March 20th, 2007
nature photography – questions anyone?
With the weather we’re getting this morning, you would never know it’s almost spring here. At 7:45 a.m., it’s about -15C (6F), with strong, gusting winds, and a windchill of -21C (-6F). However, the crazy thing is, by Thursday, the temperature is supposed to be 16C (61F). Our region is certainly an interesting if often *extreme* place to live.
If it seems that I’m a little quiet this week, it’s just that I have a bunch of little jobs that I have to get out of the way. One of the tasks I have *got* to do (no more procrastination!) is to choose a selection of photos that will be used to illustrate a slide presentation and talk that I’ll be giving for the Ottawa Field Naturalists’ Club in April. The topic is The Naturalist-photographer: Making Use of Digital Imaging in the Study of Nature. I hope to talk about how to utilize digital images to record, study and share nature observations — and use photos for such things as species identification, tracking changes to habitat, studying animal behaviour, and recording phenological events.
Although I pretty much know what I’ll be covering during the talk, I thought this might be a good time to invite questions about nature photography from anyone who reads my blog. It might help me to figure out what others might want to know about. What would you be interested in hearing about if I were giving the above talk to you? Is there anything you’ve ever wondered about when you look at my nature photos?
Just post your questions in the comments below. I’ll probably repost them up into the main body of this post to answer them over the next day or two. If I get quite a few questions, I’ll post a Part 2 later in the week. So, don’t be shy! If you’ve got a burning question (or even ten questions) about nature photography, this is your chance to get some answers. (-:
These are some of the questions that I’ve moved up from the comments below:
Q: Ruth asks: I seldom see unusual animals, insects or birds, but I would like to be able to recognize the signs that they were there, whether by identifying feeding habits, scat, trails, etc. I likely would see more if I knew how to look for the right clues.
A: Good question, and it actually deserves at least a whole post of its own to answer. I’ll definitely come back to this topic in another post or two fairly soon. However, the short answer is that it takes quite a bit of research to know what to look for. I have quite a good library of natural history books, so I read up on species that I would like to see and photograph so that I know the most likely places to search for what I’m looking for. Also, it helps to spend as much time as possible in a place through the seasons as you develop a sense of “neighbourhood” and notice all of the goings on of the creatures that are found in that place. I also like to go out walking with naturalist friends who may have a different focus that me. For example, someone may study snails, and another person might study fish. I’ve learned a lot just by watching how and where friends search for certain creatures. In order to find something I’ve seen in a place in the past, I keep notes on the location (I usually record GPS coordinates), and date and time. I might include weather conditions as well as this can be important. I also consult range maps (many of which are available online) to see if a particular species is even found in my range. Beyond that, the greatest secret (if it can be called that), is that I’m very observant, and that if you spend enough time out in a place, you will eventually see things that go unnoticed by others. My own way of thinking of this is that there is almost no place where there isn’t a lot going on. It may be small — perhaps just some ants under a rock — but there ’s “something” almost everywhere we look. It just requires focus and a bit of concentration to find all kinds of amazing things right before our eyes. Anyhow, I’ll post a bit more on this very soon.
Q: Wayne asked: What would you recommend that might bring someone up a quantum leap in capability without needing a huge amount of knowledge of juggling parameters, nor a huge input of money for diopters, bellows, ancillary lighting devices, and so forth?
A: Actually, Wayne wrote much more in his comment, so do scroll down to read the rest. However, I’ve picked out a question that I do get asked quite frequently. Again, this is a question that probably deserves its own post, so I’ll try to write something more about it soon. However, here’s my short answer to this one. Regarding my own choice of cameras, I use two cameras — an older Nikon Coolpix 4500 (a “swivel-body”), and the more recent Nikon Coolpix 8800. I now use the CP4500 mainly for very close macro work at which it still excels compared to much of what is out on the market even today. For the largest portion of shooting, I use the CP8800. It has a 10X zoom, making it good for shooting objects that are at a distant (not *too* distant though). It has vibration reduction (VR), also referred to as “image stabilization” which is a great asset when shooting handheld (near or far). I keep the VR turned on all the time regardless of how I am shooting. It’s also very capable when it comes to working close up — not quite as good as the CP4500 for the *really* close work, but almost there.
