Animal photography tips?

[pboreham]

Hi all,

Went to Colchester Zoo for the first time yesterday - and my first time at any Zoo with an SLR.

Great day and took over 1500 pics Some examples of the better ones below.

I just have some questions though on the taking of pics in Zoos.

1) Is there a good way to shoot through Glass enclosures? Got lots of reflections and even the ones that didnt have reflections have that 'brightness' about them from shooting through thick glass.

2) Some of the enclosures do not have great light - like the lizards, fish etc. Any tips on taking shots in these tips of environments.

3) For some of the faster moving animals - what sort of settings are best to capture good images? I tried some on 'sport' mode, but not sure if this is right.

There are some other q's I had yesterday, but cannot remember just now!

Anyway, heres some shots and thanks for any help!

[ryanyboy]

Hi Paul,

1) A circular polarizer will help with shooting through glass. It will help avoid the reflection problem you had.

2) With the poor lighting - firstly bump up your ISO. You'll get a bit of noise but this is preferable to slow shutter speeds leading to blurry pics. A tripod/monopod would help where the shutter speed is slower than you can easily hand-hold but if the animal is moving it won't offer much help if any. Best to just bump up the ISO - it's more realistic than lugging a tripod around a zoo too

3) With moving targets you need to keep the shutter speed up. The faster the better but a minimum of 1/200 and preferably much higher. Use TV mode as this allows you to set the shutter speed you want and it won't change. Alternatively select AV mode and use a large aperture such as F/2.8 or f/4. Larger if you have it. This will help keep the shutter speed up but if it's still too slow that's when youi need to increase the ISO.

For example. Using a large aperture of F/2.8 at ISO gives 1/100 sec. (too slow for the moving tiger). Increase the ISO by double = ISO 200. Keeping the aperture the same (F/2.8) should give you double the shutter speed =1/200 sec. Increase ISO to 400 should give you a shutter speed of 1/400 in this example.

Hope that makes sense

Cheers

Ryan

P.S In spite of your questions your pictures are superb. Well done chap

[Yandros]

Aww, love #2!! Mongoose? Whatever - it's very sharp

#1 There are various ways of shooting through glass...

Polarising filter
Lens hood+hand right up to glass to kill the reflections
Shooting on a dull day (this makes a HUGE difference)

The loss of contrast is easy to fix in post processing actually - a quick play with the levels and curves sorts most of it out.

#2 Fast lens, image stabilisation, and use high ISO. I use the Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR macro, so it's both stabilised and quite fast. Some enclosures are nearly impossible though - the fast moving baby meerkat at Colchester needed 1000 ISO, and I still got only about 2 usable shots out of 40.

#3 Shutter priority, or in general a shutter speed above about 1/500th should work. Again, this may mean bumping the ISO.

[kBm]

Excellent Elephant shot (#1) Great DoF - just need a little more contrast to bring out the detail of the skin.

Cant really add any more advice to what has been said.

[pboreham]

Thanks Guys!

Originally Posted by ryanyboy

Hi Paul,

1) A circular polarizer will help with shooting through glass. It will help avoid the reflection problem you had.

I took all my filters, but still a bit overwhelmed. I tried an 'SPL' filter (which I thought was 'Sun Polarizing' but not sure) but it just made the pics very dull and blurred. Will learn more about the filters I have!

Originally Posted by ryanyboy

2) With the poor lighting - firstly bump up your ISO. You'll get a bit of noise but this is preferable to slow shutter speeds leading to blurry pics. A tripod/monopod would help where the shutter speed is slower than you can easily hand-hold but if the animal is moving it won't offer much help if any. Best to just bump up the ISO - it's more realistic than lugging a tripod around a zoo too

Damn! I remember bumping up the ISO for some low light shots as I remembered that was one way to help - and now I know I didnt change it back when I got outside. Ha! So much to learn...

Originally Posted by ryanyboy

3) With moving targets you need to keep the shutter speed up. The faster the better but a minimum of 1/200 and preferably much higher. Use TV mode as this allows you to set the shutter speed you want and it won't change. Alternatively select AV mode and use a large aperture such as F/2.8 or f/4. Larger if you have it. This will help keep the shutter speed up but if it's still too slow that's when youi need to increase the ISO.

For example. Using a large aperture of F/2.8 at ISO gives 1/100 sec. (too slow for the moving tiger). Increase the ISO by double = ISO 200. Keeping the aperture the same (F/2.8) should give you double the shutter speed =1/200 sec. Increase ISO to 400 should give you a shutter speed of 1/400 in this example.

Thanks, Will try this next time (there will be a next time as we got Gold Cards!

Originally Posted by Yandros

Aww, love #2!! Mongoose? Whatever - it's very sharp

#1 There are various ways of shooting through glass...

