Newbie Blues
Chuck Seggelin
Hi!
NOTE: If everything I'm asking here is already in a FAQ somewhere, please
point me to it and accept my apologies for bugging you.
I'm a complete newbie to photography (and this newsgroup). I would really
love to take up wildlife photography and eventually supplement my income
from it. I love being out in the wilds and watching wildlife (birds
specifically) and I love looking at WL photos. I find myself often looking
at something or other and saying "Wow, what a great photo this would make."
Despite all this, I own no camera or other gear, and I've never tried my
hand at WL photography before.
A bit of lurking in this and other rec.photo... groups has given me a case
of the blues about the whole thing, since it has become apparent that if
you want to take really nice WL photos, you should be prepared to spend
$3000-$5000 on equipment up front. Somebody mentioned a lens that was
running for $2800 and I just about gagged.
It's not that I think it isn't worth it, and not that I wouldn't cherish
the equipment and use it extensively, it's just that anyone who needs to
supplement his income is not likely to be someone who can plonk down $3000
for a lens to start. I saw a post by one guy saying something like "I want
to spend about $500-$1000 to start" and the response going something like
"are you SERIOUS?"
Is there really no solution for someone who does hope to turn professional
someday, but doesn't have a mint in his back pocket and still wants to
learn by doing? Is there no lower-cost solution that will allow me to take
nice quality WL photographs that wouldn't look out of place in a magazine
once I learn how to take them?
I realize that there would be limitations on what lower cost equipment
could do, like maybe "If you're only going to start with $1200 to spend,
expect to give up macro shots, night shots, and <insert specialty here>
shots." Assuming I'm prepared to live with the limitations until I can
afford to upgrade my equipment, how low can I whittle the price down to end
up with a decent beginner's rig that can be upgraded later to a more
professional apparatus if it turns out I actually have any talent? What
equipment would you recommend to someone in my situation (I can probably
scrounge about $1500--absolute tops.)?
Also, what books you would recommend for someone starting out in WL photography?
Thanks in advance for your kind replies and for listening to me whine.
Sorry if you've heard all this before. :)
-- Chuck
--
--------------------------------------- http://www.tiac.net/users/pdragon
| Chuck Seggelin Keep a green tree PDr...@tiac.net |
| Fitchburg, MA in your heart and (*)< - ! PDrag...@aol.com |
| perhaps the singing //)| CSeg...@xenergy.com |
| bird will come. ///_/ |
--------------------------------------/-""-------------------------------
duane
>
> NOTE: If everything I'm asking here is already in a FAQ somewhere, please
> point me to it and accept my apologies for bugging you.
not a problem, but check out
http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/photo/nature/index.html
and look at the files there for starting out.
>
> I'm a complete newbie to photography (and this newsgroup). I would really
> love to take up wildlife photography and eventually supplement my income
> from it.
i'd start out just by thinking how nice it would be to get
some fresh air and make some photographs. there's some
chance you can supplement your income someday, but if
that's a primary motivator, better to take a course in
becoming an auto mechanic where you can get $60 an hour
for labor...this field is ultra competitive and over
saturated with very talented people who love what they're
doing, work for nothing or close to it, and turn out
fantastic images by the ton.
> I own no camera or other gear, and I've never tried my
> hand at WL photography before.
my first suggestion is to try your hand at *photography*
before you complicate matters exponentially by adding
'wildlife' to it. i couldn't imagine a harder endeavor
for a beginning photographer! separate out learning
about the camera and the photographic processes,
develop an eye for light and composition, then branch
out. if you take it a little at a time, you'll be
frustrated less and in the long run produce more. if
you take on all the challenges straight from the get-go,
you may find it too steep a hill to climb.
>
> A bit of lurking in this and other rec.photo... groups has given me a case
> of the blues about the whole thing, since it has become apparent that if
> you want to take really nice WL photos, you should be prepared to spend
> $3000-$5000 on equipment up front. Somebody mentioned a lens that was
> running for $2800 and I just about gagged.
then start with something other than wildlife photos.
as i said, you went straight for the hard stuff.
how about landscapes and macro things first? you can
get started learning about exposure and composition
and not break the bank.