I’m occasionally asked why I don’t switch over to a DSLR type camera now that these are becoming increasingly affordable. My main answer is that I’m not fond of lugging equipment around with me, so I’d rather stick to the kind of cameras I use — the CP8800 being sort of somewhere between smaller point-and-shoot cameras and the DSLR type camera. It has a very good and very wide lens, so is quite good for shooting landscapes, and the same lens is terrific for working at close range. To get the same range of shooting from a DSLR, I’d need at least 2 or 3 lenses, and have to carry them, worry about scratching them or getting dust on the camera sensor, etc.. while swapping lenses around. I’m the kind of person who doesn’t really care a great deal about cameras (definitely not a camera snob) and I don’t enjoy having to bother with the level of care and maintenance that a truly good camera requires. For those who like gear, I’d probably recommend going with a DSLR as they are really quite reasonable these days. For those who are more like me, you’re probably better to try to find a camera that will do what you want. There are many nice compact point-and-shoot type digitals that do quite a nice job of photos.
If I were looking for a camera for doing a lot of macro work, here’s what I’d be looking for. A camera with a good, large, bright LCD screen so that I could see what I’m shooting (very important for macro work). I’d check the camera specifications to see what the minimum range is for macro shooting. If it’s anything more than about 10cm (4 inches), that’s too far. You need a camera that can get in as close as 3 or 4 cm (under 2 inches). My recommendation would be to go to a camera shop and take something along — perhaps a little rubber frog — and ask the salesperson to show you how well the model you’re interested in can capture the image. Unfortunately, the salesperson may not know how to make the camera take a good macro shot, but you can get probably get some idea of how well the macro function works. That’s really where I make the cut in cameras for nature photography. If it can’t do a good macro shot, then I’m not interested in that model. Almost all of the cameras on the market can do good “close” work (12 to 36 inches), but only some of them are really good for macro work. Most cameras can do a pretty decent job of shooting larger scenes too, but you should shoot some test shots to see if there’s much distortion of the horizon lines, etc…
I use a couple of strategies for comparing cameras without even trying them myself — one is to go to the PBase galleries where I host my own photo galleries, and search for photos shot with the model of camera that interests me. Making allowance for photographer competence, I check to see if *anyone* is getting good images with that model. If not, then maybe the camera isn’t very good. On the other hand, if I see quite a few nice images coming from a particular model (especially macro photos), then I’ll check further into the model. The other good place to check out cameras is on DP Review which has very indepth reviews of most models of cameras as they enter the market. The other useful way to find a suitable model, is to go to a site like the Pbase and go through galleries looking for photos similar to what you hope to shoot, and check the camera model if it has been posted by the photographer. That’s pretty much how I first decided upon both the CP4500 and the CP8800. Okay, that’s enough about cameras for now. I’ll try to write something more sometime soon.
Q: Peter asked: My biggest problem is getting ‘face shots’, ie, many times when I approach spider from the front to take shots of the eyes, they usualy move away before I even have a chance. If you have any secrets to share there, I’d like to know.
