Alaskan Brown Bear Photography

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:

 > I invite you to view images from my recent trip
 > to Alaska for bear photography:
 >
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW</font" target="_blank">http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW</font</a>>
 >
 > All images were taken with a Canon 1D mark II digital camera,
 > and almost all with a Canon 500 mm f/4 telephoto lens.

Wow.. Impressive. I really like the shots of the bear
fishing by the waterfall. A classic wildlife photo..<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Alaskan Brown Bear Photography 

Very nice !! hope to go there someday myself. Will have to settle for RMNP
next week for now.
Thanks
Gary


"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username RemoveThis @qwest.net> wrote in
message news:4158EFCF.5050900@qwest.net...
 > I invite you to view images from my recent trip
 > to Alaska for bear photography:
 >
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW</font" target="_blank">http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW</font</a>>
 >
 > All images were taken with a Canon 1D mark II digital camera,
 > and almost all with a Canon 500 mm f/4 telephoto lens.
 > The photos above include 46 images out of the approximately
 > 5000 I obtained, of which I plan on about 100 to be put
 > on my web site. There are also a few eagle photos. I will
 > also have more eagle and moose photos up in the coming weeks.
 > The bear photos are almost all either full frame or cropped to
 > 8x10 proportions (from 8x12).
 >
 > Roger
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Alaskan Brown Bear Photography 

Your images are really great, I enjoyed seeing them.
 >> Stay informed about: Alaskan Brown Bear Photography 

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username.TakeThisOut@qwest.net> wrote in
message news:4158EFCF.5050900@qwest.net...
 > I invite you to view images from my recent trip
 > to Alaska for bear photography:
 >
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW</font" target="_blank">http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW</font</a>>
 >
Spectacular pictures -- might sell me on going Digital. I have a couple of
technical questions:

1) How do you ever keep track of the exposure/lens/speed for each? I shot
3or 4 rolls of film at Brooks Falls on a day trip a few years back, mostly
on jammed platforms with no opportunities to take notes so it's guesswork to
figure out what you took afterwards.

2) Were most of these pictures really shot with two teleconverters on the
camera? If so which ones specifically? They look really sharp.

--
Warren Montgomery wamontgomery.TakeThisOut@att.net (
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://home.att.net/~wamontgomery" target="_blank">http://home.att.net/~wamontgomery</a> )<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Alaskan Brown Bear Photography 

warren montgomery wrote:
 > "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username.RemoveThis@qwest.net> wrote in
 > message news:4158EFCF.5050900@qwest.net...
 >
  >>I invite you to view images from my recent trip
  >>to Alaska for bear photography:
  >>
  >>http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW
  >>
 >
 > Spectacular pictures -- might sell me on going Digital. I have a couple of
 > technical questions:
 >
 > 1) How do you ever keep track of the exposure/lens/speed for each? I shot
 > 3or 4 rolls of film at Brooks Falls on a day trip a few years back, mostly
 > on jammed platforms with no opportunities to take notes so it's guesswork to
 > figure out what you took afterwards.

Digital records all the info. It's way cool compared to film
(I still use film in 4x5).
 >
 > 2) Were most of these pictures really shot with two teleconverters on the
 > camera? If so which ones specifically? They look really sharp.
 >
No, I said I used the 2x TC the most.
Of the images currently on the above link,
7 were at 500mm, f/4
7 with the 500 +1.4x TC
21 with the 500 + 2x TC,
9 with the 500 + 1.4x + 2x TCs

Here are some images with 1.4x + 2x Tcs
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/brown_bear.c09.08.2004.JZ3F1965.b-700.html" target="_blank">http://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/brown_bear.c09.08.200...Z3F1965</a>
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/brown_bear.c09.09.2004.JZ3F3503.b-700.html" target="_blank">http://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/brown_bear.c09.09.200...Z3F3503</a>
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/brown_bear.c09.09.2004.JZ3F3544.b-700.html" target="_blank">http://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/brown_bear.c09.09.200...Z3F3544</a>

The challenge with stacked TCs is the extreme magnification, and
working at f/11.2 (the 500 is at max f/4 aperture). So fast action
was not possible to get without blur. Probably 30% of my stacked
TC images have slight blur due to camera shake (slightly soft 8x10
prints). If there was no camera shake and no subject motion
over the exposure time, the images are quite sharp and will
make nice 16x20 inch prints. Stacked TCs on the 1D Mark II body
give a plate scale of 1.2 arc-seconds per pixel. The 500mm lens has
an aperture of 125mm and a diffraction spot diameter of 1.1 arc-seconds,
thus stacked 1.4+2x Tcs is pretty much at the system limit.
The 1D Mark II still did autofocus with the stacked TCs.

