# Let's talk dog pictures



## rotcsig443

Just got a new Canon Rebel t3i and wanting to be able to use it while hunting and training the dogs. I am looking at getting a telephoto lens, but will be far in the future before I can do that more than likely. What are some tips to help a newbie to the canine and wildlife photography world out. Tips, tricks, settings, or cheap camera accessories to help me improve.


----------



## Sharon van der Lee

My favourite lens is the 70-200. It will be your best friend, both for capturing action shots and portraits. Invest in good glass.


----------



## brushtop12

Subscribed.


----------



## BJGatley

Sharon van der Lee said:


> My favourite lens is the 70-200. It will be your best friend, both for capturing action shots and portraits. Invest in good glass.


I agree. Invest in a good quality lens. 
The same goes if you are looking at our solar system.


----------



## Todd Caswell

Good Glass, the 70-200L F/4 can be found used for 400-500, no need to drop $2000.00 to start with for the 2.8 IS for outdoor use. And learn to use your camera in the manual modes, I use the AV mode most of the time. If your using the camera in the Auto mode it isn't much different than a point and shoot. Youtube has some great info free for the taking.. Have fun..


----------



## rotcsig443

This is the lense I am currently looking at purchasing. http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-F4-5-6-Cameras/dp/B00EFILVQU But like I said it will probably be a bit before being financially able to get another lense of any kind (vet school budgets seem to stay pretty tight )  I don't really know much about any of this, so just looking for any bit of tips or tricks that y'all have seen that really seems to help with picture quality. While shooting action shot, I shoot in the "action/sports" mode, and while shooting still photos I am just using the "auto" for normal or the "no flash" setting for when the picture is in a dark setting and a flash cannot be used.


----------



## BJGatley

rotcsig443 said:


> This is the lense I am currently looking at purchasing. http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-F4-5-6-Cameras/dp/B00EFILVQU But like I said it will probably be a bit before being financially able to get another lense of any kind (vet school budgets seem to stay pretty tight )  I don't really know much about any of this, so just looking for any bit of tips or tricks that y'all have seen that really seems to help with picture quality. While shooting action shot, I shoot in the "action/sports" mode, and while shooting still photos I am just using the "auto" for normal or the "no flash" setting for when the picture is in a dark setting and a flash cannot be used.


I understand what you are saying. 
Suggestion: Get Photoshop.


----------



## Todd Caswell

rotcsig443 said:


> This is the lense I am currently looking at purchasing. http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-F4-5-6-Cameras/dp/B00EFILVQU But like I said it will probably be a bit before being financially able to get another lense of any kind (vet school budgets seem to stay pretty tight )  I don't really know much about any of this, so just looking for any bit of tips or tricks that y'all have seen that really seems to help with picture quality. While shooting action shot, I shoot in the "action/sports" mode, and while shooting still photos I am just using the "auto" for normal or the "no flash" setting for when the picture is in a dark setting and a flash cannot be used.


That is a very consumer grade lens, slow focus and pretty soft wide open at 250mm and 5.6. It is capable of very sharp still images, but not designed as a action type lens, save your pennys and get the one I recomended it stays on one of my bodies 24/7. I agree get a free version of photoshop elements, for post processing, but in most cases people tend to over process there images, thinking photoshop will fix it, when they are really making the composition worse. Like I said before the best thing you can do befor you buy a new lens is spend the time learning your camera and how all of the settings and functions work together..


----------



## Irishwhistler

Aye Mate,
I would echo Todd's advice and say get intimately familiar with the various settings and functions of your camera. The more fluent and comfortable ye become with them, the easier things will come. Be cognizant of your light source and how it might effect your overall photo by casting unwanted shadows, not illuminating or overexposing the subject. Learn to shoot in the manual mode and how manipulation of shutter speed and aperture will effect your final image.

Don't be afraid to experiment and time spent shooting photos will improve your work. Look at the work of others and determine what it is that makes their photos appealing to you, then try to emulate them / incorporate those qualities into your own work.

Irishwhistler


----------



## Todd Caswell

These were all shot with the 70-200 F4L


----------



## rotcsig443

What would you say is the most trusted place to look for a used lense of this type?


----------



## rotcsig443

Here are several I have taken up t this point. Any pointers as far as editing would be appreciated too.


----------



## Todd Caswell

rotcsig443 said:


> What would you say is the most trusted place to look for a used lense of this type?


I buy all of my used equipment off of fredmiranda.com


----------



## Mountain Duck

The best advice I could give you concerning finished product (editing) is to learn when the light is right to shoot, and waste little time shooting when it isn't. With a few exceptions, my best images come when the light is appealing. Early or late, fog, diffused sunlight, can all greatly increase the quality of your capture. A great capture in boring light is still a great capture, but a great capture in an interesting light can be art. Your dog shots are sharp and well composed, but you probably missed the best light by a couple hours. You caught that harsh/contrasty light. Often times, the best light is when you have to decide, shotgun or camera!

First light, front lit, basically straight out of camera.....










First light, back lit, basically straight out of camera with shadows brought up a touch










Early morning, direct lit, filtered sun, basically straight out of camera










Fog/diffused sun with some minor processing..... and a little luck


----------



## T-bone

I'm looking for some new (used) glass also. 

