Observation and Problem Solving in Nature Photography ( was "How I Get Close to...")

[Evolute]

In another thread, I said:

Situational awareness is a major part of nature photography, for me. One has to understand what is going on around her/him in order to see the photographic opportunity. Improvisation, as Brian discusses in his response to me (which I also discuss in my sub-article Being Survival Minded), and problem solving, are also major components of nature photography success. Almost every good photo opportunity involves some obstacle which must be analyzed and overcome.

Anyway, I mention this because I think some of you might find nature photography to be a rewarding skill to practice, for the purposes of the skills which transfer over to survival and outdoorsmanship.

Brian Jones Responded:

Mike, I always have meant to ask you to post on how you get in so close and capture the shots you do, actually! Your technical skill is amazing, but just as apparent is your skill for getting in and getting the shots of animals in their natural element, undisturbed by your presence.

To which I responded:

Well... that's a pretty big topic. To give you the short version, I usually try not to approach animals unless absolutely necessary. I prefer to let them approach me. Thus, it becomes a matter of figuring out where an animal will want to be, and positioning myself there, first.

I don't tend to go much for hiding and subterfuge. Generally, trying that on wildlife, with my set up, would be a silly conceit, and would unsettle them. Instead, when I am close to animals, I try to behave in such manner that they will be comfortable with my presence.

Anyway, I am herein responding to Brian's request.

Let me give an example to clarify what I say, above.

Anyone familiar with tree swallows will probably quickly recognize the problems with photographing them.

1) Birds can fly anywhere they want to, but I want to get within less than ten feet (preferably closer to five feet) of one.

2) Tree swallows are about as small, fast, and erratic in their flight characteristics as birds get. These characteristics border on being beyond human reflex speed and beyond camera autofocus speed (especially at extremely close proximity). To get a properly focused, well composed shot of a tree swallow in flight, it is necessary to find a way around this problem.

Okay, so we've defined the problems; now let's solve them.

In order to solve problem #1, I rely on the plan of figuring out where the tree swallow will want to be, and positioning myself there first. So, where do I know a tree swallow will want to go? To its nest, of course. So, in this case, I positioned myself close to the flight path into the nest. (Note: This is not acceptable to do with many birds. In some species, it will disturb the birds and make them abandon the nest. Don't try this particular technique unless you know your subjects well enough to be able to assure avoiding negative impact.)

Now, for problem #2: I choose a two part strategy: [A] Figure out a situation when the tree swallow has to slow down, and prepare for photographing the tree swallow, then; figure out how to maximize the performance of my gear.

So, what is the situation when the tree swallow must slow down?: Wind. The bird will be slowed down when it must fly against a strong wind to get into its small nest opening.

And how can I maximize my camera's autofocus performance? First, pre-focus to very close to the distance at which I intend to get the shot; second choose an angle to the sun which will display the tree swallow with a lot of contrast (since autofocus relies on contrast).

Once all of that is worked out, find a swallow nest that it is possible to get close to, which is located so as to be subject to wind, then wait for a situation with a strong wind in the right location at the right time of day to get an angle to the sun with lots of contrast on the subject, then get to the right place at the right time, pre-focus, wait, and get the shot.

I hope this example makes clear how I let wildlife come to me, and how I employ observation of cause and effect, along with problem solving strategies, in order to get my shots.

I'll try to add other examples, later, when I have a chance. Right now, I need to get ready for a day with the selasphorous hummingbirds.

Cheers.

 

[Brian Jones]

Mike, outstanding! Thank you for posting that and looking forward to more! Everyone, a "must see" item is Mike's website in his sig line. Amazing shots, both aesthetically and technically.

 

[CanDo]

Cool, thanks for the tips

Good luck with the hummingbirds!

 

[Evolute]

You're welcome. I'm glad you found it worthwhile.

Thanks for looking.

 

[sasha]

Mike i watched your pics more then once.. They are awsome, But you forgot to add how long you have to wait for that perfect shoot lol.. I Think you are being too modest about what you do... As Brian said your pics are AWSOME. You must know more about animals then most hunters and outdoors mens would ever know. Where abouts are you at now for the Hummingbirds??
This year would be a great year for the wild flowers here in SO CALI...

Sasha

 

[kgd]

Mike, those are absolutely gorgeous shots and your website demonstrates a true mastery of your craft.

I think the tips you gave are really valuable ones and I will take what you written to heart to try to improve my own hobby. I'm sure there is a world of difference when you have the external pressures of an assignment and are trying to pre-arrange a specific composition.

Totally different then us tourists who just take advantage of the views when we happen to find them. Of course sometimes we get a little lucky

 

[Dantor]

I have so enjoyed Evolutes pictures for a little while now. Mike brings us amazing beauty and such detail, right to our screens.

but I still think he has food ghillie suits!
thanks for sharing bro, your the man.

 

[Win Heger]

Just looked at your site, some terrific shots. That's good info on trying to photograph wildlife. I find just not moving will get them to relax and gives you good opportunity.