I used a wimberly head and gitzo 1328 carbon fiber tripod.
I don't think anything less would be as good, and a heavier carbon
fiber would be better (~gitzo 1549).

I use Kenko pro 300 teleconverters. In my opinion, they are as sharp as
Canon's. The 500 f/4 L IS is very sharp and can take the
magnification. It does have some halo but it is minor and
well corrected with unsharp masking.

I could not do stacked TCs well without the autofocus of the 1D Mark II.
I did have one successful stacked TCs with a Canon D60:
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/c12.16.2002.IMG_1365.hawk.b-600.html" target="_blank">http://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/c12.16.2002.IMG_1365...wk.b-60</a>
which has sold as 16x20-inch prints. But there was no autofocus.

Roger<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Alaskan Brown Bear Photography 

"warren montgomery" <wamontgomery.TakeThisOut@worldnet.att.net> writes:

 > "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username.TakeThisOut@qwest.net> wrote in
 > message news:4158EFCF.5050900@qwest.net...
  > > I invite you to view images from my recent trip
  > > to Alaska for bear photography:
  > >
<font color=green>  > > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW</font" target="_blank">http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW</font</a>>
  > >
 > Spectacular pictures -- might sell me on going Digital. I have a couple of
 > technical questions:
 >
 > 1) How do you ever keep track of the exposure/lens/speed for each? I shot
 > 3or 4 rolls of film at Brooks Falls on a day trip a few years back, mostly
 > on jammed platforms with no opportunities to take notes so it's guesswork to
 > figure out what you took afterwards.

All digital cameras record basic information like aperture, shutter speed, time
the picture was taken, ISO speed, white balance used, etc. in a set of fields
in the image, known as EXIF. There are various viewers and tools that will
pull this information out.

A few of the high end Nikons will merge information from a GPS into the
information stored in the picture, and there are 3rd party applications that
will integrate a GPS log with the pictures, if you do a mark near the time you
take the picture. For example, the site californiacoastline.org used this to
make a photographic record of the entire California coastline via helecopter.

Also, on some digital cameras you can also record a voice memo of a few seconds
after the shot.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews.TakeThisOut@the-meissners.org
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.the-meissners.org" target="_blank">http://www.the-meissners.org</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Alaskan Brown Bear Photography 

 >From: "warren montgomery" wamontgomery.RemoveThis@worldnet.att.net

 >Spectacular pictures -- might sell me on going Digital.
 >
 >1) How do you ever keep track of the exposure/lens/speed for each? I shot
 >3or 4 rolls of film at Brooks Falls on a day trip a few years back, mostly
 >on jammed platforms with no opportunities to take notes so it's guesswork to
 >figure out what you took afterwards.

This info (and much more) is included in the EXIF data that gets attached to
each digital file.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Alaskan Brown Bear Photography 

Roger, does your TC show in the exif data? My non-canon TC does not. The
data for f-stop shows the lens setting without the TC the same as with it.