With regards to the lense suggested - how does the lack of image stabilization affect images taken while hand held (not on tripod)?

I've managed to get lots of great shots while training and testing and need to figure out how to get those black dogs' faces to have more definition so you can see their eyes and a bit more detail.


----------



## Ahooge

one thing i suggest is go to the local art galery, craft shop or 4H chapter and see if there are any intro to photography classes/seminars that will be coming up. alot of time places like that will do things to promote photography and what not. more people then you think attend and there is always a wealth of information to take in.


----------



## Mountain Duck

T-bone said:


> I'm looking for some new (used) glass also.
> 
> With regards to the lense suggested - how does the lack of image stabilization affect images taken while hand held (not on tripod)?
> 
> I've managed to get lots of great shots while training and testing and need to figure out how to get those black dogs' faces to have more definition so you can see their eyes and a bit more detail.


In the 70-200 range, I don't find VR or IS to be that big of a deal in regards to shooting action. with the shorter focal length and ability to zoom, framing and tracking is not as hard. Obviously it helps at slower shutter speeds and still shots. I'm blown away at how effective the most recent VR (Nikon) is in the 70-200 f/2.8 at slow shutter speed stills.

In the longer lenses (primes especially), the VR/IS, (IMHO), makes a substantial difference, in that it stabilizes the image in the viewfinder, which in turn makes composition/tracking much easier. This is especially true when handholding the bigger, heavier f/2.8 and f/4 primes where you can't zoom, and the image is often times filling up more of the frame. I always use the VR on my 300 f/2.8 when shooting handheld, regardless of shutter speed.

As for black dogs, I swore my next one would be yellow!


----------



## Sharon van der Lee

I use VR on all my lenses that have it. I have found myself just using the 70-200 lately for just about everything. The subject "jumps" into the frame and it is a super fast lens for action shots, but still getting a nice depth of field. My avatar was taken with a 70-200.


----------



## Sharon van der Lee

This was a shot I took a couple of years ago down in Texas. Most on the guide boat had too big lenses and couldn't get this shot. Thanks to VR, AF and the 70-200.


----------



## brushtop12

I know what IS means but will somebody explain VR and AF?


----------



## Mountain Duck

brushtop12 said:


> I know what IS means but will somebody explain VR and AF?


VR=Vibration Reduction. It is the Nikon version of Canon's IS. 

AF=autofocus


----------



## brushtop12

Auto focus.... Well that'll make you feel dumb.. 

Ok well i think Im brushed up on my camera slang for now. Thanks for the help!


----------



## NicoleBoettger

Also don't be afraid to use a rental lens when you need it. Gives you a chance to try before you buy or have the really good glass for that special hunt.


----------



## jackh

Todd Caswell those are incredible pictures. You can actually find some good deals on craigslist if you know what you're looking for. I bought a new nikon d7000 body from B&H and a used nikon 17-55 f2.8 from a photographer on craigslist last year at a really good price. I need something larger for hunting and dogs now though. I am going to take a couple basic photography classes and start playing in adobe lightroom too.


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras

I took this w/ my Cannon Power Shot A810 HD 5X Optical zoom. Nothing like Todd's pics but good enough for enjoyment. I use the pics to make a calendar for the new year at Vistaprint.  So all year I get to enjoy them.


----------



## wastinshells

rotcsig443 said:


> Any pointers as far as editing would be appreciated too.


Shoot in RAW file format, Buy Adobe Lightroom. Edit RAW files in Lightroom. 

There are a ton of good tutorials online. 

Heres one.


----------



## KwickLabs

Every time I see excellent photos (in threads like this), the urge to move up to a better lens surfaces. I end up searching for decent prices on a lens upgrade. Then reality sets in. My Website is where all the "keeper" photos are entered. 

Most photos are primarily in the moment situations. The camera needs to be in action rather quickly and many times in less than favorable conditions. It must fit in a small Pelican case. The case was a more recent addition and the result of a dunking in the heat of a moment. 

Therefore, the compromise has been to not taking high quality photos. However, I manage to capture images that compliment hunting and training journal entries. There are plenty of "keepers". 

I'm using a Canon xTi with two lenses - Canon 28-135 mm and a Tamron 17-50 mm. Neither are very pricey.....which is a way of saying "cheap". I did buy a Canon 55-250 mm, but have not used it for a few years. My old Paint Shop Pro Photo X2 program gets a regular workout.

The problem (for me) is I could very easily become swept up in photography as an exciting new hobby. However, I'm 74 years and just don't have the time to commit to high end photography. There's too much family, dog training, hunting and fishing to do. 

Here's a link to some of my favorite photos entered into a rotating screen saver program. Some of the photos were taken many years ago with a tiny $50 D-Link digital camera. It's all about the memories. 

