|
WPY 2016 winner announced. Probably the best winner in a few years.
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 18:18 |
|
|
No. Tim Lamen climbed up the tree beforehand, fixing GoPros in to position then waited for an orangutan to climb the right tree.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 10:33
|
|
|
Is that the Nature's Best one? I keep meaning to get a copy of the publication to see how it compares to the European competitions I'm more familiar with .
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
I'll be photographing puffins come next week, although it'll be the Atlantic variety and not somewhere quite so remote as Alaska (an island off Wales).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 11:54
|
|
|
They're live streaming this year's Wildlife Photographer of the Year ceremony. It's like the oscars but better... https://www.pscp.tv/NHM_London/1yoJMMvLbdkJQ edit: Youtube for better quality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68OgIvHPPgg Pablo Bluth fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Oct 17, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
Jealous of the porcupine encounter. It's a species I've fancied seeing since Jenaya Launstein got a photo of one in to the WPOTY.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2018 20:34
|
|
|
I've photographed moose, in the caravan park in Grand Nipple NP.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2018 14:55
|
|
|
Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2018 12:32
|
|
|
Good but not the magic once-in-a-million shot guaranteed to get the wpy judges to notice. I like this guy's Firefly work https://www.instagram.com/p/BV1t580hg6H/
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2018 16:12
|
|
|
I don't know where IJ went but IMO Lake Clark is the place to go if you can manage to sort it the logistics. It's way up near the top of my bucket list.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2018 16:39
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:This is indeed where I went. Specifically, Silver Salmon Creek Lodge (http://silversalmoncreek.com/). It's an ideal place to photograph bears because they come to the tidal flats at this time to eat the grass and go clamming, and they are around a lot of people so they basically ignore you and you get to see natural behaviours.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2018 22:15
|
|
|
Bears par excellence.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2018 16:19
|
|
|
I know this is more the thing of the weirdos over in the bird photography thread, but I think this one is overdue some poop tax..
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2018 09:46
|
|
|
Not enough pooing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2018 21:12
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:Thanks! I'm pretty sure the one on the right yelled TITTY TWISTER right before I took that photo.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2019 19:10
|
|
|
Churchill or somewhere else?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2019 18:51
|
|
|
I'm assuming this was a pre-snow trip? I've got a trip to Yellowstone in January, so I'm about to have to go on a cold weather gear spending binge. I've not done a proper snow trip before and the south of the UK really isn't cold. A decent down jacket, snow boots (UK shops have a terrible selection of snow boots), warm trousers, hats, gloves, base layers, all at once is going to add up... Pablo Bluth fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Nov 4, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2019 20:13
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:Assuming you're asking about my trip, then yes it was pre-snow but with the wind chill the temps were around -20. I'd like to photograph polar bears but grizzlies at Lake Clarke are the top of my bear bucket list. Pablo Bluth fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Nov 5, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2019 14:32
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:Wow, that's pretty awesome.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2019 19:15
|
|
|
Atlatl posted:It'll look good on metal and you'll sell a bunch, for sure. I'd file this one under 'useful learning experience mentally filed away for future attempts'. The idea is good but there's enough niggles (the tree, the shadow from the tree, the framing) that I wouldn't go forward with it. Instead I'd use it as the start of a project to make a photo in this style but absolutely nailing every aspect.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2019 19:58
|
|
|
How serious are they about it? Cost, weight and hassle can soon dampen the enthusiasm for the endeavour for those who aren't coming from an existing interest in photographing wildlife. Are they doing a private game reserve where they're likely be close, or somewhere like Kruger where it's strictly stay-on-the-road? I would point out the 150-600 Sigma Contemporary or Tamon (original not the newer G2) to them (they're the cheaper and lighter of the options), but recommend that a 100-400 (Tamron or Sigma) is probably the more sensible option (repeat the mantra about the best camera being the one you have with you, and get them to consider if they'll get bored and leave a bulky camera at the room/tent or in the bag). They might ignore you and go with a 150-600 and if it goes wrong you can do a polite 'I did say'. They could come back and bemoan 400mm being too short but I reckon that's a less serious blowback. Plus you can prime them to understand that 600mm isn't a magic solution (the technical challenges, atmospherics/heat haze, etc). I'd certainly recommend Tamron or Sigma over Nikon. This doesn't strike me as a situation where pixel peeping the last few percent of quality is relevant; low weight and cost seem a more sensible priority. Alternatively, talk them in to going m43, where they can have 200-800 equivalent at much reduced weight https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/0536950749/interview-wildlife-photographer-buddy-eleazer-on-why-he-chose-the-om-d-e-m1x https://www.andyrouse.co.uk/index.php?eb=1&id=114
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2019 22:57
|
|
|
I'm in Yellowstone at the moment. First time in the winter but it's a mild spell so I'm not getting my bus off... Had an amazing wolf pack sighting last week.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2020 16:36
|
|
|