A: Getting a good face shot of a spider can be difficult depending on the species. Jumping spiders are usually easy enough as they are bold and will face the camera. However, I have occasionally had problems with some species jumping on the camera lens every time it comes near. Various species of Crab Spiders are also easy to shoot. More difficult are wolf spiders as they tend to run off. A couple of things that might help… keep your camera down at the spider’s level… I usually put my camera right on the ground when I’m shooting a spider that is on the ground. If you hold the camera up (at all), the spider will usually spook and run off. Sometimes it helps to use your free hand to create some kind of distraction to get the spider to look in that direction. You can then move the camera to an angle where you can get a face shot. I do that a lot with certain insects that have good enough vision to make it effective (for example, dragonflies). I do find that the CP4500 is a little less frightening to insects and spiders than the large lens of the CP8800, but I always shoot from very close when using either camera. By the way, I liked your lobster head macro! I’m glad you posted the kind of camera you have. I’m pretty sure that Cathy has the same model and has been wanting to do more macro shooting, so perhaps the two of you will be able to compare notes a bit later this spring during insect season!
Q: Xris doesn’t actually have a question, but check out his comments. My “answer” is more a discussion with points Xris has written below.
A: Yes, Xris, I should have mentioned this about the LCD screen on the DSLR — you’re right, as far as I know, there are few choices for SLRs that have an active LCD view screen for setting up shots. I kind of recall that some company makes some kind of add-on gizmo that runs off the viewfinder, but I’m may be wrong about that. I don’t like using a viewfinder at all as I have a very difficult time seeing well with one eye — I always have — so an active LCD screen is pretty much a necessity for me, especially as I do so much macro photography. I spend a lot of time using my camera as a way of watching insects and spiders — not just for the sake of shooting photos — so I like a good sized LCD screen that can be swiveled around so that I can see it from just about any angle. The CP8800 is excellent in that respect. I also use it for shooting a lot of .mov clips, and find the flip out LCD screen very nice for that as I can do a sort of 2-handed “steering motion” to follow the creature I’m shooting. Regarding macro photos, I’ve never really enjoyed shooting insects and spiders using the telephoto from a distance… I don’t really “feel” the insect that way — it’s sort of doing its own thing and I don’t like how the shots turn out. I like to have the camera lens very close .. a couple of cm. away and shoot that way even with the CP8800 with its big lens. That’s where being able to shoot using the LCD screen has an advantage. I can hold the camera down at insect eye level and in such as way that I can’t even see the insect over the camera, but can still see it in my screen while shooting. The only time I back off just a bit is when I’m shooting in the dark. In that case, I hold the camera a few inches away, zoom just a little, and then use one of the flash modes to give me some light. I crop away the dark lower half of the photo. I do moths that way at night, and have also used that technique for doing salamanders, crayfish, etc… With the CP4500, I use an LED light ring for doing moth macro photos. That works quite well. There is one problem with macro shooting at night and that is having enough light for my camera to figure out what to focus on. When Don is available, I get him to shine a Noma xenon flashlight beam onto the object that i’m shooting just a few seconds before I shoot. I’ve also shots .mov clips at night using only the xenon flashlight as a light source. Basically, I’m always experimenting with new techniquest that are often a little unconventional.
I agree with your description of the “ideal camera”. The one I’m itching to try sometime soon is the Nikon S10. I suggested it to a friend and he bought it a few weeks ago. I’ve seen a few shots taken with it and they look pretty good. He and I will probably be going out hiking sometime soon, so I’ll see if I can borrow it to take a few test shots to see what it can do. Thanks for commenting Xris… I really like having this kind of feedback.
Tags: nature photography
March 20th, 2007 at 9:23 am
Digital photography is so much better than using binoculars in studying nature. I have learned so much from studying my own very amateur shots as well as from professional ones like yours. I seldom see unusual animals, insects or birds, but I would like to be able to recognize the signs that they were there, whether by identifying feeding habits, scat, trails, etc. I likely would see more if I knew how to look for the right clues. Of course, changes in environment and the subsequent effect on various species is important and interesting information. Be sure and show some spiders and snakes! I wish I lived closer and could attend.
March 20th, 2007 at 9:24 am
Good going on the talk, Bev! I’ll be interested in hearing how it goes and reading your summary.
Although it sounds like your own agenda is a bit different, I’d be willing to bet that one of the main questions will nonetheless be “what kind of camera do you use”, and of course, we’ve talked about that here too.
