Hi all,
Still catching up on my processing backlog - came across this image yesterday and it struck me that this may be my only photo of a grizzly where all 4 paws and sets of claws are showing in the same image! So if you like claws - you might like this one. When I took this photo the bear had been, up until seconds before I shot it, very calm and relaxed. Then it looked past me and saw something that drew it's attention in a major way. Turns out that it was another grizzly behind me (and I did thank my subject to alerting me to it!), only much bigger than this guy! At the time of shooting this bear looked (and probably was) debating his options. Seconds after I shot this he decided that discretion was a better option than valour (and he vamoosed)!
This image was captured during my annual photo tour to the Khutzeymateen Inlet. Over the last couple of years I've noticed an interesting trend in shooting styles (both of my clients and of other photographers). Perhaps it's because of the drop in price in high-capacity memory cards, but I've noticed far more "machine-gunning" than selective shooting in recent years. I'm the first to argue for the value of cameras with high frame rates and the value of "letting it rip" in certain situations (like for flight shots or sparring animals), but I'm questioning the value of it on static subjects. I tend to shoot very selectively - I rarely capture more than 15,000 to 20,000 shots in an entire YEAR (excluding shots where I'm testing new bits of gear). Yet I'm often in the field with folks who shoot this much in 3 or 4 days (the thought of culling/sorting all these images terrifies me!). Yet, I have seen cases where after all this shooting there are very few outstanding results in those thousands of images. While I don't think it's my place to suggest what others should do, for me it works far better to absolutely focus on what my subject is doing (and stick with it, and stick with it, and stick with it...you get the picture
) and shoot much more selectively and carefully.
Subject: Male Grizzly Bear (
Ursus arctos) debating his next move
Location: Khutzeymateen Inlet, Northern BC Coast (Great Bear Rainforest), Canada
Camera: Nikon D700
Lens: Nikon 200-400 mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S VR zoom lens @ 300 mm - hand-held from floating Zodiac...
Exposure: 1/250s at f5.6. ISO 1600; -0.33 stop compensation from matrix metered exposure.
Crop: About 10% cropped off for composition
Processing: Raw conversion using Phase One Capture One Pro (v5); tweaks in PS CS4 (including desaturation of greens) and final tone tweaking in Light Crafts LightZone. No noise reduction other than slight amount during raw conversioin.
Any comments welcomed - but probably best to view larger version first. Comments on YOUR preferred shooting style (and why you like it) could be interesting to all...
Cheers...
Brad
PS: I'm in the midst of field-testing the new 70-200 f2.8 VRII from Nikon right now - early results are very encouraging (but it isn't perfect!) - my first reasonably detailed impressions of it will be appearing in fairly short order in my blog if anyone is interested (starting later today or tomorrow and continuing thru next week).
Comments
20 commentsYet another finely crafted image, Well Done!
I do see a lack of detail in the blackest part of the nose that has caught my eye, that I don't normally see in your images. Took awhile for me to come to it ( I've come to really study your work
As far as shooting? I'm with you on slow and steady as she goes. Just because the camera can shoot that fast , I can't! I prefer my subjects be at ease with my presence, if I can, and machine gun shutter doesn't help the animals to relax. My finger is fast enough, usually
Cheers!
Neil
Good catch on the nose - made me go back and check my original. Turns out it is sharp (phew!) - just too in the shadows (and too lose of res) to tell here. Thanks for keeping me on my toes - I know I can't get sloppy around you (which is GREAT!!).
Cheers...
Brad
About the machine gunning, I've been noticing it too a lot, and like you I prefer too take my time in a shot instead of 'letting it rip'. I really dislike sorting through a sequence of basicaly the same images to get the best, let alone multiple sequences of static subjects. Of course, to each his own, but I sometimes wonder how one gets through all those images on the computer.
Cheers
I REALLY like how the fur looks. It looks realistic. Where's the fun in machine-gunning? It isn't very creative so it clashes with why most of us enjoy photography so much. I won't be doing it. This bears pose is great with it sitting on it's rear leg.
Cliff
Ken Archer
Your photos are on another level. It's a good thing you quit your day job all those years ago. . . The things that make this photo most enjoyable to me are the details in the bottom part of the image. The paws, claws, fur, and log. Other photogs certainly don't pay attention to these things and wouldn't be able to pull out the detail and beauty of that old worn log - I can just feel the texture of the slick wood and the worn end of the claws on the front paws is just fantastic.