charliebravo77 posted:I'm headed to the Bozeman area on Friday to spend a week on vacation. Naturally I'll probably head to Yellowstone since yanno, when in Rome. Anyone have any suggestions on lower trafficked areas to hang out and watch wildlife from? Every Youtube video of a 4 mile traffic jam because some yokel is trying to take a selfie with a bear/moose/buffalo makes me cringe and I'd like to try to avoid some of that if possible. Most people want a leisurely breakfast then drive to all the geysers stopping only for wildlife by the road. So an early start for the best roadside areas then do a hike during the day and hope you get lucky. The Madison River area towards the junction with the ring road is a prime area for Elk. Fountain Flat Drive area is good for Bison. Heyden valley for bison. Lamar Valley for Bison, Pronghorn, Big Horn sheep. Sheepeater Cliff - Pika (taken from my notes, I didn't make it there as the road was closed on both my trips) Most other stuff is luck-of-the-draw anyway so do a hike to get away from people (very few go far from the cars). If you make it to Gardiner, the Old Yellowstone Trail might have Pronghorn (at least it did in January). It's unpaved and I can't image it gets that busy even in August. Then when you get home, book a photography winter tour. Pablo Bluth fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Aug 18, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2020 19:20
|
|
|
Late September is manageable crowd wise. There's the occasional short traffic jam for the best sightings and any bear still gets a massive crowd. The 200 people who stopped for a Great Grey Owl was probably the biggest. Snow season is amazing and an entirely different ball-game.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2020 21:15
|
|
|
jarlywarly posted:Hares in the UK are VERY flighty it's incredibly rare to get close, most of the time you see them just as they disappear into long grass running away, and with good reason they are still persecuted by illegal hare coursers, I will never disclose locations and make sure no geotags are release coursers are known to try and use social media etc to find hares. Other countries are blessed with a wide range of native medium/large mammal species, the UK has Badgers, Otters, (naturalised) Hares, Deer, Foxes all have been mercilessly hunted over the years and all are very hard to see in the wild let alone get close to in good light (Deer are common at country estates but are not wild.)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2020 21:18
|
|
|
They announced the winners of the 56th Wildlife Photographer of the Year yesterday. Won by a tiger photo that I would probably put as 'interesting' rather than 'photogenic'. https://www.nhm.ac.uk/wpy/gallery
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2020 18:30
|
|
|
I do think WPY should be seen as a sort of industry award rather than merely a pretty picture award. The context of a picture can tip the balance in additional to the aesthetics of the end result. So I think here the value of a hard-to-photograph and highly threatened species doing something interesting has outweighed the slightly heavy handed processing (which I think is a combination of shadow lifting and oversharpening). Decent photos of wild Siberian tigers are almost non-existent – even if you go to a specialist picture library like naturepl.com, they've got a total of 38 photos of wild ones, nearly all of which are distant or unflattering night flash. I do think the composition is off too and I don't understand why it wasn't cropped down on one side. The same guy took [url=https://www.nhm.ac.uk/wpy/gallery/2017-arctic-treasure?tags=user.24483]this[url] so he clearly knows his poo poo. Interestingly that didn't even win it's category that year but I recall it was plastered over all of the merchandise.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2020 13:13
|
|
|
If anyone needs inspiration, there's a Dutch nature photography conference that has switched online this year, running this weekend. https://www.naturetalks.com/ There's a few big names in there I recognise and a bunch of Dutch ones I don't. I've wasted €50 on worse... Pablo Bluth fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Dec 10, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2020 19:25
|
|
|
Snow needs to be a pure white not grey. Anything else looks muddy.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2021 21:05
|
|
|
There's a really good book on British Bees: Field Guide to the Bees of Great Britain and Ireland (Bloomsbury Wildlife Guides) However I think I'm now less certain on identification once you realise how many types there are! But I do now appreciate the wider variety I come across (including really small ones I would have overlooked before). I don't have a good beetle book.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2021 15:28
|
|
|
The elephant one suffers from the white sky. A mono conversation is often more forgiving to blown out skies. Overall, if that's your first attempt at nature photography, it's a strong starting point.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2021 18:28
|
|
|
I could provide more feedback but as some one who hasn't yet made it to Africa and is thus jealous, instead I shall just say: gently caress you. Your pictures are poo poo. Go home and let me take your place.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2021 21:37
|
|
|
Gimbal head > Ball-head.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2022 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 18:18 |
|
|
The reality is £200 is pretty much the floor for any sort of telephoto, if not below it, so you're not going to have a smorgasbord of choice. The 70-300 f/4-5.6 type lenses are the ones Canon and Nikon sell as a kit with their consumer bodies, so there's a ton of them about. Honestly, I had a look at mpb for used EF mount lenses below £200 and there really wasn't much else. There's Sigma's 70-300 version and Tamron's 'jack of all trades' 16-300. I don't know which is better. Even something like the mk1 100-400 which sold in large numbers, had a lot of critics, are long past the point of being serviced officially/spares being available and have flooded the market due to the superiority of the mk II plus the general switch to mirrorless, still sell for £500+ (a quick calculation suggest the RRP in 1998 would have been about £1000.) It's like there's a psychological barrier below which people just won't sell telephotos for. Pablo Bluth fucked around with this message at 12:58 on Dec 10, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2023 12:54
|
|