>
> It's not that I think it isn't worth it, and not that I wouldn't cherish
> the equipment and use it extensively, it's just that anyone who needs to
> supplement his income is not likely to be someone who can plonk down $3000
> for a lens to start.
as i said, anyone who NEEDS to supplement their income
would not choose this as a way to get that done quickly.
it just doesn't happen that way. i don't mean to insult
your abilities or anything, but i do believe that you've
really got this figured as being much easier than it really
is.
> Assuming I'm prepared to live with the limitations until I can
> afford to upgrade my equipment, how low can I whittle the price down to end
> up with a decent beginner's rig that can be upgraded later to a more
> professional apparatus if it turns out I actually have any talent? What
> equipment would you recommend to someone in my situation (I can probably
> scrounge about $1500--absolute tops.)?
i think the photo.net site has a good primer for what to
start with. check it out.
>
> Also, what books you would recommend for someone starting out in WL photography?
john shaw's "the nature photographer's guide to professional
field techniques" or some such. (you'll know it when you see
it...it's got a dark blue cover with a single white egret on it.)
from a technical point of view, it's very complete, in
fact, just about every other book is just a recompilation
of a subset of the same stuff. the only other i'd recommend
that's complementary is art wolfe/martha hill's book on
how to critique and edit images...can't recall the title
off hand, but it's the only one done by both wolfe and hill.
_________
du...@wild-light.com
Natural imagery at http://wild-light.com/
Consider making a submission to the Gallery!
Jeffrey Nutkowitz
Get all of John Shaw's 5 books, especially the "Business of Nature
Photography" and READ them, then decide what you really want to do and what
gear you need do it with. Stop thinking in terms of what can $$$xxxxxx buy,
but in term of what you need to do to learn photography first. You have
your tail wagging the dog otherwise. Gear does NOT the photographer make.
Better (not necessarily more co$tly, either) gear only makes the technical
side of the process more transparent. You need to learn the basics before
you do anything else. And not to discourage you, by all means pursue your
passions and dreams, but what the publishing world really doesn't need now
is another 'great' photo of that bear or moose. You will find that taking
great photos, and selling them are two entirely different things. Unless
you are a prodigy of some sort, it will take you years of hard work and
learning before you will even be capable of matching the quality of work
that the industry is already inundated with, so start with learning and
mastering the basics before moving on to the 'big game,' and in the
meantime start saving your $$ for those big lenses. Once you do produce
publishable quality work, your skills and talents at marketing will be more
important than your photographic skills, even if you are only trying to
'supplement' your income.
Just as a personal note, my largest, fastest long lens is a 300mm f 4.5.
Does it produce publishable quality wildlife images? Most definitely. How
much does one cost now? About $800.00
Before you spend big bucks on gear, find out if you really need it, or just
want it, or just think you need it because this newsgroup spends all
eternity discussing impossibly expensive gear that only a handful of people
can seriously justify obtaining.
I cannot emphasize enough, that as someone who doesn't have any experience
whatsoever, you need to learn photography basics using simple, basic,
inexpensive, manual equipment before you do anything else, and once again,
that no expensive lens, or any other piece of gear, has ever gone out and
taken great photos. It is the PHOTOGRAPHER.
Jeffrey Nutkowitz/Optiques Classic Photographic Imagery
Freelance Outdoor and Nature Photography Emphasizing a 'Sense of Place'
http://members.aol.com/OptiquesJN
"If you don't change the path you're on, you'll end up where you're already
going."
Chuck Seggelin <pdr...@tiac.net> wrote in article
<pdragon-ya0231800...@news.tiac.net>...
> Hi!
>
> NOTE: If everything I'm asking here is already in a FAQ somewhere, please
> point me to it and accept my apologies for bugging you.
>
> I'm a complete newbie to photography (and this newsgroup). I would
really
> love to take up wildlife photography and eventually supplement my income
> from it. I love being out in the wilds and watching wildlife (birds
> specifically) and I love looking at WL photos. I find myself often
looking
> at something or other and saying "Wow, what a great photo this would
make."
> Despite all this, I own no camera or other gear, and I've never tried my
> hand at WL photography before.
>
> A bit of lurking in this and other rec.photo... groups has given me a
case
> of the blues about the whole thing, since it has become apparent that if
> you want to take really nice WL photos, you should be prepared to spend
> $3000-$5000 on equipment up front. Somebody mentioned a lens that was
> running for $2800 and I just about gagged.
