27 thoughts on “Readers’ wildlife photographs”

  1. Surely those reeds, shrubs, and trees are alive.

    Don’t they count as “wildlife” just as much as birds, cats, and weenie-teenie flies?

    1. Yep! Must be millions of microbes in the photo too!

      Such gorgeous colours & the light in the clean air is fantastic. Today the London air tastes foul – we are inporting dirty air from central Europe & adding our own pollution on top, so Stephen, thank your fortune that you live where you do!

    2. Exoplanets that look like that would certainly count as having wildlife even if that was the only picture we had.

  2. Stephen, why is there such noticeable chromatic aberration on the right side of the full size image? Is it an artifact of your lens or the HugeIn software? I notice now that it shows on the left side of your First Snow panorama too.

  3. What about all those nightjars! (Probably half a dozen ptarmigan in there too.)

  5. HDR is a nice special effect tool, but it tends to give pictures a surrealistic touch. That’s not always cool in pictures about nature.

  7. Beautiful work Stephen! This made a good start to my day. My only regret is that I’m not the guy holding the camera.

    1. This was 40mm with a Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM — the kit lens that comes with the camera. I don’t have a prime wide angle lens. I’m usually lugging around the 500mm with the 1.4x extender.

      1. Ah. I usually have my long lens on my camera as well though I recently picked up the 24 mm prime because I’ve become prime obsessed.

        1. You both owe it to yourselves to pick up a copy of the Shorty McForty:

          http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_40mm_f_2_8_stm

          It’s optically on a par with the 24-70 II, and it’s hardly bigger than the body cap, and smaller than the 1.4X extender. Cheap, too. And almost exactly the 43mm of the textbook ideal focal length for a normal lens on 135 format.

          It’s also near ideal for panos; the nodal point is so close to the body that you can generally just pivot the camera on the tripod without having to worry about parallax alignment.

          And, take the grip off the camera, slap this thing on, and use live view, and the 5DIII looks and acts very much like an oversized high-end point-and-shoot camera — much less conspicuous, easy to hand to somebody for a quick snapshot. If I did weddings, I (or my assistant) would be getting in the Conga line at the reception with that setup on a wrist strap to get the shots the guests with their cameras think they want to get but have neither the knowledge, skill, nor equipment to actually get.

          Cheers,

          b&

          1. I’ve been considering that one but I also have the plastic fantastic 50mm

          2. The Plastic Fantastic is certainly a nifty fifty, but the Shorty McForty is in a different league optically.

            That, and you can easily fit it in a pocket, while even the Plastic Fantastic is going to get Mae West comments.

            b&

          3. Yeah, I may check it out. The plastic fantastic is making me happy because the full frame presents pretty much the human eye view. I also carry my Sony NEX 7 for everyday type stuff.

          4. That “normal perspective” thing is tricky, and has more to do with typical print sizes and viewing distances. Stick your nose against a window-sized print from a 14mm lens and you’re probably closest to actual experience. Look at an 8″x10″ from a 400mm lens from the other side of the gallery and the perspective will again be “normal.”

            But the 35mm – 50mm range is generally very effective for when you want to get the art of photography out of the way and focus on the subject. Wider lenses help create the illusion of expansiveness, and longer ones the illusion of intimacy. Each has its place….

            b&

          5. I like primes too because they let you think about composition more easily. The 24mm I got is nice at 2.8 with a close subject in an expanse. You can get some interesting photos with it.

          6. If you like getting close with a 24, then you’d fall in love with the TS-E 24 II. If I could only have one lens, that would be it.

            b&

          7. I will have a TSE one day if I travel where there are a a lot of buildings I want to photograph (except when I travel it’s usually to somewhere away from big cities). I often fantasize about a fisheye and if I get into more sky photography I may use it. I’m going to use this 24mm if the place I ordered my telescope mount ever gets the part in stock!

          8. The TS-E lenses aren’t just for architecture!

            Want to shoot that patch of wildflowers two feet away, the saguaro in the midground, and the cliffs a couple miles away in the background, with everything in focus (including that meadow off to the left)? And do it without stopping down to f/64? And without the saguaro looking like it’s leaning or wider at the top than the base? Then you need a TS-E!

            And Canon’s new fisheye zoom is a lot of fun, though it can be tricky to work with. Would you like your feet or the tripod included in the frame? No problem! Do you not want them in the frame? Well, that might take some doing….

            Cheers,

            b&

  10. I know this type of landscape well. I lived in Idaho for seven years as a kid and early adolescent. Wonderfully beautiful and wild place, and it was responsible for my interest in biology (being thrust into nature on a daily basis sort of forces it on you, I think). But man, the politics there are just wacky. Glad I left for more-sane Oregon when I was 15.

Comments are closed.