One more point concerning posing the animal for maximum benefit from the perspective:

For an animal like kudu, gemsbok, springbok, etc., try to keep the horns perpendiculr to the line of sight. If the horns are tilted away from the camera, they will look much shorter.

As for Sable, I took several angles, but the one I chose to keep was the profile.

For Warthog, try to tilt the head in such a way that the tusks are not tilted away from the camera.

Rick.

Quote:

---

For Warthog, try to tilt the head in such a way that the tusks are not tilted away from the camera.

---

I had my PH take several angles of this hog, but I liked this one best. A straight on frontal was okay because it showed off the tusks better, but this one also shows the body size and distinct facial features well. -TONY

Martin,

I am not sure I follow what you mean about "life like" poses on AR?

I have yet to see any one try to prop up a dead elephant in the middle of a waterhole and pretend it is still alive?

Most folks simply "lay out" their animal to get the best view of it; the amount of adjustment of the pose being governed by the size of the animal more than anything.

I would think the very fact there is usually a guy with a rifle hanging about in the picture should convey that "bambi" is not merely asleep, no?

I have no problems with pics of a well presented carcass hanging from a meat pole, but while thats not too difficult to do with a roe, it does get a bit tricky with say a giraffe....

Regards,

Pete

Tony,


If you don't mind sharing some of you're expertise here, I have a few questions for you...

How much re touching of your pics goes on in Photoshop afterwards? I am not suggesting you add a few inches of extra trophy length or anything, but things like enhancing the colour of the sky or the brightness of the pic ect...

Does your digital take different lenes like a normal 35mm SLR??

Do you use filter on the lens or any effects you use digital?

Do you have any tips for taking trophy pics at dusk? I am trying to avoid the obvious problem of the flash proving a well lit subject, but the background coming out black.

Any examples of successful pics taken at dusk where the exposure of the subject and the background is reasonably balanced?

Thanks in advance,

Regards,

Pete

Pete,
Plesae don't misunderstand me. It is not a critizism of pictures here on AR in general. It is this talk about artificial eyes and the fear for a spot of blood that trigged me. If the shape and size of a particular animal is best shown by propping it up as if they are merely resting that is OK with me but, but please don't let anyone get the impression that the hunter tries to avoid showing death.

And yes, I have yet to see that propped up ele as well!
Actually I think that the Big Five tend to be more "dead" in the pictures.

Regards,
Martin

Pete,



Yes, I often do some touching up in PS. But what I do often depends on the original image itself. Some require nothing more than a bit of cropping, while others might get some contrast, sharpening, etc. etc. That's why they make image editing software.



The OLY 2100 is not one of the expensive SLR types, even though it originally sold for $900+ when it first came out. It has a permanent lens that goes from WA to a 10X zoom, however, and it is "image stablized," i.e. less shake at high zoom ranges. It's only a 2.1 MB model but that's plenty for what I use the images for right now.



I do have a more sophisticated SLR type in my future plans, though, as more and more magazines start using digital photos. Since I already own a cadre of lenses for Canon, my 35mm gear, the digital will likely be a Canon body.



I use NO filters other than an occasional polarizer for 35mm when reflections are a problem. My take on filters, at least for 35mm, is why put a piece of glass that costs a dealer about $3 over a quality piece of glass on a $500 lens?



Re: flash/black sky



I noted where you mentioned a $50 P&S camera earlier. So if that is what you're using, it's propbably why you're getting black skies when you use the flash at dusk.



More sophisticated cameras, especially those with a FILL flash setting, will balance the flash output with the ambient light available thru a series of sensors. Sounds like your camera might be reading only the light on the subject while underexposing everything else. And that will happen quite often when the flash has only one output level.



Now, if your camera has several PROGRAM modes, you might try different ones with the flash to see which gives the best overall results. Just be sure to take all the photos from the same place and direction within a short time of each other.



The gemsbok photo in my earlier message above was shot in the fading light near dusk, and the warthog was close to it, too. That's why the trees are black but the sky is brighter while me and the hog are exposed well. The WA read the light of the sky when it balancd for the ambient light, thus underexposing the trees. -TONY

Martin,



I remember the very first deer I shot was a fallow pricket taken from a highseat one evening...