_*KwickLabs Screen Savers (link)*_


----------



## Mountain Duck

KwickLabs said:


> Every time I see excellent photos (in threads like this), the urge to move up to a better lens surfaces. I end up searching for decent prices on a lens upgrade. Then reality sets in. My Website is where all the "keeper" photos are entered.
> 
> Most photos are primarily in the moment situations. The camera needs to be in action rather quickly and many times in less than favorable conditions. It must fit in a small Pelican case. The case was a more recent addition and the result of a dunking in the heat of a moment.
> 
> Therefore, the compromise has been to not taking high quality photos. However, I manage to capture images that compliment hunting and training journal entries. There are plenty of "keepers".
> 
> I'm using a Canon xTi with two lenses - Canon 28-135 mm and a Tamron 17-50 mm. Neither are very pricey.....which is a way of saying "cheap". I did buy a Canon 55-250 mm, but have not used it for a few years. My old Paint Shop Pro Photo X2 program gets a regular workout.
> 
> The problem (for me) is I could very easily become swept up in photography as an exciting new hobby. However, I'm 74 years and just don't have the time to commit to high end photography. There's too much family, dog training, hunting and fishing to do.
> 
> Here's a link to some of my favorite photos entered into a rotating screen saver program. Some of the photos were taken many years ago with a tiny $50 D-Link digital camera. It's all about the memories.
> 
> _*KwickLabs Screen Savers (link)*_


Jim those are some great pictures that I'm sure bring back a lot of memories! I think the important thing to remember about cameras, is to just take one! I've taken thousands of images while hunting with high $$$ equipment, but often the ones that bring back the most memories are nothing more than snapshots taken on a whim with whatever I had.

Sure don't have any problems bringing back memories with this shot of my Old Chesapeake taken many years ago with a disposable camera! I think it was zero that morning! They say time tends to make us "embellish" the accomplishments of past retrievers, but I have photographic proof..... this ole gal could walk on the water!


----------



## tzappia

Know what? You can have the most expensive camera body and camera lens money can buy, but if your composition and lighting is crap, so goes your image. Learn these two very important photographic concepts and you will be able to attain award-winning images using a $200 camera.


----------



## HPL

Well, I think I'll weigh in here also. To look for used equipment from a reliable source I always check KEH.com in Atlanta (they have been in business for something like 30 yrs and give a 6 month warranty) or Roberts Imaging in Indianapolis for both new and used. Always call the folks when looking for used as the inventory changes daily. As to lens choice, Canon's 70-200 family consists of 4 (actually 5) lenses, all optically very nice. These lenses are the 70-200 F:4 and F:4 *IS*, and the 70-200 F:2.8 and F:2.8 *IS MkII* (the 5th lens is the original F:2.8 *IS*). *IF, and only IF *you only plan to use the lens under nearly ideal lighting conditions, there is very little reason to spend the extra money to get one of the IS versions or the faster (F:2.8 IS) members of the family. I bet that you will eventually want to use the lens when the light is somewhat dim (just before dawn, just at dusk, for instance) so, I would strongly recommend that you look either for the original 70-200 F:2.8 IS (which will be used) or a used F:2.8 IS MkII (I just picked up a very nice used MkII from Robert's Imaging for a bit under $1,700.00). Now, I know that sounds like a lot of scratch (or at least it does to me) but good glass is an investment, and a good, pro built lens will last you for many years and actually hold it's value (especially if purchased used). If you just can't justify one of the IS F:2.8's, at least try to find a used *IS* F:4. You should be aware that Image Stabilization only counters blur caused by camera shake, not subject movement, but in telephoto lenses, camera shake is a major cause of image degradation. To counter motion blur caused by subject movement, you need as high a shutterspeed as the light allows and THAT is where the "faster" (lower F:#) lenses come in. An F:2.8 lens allows the passage of twice the light as an F:4 lens, thus allowing twice the shutter speed. Should you purchase any of the 70-200 L series lenses, it should last you through this camera body and at least the next one, which is why I suggest getting the very best one you can possibly afford, even if you have to wait a bit. Watch the used departments. Deals change all the time. 

I concur with those advising you to GET OFF P or the "green box" and learn to use either Tv (you set the shutter speed and the camera chooses the appropriate aperture) or Av (you choose the aperture and the camera chooses the appropriate shutterspeed). Personally, I almost always use Av as I generally want the highest possible shutterspeed for the light conditions, so I set the aperture at wide open (assuring the max amount of light gets through the lens) and allow the shutterspeed to "float". 

As far as software, I strongly recommend Adobe Lightroom (I would also recommend using the creative cloud version). FIRST, (and this is VERY important) before you even sign up for Lightroom check out Tim Grey's introduction to lightroom on You Tube. It's about 2hrs long, but WATCH THE WHOLE THING! It will pay HUGE dividends. Here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSwkDC3q7uk

Hope this helped some.


----------



## HPL

Mountain Duck said:


> Jim those are some great pictures that I'm sure bring back a lot of memories! I think the important thing to remember about cameras, is to just take one! I've taken thousands of images while hunting with high $$$ equipment, but often the ones that bring back the most memories are nothing more than snapshots taken on a whim with whatever I had.
> 
> Sure don't have any problems bringing back memories with this shot of my Old Chesapeake taken many years ago with a disposable camera! I think it was zero that morning! They say time tends to make us "embellish" the accomplishments of past retrievers, but I have photographic proof..... this ole gal could walk on the water!


If you're posting the supernatural water walking abilities of Chessies, I'll have to repost this one showing that Labs can too:


----------



## Mountain Duck

HPL said:


> If you're posting the supernatural water walking abilities of Chessies, I'll have to repost this one showing that Labs can too:


Ha! Look at all that splashing! Poor fellow is about to go under!  