Polarising filter
Lens hood+hand right up to glass to kill the reflections
Shooting on a dull day (this makes a HUGE difference)

The loss of contrast is easy to fix in post processing actually - a quite play with the levels and curves sorts most of it out.

Thanks, I tried to get the lens hood touching the glass at all times - but sometimes its not always viable when theres a crowd. As I mentioned above, we got gold cards, so can go back anytime for free - so we'll definitely be going again soon to take some more shots and I guess over time (and with practice), we'll get the shots we want!

Originally Posted by Yandros

#2 Fast lens, image stabilisation, and use high ISO. I use the Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR macro, so it's both stabilised and quite fast. Some enclosures are nearly impossible though - the fast moving baby meerkat at Colchester needed 1000 ISO, and I still got only about 2 usable shots out of 40.

#3 Shutter priority, or in general a shutter speed above about 1/500th should work. Again, this may mean bumping the ISO.

I really want to avoid post processing. Its so (relatively) easy to do all sorts of fancy effects with software now - even within Flickr, that I want to prove I dont need to do that and that I am a good enough photographer to take 'raw' shots.

I think what yesterday proved (as I was warned at the time!), I really needed the VR version of the Sigma zoom lens. Will have to speak to the missus!

Thanks for the comments though guys, really appreciated.

Most important thing is we had fun and really enjoyed taking the pics and sorting them after!

[Gingerbillc]

Rather than upsetting your missus, as a short term stopgap, try the cheaper version of VR, otherwise known as beanbag on a bin? As said before you need a circ-pl filter to see through glass, downside you loose 2 stops of light.

Just the 3 shots? you are doing something wrong if only 1 in 500 is coming out ok !!

[Ian_S]

1500!!!!

First tip would be to take a few less. I didn't take that many when I went on safari for two weeks. By all means enjoy taking photos but sometimes less is more! I do understand however the first trip excitement thing.

In terms of photos through glass, it's never perfect as the glass is seldom clean, or the best photo quality. So, always use a lens hood pressed to the glass, preferably not a petal shaped one, as this helps cut down reflections. Don't use big angles from the glass, so keep your lens as head on as you can. AF is less like to be accurate with a big angle to the glass. Then use your hands to fill the gap between the glass and the lens hood for smaller angles. This will all help boost contrast by cutting down reflections. Letting your lens hood touch the glass helps stabilise the lens as well.

The techniques above also help for low light. If you can stop reflections getting to the lens from a flash, then you can try it through glass however... Personally I don't think it's very fair to blind animals with flashguns, and a telephoto lens with a hood will make the on-board flash quite useless. Sometimes you just have to accept that there is no photo to be had in these environments. Your best bet is a fast lens that can do low light and/or high ISO depending on how noisy the pictures get.

The other thing that can sometimes help is that you used to be able to get flexible rubber lens hoods that screw onto the lens filter thread. The allow you to push up to the glass and move slightly left and right and keep light out to remove reflections. However, if the end of your lens rotates during focusing then this doesn't work as well... and neither do the pointers above.

If your lens does rotate during focus then I would also strongly consider getting one that doesn't if you plan to take a lot more zoo photos through glass.

With tripods, I think you need to consider other people. I don't use them as it tends to stop other people from seeing the animals. A monopod is better as you can move in take your photo and get out of people's way more easily. Obviously, timing your visit helps. If the zoo's empty then you can spend more time waiting and looking. Spending some time watching the animals before pressing the shutter can pay dividends too. Unfortunately a lot of animals do the same thing over and over in their enclosures, so it doesn't take much time to work it out, and then you can find a decent position.

Again a circular polarising filter my help with reflections, but as before if the end of the lens rotates when you focus, you will be forever re-adjusting it, which can be very fiddly with a lens hood. So it's worth trying what I described above before spending what can be big money on a CPL.

With outdoor enclosures it's also worth trying to focus through the wire and ignore the windows. This can work, but the subject needs to be far enough away from the wire to allow it to blur out. The other downside to this is that it can give odd effects to any background blur as well, but doesn't suffer from reflections which are impossible to remove. It may still reduce contrast though.

Finally, use your cameras continuous focus mode rather than single focus mode. Even if the subject is still, the chances are you aren't, so it helps avoid more of those slightly out of focus shots.

I really like the first elephant shot, great angle, and something tells me it's not through glass!

[pboreham]

Originally Posted by Gingerbillc

Rather than upsetting your missus, as a short term stopgap, try the cheaper version of VR, otherwise known as beanbag on a bin? As said before you need a circ-pl filter to see through glass, downside you loose 2 stops of light.

Just the 3 shots? you are doing something wrong if only 1 in 500 is coming out ok !!

Ha! No, after I sorted last night, I kept around 250 that I liked or were at least usable! More are on my Flickr link...