I shot it a little low and it ran and took some finding. As we were losing light fast, I asked the stalker who had taken me out to take a couple of "Trophy" snaps before doing the gralloch...



Those pics came out terrible; it was like something from a horror movie. Although only dusk, the flash lit the deer really harshly and turned the background black. The flash also gave the deer evil looking "devil" eyes as somebody commented afterwards.



Its tounge was hanging out and although the exit wound was not on the picture, there seemed to be blood everywhere on the head and neck of the deer, probably where we had handled it as we dragged it out...



I was ashamed of those photos and vowed I would not take any more, as they simply did not reflect the scene as I saw it at the time.



Like somebody else mentioned above, it was not until I went to Africa and saw the trouble the PH went to did I realise what was involved in a good Trophy pic.



I don't want blood on the pic anymore than I would want blood on a mount returned from the taxidermist. I think carrying fake eyes is taking it a little too far and a fine tipped black marker pen really helps to touch up red eye if it is a probelm in the completed photo.



Regards,



Pete

Tony,

I have no problems with someone using software to enhance a photo as really all you are doing is approximating what used to go on the darkroom.

I agree shooting at dusk or in other "extreme" light conditions really taxes the cheap 35mm point and shoots, but for "average" or "normal" conditions and if you know their limitations, and work with in them, they are pretty good.

I started playing about with a Pentax P30T but never really got on with it; for some reason I never really got " pin sharp" pics.

I then went onto a Cannon EOS300 which I really like. Its only drawback (for me) is its size as I found I tend not to cary it while hunting. Last year I bought a Nikon CoolPix3700 and again I am pleased with it.

Both the Cannon and the Nikon have a "night scene" setting but I confess I have not tried it yet.

I also need to learn to use Photshop Elements and that was one of the reasons I asked you how much editing you did,

regards,

Pete

Tony,



As far as deers eyes being like mirrors, I was going to mention spot lighting deer, but folks would jump to the wrong conclusions!



I also remember trying to convince a guy that the red eye reduction feature on his camera was not really going to help matters in these circumstances!!



regards,



Pete

Exactly on the darkroom comment. The idea is to have a good photo.

I'll take a look at the Nikon 3700 to see what programmable functions it has. But you should try that night scene mode to at least see if it makes a diff.

Can you set the flash to a fill mode only?

Adobe's PE is little different than PS for the basic features anyone needs to have. The major difference with PS is all the more sophisticated stuff such as being able to ge images set up for commercial printing, etc. I used it a bunch when I did my book. -TONY

Pete,



Spotlight -- did someone say spotlight???



Actually, the redeye problem, which is more geared to human subjects, is not that very much different than the effect with animals. Animals just tend to reflect in either green or near white.



Redeye is why a lot of pro photographers often use off-camera flash units so they can hold them higher than the camera lens to avoid redeye when shooting people. That creates an angle where the light doesn't go straight into the eye, thus reflect straight back from the eye. If you throw a rubber ball straight at a wall, it will bounce back directly at you. Throw it an angle and it bounces off at an opposite angle. Likewise for light waves.



So here again, shoot from a higher, lower or sideways angle and the problem is gone. -TONY

Pete,
I don't think there is much we disagree on really... And no doubt the pictures we take of the animals we kill should be as good as possible. I have taken a lot of pictures during the years and have been lucky enough to see some in print (including some from salmonfishing in Scotland) so please believe that I think the quality of the pictures are important.

As I said in my first point, I did not want to critizice, just to show that I am amazed by some ideas about tropy-pictures.

I think the culture is different in some countries also. Here in Sweden it is not uncomon with blood in the pictures in the hunting magazines, I understand that such pictures are seldom seen in American hunting magazines??

Regards,
Martin

Tony,



The Nikon has both those modes along with a bunch of others!



I just stepped out side and tried taking a couple of pics of my trusty mutt with "normal" flash and "night" mode...The night mode worked pretty well, but camera shake became a factor; another point in favour of a little travel tripod!



I remember trying to puzzle out how to manually set the flash and exposure on my SLR to do the night scences and i never did understand the explanation! I guess i should just take the easy way out and use the appropriate "night mode" and let the camera figure it all out!!



