• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Photographing Venomus Snakes...

Pruddock

Pruddock

Gig 'Em Ags!! Whoop!!
Howdy,

I know I'm pretty much the only person who posts on this and I'm probably somewhat repetitive, but I'm trying to get better at this as I go along. I just started photographing in the wild and in Texas I come across more hots than I do nonvenomous and I'm getting decent shots, but I know I can do better. Right now I've got two cameras that are both 35mm. One is a Canon Rebel 2000 and the other is an oldie, a Nikon Nikkormat FT. I normally take the Canon out into the field because it has the added benefit of the AF if its needed. I'm using the lens that I got with it which is an EF 28-90mm f 1:4-5.6, and I've been using fuji 400 film. Do ya'll have any suggestions on other types of lenses that I should try to aqcuire (remembering that I'm a poor college kid) and should I be using a film with a faster ISO to get better shots? Any help would be greatly appreciated and here are some samples of what I've been shooting. The last shot of the copperhead was taken with the Nikon using a 135mm lens that I wasn't too fond of. It wasn't a macro lens so close-ups were impossible.
 

Attachments

  • 721377-R1-16-7_017.jpg
    721377-R1-16-7_017.jpg
    262.9 KB · Views: 348
  • 019_6.JPG
    019_6.JPG
    69.4 KB · Views: 345
  • 720976-R1-13-14_014.jpg
    720976-R1-13-14_014.jpg
    269.6 KB · Views: 344
  • 720976-R1-09-10_010.jpg
    720976-R1-09-10_010.jpg
    253.9 KB · Views: 344
  • 721439-R1-16-18A_017.jpg
    721439-R1-16-18A_017.jpg
    229 KB · Views: 353
I also haven't been using a flash. I've heard you can get more of the colors to pop with a flash, is that true? And what do ya'll use for DOF, f stop, and all of that fun stuff? I truly am a complete noob but really love doing it so far. It's much better than studying :crazy02:
 
Just remember close ups with flash and venomous snakes can cause a snake to strike.

Good job on these though!

Keep it up, i love pictures!
 
Jcapicy said:
Just remember close ups with flash and venomous snakes can cause a snake to strike.
Click to expand...

I highly recommend never being in the range of a hot snake - especially not with your head directly behind the camera.
 
No worries. I use a 28-90mm right now and stay well out of range. I'm trying to decide between a couple of different Sigma lenses right now that I really like, but I'm not sure which ones would work best for what I'm looking for. I hate making these decisions. :shrugs:
 
hahaha, thank you diamondlil. I appreciate it :cheers: Encouragement is always a help right? ;)
 
=P nice pics, i dont think the hognose counts as a hot snake =P he sure is doing a nice cobra impression though :grin01:
 
WHOA if you can take those pics being A noob and them being hot damn imagine the stuf you could do with a non hot snake
lol
 
I _knew_ I'd seen that hoggy before!!

Diggin' up threads, he's diggin' up threads- exhuming things that's better in our heads...

Nanci
 
You're using film? Fair enough. Didn't know anybody still used that old stuff. :grin01: What I'm going to say is from knowledge of digital systems not film, however I'm guessing most of it can be transferred between the two.

Flash is good because one, obviously, it gets more light on the scene. And two, because it will freeze motion nicely. Proper use of flash can make a huge difference to photos. But if you get it wrong it can be...less than helpful. And on a film camera that's hard to correct.

For lenses, I'd just stick to the macro lens with the longest focal length I could afford. They get you decent reach, are tack sharp if used correctly, and can focus closer than most other lenses. Also, it might help to try and get a fast lens (With a wide aperture, so f/2.8 for example). That'll let more light in, so you can get a faster shutter speed, and will help get you more Depth of Field.

Frankly in your position I'd go digital, as I don't much like film. :smash: But accepting that you don't want to do so, you're basically on the right track from what I can tell. Oh, and by the way - Nice photos. :)
 
Paradox said:
You're using film? Fair enough. Didn't know anybody still used that old stuff. :grin01: What I'm going to say is from knowledge of digital systems not film, however I'm guessing most of it can be transferred between the two.

Flash is good because one, obviously, it gets more light on the scene. And two, because it will freeze motion nicely. Proper use of flash can make a huge difference to photos. But if you get it wrong it can be...less than helpful. And on a film camera that's hard to correct.

For lenses, I'd just stick to the macro lens with the longest focal length I could afford. They get you decent reach, are tack sharp if used correctly, and can focus closer than most other lenses. Also, it might help to try and get a fast lens (With a wide aperture, so f/2.8 for example). That'll let more light in, so you can get a faster shutter speed, and will help get you more Depth of Field.

Frankly in your position I'd go digital, as I don't much like film. :smash: But accepting that you don't want to do so, you're basically on the right track from what I can tell. Oh, and by the way - Nice photos. :)
Click to expand...


Thanks Paradox! I'm actually just kind of "hanging out" right now with the whole deal because I havea good feeling I'm getting a new 40D for Christmas. :D :dancer: But I've been working a little more with a flash indoors and I'm going to be working with a Professional photographer over the winter break back in Iowa. He said he was going to let me help him on a couple of shoots and just teach me a little more about capturing light correctly (my biggest flaw :( ) So, hopefully this coming spring and summer will show a big improvement for me. I hate working with film too by the way just because you never REALLY know if its going to be good or not until you develop it and then its too late :(
 
Nice one on the photographer - lucky guy. :) Also, I really hate you now - the Canon 40D is my ideal camera, and I'm seriously considering forking out for it in the future. You lucky little... :grin01: Just make sure you get some good lenses for it as well. No point wasting a beauty of a camera like that on crap glass.
 
I completely agree. I'm basically going with a Canon because I love the ES system lenses. They are AMAZING!!! And I've been lobbying for a new camera for about 2 years now lol, when that new 40D came out I was on it like white on rice!!! lol. Only problem is I think I'm going to end up paying for my Aggie Ring myself because of it and that's not much cheaper lol. Both are well worth it though :D

And the photographer is they guy that taught me how to play hockey growing up lol. He quit the hockey business about 6 years ago and is an AMAZING photographer, so it'll be fun to work with him again and learn something new from him :)
 
What you really want is a Hasselblad, but that's beyond anyone but the ridiculously riches budget. :grin01: 39 Megapixels of high-quality digital fun! That costs £17,000 without a lens.

Realistically I'm going to stick with my current camera (Panasonic FZ50, so not quite a DSLR if styled after one) till next Christmas, then either go for the 40D or anything more suitable that's come out since. I went for the '50 because I didn't want to fork out on a DSLR I'd just end up replacing, so I'm going for a nice high end Prosumer DSLR first time. :)
 
About getting close to the snakes

I really enjoy making wildlife shots. I have made pictures of hundreds of snakes over the last 15 years or so. Right noow I shoot with a Canon 40D with a 50 mm Sigma Macro lens. I also use a 70 - 200mm Sigma lens.

Here one with the 50 mm:
Sept23-05.jpg


Or:
Sept-012007-08.jpg


With venemous snakes I rather use the 70 - 200 mm lens so I can keep my distance:
April17_2006-22.jpg


April17_2006-15.jpg
 
Looks like adders of some sort Nanci. That and I think adders are the only venomous snakes in Europe if I'm not mistaken, but I'm sure somebody who lives their could probably correct me. I'm not up to par on my Euro snakes :)

Great pics too!! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top