Nice shot Hugh! ;-)


----------



## HPL

Mountain Duck said:


> Ha! Look at all that splashing! Poor fellow is about to go under!
> 
> Nice shot Hugh! ;-)


That's not splashing per se', but more of a rooster tail like you see behind a drag boat!! 

Of course, should he begin to feel that he was going to sink, he could just take off like Super Man!!


----------



## Scott Adams

Todd, do you have any waterfowl in flight photos using the 70-200 f4?


----------



## Todd Caswell

Scott Adams said:


> Todd, do you have any waterfowl in flight photos using the 70-200 f4?


Yes it works fine, fast focus, but it's really way to short to be considered a wildlife lens, if your buying it for that get yourself a guile suit and lots of patients. I do like it as a hunting lens alot, birds coming in and for the dog work.


----------



## tzappia

Todd Caswell said:


> Yes it works fine, fast focus, but it's really way to short to be considered a wildlife lens, if your buying it for that get yourself a guile suit and lots of patients. I do like it as a hunting lens alot, birds coming in and for the dog work.


The 70-200 2.8 AF/IS is a decent lens, when coupled with the 1.4 for hand-held flight images.


----------



## HPL

The 70-200 really is a bit short for most wildlife unless you are shooting under pretty special conditions. The two dog photos I posted were shot using a 300mm lens, so 50% longer than the 200 max of the 70-200, but probably could have been shot using the 70-200, although I would have had to be IN the pond. Most of the wildlife photos on my website were shot with a 600, sometimes with a 1.4X extender, but that lens is too heavy and cumbersome to use hand held. A 300 or 400 would probably be the ideal lens for something like a duck in flight. I have used the 300 for vultures and hawks in flight and it works great. The 300 F:4 IS L is one of Canon's real bargains, especially used. I have seen them "previously owned" for well under $1000.00. A great lens, although not as versatile as a 70-200 F:2.8 IS with a 1.4X tele-extender. As an aside, if you want to get some feel for magnification, the images of dogs from a hunt test on my site were taken with the both the 300 and the 600, depending on how the test was arranged and where I was able to position myself (starting with the black dog with the grouse a string of 4 with the 600, then the fox red through the toller with the duck, the 300, and then last 4 the 600 again). People frequently realize how little reach one actually has when photographing something as small as even a large bird like a duck.


----------



## Todd Caswell

I had 2 differen't copies of the 300 f/4 IS and wasn't happy with either one of them, but that's the beauty of buying used typicaly you won't loose any money in fact I made some on both of them when I resold, I didn't feel either of them were very fast focusing and with the prime I was always in the wrong spot to frame something the way I wanted to. I agree a 70-200 with a 1.4X does do a decient job even works pretty well on my F/4, does slow down the focus speed and turns it into a F5.6. I have the new version of the 100-400 ordered hopefully that will fill my needs for a wildlifee/dog/hunting lens, I know two professional photographers that have them and can't find a flaw in either of them yet..

Here are a few BIF with the 70-200 F/4 and I don't believe any of them were with a 1.4X attached.


----------



## Irishwhistler

Beautiful work Todd!

Irishwhistler


----------



## gaustin

Irishwhistler said:


> Beautiful work Todd!
> 
> Irishwhistler



X2 ............Incredible pictures


----------



## Scott Adams

I like........


----------



## KwickLabs

It's been a few weeks. 

My Canon 70-200 mm f/4 arrived yesterday and the "Brown Truck" made a stealthy delivery.


----------



## windwalkers swan song

Mary Lynn Metras said:


> View attachment 21532
> 
> 
> I took this w/ my Cannon Power Shot A810 HD 5X Optical zoom. Nothing like Todd's pics but good enough for enjoyment. I use the pics to make a calendar for the new year at Vistaprint.  So all year I get to enjoy them.


GREAT pic Mary Lynn ;-)


----------



## swampcollielover

HPL said:


> That's not splashing per se', but more of a rooster tail like you see behind a drag boat!!
> 
> Of course, should he begin to feel that he was going to sink, he could just take off like Super Man!!


Golden's 'walk water' too....Thanks to all for the great help on taking pictures of our dogs and ducks....!


----------



## jackh

I have a D7000 with Nikkor 17-55 f2.8. I am still learning, hope I can shoot like some of you guys on here some day. No post-processing on these, but they look better on my computer before I hosted them on tinypic. I just got lightroom a couple days ago and haven't had time to play with it yet. I am saving up for the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 vrii and Tamron 150-600 f5-6.3. Would I need a gimbal head for that 600mm lens? Maybe ill try the 70-200 with a teleconverter first. And I thought gun dogs and fly fishing were my most expensive hobbies...


----------



## HPL

At to the Gimbal head question, YES, but you don't have to spend the $500.00+ for the most common versions. Manfrotto makes a less sophisticated one that works very well for a fraction of the cost. I'll post a photo of my 600 on the Manfrotto head in a day or so. As for lightroom. Tim Grey has a VERY good 2hr introduction to lightroom tutorial on youtube that I STRONGLY recommend you watch BEFORE doing ANYTHING in lightroom. It walks you through setting up files and importing and so on and could save you quite a bit of grief and time in the long run. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSwkDC3q7uk


----------



## Mountain Duck

I'll throw my two pennies in on the support. I would probably NOT put the big lens you're looking at on a Gimbal type head. I would invest in a good set of legs and a nice ballhead (Kirk or RRS), because they are so much more versatile with the rest of your gear. Gimbals are nice for the big primes like Hugh's 600 f/4, but IMO, would be a pain with the lens you mentioned, and basically unusable with any of your other lenses (even the 70-200). You could always add a Wimberley Sidekick to your ballhead if you felt the need for a Gimbal. FYI, you can buy "used" from Wimberley at a good discount.

