This is a shot from my vacation to Alaska and my attempt at wildlife photography a little over a month ago in June of 2000. I found wildlife photography to be difficult and I'm still trying to figure out how I want to approach it. Advice and comments would be much appreciated.

I set up a photo.net presentation with more portraits of Pretty Bear.

August 2, 2000 Seattle, Washington

-- Bob K (bobk@webforia.com), August 02, 2000

Answers

Whoops. The URL given about for the photo.net presentation is incorrect.

The correct link is here.

August 2, 2000 Seattle, Washington

-- Bob K (bobk@webforia.com), August 02, 2000.

This is not a bad effort. But it has a few problems so here goes.

First it has a bad blue cast as has quite a few post here of animals. If you were to do this shot again a 81C filter would have fixed the blue as the pic i emailed you has shown. I have digitally added a 81C filter to your shot.

But if this was me shooting this I would have used a 81A filter and the some fill flash. The eyes are a little dark. I would set my exposure then set the flash on TTL and then set the flash compensation to around 1 1/3 to 1 2.3 underexposure. This will give you some nice catch light in the eyes and help bring out a little detail in the shadows. I hope this helps

-- Keith Anderson (andos@pacific.net.au), August 02, 2000.

Thanks for the comments Keith, they are exactly what I am looking for! Now that you mention it, there is a very noticeable blue cast on the image. I knew something about the picture didn't feel right. The photo you sent me with the 81c correction certainly livens it up:

I would say there is a little too much correction, however, because I am after a softer, gentler picture. Also, it doesn't quite capture the mood of the place. (I'm sure if you knew the mood I was after, you could make the digital correction accordingly.) But something is definitely needed. I think the 81a might be about right. I'll try it out. Do you use the 81x filters on all types of shots or just mainly on the ones where there are browns and yellows in the shot?

As far as the fill flash, let's say I was worried about interfering with the bear's wilderness experience. But you're right, the bears tended to have dark, deeply set eyes, so the eyes generally turned out too dark. Are photographers supposed to use flash with wild and potentially dangerous animals? If that's what the pros do to get their shots or if it doesn't bother the animals, then I am willing to be bolder in the future. Are there any techniques to brighten the eyes other than flash? I suppose I could position myself so that the sun provides frontal lighting, but the area I was in doesn't have a lot of sunny days. August 2, 2000 Seattle, Washington

-- Bob K (bobk@webforia.com), August 02, 2000.

Here's the image with the 81c filter correction:

Is there any way to correct or at least delete and repost these messages?

-- Bob K (bobk@webforia.co om), August 02, 2000.

Yes looking at the second one it has a touch to much saturation now that I look at it. If the saturation was backed off then it would be the right color.

Anyway I leave a 81A filter on my camera for all shots of animals. no matter what. I use a 81C only if a animal is in the shade and I'm not using flash which is not often. I use flash on everything and it is the only way to get life in the eyes unless the sun is doing it for you. I have looked at many of Frans Lanting's shots and they all have some type of flash whether fill or main. I have even seen a softbox catchlight in some of his animals. I think flash in animals is just as important as flash with a human portrait.

Good luck.

-- Keith Anderson (andos@pacific.net.au), August 02, 2000.

You're not worried about ticking off the bears with the flash? I guess I was too cautious, but that was my first time. If that's what it takes to get some light on the eyes, I'll give it a shot. It should be fun.

Seattle, Washington

-- Bob K (bobk@webforia.com), August 02, 2000.

Hi , I'm not sure about bears, but most animals will ignore flash if there is plenty of light around, as it starts to approach being the primary light source, is when they are going to notice. You gave no equipment details, what lens and how close were you? If you were using 400-500mm with a fresnel flash extender, it should be no problem, but again you would need to refer to a bear expert, I've heard tey are rather unpredictable, but there are certain signs to watch out for.

-- Chris Ross (chrisx2@loxinfo.co.th), August 05, 2000.

This was shot with a Nikon 400mm f3.5 with a 1.4 teleconverter. I'm pretty sure I was at the minimum working distance of this lens setup (20-30 feet?) because I have some other shots with the bears a little closer to the me where the noses start to get blurry.

I'm still not sure about taking chances with a flash. These are wild, potentially dangerous bears with nothing but grass between them and me. You're probably right that odds are they won't notice, but there's also a chance that it will startle them. It could look like the flash from the gun muzzle that killed one of their buddies. I'm starting to think that although the eyes look dark, they might look more natural without the flash.

-- Bob K (bobk@webforia.com), August 07, 2000.