Photography

[ajfromnj]

McAwful

I was looking at your site. What great pictures you have there! What kind of camera do you use? I was being interviewed by someone from The New York Times about the Didymo weeds and they were saying that the cameras being used for print cost around 5,000 and are between 16 and 18 mega pixels. Is this true? What kind of camera do you use? The definition of those pitures is incredible, especially the one of the emerging mayfly. Thanks for any help.

Aaron

 

[McAwful]

Aaron,

Thanks for the complement. I'm using a Cannon Eos 5d 12.8 mega pixel. Not so much the camera as the lens and too many hours working with The Adobe cs3 master suite. I'm sure Dennis will agree that it is a real bitch to shoot moving, emerging, watery, wind swept insects with out ruining your gear. The Photoshop helps so much with cleaning up those sins.

As far as the 16 to 18 mega pixel statement... I have no idea why they would need that for a newspaper. I'm not saying they don't, I don't work for a newspaper, but it seems overkill to me. I have archival prints of mayflies that I shot hanging in my living room. Yeah, my wife LOVES those. I shot them with a 6 mega pixel camera a couple of years ago and printed at 20" x 30" with beautiful resolution and clarity.

My site is a temp I threw up a couple of months ago. Super busy these days so it has taken me longer than I expected to get the real version I love up. Check back in two weeks and the real site will be up. Better design, way more photos and examples, just good stuff.

McA

 

[AKSkim]

What site?

If you can't post it here, please PM it to me.

As always, enjoy looking at fly fishing photos.

AK Skim

 

[ajfromnj]

You can clean up the pictures that well with photoshop? I have tried to "run down" insects for photos and I have come to the conclusion that it can't be done perfectly. That's interesting that you can clean them up.

Also, just slapped the site up? For slapping it up it looks really good. I am always impressed by good pictures. I know how hard they are to get.

Also the site is riseformstudios dot... you know the rest AK

 

[dcabarle]

If you know how to use Photoshop, you can do quite a bit. I use it everyday without fail.

A few of my personal favorites:



If you click on the images, they'll enlarge to mid size. Photoshop helps with contrast, brightness, levels, and so many other items. Photoshop is the new darkroom of choice for most professional photographers.

Simply owning a camera and photoshop won't make you an instant pro. You should also have an understanding of ISO settings, shutter speeds, aperature settings, bracketing, and Exposure Compensation. The first photo was taken in pitch dark. The only light I had was one of those little things that clip onto your hat for night-time fishing. This photo would not have come out this way with a point and shoot type of camera. The last two photo's would have never come out with a point and shoot because they just aren't capable. Point and shoots can be great camera's for ameratures and professionals but right now they don't offer the flexibility of a SLR (single lense reflex).

Like Mike mentioned, you'll need a really steady hand and lots of patience. The first two photo's weren't just lucky shots, I took roughly 100 pics of the first one and over 200 for the second (the camera I used for the first is much better). The last two shots are trico's that I took one day on the East branch of the Delaware and were just lucky shots. I sat on the bank for about an hour and a half just following these little buggers with a zoom lense and taking random shots. How many clear shots have you seen of flying insects the size of a piece of rice? Probably not many.

 

[ajfromnj]

well one thing i do know is that to catch things in action you want to get the fastest shutter speed possible right? You are right, to catch things the size of rice in the air fly is pretty darn good. So you are telling me if i want to get great photos it means that I have to fish less and take more pics...:dizzy: And most of all I need to have a lot more patience. I really do have a great respect for people with good pictures. Its funny that you take 100 pictures to get one good one. Some of the pics of bugs that I have I might take twenty or so of it and one might be half decent. I see that you are saying that I should play around with different settings while trying to take the same picture?

 

[Fly Ty R]

Listen to Dennis. Good stuff there.

:foto:

 

[dcabarle]

well one thing i do know is that to catch things in action you want to get the fastest shutter speed possible right?

Yes, but what if it's a bit dark out? That fast shutter speed will get you a lot of darkness. The darker it gets, the longer your shutter will have to be open for. Sure you can use a flash, but many of my photo's (including the ones taken in pitch dark) were taken without a flash! Sometimes, you have to be a little creative with the light that you have available.

You are right, to catch things the size of rice in the air fly is pretty darn good. So you are telling me if i want to get great photos it means that I have to fish less and take more pics...:dizzy: And most of all I need to have a lot more patience. I really do have a great respect for people with good pictures. Its funny that you take 100 pictures to get one good one. Some of the pics of bugs that I have I might take twenty or so of it and one might be half decent. I see that you are saying that I should play around with different settings while trying to take the same picture?

