Nature Photographers Network
This is the preserved archive of the original Nature Photographers Network. The community continues at naturephotographers.network.
Totally Hung!
‹ PreviousWildlife GalleryNext ›

Totally Hung!

by Brad Hill

Gallery: WildlifePosted June 18, 2011340 views13 comments
Totally Hung!

I was going to call this image "From Lemons to Lemonade" but thought the title I chose more aptly described the situation I was in when I shot this. And, of course, it's possible many may think this image IS a lemon and not sweet at all, so the "Lemons to Lemonade" title might have been a little presumptuous! Oh...and at least one other connotation of the phrase "Totally Hung" exists and was NOT lost on me - but this is a PG rated website and this is a FEMALE bear - so don't go there! :wink:

Have you ever been in the situation where you're faced with a great scene but are totally hung with the wrong configuration of gear in your hands? Most of us have - and that's exactly what happened when I shot this image. I captured this shot from the front of a Zodiac boat during a photo tour I was leading in the Khutzeymateen in late May 2011. Just moments before shooting this I was doing the "intrepid guide" thing and had got out of the Zodiac to lift and push it off some rocks. When I freed the boat I had to jump/dive in and so I ended up in the front of the Zodiac and all my camera gear at the BACK of the boat. Someone handed me my camera, which was fitted with a 400mm lens with rear-mounted polarizer installed. But all the rest of my camera was stowed at the back of the boat - way out of my reach. And...just moments later we were face-to-face with a female grizzly close enough to us that a 200mm lens would have been ample for a full frame shot. The bear was in the shade. I couldn't move around in the boat so changing lenses (or even pulling of my polarizer) was out of the question. What to do?

Well - all I COULD do was live with what I had in my hands. So it was portrait time! The bear was so close that I was in a situation where the head pretty much filled the frame with my 400mm lens. Which meant I had to stop down a fair bit to get all the critical bits into focus. And, because I was hand-holding the camera I needed some shutter speed to get a sharp image. And I had a light-sucking polarizing filter on. So...it was f6.3, 1/250s, and...6400 ISO! Well...pixels are cheap so why not try? This is the result...

What drove the conversion to Black & White (B&W)? I commonly hear folks say "well, this image had poor colour in it so I converted to black & white." I look at things a little differently when it comes to B&W. I LIKED how this image came out in colour, but when I looked at it critically I saw a very wide tonal range (some true blacks, some whites or near whites) AND a whole zone of nearly continuous mid-tones (in the bear's fur). Which made me think there was the potential for a strong B&W image in all that colour. Being more direct...I think it's often a mistake to take a mid-tone dominated image with "poor" colour and think it will work better in B&W - the end result is often a drab, grey-on-grey image with little to draw one's eye. You want good B&W images? Forget the images that "don't look good in colour" - watch for wide tonal ranges and look for an image with GOOD colour in it!

Finally - a while back I mentioned I liked shooting what I call "active portraits" - fairly "tight" shots where the subject is doing more than just sitting there and the resulting image conveys a little about the animal's "personality". This would be another example of what I meant.

Subject: Female Grizzly Bear (Urus arctos) giving me some face time!
Location: Khutzeymateen Inlet - Great Bear Rainforest, BC, Canada
Camera: Nikon D3s
Lens: Nikkor 400 mm f/2.8 VRII lens - handheld from floating Zodiac
Exposure: 1/250s at f6.3. ISO 6400. -0.33 stop compensation from matrix metered exposure.
Crop: About 85% of full frame

As usual, more info about the image (including more processing details for colour and B&W versions, etc) available here on my website:

http://www.naturalart.ca/galleries/latest/detail_2.html.

Any feedback welcome - and appreciated! I'm particularly interested in whether or not you have a preference for one version over the other (colour vs. B&W).

Cheers...thanks for looking...

Brad

PS: Yes - totally wild bear...

Comments

13 comments
Comment posted by Brad Hill on June 18, 2011 at 4:42 PM
And here's the colour version - quite curious if you have a preference for one over the other (i.e., colour vs. B&W)

Cheers...