>
> It's not that I think it isn't worth it, and not that I wouldn't cherish
> the equipment and use it extensively, it's just that anyone who needs to
> supplement his income is not likely to be someone who can plonk down
$3000
> for a lens to start. I saw a post by one guy saying something like "I
want
> to spend about $500-$1000 to start" and the response going something like
> "are you SERIOUS?"
>
> Is there really no solution for someone who does hope to turn
professional
> someday, but doesn't have a mint in his back pocket and still wants to
> learn by doing? Is there no lower-cost solution that will allow me to
take
> nice quality WL photographs that wouldn't look out of place in a magazine
> once I learn how to take them?
>
> I realize that there would be limitations on what lower cost equipment
> could do, like maybe "If you're only going to start with $1200 to spend,
> expect to give up macro shots, night shots, and <insert specialty here>
> shots." Assuming I'm prepared to live with the limitations until I can
> afford to upgrade my equipment, how low can I whittle the price down to
end
> up with a decent beginner's rig that can be upgraded later to a more
> professional apparatus if it turns out I actually have any talent? What
> equipment would you recommend to someone in my situation (I can probably
> scrounge about $1500--absolute tops.)?
>
> Also, what books you would recommend for someone starting out in WL
photography?
>
jeffrey green
In article <pdragon-ya0231800...@news.tiac.net>,
pdr...@tiac.net (Chuck Seggelin) wrote:
<snip about willing to accept limitations of lower priced gear to get
decent wildlife shots>
> equipment would you recommend to someone in my situation (I can probably
> scrounge about $1500--absolute tops.)?
>
Chuck,
There are probably a million combinations of lens, camera, and gear.
There are many lower priced items, and noone can honestly say that 'a
magazine will not publish a photo shot using cheap gear'.
You will most likely loose lens speed, and sharpness.
You will give up many extras on the camera body (many of which are simply
not needed).
You tripod will weigh a little more (or a lot more).
Recommendations (one out of a potential million):
1) TRIPOD
IMHO, the MOST important piece of equipment. Try the Bogen 3001 legs
coupled with the 3055 ball head. This will hold most things.
2) CAMERA
Try looking for a new/used Minolta X700. These are wonderful cameras.
You will loose auto-focus, but it has a hundred other great features.
3) LENS
For what you described, I would look for a decent range of longer lenses.
You will most likely have to get slower lenses but maybe not.
I recommend prime lenses so that sharpness is on your side. I used to
believe that zooms could be as sharp as primes, but I don't any longer. I
guess I am becoming a purist.
I'd look for a 50mm (will most likely come with the camera), maybe a
100mm, a 200mm and/ or a 400mm. This is for the bird photos you described.
Others will have other suggestions and maybe even specific lenses.
A teleconverter? A 1.4 would make your 200 a 340mm.
4) A decent camera bag. This one depends a lot on where you are going. But
if you trek around in the woods and streams looking for birds and
wildlife, you will want to protect your investment in gear.
This should get you started.
BTW-listen to what everyone else has to say. There is no one right answer.
Photography IS a very expensive hobby (even if it doesn't start out that way).
BUT, you can take great pictures with less.
Jeff G.
cseg...@xenergy.com
Hi!
I'd really like to thank everyone who has responded so far and clear up a
few misconceptions and perhaps offences that I may have inadvertantly
caused. Let me try to be a little more clear about my motivations,
concept of WL photos, and expectations.
My motivation is that I love nature and being outdoors, not that I want
to make money. Even if I never make a dime from WL photography it is
still something I want to do. It would be nice to supplement my income
from it, but if it never happens so be it. I think I may have
overemphasized my desire to eventually make a money from WL photography.
When I say wildlife photography (birds specifically), I likely have a
very different concept than a seasoned professional. I don't need to
take pictures of rarities or creatures which fear humans to get a thrill
out of this. If it turns out I'm good at the mechanics of it, and if I
have an eye for *interesting* shots, and if I have the money for the
high-end gear, and if, if, if, I may be inclined to start trying to make
money from it by trying to shoot things like Vaux Swift on the nest. For
now I'll be delighted with pictures of Canada Geese, Mallards, and
American Robins, and so forth.