Regards,



Pete

Tony, you touched on a big issue, filters. I was consideringusing a polarizing filter at least for the fishing pictures (I am headed to AK) but considered the effect on land-based pics as well. Particularly, I notice that some pictures are not "distinct" enough for me, with the animal turing to a massive brown blob. I think the flash will help, but what effect does a filter have?

Also, I am using a Panasonic FZ10, 4MP, 12X optical zoom and stabilized. Nice camera in all...

Tony,

Yes, the flash was activated, but there is another mode (or manual I guess) where you can just increase the exposure.

Thinking in 35mm format, if i understnad it correctly, the flash lights the subject and is of relatively short duration. However its the Apeture/F stop which controls the exposure of the background. Where I have a headach is trying to manually set the flash based on the guide number and distance to the subject while using those setting to come up with an exposure which will balance the background to the subject...I suspect its much easier to turn everything to auto and use the night mode!

Regards,

Pete

scw,



It depends what type of filters you buy and their quality, plus having the knowlegde of which one to use in what circumstances...



I think a basic polorising filter is worth having as not only does it cut out reflections but in can prevent what you see as a really blue sky "washing out" into a very pale blue on the final print. They work best when the sun is low in the sky at an angle to the camera.



I asked Tony about filter because I thought he might have used a polariser to get those stunning blue skys or perhaps a similar effect in PhotoShop.



If you have an auto focus SLR you will probably need a cicular polariser rather than the cheaper linar ones. The linar ones can supposedly effect the auto focus function so are best avoided.



I would stay away from the cheap Cokin filters as the quality is a bit mediocure and some of the effects are pretty naff...



Regards,



Pete

Pete,

If you can set the the exposure for the ambient light and then also set the flash exposure for fill-only, you'd have it made.

Now if you're trying to do this when it's tooooo dark, it won't work regardless.

The best on-camera flash, i.e. in a hot shoe, is one that has TTL mode, which is "through the lens." This is the type that coordinates the flash with the ambient light. And the built-in flashes on the better cameras work the same way as long as you pick the right program mode. Also, the better cameras allow you to reduce the flash output in the same sense as reducing the exposure, i.e. minus 1/2, 1 stop etc. That's exactly what fill-flash is when less incremental choices are available. -TONY

Tony,

I think this is where digital SLR's beat film hands down in that you can try these different effects and see the results straight away. By the time i got the prints back from the lab I had forgoten which settings I had used on each exposure!

I hanker after a Canon digital SLR, but even the basic ones are pretty spendy...

Regards,

Pete

Yeah, my youngest son just bought the 10D. It cost him about $1,800 for the body, big battery pack and charger. Unfortunately, he was living in Colorado then and just moved to TX to go to work as a customer service rep. for Skeeter Boats. So I don't even get a chance to borrow it. -TONY

Pete,



This is a digital photo of guide Tim Buma with the tahr I shot in NZ last month. It was taken in late morning with bright sun and fill flash. Although it's difficult to see in this one dimensional plane, the tahr's head is lightly turned to avoid the "empty eye" effect when shooting a broadside photo. -TONY

Tony,

Stunnung photo of a stunning trophy! I think of all the places in the world, New Zeland has to be on of the best for hunting..I think all thats missing really is some form of dangerous game...

Back to the photos...sometimes the background or part of a background comes out too dark...With film, this can obtain be corrected to one degree or another in the lab although its quite an expensive process...Can you do the same thing in Photoshop and are you lightening detail already there ( as in film) or are you sort of "creating" a lighter background digitally?

regards,

Pete

PS provides WAAAYYY more control than even a photolab for film does. You can lighten or darken down to the pixel if you care to.



I enjoyed the NZ hunt as much or more than my hunt in Africa. And what do you mean --- wallabys aren't dangerous game???



Seriously, about the most dangerous critter we came across was this guy below, which I took with my digital. Couldn't get near the fence without getting attacked. -TONY

Tony - This is the ferocious beast that almost ate my camera (with my hand). Maybe time for new boots?

Shane,

New boots indeed.

I couldn't believe how agressive these things are. There was an emu in the same pen that didn't a give damn about whether we were around or now. But everytime I moved toward the fence, the ostrich raced over and tried to eat me whole. -TONY