I'd like some clarification on this recent "prize-winning" image. The owner states he used 1/30th sec exposure, and 50 ISO, however I don't see how you can "freeze" a leaping wolf, unless you use a strobe, which is not mentioned.
I understand the Infra-red trap would trigger the shutter, but in my experience, you would end up with a blurred image of the wolf.
Just guessing, but if its dark out and the flash only fired for say, 1/250th of a second- that would in effect be your exposure speed, not 1/30th. The flash would freeze any motion for its duration, and once the flash is over, nothing is recorded on the film. I'm not sure if that is what happened in the photo, but a very possible explanation.
Posted by Gene Lugo on October 23, 2009 at 6:15 AM
It's not likely that the flash would fire for as long as 1/250 sec, it would be much faster, depending on power setting and size of the flash. It looks like he underexposed the ambient light by about 2 stops, then set the flash for correct exposure to get this shot. If he used any shorter camera exposure, then only the wolf and the fence would have been captured, and everything else would be black. It is a very dramatic image that captures motion, even though the subject is frozen in mid-air.
Posted by John Tobias on October 23, 2009 at 9:23 AM
Maybe it is time nature photo contest should start having a "camera trap" catagory. I still don't like contest being won by camera trap photography. Not saying that it is not a skill in itself, but the resulting photo is still a matter of luck. IMHO.
Posted by David Bostedo on October 23, 2009 at 11:25 AM
John - That's been argued back and forth a lot that I've seen recently. The problem with calling camera trap shots luck, is that there's always luck involved.
Looking at the wolf shot, it's obvious that the photographer did a lot of study to figure out where the wolf would be, what it's nightly movement pattern was, what the exposure would be like, how to handle the flash balancing, etc. The main thing the camera trap gave him in this case was timing. Theoretically, he could have used a remote trigger and done it himself, but might not have gotten the timing he wanted.
So in this case, and most, I don't have a problem with camera traps. I could have a problem if someone just scattered setups all over a forest or pond and managed to get something good out of that. I haven't really thought about that though.
To my thinking, creating a camera trap category would be somewhat like creating an autofocus category, and only letting manual focus images in the "main" category. (In other words, if it comes to pass that camera traps just produce better images than people could otherwise, then everyone should be using camera traps and that will be the dominant nature photography type out there. I have no problem with that.)
I do understand the gut feel that the photographer should have to be there to see what's being shot, and with camera traps that doesn't have to occur. But when I really think about it, there's not much difference between waiting up all night for the wolf to show up, and letting the camera trap handle that for you. The end result is the same - the photo - and that's really what the photography is about.
Posted by Gaurav Manglik on October 23, 2009 at 12:00 PM
I had the same question. I think the flash explains the frozen wolf.
Maybe it is time nature photo contest should start having a "camera trap" catagory. I still don't like contest being won by camera trap photography. Not saying that it is not a skill in itself, but the resulting photo is still a matter of luck. IMHO.
I think it would require more luck to have gotten the shot while actually being there... setting up the whole rig is an enormous investment in time, research, and thought. Where the trigger is placed, to get the right composition, anticipating the wolfs trajectory, etc. Once researched, he spent 2 months working to get the shot. So, don't think that it's just as easy as putting out a camera trap! I just saw 'Nick' Nichols (Photo Editor at large of Nat Geo) give a presentation on a variety of things... one being camera traps. Boy is there a lot that goes into it!
Looking at the wolf shot, it's obvious that the photographer did a lot of study to figure out where the wolf would be...
lots of tasty beef steaks help with that
Posted by David Bostedo on October 23, 2009 at 4:04 PM
lots of tasty beef steaks help with that
Oh boy Floris - now you've done it....now we can talk about the whole baiting issue!
It was a nice shot of the wolf, but he missed the sheep that jumped over first! GRIN!
Posted by John Tobias on October 23, 2009 at 11:33 PM
Camera traps have been used for sometime. They have been used to document tigers in Sumatra and have produced photographs which may never have been possible by someone waiting for a tiger to go by. But, these traps were placed by biologist, conservationist, researchers, not by necessarily by photographers, but people who use cameras in their work. Which is the point I am trying to bring up, if the contest is Wildlife Photographer of the Year it should be for someone who actually is there taking the photo, not who can set up the best camera trap. Photo of the year yes, Photographer of the year no. Personally, I would have like to have taken the shot either way!
Posted by David Bostedo on October 24, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Photo of the year yes, Photographer of the year no.
That's a good point John. I've always assumed that these things were purely photo competitions, not people competitions, despite the title. That certainly seems to be true considering it was simply photo entries that were judged. I think they should change the name of the awards, personally. Here's a little background from the website (and I find it interesting that the explicitly mention luck) :
About the competition
Now in its 45th year, Wildlife Photographer of the Year Competition is an international showcase for the very best nature photography. The competition is owned by two UK institutions that pride themselves on revealing and championing the diversity of life on Earth - the Natural History Museum and BBC Wildlife Magazine.