BTW, really like the first shot of your Golden. We often get caught up in the long telephoto shots, but often times getting in tight with a wide angle makes a much more interesting and dramatic image. Well done!


----------



## Todd Caswell

I'll add that I would not recommend the tamron 150-600, alot of them have been returned by people not happy with the results, I personally know of 5 that were purchased and all returned.


----------



## jackh

Well I have a set of oben ct-2481 carbon fiber legs (26.4lb rating) and oben bc-139 ball head (39.6lb rating) arriving in the mail today. I thought about getting gitzo and arca-swiss or kirk, but just couldn't reason the money right now. I skimped for a lighter duty setup to basically save $250 right now. I hope I won't regret it a year from now. I am hoping I will be happy with this setup with my current lens and maybe even the 70-200 when I can afford it or find a good used one.


----------



## Mountain Duck

Jack,that is almost exactly (spec wise) what I use as my main support set. I have a Kirk BH-3 (the smaller one) and a set of Induro C214 legs, which are actually a little lighter than the ones you spec'd. I have no problem running the 70-200 on it. Have even put a 300 f/2.8 on it in a bind!


----------



## jackh

Is a 300mm lens decent for wildlife and dogs? I'm so new to this, not sure what the minimum would be.


----------



## tzappia

jackh said:


> Is a 300mm lens decent for wildlife and dogs? I'm so new to this, not sure what the minimum would be.


Yes. Some of my very best images have been shot with a 300 2.8. Attach a 1.4 or 2.0 extender and you'll have a decent wildlife lens.


----------



## tzappia

Toller shot with Canon 300 2.8 AF/IS


----------



## HPL

jackh said:


> Well I have a set of oben ct-2481 carbon fiber legs (26.4lb rating) and oben bc-139 ball head (39.6lb rating) arriving in the mail today. I thought about getting gitzo and arca-swiss or kirk, but just couldn't reason the money right now. I skimped for a lighter duty setup to basically save $250 right now. I hope I won't regret it a year from now. I am hoping I will be happy with this setup with my current lens and maybe even the 70-200 when I can afford it or find a good used one.



Just be sure that you NEVER release your grip on the camera unless you are positive the ball head is VERY secure. Don't know what the 150-600 weighs, but under certain circumstances these very large lenses can flip forward and then drag the tripod over with them causing a huge wreck. The real benefit to gimbal heads is that you can just release the camera and it will stay where it was pointed. I have a second tripod for my smaller stuff with a ballhead on it; the big tripod is really not ideal for the smaller lenses anyway. I also strongly recommend talking to your insurance agent about "all hazard scheduled insurance". It is not terribly expensive and, although I have never had to use mine, I know several photographers who REALLY wish they had invested themselves. You will be using your equipment in the field, around enthusiastic dogs, perhaps in boats, on piers, or otherwise over water, and at least three of the disasters I know of occurred when the equipment took an unexpected trip into a pond.


----------



## HPL

jackh said:


> Is a 300mm lens decent for wildlife and dogs? I'm so new to this, not sure what the minimum would be.


Depends on what you are attempting to photograph and where you are photographing it. Bison in Yellowstone, 300 is probably just fine. Friendly birds, squirrels, etc in your backyard, absolutely, shy critters out in the wild, may pose more of a challenge. Here are two images I captured a couple of weeks ago using a 300 F:4 + a 1.4X tele-extender: 



















The first one is un-cropped, the second cropped in a bit. 

Here is a shot showing the blind and the (unflooded) wetland. In both shots, the birds were about 50' from my position:










As far as dog photos go, the 300 is great when you control the conditions, probably not so good at hunt tests, and there is no lens that is going to give you a frame filling shot of the dog on a long reach at a FT.

I will repeat my earlier comment about the 300 F:4 IS being one of the real "deals" out there. They can be had previously owned in the range of $900.00 about $1200.00 all day long and a brand new one is around $1500.00 last time I checked. Is it as good as the F:2.8? Probably not, but the F:2.8 is going to be about 3-4X the cost used, and about the same when comparing new to new. I know Todd had some negative things to say about it, but my experiences with it have been pretty positive. Check them out at KEH.com, or on Robertsimaging.com in their used dept.


----------



## HPL

Last night or this morn I posted that I would upload photos of Manfroto's gimble head. Here are a couple of shots showing it in use:


----------



## tzappia

I'm a big fan of the Wimberley mounts. I use the Sidekick for my 300 and the Wimberley WH-200 for my 600 4L IS. Both very smooth and great for bird or action photos. The one downfall: a bit pricey.


----------



## lovegoldens

Beautiful photos!!!


----------



## T-bone

KwickLabs said:


> It's been a few weeks.
> 
> My Canon 70-200 mm f/4 arrived yesterday and the "Brown Truck" made a stealthy delivery.


Mine just arrived too. Anxious to get some pics with it!