Sometimes fishing less and sitting on the bank observing what's going on will teach you a thing or two. So yes, sometimes it will require that you put the rod down. Patience is key.

Each day has a few Magic windows for taking the best of the best photographs. Some photographers will get to an area of interest and set up camp and wait for one of those windows. A few good examples of magic windows:

and of course, here's a link that describes the magic times in some detail.

Magic Hour

Just like fishing, photography requires lots of patience! If you get a DSLR or already have one, I'd be more than happy to help you out with it.

 

[AKSkim]

My site is a temp I threw up a couple of months ago. Super busy these days so it has taken me longer than I expected to get the real version I love up. Check back in two weeks and the real site will be up. Better design, way more photos and examples, just good stuff.

McA

Had a chance to look at your site this morning and found the video's very informative, I highly recommend anyone new to fly fishing or just wanting to gain a different perspective to give it a look.

As always, willing to learn a different technique.

AK Skim

 

[McAwful]

AK,

Thank you. That is high praise indeed. I finished the design for the "real" site yesterday and have a few day before my next project starts. It should be up in a few days not weeks...

McA

 

[A Polinger]

I was being interviewed by someone from The New York Times about the Didymo weeds and they were saying that the cameras being used for print cost around 5,000 and are between 16 and 18 mega pixels. Is this true?

Aaron,

I was a photographer for a paper for 4 years and we used cameras between 4 to 6 mega pixels. For the paper you did not need high res but you did want hi speed for sports. The cameras we were using ran between $4000 to $5000. This was about 6 years ago when papers were just starting to go digital.

AP

 

[ajfromnj]

I mam not trying to argue about that camera. I was only saying what she had and what she said to me. However, I was wondering why she would have such a crazy camera to only take black and white photos? I would have thought you needed much less too, But she sake pictures for the TImes :foto:so you never know. I am sure they can be very demaning.

 

[C&R]

well one thing i do know is that to catch things in action you want to get the fastest shutter speed possible right?

Actually having a really fast lens (i.e. a low numbered f-stop) and using the appropriate ISO setting (the higher the ISO number, the more- sensitive the photo sensors are to light) is probably more important. That's why you see those really really long (and really really wide) gray Canon lenses attached to black SLR bodies at sporting events. Those lenses are superfast.

Using the fastest shutter speed does mean you will take a great shot. If the lens is "too slow" and/or the ISO number to low for your shutter speed setting, all you will get is an underexposed shot. Your camera's metering system will indicate a potential underexposure if your chosen settings are not sufficient.

Also keep in mind that higher ISO speeds mean more "noise" in your shot. This can lead to grainy shots in low-light situations. This will limit how much you can crop and magnify your shot in post-processing.

Macro lenses are neat for shooting things like bugs. I have the Canon 100mm 1:1 macro and absolutely love it. Only problem is that I don't get to go out fishing enough so when I do I'm fishing and not taking photos.

Regarding the digital darkroom work...

I have to say that without Photoshop's "Unsharp Mask" feature I would be producing just ordinary photos. This feature allows you to fine-tune the degree of sharpness for slightly out-of-focus shots.

If you shoot in RAW format (instead of JPEG), you can use a RAW editor to adjust things like White Balance, Exposure Compensation (up to plus or minus 2 stops), and add effects like B&W or Sephia, and much more. After performing initial adjustments of photos with a RAW editor, convert the images to Best Quality JPEG and perform any final adjustments in Photoshop (e.g. sharpness, removing specks, and blemishes among other things.)

 

[beaverkill]

Aaron,

I was a photographer for a paper for 4 years and we used cameras between 4 to 6 mega pixels. For the paper you did not need high res but you did want hi speed for sports. The cameras we were using ran between $4000 to $5000. This was about 6 years ago when papers were just starting to go digital.

AP

6 years ago the best high speed cameras were 6 mega pixel - and speed was more important than resolution given the coarseness of newsprint line screens. These days those same high end fast cameras geared toward action photography are in the 16 mega pixel realm. And most printers available are able to reproduce a much finer image with more detail than a newspaper.

Remember that dynamic range, bit depth and the physical size of the photo receptors are as important in the quality of pixels as the number of them that are captured. Dynamic range and bit depth refer to the range of light to dark values that can be captured and the number of levels (or shades) expressed within those values. And the larger the pixel size the cleaner and less noisy the capture is, generally.