Thanks for the tip though, will look into that...

Originally Posted by Ian_S

1500!!!!

First tip would be to take a few less. I didn't take that many when I went on safari for two weeks. By all means enjoy taking photos but sometimes less is more! I do understand however the first trip excitement thing.

In terms of photos through glass, it's never perfect as the glass is seldom clean, or the best photo quality. So, always use a lens hood pressed to the glass, preferably not a petal shaped one, as this helps cut down reflections. Don't use big angles from the glass, so keep your lens as head on as you can. AF is less like to be accurate with a big angle to the glass. Then use your hands to fill the gap between the glass and the lens hood for smaller angles. This will all help boost contrast by cutting down reflections. Letting your lens hood touch the glass helps stabilise the lens as well.

The techniques above also help for low light. If you can stop reflections getting to the lens from a flash, then you can try it through glass however... Personally I don't think it's very fair to blind animals with flashguns, and a telephoto lens with a hood will make the on-board flash quite useless. Sometimes you just have to accept that there is no photo to be had in these environments. Your best bet is a fast lens that can do low light and/or high ISO depending on how noisy the pictures get.

The other thing that can sometimes help is that you used to be able to get flexible rubber lens hoods that screw onto the lens filter thread. The allow you to push up to the glass and move slightly left and right and keep light out to remove reflections. However, if the end of your lens rotates during focusing then this doesn't work as well... and neither do the pointers above.

If your lens does rotate during focus then I would also strongly consider getting one that doesn't if you plan to take a lot more zoo photos through glass.

With tripods, I think you need to consider other people. I don't use them as it tends to stop other people from seeing the animals. A monopod is better as you can move in take your photo and get out of people's way more easily. Obviously, timing your visit helps. If the zoo's empty then you can spend more time waiting and looking. Spending some time watching the animals before pressing the shutter can pay dividends too. Unfortunately a lot of animals do the same thing over and over in their enclosures, so it doesn't take much time to work it out, and then you can find a decent position.

Again a circular polarising filter my help with reflections, but as before if the end of the lens rotates when you focus, you will be forever re-adjusting it, which can be very fiddly with a lens hood. So it's worth trying what I described above before spending what can be big money on a CPL.

With outdoor enclosures it's also worth trying to focus through the wire and ignore the windows. This can work, but the subject needs to be far enough away from the wire to allow it to blur out. The other downside to this is that it can give odd effects to any background blur as well, but doesn't suffer from reflections which are impossible to remove. It may still reduce contrast though.

Finally, use your cameras continuous focus mode rather than single focus mode. Even if the subject is still, the chances are you aren't, so it helps avoid more of those slightly out of focus shots.

I really like the first elephant shot, great angle, and something tells me it's not through glass!

Thanks for you too. Liking all of that advice. Will definitely digest everybodies help before we venture back out and hopefully see a marked improvement.

I love that elephant shot too - we queued up so my GF could feed it and I just looked up at it and 'snap'. Came out really well for something that wasnt planned before hand.

[kBm]

Originally Posted by pboreham

I really want to avoid post processing. Its so (relatively) easy to do all sorts of fancy effects with software now - even within Flickr, that I want to prove I dont need to do that and that I am a good enough photographer to take 'raw' shots.

Even the best photographers use PP! Just remember the old dark room days were post processing.....

[Yandros]

Originally Posted by kBm

Even the best photographers use PP! Just remember the old dark room days were post processing.....

Agreed. For things like zoo shots, you can make a huge difference by playing with the levels and curves, sharpening, and selective noise reduction.

Remember that your 'raw' photos are not 'RAW', they're processed jpgs using the default settings of the camera, and are pretty arbitrary. They really don't have any more validity than any other set of parameters - they're just the best middle of the road settings as chosen by the engineers. In fact, on higher end cameras, the exposure, sharpening etc are very conservative, almost assuming that you'll post process them to make them 'pop'.

[pboreham]

Originally Posted by kBm

Even the best photographers use PP! Just remember the old dark room days were post processing.....

Originally Posted by Yandros

Agreed. For things like zoo shots, you can make a huge difference by playing with the levels and curves, sharpening, and selective noise reduction.

Remember that your 'raw' photos are not 'RAW', they're processed jpgs using the default settings of the camera, and are pretty arbitrary. They really don't have any more validity than any other set of parameters - they're just the best middle of the road settings as chosen by the engineers. In fact, on higher end cameras, the exposure, sharpening etc are very conservative, almost assuming that you'll post process them to make them 'pop'.

Hmmm... interesting. My own opinion was (or is!) that any old point and shoot artist can now take a pretty ordinary photo and drop it into photoshop (or Flickr for the casual) and play around with it a bit to make it look much, much better.