Finally, I never meant to imply that WL photography is easy. I apologize
to anyone who got this from my message. I'm sure it must be difficult,
and I'm sure I have no idea how difficult it is. I have a healthy
respect for professional WL photographers' incredible prowess. In
reality I just plain want to learn how to take interesting WL pictures.
I don't really care how hard it is or what sort of limits I'll have to
work within to get quality shots from low-end equipment.
Anyway, all that aside, I'm grateful for everyone's comments. It
certainly does look as though I can obtain enough lower-cost used
equipment to get started learning and still include at least 1 telephoto
lens. I think the first thing I'll probably buy are John Shaw's books.
Plus I have a few photographer friends who I can talk to around here to
learn more. Thanks everybody!
-- Chuck
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Nelson Yount
>> Also, what books you would recommend for someone starting out in WL photography?
>
>field techniques" or some such. (you'll know it when you see
>it...it's got a dark blue cover with a single white egret on it.)
>from a technical point of view, it's very complete, in
>fact, just about every other book is just a recompilation
>of a subset of the same stuff. the only other i'd recommend
>that's complementary is art wolfe/martha hill's book on
>how to critique and edit images...can't recall the title
>off hand, but it's the only one done by both wolfe and hill.
It's "The Art of Photographing Nature".
--
Nelson Yount
M. KUO
Chuck Seggelin <pdr...@tiac.net> wrote:
: I'm a complete newbie to photography (and this newsgroup). I would really
: love to take up wildlife photography and eventually supplement my income
: from it. I love being out in the wilds and watching wildlife (birds
: specifically) and I love looking at WL photos. I find myself often looking
: at something or other and saying "Wow, what a great photo this would make."
: Despite all this, I own no camera or other gear, and I've never tried my
: hand at WL photography before.
Well, Chuck, I certainly understand your despair as I was in the same
exact situation you're in a while back. I looked at the prices of lenses
that people considered "serious" and went catatonic with disgust. And
now, couple of years and a couple of thousands later, I'm still going into
little fits of rage as to how I could have allowed myself to spend so
much. Photography has obviously been the wrong hobby for me to choose in
terms of saving money. And my shots still don't hold a candle to what
many others can put out. <sigh> This can't be completely attributed to
lenses, though. The biggest reason that my shots don't turn out that
great is because of........ me...... *grin*
: A bit of lurking in this and other rec.photo... groups has given me a case
: of the blues about the whole thing, since it has become apparent that if
: you want to take really nice WL photos, you should be prepared to spend
: $3000-$5000 on equipment up front. Somebody mentioned a lens that was
: running for $2800 and I just about gagged.
Though I don't have one, I've often read that the Sigma 400 f/5.6 is a
nice lens for somebody on a budget trying to go for wildlife. I think it
goes for around $500. So you see, you don't have to be some demi-god to
be able to do this kind of stuff. I remember one time seeing some
outstanding enlargements of african wildlife that a guy had taken, and had
just assumed that he must of had some huge high power telephoto to do it.
Turns out he been at a game reserve where the animals were so used to
human presence that he had taken them with a standard lens. So it also
really matters in terms of where you go and how you go about doing it.
That said, a budget telephoto like that should be fine. Add about 500 for
a decent body, and wa-la! And you haven't even broken the 1K barrier.
With the other 500, you can buy your standard lens for most other work and
take what's left for a nice tripod.
: It's not that I think it isn't worth it, and not that I wouldn't cherish
: the equipment and use it extensively, it's just that anyone who needs to
: supplement his income is not likely to be someone who can plonk down $3000
: for a lens to start. I saw a post by one guy saying something like "I want
: to spend about $500-$1000 to start" and the response going something like
: "are you SERIOUS?"
Whoever took that sort of tone probably had a serious case of arrogance.
For 1000, you can get a very competent system for almost everything except
maybe wildlife or serious macro.
: Also, what books you would recommend for someone starting out in WL photography?
Anything by John Shaw's good.
Have a nice day,
Tim
David Hay Jones
Robert M Atkins wrote:
>
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> In article <pdragon-ya0231800...@news.tiac.net>,
> Chuck Seggelin <pdr...@tiac.net> wrote:
> >
> >A bit of lurking in this and other rec.photo... groups has given me a case
> >of the blues about the whole thing, since it has become apparent that if
> >you want to take really nice WL photos, you should be prepared to spend
> >$3000-$5000 on equipment up front. Somebody mentioned a lens that was
> >running for $2800 and I just about gagged.