----------



## jackh

Someone post some recent pictures. I got to meet Mark Atwater last week and he shot my dog. Pretty awesome work and got to pick his brain some. I took the couple shots below that I thought turned out well. Still learning my way through Lightroom.


----------



## Mstormc

My BIL took this a couple weeks back when I was running the dog on a blind before we started pheasant hunting. I think it turned out quite nice. 

And yes, I lean when he is off line of the blind.


----------



## HPL

I am learning Lightroom at the moment also. What did you do in post processing? The images are really vibrant.

HPL



jackh said:


> Someone post some recent pictures. I got to meet Mark Atwater last week and he shot my dog. Pretty awesome work and got to pick his brain some. I took the couple shots below that I thought turned out well. Still learning my way through Lightroom.


----------



## T-Pines

To Jack H
What beautiful photos by Mark Atwater. And what a handsome Golden boy you have to train.
Colleen


----------



## jackh

HPL - 





























Anthony Morganti has a bunch of lightroom tutorials on youtube that have helped me a lot. I copied his basic workflow but I took screenshots some of the work panes for you plus a side by side of before and after. I left hue and luminance alone. Added a graduated filter to work on the sky and clouds after cropping to the rule of thirds and leveling. I used medium contrast preset on tone curve. I followed Anthony's instructions on Lens Corrections, effects, and camera calibration.

Colleen - The pictures I posted were taken by me. Mark's pictures of my dog are on his website right now, I haven't decided what all I'm going to order yet.


----------



## jackh

I took this in New Mexico a couple weeks ago. My first time shooting stars and it was a learning experience. This was shot jpeg so I didn't have as much control as I do now that I shoot raw.


----------



## Wayne Nutt

I searched the internet for Photoshop and Lightroom. I was surprised by how expensive they are. There was a recommendation for a more simple Photoshop 11. Anyone have experience with this version?
I have all the camera I need. Sony SLR digital with some good lens (includes a Minolta 70-210 and a inexpensive Tamron 200-400). I do videos in addition. 
Does anyone have a recommendation for a decent tripod? My current tripod is a cheap light weight one from Best Buy.


----------



## HPL

Wayne Nutt said:


> I searched the internet for Photoshop and Lightroom. I was surprised by how expensive they are. There was a recommendation for a more simple Photoshop 11. Anyone have experience with this version?
> I have all the camera I need. Sony SLR digital with some good lens (includes a Minolta 70-210 and a inexpensive Tamron 200-400). I do videos in addition.
> Does anyone have a recommendation for a decent tripod? My current tripod is a cheap light weight one from Best Buy.


Search Adobe Creative Cloud. It's a monthly subscription and not too bad but not dirt cheap. I think it's about ten bucks a month. IF you decide to use lightroom, I strongly suggest that you watch Tim Grey's introduction to lightroom on youtube before you even install the program. It will save you grief.


----------



## Todd Caswell

While PhotoShop and lightroom are both great tools and fun to play around with I think people spend to much time learning how to "fix" and post process rather than leaning how to make it come out of the camera correct the first time.


----------



## HPL

Todd Caswell said:


> While PhotoShop and lightroom are both great tools and fun to play around with I think people spend to much time learning how to "fix" and post process rather than leaning how to make it come out of the camera correct the first time.


Having started in the 70's and having shot a lot of pretty unforgiving "chrome" films, I fully agree that one needs to start with a good image, but digital has introduced some new factors, especially when it comes to sharpening. I also feel like digital lacks the dynamic range of even the most demanding films. Having been involved in "competitive" photography for a number of years, I have seen that good post processing can make the difference between a win and a no show.


----------



## mudd

Wayne you can try Gimp . I know it used to be free and you could do alot with it


----------



## HPL

Wayne, there are quite a few programs that allow you to do various amounts of post processing. I used Paint Shop Pro before I switched to a MAC. I liked it quite well. In my opinion, the biggest advantage to the adobe products is that they are the industry standard and have the largest community of users, so there are tons of tutorials on Youtube and you are also more likely to find someone you know who is familiar with it. Creative Cloud for photographers comes with full versions of both Lightroom and Photoshop, so at about $10.00/month, you get access to two very powerful programs.


----------



## HPL

As to tripods, how much you want to spend? Manfrotto makes quite a few nice medium priced tripods and several nice ballheads. Gitzo is pricier, but they are really nice too. How worried are you about weight? Aluminum weighs a bit more than carbon fiber, but is MUCH less expensive.


----------



## Erik Nilsson

Todd Caswell said:


> I'll add that I would not recommend the tamron 150-600, alot of them have been returned by people not happy with the results, I personally know of 5 that were purchased and all returned.


I hope not, I just got that lens and so far all has been good, wish I had better light


----------



## John Lash

Nice Erik, is that a banded mallard and a banded goose?


----------



## Wayne Nutt

I am looking for a tripod that is stable. A high wind will blow over my current cheap tripod with my Handycam on it. Also Youtube is constantly saying "we note your video is shaky" or something like that when I record in windy conditions.


----------



## HPL

If you are looking for a tripod for video, first be sure that you get a liquid dampened video head. Be sure that the tripod is tall enough without extending the center column, as an extended center column will increase the likelihood of vibrations; then get a sandbag and hang it from the center of the tripod. The inertia of the sandbag will help cut down on the vibrations a lot.


