How to be a better wildlife photographer

[budak]

Some handy tips.

[luenny]

You know, this is a topic that is hardly discuss in forums. So besides the tips from the website, anybody has any idea how to be a better wildlife photographer??

[budak]

err.... maybe reading up on what wildlife exists locally/regionally, and in particular the groups that interest you (e.g. birds, butterflies, spiders, reptiles...)? I think a number of people who work in the field (not necessarily photographers) develop a mental 'search image' of a particular subject group that helps them find the animal if it's close-by.

That said, I am rather amazed that quite many folks (including photographers) express bewilderment that you can find so many good nature subjects (birds, spiders, weird insects, reptiles...) in local parks or even in the city.... e.g. flocks of egrets in the canal by Bukit Timah Road, orioles/koels in the trees, sunbirds on roadside heliconias, monitor lizards in the drains, the kites/eagles that circle over the bay.... It's like they have eyes but can't see....

I also have issues with people who think shooting white tigers in the zoo is nature photography, but that's another thing....

[Simon]

Luenny

I suggest books from John Shaw series

[ranmasatome]

Well.. for me i can shoot anywhere because my subjects are insects.. which means.. they are also everywhere..

[luenny]

I think it's more than just finding subjects or shooting at a particular location. I think the most important thing is to shoot it in a way that makes it look nice. Shooting in the zoo is nature photography to me - though not really wildlife. I think that's a good place to start to practice if you like a particular group of animal which cannot be found near where you live.

But how do we make it more interesting or better than those that we see everyday on the postcards or taken by everybody else. To me, that is what makes a good wildlife photographer or a good photographer in general.

[ranmasatome]

Those on postcards aren't exactly easy to take..

[luenny]

Yes, they are not easy to take. My point is, after you manage to successfully reproduce shots that are on postcards (I still have a long way to go), don't stop there. Go and produce something different. Something that is not use over and over again.

As for shooting in the zoo. I just went to the zoo on the weekend. Bloody hell! If anybody tells me shooting in the zoo is easy, I'm gonna ask them to show me proof. I spend a few hours there lugging my equipments and all I get are junk shots! Darn!!

[Simon]

shooting at the zoo can't be easier but also depend alot on your expectation

[luenny]

shooting at the zoo can't be easier but also depend alot on your expectation

Are you saying it is very easy or you saying it can't be easier than shooting out in the nature? Cause if you are saying it is very easy, I'm gonna ask you to show us your shots and teach us how you do it.

[Simon]

How can shooting in the wild be comparable to the zoo , obviously, it is easier

[luenny]

Yes Simon,
I agree it is much easier than shooting in the wild. That's why it is a good starting ground. However, it's still very hard for a noob like me to get good pictures even in the zoo. Bloody! Guess I still need a lot of training. That's why I'm looking for people who are used to this to guide me along.

[Simon]

maybe you can post some of your photos here and we give you comment on how to improve?

here are some of the photos from my past trips to the zoo, nothing fanastic
http://s6.photobucket.com/albums/y22..._04%20Zoo/
http://s6.photobucket.com/albums/y22...006_05_21_Zoo/

can't seem to find more, maybe I didn't upload

[budak]

but in the zoo the animals sit there and wait. In the wild, they hide and you seek.... :P

[luenny]

Yeah, imaging I can't even do a proper photos of animals that sit and wait. Darn!

Ok, to be fair, I was there to photographs the orangutans in the morning. And darn, they were all over the trees in the morning. So my shots are either subject too dark or overblown background - because I'm shooting from the ground and pointing upwards to the sky. I even do autobracketing and it didn't help and I don't think my flash can reach that high up. What would you guys do in this situation?

[Simon]

try not to use your flash on those poor animals. you wouldn't want the same while you swing around in the trees :P. what are the equipments you using?

[ranmasatome]

err... waht metering mode were you in?? Or using wrong lense?

[luenny]

Nikon D200 with 55-200mm lens. Nope, not using flash. If I get the background right (blue sky) I get dark subject, face too dark. If I meter for the face (right exposure on the face) I get white color sky.

[ranmasatome]

well.. you have to remember that your camera is not an eye..so it cannot process multiple light zones like your eye can... it takes one value and whether that value is averaged or focused at one point you decide... When you use spot metering in situations like these.. of course your back will be over-exposed..but what is the point of this photo... background? or subject?
When you use evaluative metering.. sure you get good light all around and subject may not be too dark..but light on subject may not be "correct".
Honestly, i don't see a point to blue sky and dark subject...unless the sky was the subject of the photo.
You could also use the metering lock on your camera... combined with just focusing your camera just off the subject a little (or the type of light you want)...then locking the metering.. recomposing then shooting..you could be able to get a nice compromise..
Alternatively, you can use a hood as well to help reduce the glare.
If you really wanted a photo with everything your eye can see.. then you probably would have to take a few photographs and then combine them into one.. basically because your camera does not operate like an eye.

[stephen chung]

I think there was a feature about wild life photographer in National Graphic on TV..Their life is hard and dangerous man...worse then snipper training.....