Wulff

Great stuff Ben. J

Thanks Alas. A book i think is a little beyond me , dont think I'm there. I do Freelance though for some Hook and Bullit magazines, it's starting to grow niceley for me. One mgazine is really growing nicely, another is looking good an I now have 2 more that Im starting to sen pictres to a bit. So hopefully by the nd of 2009 I'll haven my name in 3 or all 4 of them. J

Well Im buying my 500 f4 tomorrow so if I disapear from the boards an you find my wife sipping Margaritas in Belize and watching some young stud cast to Bones you know whats happened Ben ! Welcome aboard. Aother good site. I'm here quite a bit, read most threads, just dont post as often not having as much time.

My wife knows because a) we do the taxes together I show her the bills, incase I get hit by a car and she knows what to sell for without getting taken

Very complicated question with no easy answer. <<<< Thats the truth, the first truth you need to hold onto as it helps to put everything else into order. 2nd truth. Photography is expensive, can get very expensive and if you really get into it, extremely expensive. There's no faster way to deplete your bank account than by buying a lens that you come to feel needs replacing/upgrading for any number of reasons. Despite all the warnings, why do alot of people end up doin this??? Because they unerestimate how important photography is going to become to them....aka false economy...or they buy the wrong lens for the job and end up switching not neccessarily to a better lens, but to a lens thats better suited to their needs. It's not unlike fly rods, they all catch fish but........... First you have entry level rods, mid level rods and high end rods. Then you have different weights..Do I buy a 3wt? a 5wt? or a 7wt? Well if you don't have a specific application chances are you recomend a 5wt, good all purpose rod. Most though end up determining that what tey really need is a 3/4 wt for trout, or a 7/8wt for Steel,Pike etc. Then eventually they realise for my style of casting I need a slow/med/fast action rod. I'm going to start with a couple of the easier points to try and address. Generaly speaking. Primes are sharper Primes focus faster 1st: "Zooms" are more complex than primes. In a nut shell theres more inner workings. <<< This generally speaking is the genesis of the debate. Why are primes sharper? See above Why are primes faster focusing. See above TCs. Work better with primes due to the above. In fact, so much so I personally would never use a TC with a zoom. The hits to IQ and focus speed are just too great. Every seen those drinking and driving commercials where they start with 1 glass of beer in front of a driver? Then add a 2nd an 3rd? Anytime you add more glass to the equation your IQ and Focus Speed are going to take a hit, the lower your quality lens and the more complex your lens, the larger the hit. Now the good news. Alot of that is only as important as you make it to be. I'm going to throw up some photos. 1) Taken with the 100-400 L 1) Taken with the 400 f5.6 L 1) Taken with the 500 f4 L 1) Taken with the 24-70 f2.8 L 1) Taken with the 400 f5.6 L and TC 1) Taken with the 500mm f4 L and TC I can see differences and I am picky about IQ can you? I've had the pleasure of shooting wit some of the best zooms ever made inlcuding the 100-400 L and the Sigmonster 300-800mm and I can tell you two things. neither is as sharp as its corresponding prime, neither focuses as fast. In no uncertain terms does that mean the primes are "better". It means. much like fly rods theres a lens for every job. Sometimes you want a rod thats more "all purpose", sometimes you want a rod that can toss #22 dries to finicky fish in gin clear water. This shot is simply not possible wih a zoom However this is 100-400 L WHICH is right for you, only you can answer. DON"T rush into lens purchases. Take your time, you what you have for now and develop your "taste" and discover whats important, what isn't to you. then start thnking about what lenses to acquire. Prime vs Zoom F2.8 vs f5.6 one focal range vs another.

very nice, really like the 1st. J

Thanks guys. Just so know I agree completely with Peter. However my own preferance runs on the minimalist side of things. This image was worked on quite a bit and looks nothing like the orginal. The oringal was shot in dull flat lightt, basically taken on any other typcial dull grey winter day. In short its boring. However there are traces of reflections and so I thought what the hell. Lets see what I can create. So for the most part everything from the lighting, to the fall colours are a creation. So it's not so much a question of right/wrong as it was....Is it Overdone. To me it does, hence why I reach for the delete button. But then again I know what Ive done and can see the tell tale signs.

Lol Al. Sometime later this year in Nov I'll post some pics from an outing late lst fall. It was just below freezing, we started at 4:30am, hiked 2 miles in. I had 45pounds of gear plus my cold weather gear on like a noob. By the time we got to our spot I was soaked in sweat. Ony option was strip so I could dry my skin, and hang my clothes for 20 minutes in the brisk breeze. The hike back out wasn't any better but atleast for that I peeled off layers. id have paid good money for a Sherpa that day

Hey guys want your opinions (C/C) on something. Normally, I'm a minimalist when it comes to post processing. Less is more in my books. One it saves time and two editors prefer it and three, I don't care for photos that look "overdone". Alot of people feel the same about photos being over done. However, peoples definition of overdone varies and thats ok. Photography is subjective. Getting to the point. Had some shots that I was going to delete, however 1 shot had something that I thought...Hmmm, maybe I can play with this and turn a deletion into a keeper. Heres where you come in. If I post it on a hunting forum, hunters will likely say..."Great Shot". Then again, everything looks great to them, most aren't photographers of any level. Kinda like families, everything we do looks "great" even as we (photographers) stare at a glaring flaw..blown whites, soft, back ground distraction...whatever. If I post if on a photography dedicated forum, where everyone is hardcore photographers from advanced to Pro. They will pick up on the little things and say..Looks nice, but its baked (manipulated)..That does not mean "over cooked) neccessarily. Thats ok, I know they are there to . We are often too picky. Im guilty of it myself at times. Ever look at a photo your own or someones elses and "nitpick"?? What the hell, but I guess thats part of the equation now. Theres enough guys here though who know enough the differences but also might not care. So my question is. I understand that by telling you up front its baked (manipulated) that might skew perceptions. To my eyes I see the tell tale signs. Then again I know exactly what elements I've manipulated.If it were someones else I still might see the tell tale signs then again I might not. The problem is every time I look at...I see them like I'd see a pile of coal in a snow field and I reach for the delete button

