some pix of 150K or less and see how many demands there are for higher resolution. A small dose of reality is far more important than any speculation.

[img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] Pat [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

We got a nice digital camera for Christmas, and I'm slowly figuring it out. I'm kind of old-fashioned, though, and prefer the old Canon AE-1 SLR. I'm hoping someone can help me out with night sky photo advice. It's been 20 years since I've tried anything, but I'm itching to get a shot of the Northern Lights. I've got a tripod, and would probably be using my Canon 70-230. Any ideas on shutter speeds, apertures, etc? This is my newest goal for the winter, as we've been having some fabulous light shows up here this year. Thanks.

After your northern lights session you might not be quite so pleased with your digital. There is a conflict of tradeoffs. If you expose long enough to "gather enough light" and the subject moves as the aurora often does, you'll get a blured image that won't look like it did to your eye. Still, you might get something acceptable if somewhat surreal.

On the other hand if you cut the exposure time down to "stop" the motion, you will likely not get enough light for a good exposure.

To do it really well you need a lense at least as fast as f 2.8 but preferably faster and an equivalent ASA speed of at least 800 (more is better).

It is cheap to try, just go wide open (max aperture) at the highest ASA and see what you can get bracketing with shutter speed. Most likely you'd do better with a fixed lense rather than a zoom since most zooms are a compromise and are slower, say f4 vice 2.8 or better.

Good luck and share any results with us,

[img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] Pat [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

Kilt, I am an avid outdoor photographer, serious amateur and build my portfolio. My hope is to one day do a book or submit to a stock agency. I have yet to submit any pic to a magizine, but have sold some locally. The bast site I have found to help in you endever is Photosig.com. You'll have to register, but once there they have more traffic than any site, and people critique your pictues, in turn they eran points next to their name. In turn you earn points based on the critique rating and how many people critique your photos. Its very helpful as strangers as more apt to be less bias than say...your wife, mom, uncle,and neighbors. You'll learn allot, and people fromall over the globe will see your art. They also have a place where you store your pics, your onw online portfolio. Its free but the free membership limits how many you can submit in a certian amount of time, if you pay you can post more. Good luck, when there look for tjperry, its my portfolio.