Brad
Registered on May 29, 2007, 431 Posts, 6061 Comments
Comment posted by Jerry Imprevento on June 18, 2011 at 7:12 PM
For me, hands down B&W...Incredible detail, and it just gives a certain feel to it. Makes her seem much more intense. The color image is awesome too, so I figure it just comes down to personal preference. It looks like she may have had some type of injury to her lower jaw at some point. Her upper and lower are aligned, but the left canine is set back so far...Do you know this beautiful girl from past trips?
Registered on September 11, 2010, 29 Posts, 78 Comments
Comment posted by Philip Hodgkins on June 18, 2011 at 9:05 PM
I like both, Brad, but I have to go with the color. Not for color's sake, because I totally agree with your thoughts on black and white. Actually, I prefer the color for a simple (or simpleton) reason: it didn't immediately occur to me that the stuff in the bear's mouth was veggie! It did when I looked at the color! :biggrin:
Registered on July 24, 2006, 2741 Posts, 12349 Comments
Comment posted by John Launstein on June 19, 2011 at 1:36 AM
Brad - epic. Love it. Both ways, but especially B&W. Great "save" in a unique situation, and great advice re B&W conversion. There's not much more to say...this is just a great, compelling image, and the B&W version is so rich in texture...the grass and open mouth is mesmerizing. Nicely done, as usual!
Registered on April 5, 2011, 223 Posts, 1193 Comments
Comment posted by Ellen deBoer on June 19, 2011 at 7:42 AM
Beautiful action portrait, Brad! I like the colored one the most for the same reason as Philip. At first glance at the B&W I thought: what a strange teeth! Oh no, its grass! A little distraction so to say. :toast:
Registered on March 16, 2006, 419 Posts, 2076 Comments
Comment posted by Cam Held on June 19, 2011 at 10:09 AM
Hi Brad,
Inspiring as usual! Although I love both images I prefer the B&W- I feel it makes you pay more attention to the texture of the fur, and I think it also draws the viewer to the bear's eyes (not sure why it would as they are the same image, but thats just my take on it...) And I completely agree on the B&W conversion- a boring color image is typically going to make a boring (and grey) B&W! :toast:
-Cam
PS: And by the way, if you ever want an assistant on one of those photo tours, keep me in mind! :wink: Haha
Registered on November 12, 2009, 59 Posts, 398 Comments
Comment posted by Jenaya Launstein on June 19, 2011 at 1:08 PM
It looks like you've got awesome detail, and it's a huge bonus when there's a catchlight, too!

Great image both ways, but I think that I prefer the colour one.
Registered on February 8, 2011, 254 Posts, 1302 Comments
Comment posted by Guy Runco on June 19, 2011 at 3:47 PM
Another excellent bear shot Brad - I prefer the color version because, like Phil, I found it hard to tell what the bear was eating in the b&w version. Way to make due with the gear that you were stuck with at the time!

:toast:
Registered on September 9, 2008, 77 Posts, 705 Comments
Comment posted by Mark Seaver on June 19, 2011 at 5:59 PM
Tough choice....so I'll waffle and say both. The b&w version has a lot of "power", but I was wondering what was in her mouth until I saw the color version. I like knowing that she's eating grasses and seeing the stained canines adds to her expression.
Registered on January 23, 2011, 1103 Posts, 17270 Comments
Comment posted by Gary Gulash on June 20, 2011 at 1:58 AM
Well, trying doing this with just about any other camera! Looks great full color or B+W, detail is impressive too. Thank you for the dialogue, very informative, greatly appreciate you sharing this way. As an aside, I was looking at the lower incisors and canines, it appears that the teeth are malaligned. Wonder if the bear broke its jaw at some point? I realize that the mandible is flexible at the tm joint, but it just looks like the teeth are not right.
Registered on January 28, 2005, 879 Posts, 12098 Comments
Comment posted by Ashley Vincent on June 21, 2011 at 8:51 AM
My preference is for the B&W Brad; the colour version is of course dynamic and eye-catching, but for me I prefer images that leave me thinking a while longer, and not being able to immediately discern what it is in the lady's mouth does exactly that.

Two things I'd be interested to know:

1. At ISO 6400, even with the D3 (which I suspect is top of the range Nikon) I would imagine you had at least some grain running through the image. If this was the case, what kind of noise reduction to you run to get rid of it and maintain such a high level of detail?

2. Assuming that this fine image is one that you'd make available for sale, would you show potential customers both versions or only the B&W? And if only the B&W, what is your line of reason for this?
Registered on March 1, 2011, 154 Posts, 2083 Comments
Comment posted by Brad Hill on June 21, 2011 at 10:46 AM
Hi Ashley,

Again, some very good questions. Hopefully my answers measure up:

1. Noise issue: This was shot with a D3s (not a D3) - only reason I mention that is that while the D3 is a very good low light (high ISO) camera, the D3s is a lot better. And it is Nikon's top-performing camera with respect to ISO performance.

No noise reduction beyond the minor amount done "automatically" by my raw converter. And, even if I over-rode this and set noise reduction to zero, the image would look no different at this size.

2. Selling strategy: B&W only, colour only, or both? Personally (and despite the comments of others above) I far prefer the B&W version of this image. I have many portraits of grizzlies as good or better than this in colour, but to my eye this is the one that converts best to B&W. For this reason if I made this image available for sale as a print I would do so in B&W only - basically for the uniqueness factor (within my own collection) and why offer this in a colour version only to have it compete with my other colour portraits (of grizzlies)? And, as a business-person, I'm never in love of carrying excess inventory...

If I missed anything feel free to ask away!

Cheers...

Brad
Registered on May 29, 2007, 431 Posts, 6061 Comments
Comment posted by Ashley Vincent on June 21, 2011 at 11:54 PM
Thanks for your response in answer to my questions Brad :^)

Wow! I wish my 7D could handle noise the way your D3s does!!!

Your rationale in line with my second question makes perfect sense. Again, many thanks for sharing.
Registered on March 1, 2011, 154 Posts, 2083 Comments