----------



## jackh

Wayne - My photography teacher suggested Photoshop Elements to her students, but I went with Lightroom anyways. As for tripods, I am new to photography, but I feel like the few pieces of photography equipment that last is good glass and good tripods. Bodies wear out, but if you get a good tripod now it will save you from purchasing again later, like you are experiencing now. Manfrotto and Gitzo are good brands, I have a Oben legs and head. I don't know anything about video heads. I coughed up the extra money for carbon fiber because I wanted the weight savings. 

Todd - There is no substitute for nailing it in the field. Do you post process with photoshop, lightroom, etc?


----------



## Erik Nilsson

John Lash said:


> Nice Erik, is that a banded mallard and a banded goose?


Hi John, Hope all is well! Yes, They made it through hunting season!

I actually was able to get some good action shots while out that day,I have to laugh everytime I see this one


----------



## Todd Caswell

Erik Nilsson said:


> I hope not, I just got that lens and so far all has been good, wish I had better light
> 
> View attachment 22645
> 
> 
> View attachment 22646
> 
> 
> View attachment 22647
> 
> 
> View attachment 22648
> 
> 
> View attachment 22649
> 
> 
> View attachment 22650
> 
> 
> View attachment 22651


Yes it needs ALOT of light , the AF is very slow, and gets very soft beyond 400mm. They filled a nitch with a inexpensive zoom lens that works well with good light, still subjects and under 400 mm.


----------



## Todd Caswell

> Todd - There is no substitute for nailing it in the field. Do you post process with photoshop, lightroom, etc?


I just use photoshop and little as possible, I use it alot for designing adds, thank you cards, banners, montages ect. but try really hard to get correct right out of the camera. If I go and shoot an event the last thing I want to do when I get home is try to fix 500 plus images. 

And Hugh just scored a nice pair of Hawke Binoculars last week from a photo contest no post processing or cropping..


----------



## HPL

Todd Caswell said:


> I just use photoshop and little as possible, I use it alot for designing adds, thank you cards, banners, montages ect. but try really hard to get correct right out of the camera. If I go and shoot an event the last thing I want to do when I get home is try to fix 500 plus images.
> 
> And Hugh just scored a nice pair of Hawke Binoculars last week from a photo contest no post processing or cropping..


Who were the judges?


----------



## Todd Caswell

HPL said:


> Who were the judges?


It was through Delta Waterfowl editors choice , got lucky. One thing I have learned from a friend of mine that makes his entire living from wildlife photography is that editors do not like post processed images and would rather you did zero cropping, let them do the editing and cropping. I know for a fact my early cropping and processing days have costed me money on 5 occasions..


----------



## HPL

Wayne, one of the primary differences between Lightroom and Photoshop is that Lightroom is based on a data base that, when set up correctly, will keep your images organized and easily accessible. Photoshop is NOT designed to organize or manage your images. It is essentially a graphic arts program that allows you to optimize your images, but in no way keeps track of them. Also, changes made within photoshop are, for lack of a better term, permanent, whereas corrections in Lightroom are what are known as non-destructive, meaning that you can always go back to the original image. Essentially, lightroom simply "takes notes" of the changes you make and puts them in a file attached to the image file without actually changing the original image file. When the image is displayed or printed the instructions are applied in a non-permanent fashion.


----------



## jackh

Todd Caswell said:


> I just use photoshop and little as possible, I use it alot for designing adds, thank you cards, banners, montages ect. but try really hard to get correct right out of the camera. If I go and shoot an event the last thing I want to do when I get home is try to fix 500 plus images.


Batch editing ;-)


----------



## Todd Caswell

jackh said:


> Batch editing ;-)


works great for watermarks;-)


----------



## jackh

Todd Caswell said:


> works great for watermarks;-)


https://www.flickr.com/photos/toddcaswellimages/13035570494/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/toddcaswellimages/13035392573/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/toddcaswellimages/13035738394/

Did these three images come right out of your camera like this?


----------



## HPL

jackh said:


> https://www.flickr.com/photos/toddcaswellimages/13035570494/
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/toddcaswellimages/13035392573/
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/toddcaswellimages/13035738394/
> 
> Did these three images come right out of your camera like this?


I could easily believe that those are straight out of the camera, with nothing more than a little cropping (or not).


----------



## Todd Caswell

jackh said:


> https://www.flickr.com/photos/toddcaswellimages/13035570494/
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/toddcaswellimages/13035392573/
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/toddcaswellimages/13035738394/
> 
> Did these three images come right out of your camera like this?


Most likely some cropping on the first and third image, and probably some lightening of shadows in the first image, I'd have to go back and look at the original files. Post processing is a great tool but when over done to the point that the image doesn't look natural to the human eye is not a good thing. If I'm printing a image for someone or preparing the digital image for them to print I crop to what they want and will edit where needed as well but if I'm sending images to a editor I let them do the editing and cropping . 
I screwed up this weekend and shot some photos Friday night in a poorly lit room with fluorescent lighting so I had to realm mess with my WB . Next day I shot some pictures of a litter of puppys and never changed my WB setting, I had to spend alot of time "fixing " them.


