Oct 28, 2014 | Photography, Wildlife Photography
Twenty years of shooting and submitting 35mm slides to clients, not cropping an image after it was taken is firmly planted in my storytelling consciences. I “compose” and tell the visual story within the borders of the viewfinder, arrange the elements so the eye sees the subject and then moves through the frame ending back up at, the subject. Part of that arranging of elements and that path of travel is done with lens selection and exposure. And that’s influenced by the environmental factors that have unfolded while I was taking the photo. Simply put, the photo for me is a glorified memory, a couple steps up from those photos you put on the refrigerator with a magnet. That comes from my own personal desire to share the wild world I am so fortunate to witness with my camera with you, the world. So that brings up a question that popped into my mind this past week looking at the photos of another photographer. I asked the photographer, “Does size matter?”
This photographer cropped in post everyone of her photos, every single one! After realizing this, I asked why, why did she crop every single image? She said, “Because I like them better.” That’s a really valid answer and one I have no comment to. If you like it, then to me, that’s a done deal. But for me, the cropping was so random and often, created such an awkward visual path, I finally asked if I could see the whole image, the uncropped photo. When she showed me the first uncropped image, I saw this wonderful, wonderful photo. We spent a whole lot of time talking about why it was so wonderful and at the end, I asked why she cropped this marvelous photo down to a piece of &$*#()? She said something to the effect, “I thought that’s what we were supposed to do to get a big subject size.” That sent my mind a spinning, cycling through all the cropped images I’ve seen over the years (it drives photographers nuts when I look at their photo and say, “You cropped this didn’t you?” It often shows, badly.)
Subject size in the frame, that seems to be the core reason why photographers crop their images. There is nothing wrong with that, I am not trying to have an open season on the debate about cropping. I am hoping though to start a debate within your own mind if you’re a post cropper, especially for just the sake of subject size in the frame. I put up these two examples of a Little Bee-Eater as an example of my point. The top frame is the full sensor, FX, and the bottom image is with HSC, what most think of DX crop, both shot in the camera (shot with D4s / 800mm w/tc-.25). The top frame, you can’t help but see the subject, there is a path for the eye to travel and the story of the open African Woodland habitat in which we were working is being told. You see basically the same thing in the bottom frame, but the openness of that habitat to me is lost. Now why you can’t help see the subject in the top frame, well I wrote a book, Captured, to explain that. All I want to do here is to make you think about why you crop in post rather than compose in the viewfinder? Can your photography improve if you ask yourself that question next time the camera goes to your eye? It’s your story, your memory, you need to do it so you like it. Make the most of all the tools you have especially the heart and perhaps, size doesn’t matter.
Oct 27, 2014 | Wildlife Photography
There is a rule in wildlife photography I follow pretty faithfully. “Don’t shoot critters against a flat gray sky.” The reason is pretty simple. If you expose for the critter the sky is a wash of gross white. Yuck! Expose for the sky and the critter is a black shape at best. Yuckie! The reason is real simple, range of light. The range is too great so there has to be a compromise with either the highlights or shadows taking it in the shorts. Step in the D4s (or D4 or Df). These cameras can capture a six stop range of light, one stop more that other bodies and that one extra stop can make all the difference in the world. What is hard to grasp is how you get this six stop ability to kick in (and remember to use it!). You can see the difference in these two photos of a Leopard laying in a tree with its kill. The gray sky is a killer and shooting normally, the subject is lost in shadow. The gray sky just looks boring at best. But when you dial in overexposure, yes overexposure, totally the opposite of what common sense tells you to do, these three bodies hold the exposure in the highlights (the sky) and opens up the shadows. This is huge to me and is just another reason why I love these bodies.
Is there any other such “tricks” other bodies can do coming up with the same results? I know of one that in theory should come up with the same basic results in a slightly different way. While on safari there were a couple of folks shooting with the D810. To them I suggested shooting in the Flat Picture Control setting using the Matrix Highlight metering. This combo should provide nearly the same results though not shooting with the same range. Those who tried the combo liked the results and they were better than not using it. As long as you remember that photography is all about telling a story with light and exposure = emotion, these tools are at your bidding and do work magic!
Oct 25, 2014 | Wildlife Photography
I don’t know! I’m still very fascinated by both.
African Buffalo and Red-billed Oxpecker. Africa cool!
Oct 23, 2014 | Wildlife Photography
It’s not until you see the sun bleached bones on a grassland plains just outside an airport does the reality really hit home. Shot for just their horn, the Rhino has been and is being shot to extinction with some species already gone and others damn close to it. Ya, we’ve all heard of this but it’s not until you are on the ground in Africa and you see the extent of the slaughter does it really sadden the heart. It was the topic of many a discussion while we were there as we tried to understand just to what end poachers go to get that horn so someone in the East can convince themselves they feel better. This is a post that, truly, I’ve wrestled with for a week, how I was going to approach the subject? It is very complex, from the problem to the solution and after being immersed in it for a week, I truly understand the gravity of the problem but have no grasp of a solution. Education seems to be the one clear avenue of hope. With this simple message, I hope you will take the time to learn about their plight and in that learning, find a way you can make a difference. I might be home writing this right now, but I find comfort that even if I were to never get back to Africa, to know critters like the Rhino roam free in their world as they always have. A wild heritage that must be preserved for future generations.
Oct 22, 2014 | Wildlife Photography
One of the BIG questions going to Africa is, “What’s the longest Lens to Take?” Going there for the first time, I read all folks who had been there had to say on this topic. When I posted what gear I was taking to Africa, many shooters who have been there were telling me the 800mm was too much lens. Their logic was sound, at Mala Mala you are so close to the critters, you don’t need a long lens. Also, always shooting from a vehicle where the other folks are moving, shooting with a long lens is down right a pain in the ass. There is a saying I always embrace when it comes to wildlife photography. Take your biggest lens or you’ll come back short. And my first drive, I didn’t take the 800mm but soon discovered that was a huge mistake for me. I think the biggest factor though when it comes to the longest lens you should take is YOU!
This is a Pied Kingfisher that the majority of the time was on the same reeds right next to the Landie most of the week. A smallish bird, sparrow size, it’s a great kingfisher so I had to get the shot. It was physically close, the bottom shot is what you could get with a 200mm. That’s an impressive subject image size for a small bird with 200mm. The top image was taken with the 800mm with 1.25x attached. Yes, there is an image difference but more importantly, there is a “Moose” difference and that’s really the point. The “Moose” difference being the intimacy with the subject, the control of the background and of course, the story. I think that’s the biggest factor in the longest lens you take. Ya, you can go with just the 80-400VR3 and be PERFECTLY fine on safari. Especially if you take advantage of HSC which gives you 600mm with that lens. But your photographic comfort level is a huge factor in this decision as well. Traveling about, working with and shooting with a big lens on a tripod (being used as a monopod) in a bouncing vehicle, I saw is simply not what many photographers are use to. You’ve gotta keep it fun while you’re on safari and working a big lens for many, isn’t fun. But for me, if I hadn’t taken my 800mm, I would have come home short. I shot with the 800mm the majority of the time. So I think the moral of the story is, the length of lens you take is not dependent on the location but on you! The decision has to be based you, your abilities and the memories you want to bring back. While I missed some shots, I brought back more than I missed shooting with the 800mm.