To me, that feels like cheating a bit. I dont want to be the 'worlds best photographer' or anything, just to know that what I visioned 'in the field' is what I can see on the screen or print. Not just to snap an average shot, come home and tinker with it and for people to say it's amazing etc - when I know it wasnt a reflection on my ability, more the ability of a software package.

I dunno, I'll get over it I suppose!!

[Yandros]

Originally Posted by pboreham

Hmmm... interesting. My own opinion was (or is!) that any old point and shoot artist can now take a pretty ordinary photo and drop it into photoshop (or Flickr for the casual) and play around with it a bit to make it look much, much better.

To me, that feels like cheating a bit. I dont want to be the 'worlds best photographer' or anything, just to know that what I visioned 'in the field' is what I can see on the screen or print. Not just to snap an average shot, come home and tinker with it and for people to say it's amazing etc - when I know it wasnt a reflection on my ability, more the ability of a software package.

I dunno, I'll get over it I suppose!!

Lets put it this way - my camera (D200) has a notoriously weak jpg engine, and produces very 'flat' dull images straight off camera. This neutral behaviour is very nice, because it doesn't impose someone elses (the engineers) taste on the photo. Sure you can change all these settings in camera to suit your taste, but with something like Capture NX I can apply them at my leisure, and with a lot more finesse, at home. For a start, this means I can forget about twiddling with camera settings in the field, and concentrate on getting a good properly exposed RAW image.

[kBm]

Originally Posted by pboreham

Hmmm... interesting. My own opinion was (or is!) that any old point and shoot artist can now take a pretty ordinary photo and drop it into photoshop (or Flickr for the casual) and play around with it a bit to make it look much, much better.

To me, that feels like cheating a bit. I dont want to be the 'worlds best photographer' or anything, just to know that what I visioned 'in the field' is what I can see on the screen or print. Not just to snap an average shot, come home and tinker with it and for people to say it's amazing etc - when I know it wasnt a reflection on my ability, more the ability of a software package.

I dunno, I'll get over it I suppose!!

For me -its part of the learning curve, not seperate.

When I adjust an image on the computer, I'm adjusting what i should of done in camera - be it underexposure or overexposure, incorrect white balance, lack of fill light etc.

I learn what a histogram should look like, so when i take the shot in camera and check, i can compare.

Also, try doing a digital black and white shot without using a computer/ software......

[senu]

Originally Posted by pboreham

Hmmm... interesting. My own opinion was (or is!) that any old point and shoot artist can now take a pretty ordinary photo and drop it into photoshop (or Flickr for the casual) and play around with it a bit to make it look much, much better.

To me, that feels like cheating a bit. I dont want to be the 'worlds best photographer' or anything, just to know that what I visioned 'in the field' is what I can see on the screen or print. Not just to snap an average shot, come home and tinker with it and for people to say it's amazing etc - when I know it wasnt a reflection on my ability, more the ability of a software package.

I dunno, I'll get over it I suppose!!

You will
It is a state of mind : I also have the Nikon D200 which is capable of superlative quality and shots but its out of the camera images are way too conservative
You shoot RAW to get that quality and RAW conversion involves some PP even if it is just you trying to get WB right ect

The ability to actually enhance an image for fidelity is a skill and no amount of photoshop wizardry can turn what was a poorly shot image into a prize winner.. the potential had to have been there in the first place,

So, mediocre Point and shoot + PP= great image isnt quite true

Given that cameras have Auto modes ( which do it all) and fully manual modes ( which basically ask you to do it your self ) as well as in between creative modes
Are you suggesting that only those taken with a fully manual mode and no PP are worthy of being called your "own work"?

I m sure youll agree there is an element of in Camera " editing" too if you chose preset modes and dont shoot RAW

As long as the final image looks lke you ( who took it) want it to look you need not be bothered by PP.. Even in the days of Film PP took place ( albeit in the darkroom)
What is clear is that there is no substitution for care taken to set up shots ( including right lens and settings) and PP can only hide shoddy picture taking so much.

PS: Love the elephant shot too!!

[Ian_S]

I can see where the OP is coming from, and agree to a point.

However, perhaps the best analogy is actually good old film itself. Landscape photographers often used Velvia because the highly saturated look suited their subject. Wedding photographers would use another type of film as it was more sympathetic to skin tones etc... We'd all have preferences on the type of film we preferred and also on who we'd get to process the film to get decent prints...

All of that is no different to digital really in that we were effectively choosing our presets for colour built into the film and processing we used.

With digital, you only have the one sensor, so you need to digitally select your look instead. Not many people are going to own multiple cameras and choose between them for colour. Instead you can now customise your cameras processing to your tastes, think Canon Picture Styles for example.

So at the contrast, colour saturation level etc, not much has really changed, we've always tweaked them. It's just the how and where that's different on digital, and it's a lot more flexible now.

Well, that's my view anyhow.