Being accepted into this competition is something that wildlife photographers, worldwide, aspire to. Professionals win many of the prizes, but amateurs succeed, too. And that's because achieving the perfect picture is down to a mixture of skill, vision, originality, knowledge of nature and luck.
Each year thousands of entries are received and judged by a specially selected expert panel. The winners are announced at an awards ceremony that takes place each October at the Natural History Museum, London.
For those curious, it was three flashes. (he showed a picture of his field journal in his presentation at WildPhoto 2009).
Personally, I have no issues with the camera trap thing (he could have, just like a robot, sat there for 2 months, but what does that prove?), but the baiting.... well, IMO that wolf can't truly be considered wildlife anymore. But, it's a damn good photograph, and a very compelling story. I have never baited wildlife for photography, and that includes seed feeders and hummingbird feeders. But... the images folks get with baiting makes it so damn tempting, especially when people of big wildlife initiatives such as BBC and Nat Geo promote it. The problem is, without baiting, images like that (the wolf, attacking owls and other raptors, etc.) don't happen... and it is valuable to have those images to promote nature conservation, as they are very awe inspiring. But, they do not really capture the essence of wildness IMO. Different means to different ends, is what I conclude.
Note: be lots, I mean 2 months worth, of beef steaks
Posted by Ajit Huilgol on October 27, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Has anybody thought what happens after the photographer gets his/her image? After being 'fed' for over two months the wolf does not get any more food, and has to start to hunt, once again. Isn't that cruel on the wolf?
Posted by mark miller on November 9, 2009 at 12:04 PM
Was the bait from a naturally occurring carcass as implied by the BBC website, or was it human food? I hope not the later, as food habituation (by direct human involvement or by human smells that are with the human food) has been a terrible detriment to those animals
(after they lose their fear of humans and associate them with a food source)
and for public perception of those species, and even persecution, when incidents do occur.
Discussion
14 repliesI understand the Infra-red trap would trigger the shutter, but in my experience, you would end up with a blurred image of the wolf.
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-on/temporary-exhibitions/wpy/photo.do?photo=2554&category=56&group=4
Although its not mentioned, I'm quite sure a flash was indeed used here combined with an infrared trap.
Wim
Looking at the wolf shot, it's obvious that the photographer did a lot of study to figure out where the wolf would be, what it's nightly movement pattern was, what the exposure would be like, how to handle the flash balancing, etc. The main thing the camera trap gave him in this case was timing. Theoretically, he could have used a remote trigger and done it himself, but might not have gotten the timing he wanted.
So in this case, and most, I don't have a problem with camera traps. I could have a problem if someone just scattered setups all over a forest or pond and managed to get something good out of that. I haven't really thought about that though.
To my thinking, creating a camera trap category would be somewhat like creating an autofocus category, and only letting manual focus images in the "main" category. (In other words, if it comes to pass that camera traps just produce better images than people could otherwise, then everyone should be using camera traps and that will be the dominant nature photography type out there. I have no problem with that.)
I do understand the gut feel that the photographer should have to be there to see what's being shot, and with camera traps that doesn't have to occur. But when I really think about it, there's not much difference between waiting up all night for the wolf to show up, and letting the camera trap handle that for you. The end result is the same - the photo - and that's really what the photography is about.
I think it would require more luck to have gotten the shot while actually being there... setting up the whole rig is an enormous investment in time, research, and thought. Where the trigger is placed, to get the right composition, anticipating the wolfs trajectory, etc. Once researched, he spent 2 months working to get the shot. So, don't think that it's just as easy as putting out a camera trap! I just saw 'Nick' Nichols (Photo Editor at large of Nat Geo) give a presentation on a variety of things... one being camera traps. Boy is there a lot that goes into it!
lots of tasty beef steaks help with that
Oh boy Floris - now you've done it....now we can talk about the whole baiting issue!
That's a good point John. I've always assumed that these things were purely photo competitions, not people competitions, despite the title. That certainly seems to be true considering it was simply photo entries that were judged. I think they should change the name of the awards, personally. Here's a little background from the website (and I find it interesting that the explicitly mention luck) :
Personally, I have no issues with the camera trap thing (he could have, just like a robot, sat there for 2 months, but what does that prove?), but the baiting.... well, IMO that wolf can't truly be considered wildlife anymore. But, it's a damn good photograph, and a very compelling story. I have never baited wildlife for photography, and that includes seed feeders and hummingbird feeders. But... the images folks get with baiting makes it so damn tempting, especially when people of big wildlife initiatives such as BBC and Nat Geo promote it. The problem is, without baiting, images like that (the wolf, attacking owls and other raptors, etc.) don't happen... and it is valuable to have those images to promote nature conservation, as they are very awe inspiring. But, they do not really capture the essence of wildness IMO. Different means to different ends, is what I conclude.
Note: be lots, I mean 2 months worth, of beef steaks
(after they lose their fear of humans and associate them with a food source)
and for public perception of those species, and even persecution, when incidents do occur.