Thats pretty cool, keep playing with differnt lighting, mounting solutions. I'm sure youll come up with some interesting stuff. J

Thanks again all. Dont know if I need a PR person but a Sherpa sure would come in handy on occassion

Nice Jay. Ive been playing a sigmonster. (300-800), that a friends selling to see if I want it. It's 14 pounds, I can handhold it for breif periods (long enough to take a few shots) but it's a bear if you need to keep it up for any length of time, say while waiting for a hawk to launch. I'm torn. On one hand I want the native 800 and ability zoom in/out so I can frame a shot properly, on the other the 500 f4 IS is 4 pounds lighter and has IS.

Thanks guys, appreciate it. J

Couple more feathers in the cap. Couple big feathers actually. Theres a Trade Show in town this weekend. I was kind of tickled and flattered when asked to provide the photos for these. Sent 25, these 10 were selected. Each banner is sposed to be 10 feet tall, each image is apprx 2ft x 3ft. Banners will be bookends on one of the stages of this weekends trade show.

how on earth does he keep the water cold enough if these are aquariums?? oh, and nice shots

1)Paint ball??? 2) Squirrels dont raid our feeders too much, it's the damn raccoons I'm at war with. Finally thought Id found a solution by suspending the feeders from high branchs with 8 to 10 feet of picture wire. For a couple days everything was fine, then Id find the feeders empty in the morning. So my daughter and I sat out one night and waited. Sure enough around 10pm we heard some rustlin in one of the trees...hit the flashlights...Damn Raccoon was going paw over paw pulling up the feeder like he was ice fishing. See 1

AL, no idea. I wouldn't take weddings and such myself, you couldnt pay me enough. Have done a couple but for only nephews, who like most young people dont have spare cash. So I did them free. Figure out how many hours its likely to be an go from there. Your being paid for your time. What would fly fishing mag pay a photographer for their time? While the markets are different a half day shoot for me (4hrs) can be anywhere from 300 to 500. A full day (8hrs+) 600 to 1000. With that they get a CD (raw + jpeg) with 100% of whatever I took and minimal PP and exclusive rights to the images for 1 year. I cant even show them online. I know a couple guys that do weddings and their starting price is typically $5,000

Not a fan of HDRs which these appear to be, but these are sweet none the less Andrew. Very wlell done.

I'm hoping Jay. Last Aug/Sept an Art Director for one of the mags I'm trying to do stuff with asked me if I had any Mallards. Mallards being so common and less interesting than hawks, Owls, White Tail, Steelhead, etc of coarse I had none to offer. 2 months laterI saw the cover and said damn...Made it a mission to mkae sure I have a couple dozen suitable Mallard images for next fall in case some magazine wants one for a cover hopefully by August I'll have a couple covers by then anyways ( I think at this point I have 2 scheduled for later 2009 ) but now Im thinking ahead and am trying to fill gaps in my libraries.

Shawn changing exposure settings on your camera will have zero little impact on your images colours. That said lower ISOs and slower Shutter Speeds increase saturation. Take a shot on an overcast day at ISO 400 and 1/400th. Then take the same shot at ISO 100 and 1/100th. The difference is that when shooting jpeg the camera applies adjustments for you to things like contrast, saturation, sharpening dependant on the presets youve chosen. With RAW it doesnt. It just takes a little time playing round and before long you won't look back.

Thanks all, it's much appreciated. J

If your using flash dont set the fly on paper, a vice would be best and shoot horizontally. If you want a coloured backgrounds put something about a foot behind it. If your using a tripod flash may not even be neccessary.

When shooting macro there are quite are few things that could be going on. The most likely culprits are a) Your inside your lenses MFD (Minimum Focus Distance) Insufficient Depth of Field c) Insuffucient Shutter Speed to overcome "shake" any one of those or all three could be the problem. Would help if you posted a sampe. Sometimes its apparent what the problem is. Your MP really shouldnt matter unless your using a really low MP count and trying o enlarge the image far more than it can handle.

I love shooting in winter, its probably my favorite time of year to shoot. Just wish is wasn't so damn cold most of these have been shot when its -20 before wind chill. And that there were more opportunities like fishing etc. Foreword not all of these are wild New Years day. In fact first light Jan 1st 2009. Been shooting some Greenheads trying to potential cover shots for next year. Small Package, Big Attitude Wish my wife looked this good at fist light Winterscape Sparring Session Don't bother me On thin Ice Over the Hill and Far Away No words neccessary Ambush Solitude On the news front I have a couple full page colors in a popular magazine this month, with good prospects of many more later this year.

Frgogfish I'm no expert but do some digging. BC and a number of streams were pretty restrictive with regards to non residents and I've read some things recently that they may be getting even more restrictive. That not to say you cant toss a fly on some streams, but you better make sure of the requirements and be prepaired to pay a pretty penny depending on streams/riers or some such. Hopefully others will chime in with more knowledge. My 2c. I love the west, you might want to try to determine if you want to see certain areas or hit some waters. Were I you Id put Banff and Jasper as starting points and go from there.