I see several sorts of nature photography – wide angle vista shots, medium distance wildlife shots, and closeups of tiny things. I’ve seen some smashing photographs that come from low-end point and shoots, and in each case it probably had more to do with the person at the other end of the camera than the camera itself, a point that can’t be overemphasized.
But there will surely be some shots that cannot be made without an upgrade in camera. For really close macro, a cellphone camera will never do it. Vista shots are going to need a wide-angle field of view. And those fleeting birds are going to demand some control over exposure time and aperture. To top it all off, each image is probably going to benefit by a little photoshopping – increasing the contrast and modifying the brightness being the most common.
So there’s a bewildering variety of possibilities for upgrading from a low-medium end p&s. What would you recommend that might bring someone up a quantum leap in capability without needing a huge amount of knowledge of juggling parameters, nor a huge input of money for diopters, bellows, ancillary lighting devices, and so forth?
I think what I’m using (Nikon D70, two lenses, SLR, etc.), which I’m quite happy with, are more complicated than many want, and in many cases unnecessary. Your two choices strike me as more in line with the answer a lot of people would be comfortable with, and have delivered closeups especially that I sweat to get!
As I said, I don’t get the impression that that’s what you want to talk about here, but suspect it’s in the back of your audience’s minds everytime they see a shot you’ve taken!
March 20th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Ruth – Good question, and I’ve written a partial answer in the above post. I’ll definitely be including some snakes and spiders in my talk — and I also wish you lived close enough to attend!
-
Wayne – Thanks! I don’t know if I should be pleased or frightened! Actually, I’m usually very comfortable talking in front of groups, so it should be fun. I’ll definitely write up something after the talk. Good comments and questions on the topic of cameras. I’ve picked out one of your questions and moved it up into the main post. I may try to write something more later — perhaps on different models and what to expect from them.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Bev, in response to the macro question you answered. I picked up a Canon S3 IS last summer, which has up to 0cm focus range (it can focus on things touching the lens). I had a dusty lens last week and it auto focused on the dust, oops :-) It also has 12x optical zoom, with image stabilization.
My biggest problem is getting ‘face shots’, ie, many times when I approach spider from the front to take shots of the eyes, they usualy move away before I even have a chance. If you have any secrets to share there, I’d like to know.
March 20th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
I’d really like to have a small, light-weight, high-resolution, premier optics, rugged, infinitely-variable perspective camera I could toss in a shirt pocket. It just hasn’t been invented yet.
My first digital was a Nikon CoolPix swivel-body. I’m now with my Nikon digital SLR, mainly so I could use my old lenses.
Re: SLRs and LCDs. To my knowledge, only Sony makes a SLR with an LCD you can use for framing/setting up the shot, not just for reviewing it after you’ve taken it. So if LCD preview is a requisite, there aren’t many SLR options.
I miss the LCD preview on my SLR. I got spoiled. Also, it’s harder for me to focus in the viewfinder than it used to be, either with or without glasses. Auto-focus does the trick most of the time, but it can’t “see” the picture the way I see it, and sometimes focuses on the wrong subject. The fact that it’s digital, however, means I can adjust the manual focus while taking multiple shots, then edit out the bad ones later.
Re: Macro photography. All the macro lenses I’ve had have been zoom lenses, with a macro switch at either the wide-angle or telephoto end. For critter macros, the telephoto is definitely better, since you don’t need to get as close to the subject, reducing the risk of spooking it. The disadvantage is that telephoto flattens things out and reduces depth-of-field, which is usually in short supply on a macro shot. I really like wide-angle macros shots that let get you “inside” the subject.
March 20th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Bev, You are so generous in sharing this great information. I’m thinking about a new camera now and know so dang little that I might have blundered into a DSLR and really regretted it. I sure don’t want to schlep a lot of equipment around.