Win

 

[Evolute]

Thanks, everyone. A few comments:

1) My own website is horribly in need of revision and update, and is not currently the best place to see my stuff. To see more and better, go here:

http://flickr.com/photos/57203173@N00/show/

or here:

http://flickr.com/photos/57203173@N00/

2) Sasha,

Yes, some pictures require long waits. This shot, for example...

...required looking at dozens of tendrils every day for three years, thousands in total, to find the one I was looking for.

And this shot...

...required numerous trips to the chosen location, over a six year period, until everything came together precisely as I was looking for.

However, there are other occasions when one just stumbles upon a spectacular photo opportunity, such as this:

By the way, I was photographing the hummingbirds at the U.C.S.C. arboretum, the best place in California for Allen's hummingbirds, and better than average for rufous hummingbirds and Anna's.

I'll be heading to Red Rocks, Nevada, in a couple weeks, for the desert wildflowers. I'll likely also make a foray to Death Valley and/or Antelope Valley and/or Anza Borrego for more desert wildflower fun.

3) Dan,

I don't need a food covered ghillie suit... I just say to the critters, as I move in close, "I'm gonna make you a star, baby!"

4) Win,

Just staying still for a while definitely helps animals relax, however, it is not always congruent with getting the shot.

I'm preparing another example and discussion. I'll be back a little later....

 

[Evolute]

I want to make clear that the kind of approach to nature photography mentioned in the first post doesn't just apply to wildlife. So, for this next example, I'll show how this type of approach applies to photographing a flower.

While wind was the solution in the case with the tree swallow photo, wind was the problem, here. The surfaces of the flower and leaves catch the breeze, and the delicate stem offers scant wind resistance. The smallest tremble would ruin the shot. Photographed at the appropriately named Windy Hill, the wind was too strong to get a sharp shot at the shutter speed I needed in this lighting.

There are lots of ways to deal with wind, when photographing single wildflowers, up close. Usually, using these techniques in combination is enough to sufficiently minimize the wind, to get the shot.

• Fast shutter speed is, of course, one technique, when available.

• Flash can help get a fast shutter speed, in certain cases.

• Stabilizing tools are another technique. Two or three wooden kebab skewers, driven gently into the soil, propped against a long stem from opposing sides, can hold the stem in place well enough to drastically cut down the flower's back-and-forth bounce. Other good alternatives to skewers include a straightened wire coat hanger/baling wire, and a product from Wimberley, named The Plamp. If none of these are on hand, you can often use sticks at the scene, or find a flower stuck in place by other plants. Using your hands is a final resort. (Hands are often a poor option, due to stinging nettle, poison oak, fire ants, etc. Further, hands aren't steady enough for close up photography with slow shutter speeds.)

Propping plants in place can cut the problem down by about 95%, but usually won't solve the problem entirely, because the skewers need to be low enough on the stem so that they are not in the picture... and this still allows the top of the stem to bounce.

• Shooting in the early morning is another technique. Air is usually most still in the early morning. Sometimes, if you are lucky, it's possible to get completely still air in the early morning.

• Waiting for still air is another technique: Even during a windy day, there will usually be momentary lulls in the wind. If you wait long enough, you can often get a fairly breezeless moment.

When waiting for still air, view the flower through the viewfinder when the wind starts to die. (It's too straining to view it through the viewfinder constantly while you wait for the wind to calm.) Mentally line up a specific part of the flower with something in your viewfinder ( i.e., something etched into your focusing screen), and watch the movement of the flower in relation to the marks in your viewfinder, in order to see when the flower is completely motionless.
_____________________________

In this case, none of the techniques above could be applied in a solvent manner. So I resorted to a different kind of technique:

I timed the arc of the sway.

A flower, on the end of its stalk, bounces back and forth with each puff of breeze. It bounces from its furthest point from you, through an arc, to its closest point. Where, along that arc, is best for taking the picture? Most folks take such pictures at the middle of the flower's arc of sway... but that's the worst place.

Call the furthest spot in the arc from you, where the flower begins to sway toward you, "0". Call the spot where the flower is closest to you, the spot where the flower ends its sway and goes back,"10"; then evenly space the in-between numbers along the arc. Now, suppose that, during the exposure, the flower moves through two steps along the arc.

If we begin an exposure when the flower is in the "4" position, coming toward us, then it continues toward us though positions "5" and "6", heading in the same direction. But, if we begin when the flower is at the "9" position, coming toward us, the flower continues to position "10", then reverses back to position "9". Starting from position "4" leads to an exposure with the flower moving across a two step distance; starting from position "9", it's only a one step distance. This, alone, cuts the motion blur in half by shooting a flower toward the end of its arc of sway, instead of in the middle. Further, the closer the flower is to the end of its arc, the more the stalk is tensioned, so equal wind force moves a flower progressively more slowly toward the end of its arc than in the middle. The flower will almost hold still, for an instant, toward the very end of the arc.

Thus, instead of merely halving the motion blur when photographing the flower near the end of its arc of sway, doing so actually will most often be able to reduce movement to a quarter or even an eighth.

