Hehe. I guess ignorance is knowing that he was pretty close, with the blurry background and all. And ignorance is really acting as if the "settings" were missed. Which explains why I wanted to know the distance, as that 25 feet just doesn't happen and it seemed a lot of bokeh for a longish away shot. Photos are like poker, it's a skill game with luck. You can increase your odds, your chances of a good photo, by knowing your subject and the surroundings. But luck is the moment, that scene you catch. Many times these guys sat and sat and sat...and got no "great" photo. It was skill to know where to set up and what to set up, but the moment two lions came together for an iconic photo, well sir, that isn't skill. You got lucky.
I had asked before, about one of his photos, and got no response. So, of course I didn't expect an answer. And other pros have balked at questions too. David Lloyd Wildlife Photography only answered 'cause I struck a nerve, one that stung like a broken guitar string up on stage in front of a few hundred, because everybody knows...but photos have camera mechanics in 'em, and some work together, like the aperture and the shutter. Other mechanics work quieter, unnoticeable to the ones who just "like" photos, and they are White Balance, Autofocus, and Tripods and such. And when guys like me ask about post-processing and exif info, well ya know, the pros, they get defensive.
The photo is older, about three years by the shooter's comments, and that too makes me wonder about glory days. I wish mine are ahead of me, but then again, I might let somebody else have a shot, 'cause mine are behind me...so now we know 25 feet and with the lens attributed, we can assume a framed shot. At 25 feet, the lens was at 200mm or thereabouts. Really, I just want to see the shot as it was shot. And honestly, it probably looks real close to the posted shot. If I remember right, shutter was 1/1000 and ISO at 360. Cool, 360...anywayz, at f4, you are stopped down to get the faces and there's awesome light, probably morning or evening so it's not harsh. But a fullframe Nikon would handle any light...the 200-400mm f2.8 is nice and fast and sweet for blurred backgrounds, but is twice the cost of my car, the awesome 1986 Cutlass Supreme...so back to White Balance- since we have all the settings we need to know(lol), what is the WB set at on that nice brotherly-love-lion-photo? And do you ever run the WB on "auto?" As hobby shooters like myself learn the gear, and we begin to learn about white balance and manually setting it based on light in the scene, what was the WB on the lion again? Oh yeah, and you never answered anything about post-work on that lionly catch. You shoot that hand-held?
I wish I had the desire to read the comments some more, as they are good fun, but I'm busy packing for some neon lights.
In the end, it's about money, and the info that is shared(or not shared), is money to the professional. Which is why I would rather tour galleries than click on a Facebook photo. And that means that David is correct, in calling me ignorant. I asked a question that wasn't professional...but I am still wondering things like Servo vs. AI and metering modes like "center-weighted," and and and and, to quote the always great Robert Earl. I know about the things like servo and jpeg image quality, but I wanted Mr. Facebook's opinion.
No, not you Mr. Zuckerberg, but thanks anyways.
I ain't a rich guy, and I'll never go to places where lions live. Shoot, I might not ever get out of Oregon after this weekend. My photo yearnings will mostly be around my town. But there's plenty of street photos and some nature too, so we will be just fine here. In the land of the rich, they'll be fine too, shooting on safaris and preserves, with twenty-thousand dollars in camera gear.
All I got is a few film cameras and a couple nice Canons. I got cheap, but capable lenses like the Sigma 10-20, and the 50mm f1.4, and I have a couple decent tripods and a good flash unit, Canon's 430 Speedlite.
When I have been close to wildlife, like the herons at Delta Ponds, I managed a few "pro" looking photos with a 28-135 IS USM f3.5, that when blown up to 8 x 12, they looked good. But I'd rather shoot all the time, and not just when wildlife comes callin'. That means shooting on the street, at my kids' ballgames, at my friends' kids' ballgames, in the orchards behind my house, or the farmland roads in the county(Linn) where I live. I like the canal down by 8th street, and all the birds. Which means I am missing the 70-300 IS USM. The 28-135 is good, and tops out at about 210mm on the cropfactor, but for small birds no. I like downtown Portland, and its quirky street pulse. The place is alive with culture, bikes, odd donut shops and awesome food carts. It is prime for a "wildlife photographer," as pigeons and weirdos are everywhere.
I lost two RC triggers this week, which makes the tripod interesting...
Wildlife shooting is hard work, and 9 months into the 7D, I have been out shooting critters dozens of times, and I have but a handful of awesome shots, but I'll get more. Not once yet, has the 7D been to Siletz, or Alsea, or the great elk herds of the Winchester area. We will get there, and when we do, I hope I am lucky enough to get in range, because I am prepared.
A guy name Frank Akers once told me, "You're the best poker player I ever seen." And I shared some of my poker opinions with him, over a few beers. We paid for our own beers.
An unedited shot from the Canon 7D. Focal length about 100 feet. But that don't matter. Check Flickr for more, or for EXIF info of other photos.
No comments:
Post a Comment