I have the most pleasant times strolling through your gallery. The Ottawa Field-Naturalists’ Club looks so great. They’re lucky to have you sharing your expertise.
March 20th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Perfect timing, Bev, as I’m considering a new camera. You may recall that I queried you not long ago on what type of equipment you have…this is perfect follow-up. Thanks!
March 21st, 2007 at 12:05 am
HI Bev, great post, I wish I could go to your class! I have a NIkon D40, an entry level DSLR. I’m really happy with it. With the stock lens I can get about 6″ from something, and if I take the picture on high quality, I can enlarge quite nicely, I guess it’s kind of cheating maybe, but for now it works. I still have my old SLR that takes nice pix too. I’m really intrigued by the whole film technology thing though(f-stops and shutter speeds), slowly learning about it. Ansel Adams has a neat autobiography(can you imagine going on a camping trip in the Sierras with Georgia O’Keefe!!!???!!!)of course he talks a lot about photography and nature. I really love black and white too, how it brings out the structure and design of things. I’d love to work on a field guide that had more “arsty” photos of things, that brings out unique design and form(along with a correct technical drawing of course), and even maybe some of the personality and character of a plant or bird or spider or mushroom, and their place in the big picture. Well, sorry to ramble, have a great talk!!
March 21st, 2007 at 8:23 am
Peter & Xris – Thanks for additional input on the cameras. I’ve posted some comments in response up in the main body of the above post.
-
Cathy – Thanks! Well, don’t let me deter you from checking out DSLRs, but I do know that, at the moment, they aren’t really for me. I’m very happy with the CP8800 and it’s about as large a camera as I’m willing to carry around. I’m quite hard on my equipment — both the CP4500 and the CP8800 have taken at least a couple of major falls while I’ve been out hiking. The bodies of both of them are titanium, which is probably why they didn’t get shattered before now. Anyhow, I think it’s good to look at all options and not feel too restricted. There are so many nice cameras around now – in all sizes and price ranges – that there’s likely something out there to suit just about every need.
-
John – I was wondering if you had been checking out cameras yet. As mentioned to Cathy, there are so many nice cameras around now that I’m sure you’ll find one that suits.
-
Celeste – Thanks! It’s too bad we’re all so far apart as it would have been fun to have all of us together in a group to talk about nature photography. I think all of the Nikon and Canon DSLR bodies are fine cameras and take great photos. There’s certainly nothing wrong with cropping down images of small things from larger images… that is regularly done, especially when people are using a telephoto lens to shoot very small subjects. With the CP4500, I rarely have to crop much, but with the CP8800, depending on the shot, I usually do at least a little cropping as it captures a lot of “extra” with that big lens. I love black and white too and use it for some things — usually more for art photography that I do and not so much for the nature shoting. I think that’s a nice idea for a field guide…one that is a little more aesthetic than technical. I’ve been thinking of doing something kind of similar — well, it would actually be a bit offbeat — with my nature photos. I think there’s plenty if territory for “other” uses of nature photography.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Thanks for the comment on the lobster face Bev, the total views shot right up after you posted a link :-)
Celeste – I had the chance to play with a D40 on the weekend. Great camera! I have used the D80 as well (earlier today actualy), and I don’t think I could stand lugging that one around in the field even with just one lens. The D40 is a much lighter camera, much better suited for being out and about, unless you want to build some large shoulder muscles.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:49 pm
I don’t usually think of spiders and snakes and insects as being photogenic. Your photos are remarkable, Bev! Thanks for stretching my mind in a good way.
March 22nd, 2007 at 10:03 am
Peter – Thanks for adding some addition notes about the cameras. It’s good to get feedback on things like how large or heavy a camera feels, etc…
-
am – Thanks! It’s occasionally mentioned to me that my insect photos are unusual for the way in which I portray them — a suppose a little more sympathetically than is typical. I find many insect photos kind of static, so I’m always trying to move in the direction of capturing whatever it is that gives life to the subject.