Thus, very near the end point of the arc of sway is the best spot/instance along the arc of movement, for reducing motion blur. Of the two end points, I prefer to shoot close to the end point farthest from me, as this gives the best depth of field, and seems easier to anticipate and properly time.

And that's how I got this shot.

I hope this example, again, shows how almost every picture has some obstacle, and how successful nature photography involves observation skills, analyzing problems, improvising and problem solving.

Cheers.

 

[storl]

That little critter in the bird's mouth is definitely one of my favorites of yours. I cracked up the first time I saw it. The critter just has that "oh sheet" look on his face that makes it almost look photoshopped.

Your photography is exceptional in a day and age where it seems everyone has a camera capable of taking nice shots. Have you ever been published?

On the post above, I noticed that you give some techniques for stabilization using materials around you. Do you never take a tripod or Gorillapod or anything like that with you? I can see it being a hindrance in the backwoods, so I can understand why you would try to stay relatively light.

Anyway, great shots. Keep 'em coming.

 

[Evolute]

Thank you, storl.

Have you ever been published?

Yes. Lots of times. Also, I have just finished a book wherein I am (for the first time) the main illustrator, providing the majority of the pictures in the book, and wherein I am a co-writer, providing about 20-25% of the text. That has fired me up to get my own book, which has been on the back burner for a long time, through to completion. It is well underway, already.

On the post above, I noticed that you give some techniques for stabilization using materials around you. Do you never take a tripod or Gorillapod or anything like that with you?

In the post above, I give some techniques for stabilization of the subject, which is an entirely separate matter from stabilization of the camera and lens.

Absolutely, yes! I use a tripod as much as possible. The majority of my pictures were taken with the camera mounted on a tripod. A tripod is an indispensable tool for what I do.

 

[Brian Jones]

Mike,

Thanks so much for taking the time to offer your expertise here. :thumbup:

It's inspiring me to get back out and try my hand at some shots again! I'm an amateur in every sense of the word, but for me, it's fun to to record those magic moments to remember an encounter with wildlife.

Get ready, we'll probably keep you busy for a long time, even when you're sick of explaining...

 

[Evolute]

You're welcome. I'm glad it's inspiring you.

This time, you all get a chance to try your hand at photographic problem solving.

So, here's a bit of a puzzle for you to work out. This case isn't nature photography, but it still gives you a good case for applying the same type of skills which go into solving problems and getting the shot when confronted with a seemingly impossible barrier.

In this link...

http://velocity.ansto.gov.au/velocity/ans0011/article_06.asp

...is a pop science article which gives a statistical analysis of your chances of getting a picture of a group of people where nobody blinks. (Actually, I think this analysis is flawed, but for the sake of this puzzle, let's assume it is accurate.) For those who don't want to read the whole article, let's skip right to this part of the conclusion:

"...He found that photographing thirty people in bad light would need about thirty shots. Once there's around fifty people, even in good light, you can kiss your hopes of an unspoilt photo goodbye."

So, let's suppose that you had to get a shot of a group of 50 people, where nobody blinks. And for added difficulty, let's suppose that you have to do it in one shot, i.e., have to succeed on your first try. What could you do to get a high probability of capturing a group shot of 50 people with no blinks, on the first try?

It can be done!

 

[General Specific]

Two flashes. One to get them to all blink and then one for the picture itself. No idea what the timing would be and it would have to be very soon after the first unless the people were informed that it would be 2 flashes, otherwise they'd stop posing/smiling... Just a guess.

Regards,

Dave

 

[pitdog]

Evolute, your pics are just amazing bro,the clarity is unreal !

I happen to fall more into kgd's camp of sometimes just being lucky. When I took this pic of the little Garter snake, I was actually about to take a scenery shot and outta the corner of my eye noticed the snake watching me. Moving as slowly as I could I just turned with the camera and snapped the pic....

 

[pitdog]

Or just stick to wildlife that is too slow to move away !!!!:thumbup:

 

[Evolute]

Two flashes. One to get them to all blink and then one for the picture itself. No idea what the timing would be and it would have to be very soon after the first unless the people were informed that it would be 2 flashes, otherwise they'd stop posing/smiling... Just a guess.

Regards,

Dave

A good guess, but no. Flashes don't have that strong of a correlation with causing blinking. They do make people constrict their irises, however. In fact, many point & shoot cameras have a "red-eye reduction" mode which fires a quick series of flashes right before the picture, to make people constrict their irises, to reduce red eye.

A good try! This is the kind of thinking that is necessary, both in nature photography and in emergency wilderness survival.

Pitdog,

Thanks!

 

[General Specific]

A good guess, but no. Flashes don't have that strong of a correlation with causing blinking. They do make people constrict their irises, however. In fact, many point & shoot cameras have a "red-eye reduction" mode which fires a quick series of flashes right before the picture, to make people constrict their irises, to reduce red eye.

A good try! This is the kind of thinking that is necessary, both in nature photography and in emergency wilderness survival.

Pitdog,

Thanks!

Crap, did I say flash? I meant gunshot Uh, then flash. Have to think more...

Dave

 

[Evolute]

No other guesses? Anybody?