As for the shooting style, like I had previously mentioned to you, I'm a bit of a machine gunner - but that has to do with me photographing mostly birds and still playing with my new camera. I think if I had the opportunity to photograph fauna like bears, or fox or large cats, I would take my time and compose things properly etc. But, when I'm photographing birds, I'm often times waiting for them to take off, or land, or eat prey or do SOMETHING that is quick. Culling hundreds of images can be annoying, but Adobe Bridge takes some of the sting away. I want to work toward more selective photography and I think that will come with time/experience. It's my assumption that some of the people who are on your trips are trying to get their money's worth and don't want to "miss" a thing. I had a friend who once said that if you spam enough pictures, 1 will come out good.
- Luke
Thanks for the feedback on this image (and the comments on shooting style). A few specific responses:
1. Sarah: Thanks! And, I'm sure there'll be a NPN Member discount we can apply when you get around to going for a print!
2. Lon - I knew you'd pick up on the geometry here - give me an idea for an image I'll post in the near future. And you said:
It was the guy posted immediately above - taken a couple years previously, but the same guy (only now he's a couple of hundred pounds heavier - over 1000 lb). So big he wouldn't even fit on my image sensor!
3. Angela: You're more than welcome!
4. Luke - thanks for the kinds words. I loved that log too - was real careful when I was shooting this to capture the log the way I wanted - was kinda tricky watching the bear's face/eyes and waiting for the right shot while making sure I had the logged framed just right...
And, you said:
That's exactly the thinking I'm referring to, but my experience is that more often than not NONE come out good (or at least not outstanding). Once saw a guy shoot 18,0000 images in 3 days. If we assume he shot at, on average, at 1/200s it means he captured 90 seconds of the 3 days on his image sensor. Pretty easy to pick the wrong 90 seconds out of 3 days (if we assume 12 hours of daylight there's 129,600 seconds of daylight to be shooting in over 3 days...). I know my "model" assumes random shooting...but you get my point...
Cheers...
Brad
First I'd like to say thanks for all your advice and encouraging comments, makes me glad I found this site. I just love your bear photos and this one is a great one. I think you're right about the claws, can't recall ever seeing a Grizzly photo where all four sets are so clearly visible which makes this shot stand out for me. I really like the uncertain look in his face and body language, another thing that's unusual in a Grizzly photo. As for "machine gunning", I'd have to win the lottery to be able to spend the time it takes to process 15,000 photos from a single trip.
Why do you gotta be so tough on everybody? 90 seconds over 3 days is .069% of 3 days worth of sunlight, that's practically 1 FULL percentage point!
As far as shooting style I have actually just within the last couple of years started shooting less and trying to get the best picture/composition while out in the field. I sit in front of a computer screen all day at work so I want to limit my screen time at home at night. In doing this I have found that I now have 2-5 fairly good image compositions to choose from versus going through 100 shots that I took without much thought going into the picture. It also slows me down and I start reviewing on what I am trying to do with this scene.
Regards,
Jim
I think I fall in with the "selective composition/shooting" crowd more. Sometimes I chastise myself for not firing off more frames at once, since it's not instinctual, even as a part-time sports shooter. My assistant and I did shoot 29,000 frames last Saturday, but that was for a time lapse project. Don't count it against me!
Max
In the recent years, I've started giving lot of importance to pictures, where subject is close by and yet relaxed. It certainly speaks volumes about the photographer there in front.
As for the shooting style, I have never shot more than 45 rolls of film or say 5000 frames with digital on a trip. But recently, I happened to photograph a mother Elephant with two young ones from the back (it was posted here, couple of months ago). My motordrive was in fast mode, which was certainly not required and the short burst happened to capture some very interesting tail formations of the three Elephants, I would have missed otherwise.
So, fast shooting hs its advantages, but mindless shooting forces you to sit before computor, which is not a good sign.
Jagdeep Rajput
I don't machine gun. I never think to do that even in instances where it would be appropriate. However that doesn't mean I won't take a lot of images of the same subject, sometimes doing much the same thing, if the subject lets me have the opportunity.
No of course not man, even Canon isn't perfect, so don't worry too much okay!
You gotta love the pose and look on this bear's face Brad, absolutely adorable! That said it does look like he is contemplating whether to go this way or the other, but not something driven by fear.
About the machine gunning... I think you have a point there, higher capabilities of our tools will make the threshold lower to just rattle away. Yet, keeping your eyes closed (that's what I would do with a real machine gun...
Btw, I like your mathematical aproach to the 18000 images... made me laugh.