telyt
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
wolfloid wrote:
I'm talking about a particular combination of movement, light, expression, and intentional activity, up close. (Which of course you could go for in primarily behavioural wildlife photography with shorter lenses, but I've not noticed that in your otherwise admirable work.)
Watching people while they are working is often full of unpredictable movement, but, if you watch long enough sometimes patterns and elements of predictabilty emerge, sometimes not. Either way, though, there is often repetition, even if it is unpredicted repetition, so there are chances to go back. Any chimping I do, is during a phase where I already think I have got what I want, not as you seemed to imply while I am still trying. Who chimps instead of watching the action? This seems to be an intelligence insulting jibe on your part....Show more →
My work with wildlife is very much how you describe yours with people. In particular: "Watching people while they are working is often full of unpredictable movement, but, if you watch long enough sometimes patterns and elements of predictabilty emerge, sometimes not. Either way, though, there is often repetition, even if it is unpredicted repetition, so there are chances to go back"
You wrote: "I'm talking about a particular combination of movement, light, expression, and intentional activity, up close." This is exactly how I work for my wildlife photos. While feeding a shorebird walks in a predictable pattern and occasionally pauses to watch for predators or to preen. A wren has favorite singing posts he returns to at fairly regular intevals. Waxwings return to the same fruit trees every year. Many species of ducks will stand tall and flap after preening or after chasing an adversary away. So how is this unlike your work with people, and given the constantly changing image in your viewfinder, how does checking for critical focus improve the odds of getting a photo that is properly focussed?
wolfloid wrote:
(not after every shot as Telyt, absurdly, seems to imply).
I implied no such thing. In the case of the woman in Nepal I'd have stayed and kept making exposures until the light was gone, the woman walked away, or until I was so exhausted that could no longer stand. I am often in situations exactly like this except for the species of subject. If I knew I had the 'right' shot with critical focus I'd still stay and try for more photos because often after I had the shot I wanted something completely unexpected and far better than my hoped-for photo would happen. Walking away after I knew I had a photo in the bag would on many occasions have meant that I'd have missed something even more spectacular.
Here are a few examples of the unexpected photos that happened after I knew I had the photo I wanted:
 |
|
|
|
http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/phasianidae/sogr02.jpg |
|
|
|
|
280mm f/4 APO-Telyt-R, shoulder stock & monopod, 1/60 sec @ f/4, near MFD
|
|
|
|
http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/anatidae/trswan01.jpg |
|
|
|
|
180mm f/2.8 APO-Elmarit-R, shoulder stock & monopod, about 2.5 meters away
|
|
|
|
http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/picidae/acwo02.jpg |
|
|
|
|
560mm f/6.8 Telyt-R, shoulder stock, monopod & extension tube, 1/125 sec @ f/6.8
|
|
|
|
http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/ardeidae/snegre02.jpg |
|
|
|
|
560mm f/6.8 Telyt-R, shoulder stock & monopod, about 4 or 5 meters from the camera
|
|
|
|
http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/ardeidae/caegre04.jpg |
|
|
|
|
280mm f/4 APO-Telyt-R, shoulder stock, about 3 meters from the camera.
Checking for critical focus then leaving when I had the photo I wanted would have meant I would not have any of these photos.
Edited on May 18, 2012 at 09:54 PM · View previous versions
|
How about an example where the ability to chimp and check focus resulted in a better shot?