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username.RemoveThis@qwest.net> wrote in
message news:415B5B27.4080900@qwest.net...
 > warren montgomery wrote:
  > > "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username.RemoveThis@qwest.net> wrote
in
  > > message news:4158EFCF.5050900@qwest.net...
  > >
   > >>I invite you to view images from my recent trip
   > >>to Alaska for bear photography:
   > >>
   > >>http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW
   > >>
  > >
  > > Spectacular pictures -- might sell me on going Digital. I have a couple
of
  > > technical questions:
  > >
  > > 1) How do you ever keep track of the exposure/lens/speed for each? I
shot
  > > 3or 4 rolls of film at Brooks Falls on a day trip a few years back,
mostly
  > > on jammed platforms with no opportunities to take notes so it's
guesswork to
  > > figure out what you took afterwards.
 >
 > Digital records all the info. It's way cool compared to film
 > (I still use film in 4x5).
  > >
  > > 2) Were most of these pictures really shot with two teleconverters on
the
  > > camera? If so which ones specifically? They look really sharp.
  > >
 > No, I said I used the 2x TC the most.
 > Of the images currently on the above link,
 > 7 were at 500mm, f/4
 > 7 with the 500 +1.4x TC
 > 21 with the 500 + 2x TC,
 > 9 with the 500 + 1.4x + 2x TCs
 >
 > Here are some images with 1.4x + 2x Tcs
 >
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/brown_bear.c09.08.2004.JZ3F1965.b-700.html" target="_blank">http://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/brown_bear.c09.08.200...Z3F1965</a>
 >
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/brown_bear.c09.09.2004.JZ3F3503.b-700.html" target="_blank">http://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/brown_bear.c09.09.200...Z3F3503</a>
 >
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/brown_bear.c09.09.2004.JZ3F3544.b-700.html" target="_blank">http://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/brown_bear.c09.09.200...Z3F3544</a>
 >
 > The challenge with stacked TCs is the extreme magnification, and
 > working at f/11.2 (the 500 is at max f/4 aperture). So fast action
 > was not possible to get without blur. Probably 30% of my stacked
 > TC images have slight blur due to camera shake (slightly soft 8x10
 > prints). If there was no camera shake and no subject motion
 > over the exposure time, the images are quite sharp and will
 > make nice 16x20 inch prints. Stacked TCs on the 1D Mark II body
 > give a plate scale of 1.2 arc-seconds per pixel. The 500mm lens has
 > an aperture of 125mm and a diffraction spot diameter of 1.1 arc-seconds,
 > thus stacked 1.4+2x Tcs is pretty much at the system limit.
 > The 1D Mark II still did autofocus with the stacked TCs.
 >
 > I used a wimberly head and gitzo 1328 carbon fiber tripod.
 > I don't think anything less would be as good, and a heavier carbon
 > fiber would be better (~gitzo 1549).
 >
 > I use Kenko pro 300 teleconverters. In my opinion, they are as sharp as
 > Canon's. The 500 f/4 L IS is very sharp and can take the
 > magnification. It does have some halo but it is minor and
 > well corrected with unsharp masking.
 >
 > I could not do stacked TCs well without the autofocus of the 1D Mark II.
 > I did have one successful stacked TCs with a Canon D60:
 >
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/c12.16.2002.IMG_1365.hawk.b-600.html" target="_blank">http://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/c12.16.2002.IMG_1365...wk.b-60</a>
 > which has sold as 16x20-inch prints. But there was no autofocus.
 >
 > Roger
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Alaskan Brown Bear Photography 

"Lew" <barberlewie.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

 > Roger, does your TC show in the exif data? My non-canon TC does not. The
 > data for f-stop shows the lens setting without the TC the same as with it.

Check your TC: does it have the extra three pins on the left? See
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/TipsPage/" target="_blank">http://www.fredmiranda.com/TipsPage/</a> (The first tip is the
tape-over-the-pins hack for getting AF back for gumby cameras like a
10D which supposedly "can't" AF with a lens slower than f/5.6, see the
image.)

Those three pins encode the teleconverter magnification (1.4 or 2.0),
and the pins do not exist on the camera body (ie, no TC). In the EOS
system, it is the job of the lens to sense the existence of the TC
(via these pins) and to suitably modify its messages to and commands
from the camera. The camera itself is completely unaware of the TC
per se, since these pins are only on the lens side of the TC's EOS
interface.

If your TC hasn't got the pins, the lens thinks there is no TC, so
your EXIF data will not include it. In addition, if you stack a pair
of properly encoded EOS TC's (as far as I know, only Canon makes
these), the lens can only "see" the TC directly connected to it ... so
the EXIF will only reflect that one.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Alaskan Brown Bear Photography 

eawckyegcy RemoveThis @yahoo.com wrote:
 > "Lew" <barberlewie RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
 >
 >
  >>Roger, does your TC show in the exif data? My non-canon TC does not. The
  >>data for f-stop shows the lens setting without the TC the same as with it.

Yes it does. I use Kenko Pro 300's.
 >
 >
 > Check your TC: does it have the extra three pins on the left? See
 > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/TipsPage/" target="_blank">http://www.fredmiranda.com/TipsPage/</a> (The first tip is the
 > tape-over-the-pins hack for getting AF back for gumby cameras like a
 > 10D which supposedly "can't" AF with a lens slower than f/5.6, see the
 > image.)
 >
 > Those three pins encode the teleconverter magnification (1.4 or 2.0),
 > and the pins do not exist on the camera body (ie, no TC). In the EOS
 > system, it is the job of the lens to sense the existence of the TC
 > (via these pins) and to suitably modify its messages to and commands
 > from the camera. The camera itself is completely unaware of the TC
 > per se, since these pins are only on the lens side of the TC's EOS
 > interface.
 >
 > If your TC hasn't got the pins, the lens thinks there is no TC, so
 > your EXIF data will not include it. In addition, if you stack a pair
 > of properly encoded EOS TC's (as far as I know, only Canon makes
 > these), the lens can only "see" the TC directly connected to it ... so
 > the EXIF will only reflect that one.

This is very interesting, thanks. It explains a lot.
The exif data when stacking 2 TCs is the one next to the
lens, so it works just as you say and the camera seems
blind to the other TC.

Roger<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Alaskan Brown Bear Photography