>
>
> >It's not that I think it isn't worth it, and not that I wouldn't cherish
> >the equipment and use it extensively, it's just that anyone who needs to
> >supplement his income is not likely to be someone who can plonk down $3000
> >for a lens to start. I saw a post by one guy saying something like "I want
> >to spend about $500-$1000 to start" and the response going something like
> >"are you SERIOUS?"
I think it could even be a mistake to start with big, heavy lenses like
300 2.8, 600 f4 or whatever. I think it's good to know the basics, good
to find out how motivated you are before buying such lenses. Unless you
know what you're doing these long lenses can magnify beginner's mistakes
rather than eliminate them. In addition to the money you'll spend on
lenses, you'll need to spend a lot on a robust tripod. A long lens on a
cheap and unstable tripod is a recipe for bad pictures. When you get to
stage of wanting to, or having to, buy a 600 f4 instead of a car you'll
know you're bitten.
Bozhidar Dimitrov
jeffrey green (jewg...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
: >A teleconverter? A 1.4 would make your 200 a 340mm.
Sorry, a 1.4 will make a 200mm lens 280, and a 1.7 will make it 340mm.
Boz Dimitrov
Redmond Young
Chuck Seggelin <pdr...@tiac.net> wrote:
>
>A bit of lurking in this and other rec.photo... groups has given me a case
>of the blues about the whole thing, since it has become apparent that if
>you want to take really nice WL photos, you should be prepared to spend
>$3000-$5000 on equipment up front. Somebody mentioned a lens that was
>running for $2800 and I just about gagged.
As most other posters have said, you don't need to jump in so deep so
early. If all it took was a 600mm f/4 to be a great wildlife
photographer, I'd sell my 4x4, buy the lens, and be putting out my own books
like Art Wolfe! No different than me buying the most expensive running
shoes and expecting to outrun Carl Lewis.
So I'm still a newbie, shooting medium format landscapes and 35mm
Macro instead. My longest lens is a 75mm-300mm for an Canon EOS
and it's only f/5.6 at 300mm. But with a tripod I have alot of fun
shooting it with fast film at the zoo. Sure, the images won't sell for
a nickel, but I had fun and they look good in my photo albums.
I have photos of a Andean Condor eating a rat, a Dingo peeing in a
pond, Koalas huddled and hugging each other, Howler Monkeys eating
leaves in a tree. And with my lens wide open, all the stuff that
hints at being at a zoo are gone.
I've also saw some amazing shots of birds with a spotting scope
or a mirror lens (under $500 each). They were good and I'm sure
the photographers learned alot about bird behaviour as they save
up for that monster lens.
So have fun and learn. You can worry about mortgaging the house for
the 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4 later (if ever).
Red
RTesn79923
In article <337A23...@dontspamme.org>, duane <d...@dontspamme.org>
writes:
>john shaw's "the nature photographer's guide to professional
>field techniques" or some such. (you'll know it when you see
>it...it's got a dark blue cover with a single white egret on it.)
>from a technical point of view, it's very complete, in
>fact, just about every other book is just a recompilation
>of a subset of the same stuff. the only other i'd recommend
>that's complementary is art wolfe/martha hill's book on
>how to critique and edit images...can't recall the title
>off hand, but it's the only one done by both wolfe and hill.
The Art Wolfe and Martha Hill book is titled "The Art of Photographing
Nature".
Its a great book with some great photos....Good Luck
Alec Pytlowany
cseg...@xenergy.com wrote:
Also look for a Tim Fitzharris book, "The Adventure of Nature
Photography" as well as others. Tim is one of if not THE best
professional bird photographers and following his examples and tips
would be an excellent start. For many years he has used the Canon T-90
and the Canon 500 mm f4.5L and this focal length is a strong minimum for
bird shots, you'll see this in his book. You should be able to get both
used for good prices but the lens alone would be a steal at $1500. But
before you get here, there are lots of good tips in previous postings to
start your journey. Enjoy it!
DKenn473
Chuck,
Pin hole cameras are fun and cheap! Look for Pinhole Resources in New
Mexico. I'm a working pro and I don't have expensive gear. It's not the
equiptment it's your eye! Have fun with it even if your olny using a
point and shoot you can still make great photographs!