----------



## HPL

If yoiu are shooting RAW, fixing the white balance is no problem if you just had it set wrong on the camera. Canon's proprietary software lets you just go in and reset the white balance to what it should have been. Yes, if I am submitting to have published, I also use un-adjusted images and I wish that the primary contest in which I participate would judge the RAW files, but they want the photographers to "optimize" the images. Here are several images that are exactly as they came out of the camera, no cropping, no color adjustment, no anything except converting to jpeg and adding the watermark:


----------



## Handler Error

jackh said:


> Is a 300mm lens decent for wildlife and dogs? I'm so new to this, not sure what the minimum would be.


All I use is a 300 4.0 fixed lens. 














































Plus if you get PS you can take your retriever pictures and help your club out with design work


----------



## HPL

Handler Error said:


> All I use is a 300 4.0 fixed lens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plus if you get PS you can take your retriever pictures and help your club out with design work


I have been touting the 300 F:4 IS for quite a while. I think it is one of Canon's real bargains. I still like my 600 F:4, but the 300 is so much easier to use and is hand holdable. As for Photoshop, Creative Cloud for photographers (Photoshop and Lightroom) is only $9.99/month.


----------



## Handler Error

I would like to own a better lens but I have too many expensive hobbies.


----------



## Todd Caswell

Had the new 100-400 shipped last Thursday, hopefully it lives up the reviews, I know of three people that say it's the best thing cannon has come out with in a while.


----------



## jackh

So this is a before and after comparison in lightroom. To me, the picture right out of the camera has no color and is boring, unlike the one's yall are posting. The colors in the after photo are a little strong, probably from me sligthly messing with saturation. What could I have done to get a better picture out of the camera? Does it have to do with my lighting (alternating from harsh sun to cloud cover), WB, or maybe metering? I am still learning metering, and I think I metered off the bright green grass while sun was shining on it. I was trying to shoot when the sun was behind some clouds.


----------



## HPL

jackh said:


> So this is a before and after comparison in lightroom. To me, the picture right out of the camera has no color and is boring, unlike the one's yall are posting. The colors in the after photo are a little strong, probably from me sligthly messing with saturation. What could I have done to get a better picture out of the camera? Does it have to do with my lighting (alternating from harsh sun to cloud cover), WB, or maybe metering? I am still learning metering, and I think I metered off the bright green grass while sun was shining on it. I was trying to shoot when the sun was behind some clouds.


Personally, I have no problem with what you did to optimize your images. I especially liked the honey bee and the chicken, but lighting and exposure are key in having an image that is good right out of the camera. For the photos I posted, I got to choose what time of day and where the sun was relative to my subjects. Fortuitously, most wildlife is active around the time of day that often provides the most pleasing light (frequently within 90 mins or so of sunrise and sunset). You will notice that there is no sky in any of the photos I posted. It is very difficult to get a good exposure of the sky and of your foreground subject. Usually, if I am going to have sky in the background, I will be using fill flash on my primary subject to balance the exposure.


----------



## Mountain Duck

Jack, you can tweak your "in camera" Picture Control Settings to add a little more out of camera "pop". Go to Shooting Menu>Set Picture Control. Most RAW shooters will shoot with a Neutral setting, and adjust in post. For high volume jpeg work, you can boost your settings to make a nicer jpeg that may be perfectly fine out of camera, assuming you have done your part with exposure and camera setup.

I still use Nikon Capture NX2 as my RAW converter. You can adjust the Nikon Picture Control Setting to see what the differences are. FYI, I typically shoot a Neutral Setting, Sharpening 7, Contrast +2, Brightness -, Saturation +1, Hue 0. Typically gives me a good starting point for images I may want to work with, or in some cases, an images that needs nothing.

Nice job with your Golden! Great initial comp/exposure, and nice post work, that really makes a nice finished image.


----------



## Wayne Nutt

Hmm, the one on the left is the way things actually look to me.


----------



## HPL

Mountain Duck said:


> Jack, you can tweak your "in camera" Picture Control Settings to add a little more out of camera "pop". Go to Shooting Menu>Set Picture Control. Most RAW shooters will shoot with a Neutral setting, and adjust in post. For high volume jpeg work, you can boost your settings to make a nicer jpeg that may be perfectly fine out of camera, assuming you have done your part with exposure and camera setup.
> 
> I still use Nikon Capture NX2 as my RAW converter. You can adjust the Nikon Picture Control Setting to see what the differences are. FYI, I typically shoot a Neutral Setting, Sharpening 7, Contrast +2, Brightness -, Saturation +1, Hue 0. Typically gives me a good starting point for images I may want to work with, or in some cases, an images that needs nothing.
> 
> Nice job with your Golden! Great initial comp/exposure, and nice post work, that really makes a nice finished image.


You need to remember that if you are shooting RAW (which I do for anything that is really important), your in camera settings (other than exposure) have no actual effect. If you shoot in RAW it is much easier to tweek images in Post. You can fine tune white balance and so on much better if your original capture is RAW.


----------



## Mountain Duck

HPL said:


> You need to remember that if you are shooting RAW (which I do for anything that is really important), your in camera settings (other than exposure) have no actual effect. If you shoot in RAW it is much easier to tweek images in Post. You can fine tune white balance and so on much better if your original capture is RAW.


Ummm...read what you quoted me on Hugh....

"Most RAW shooters will shoot with a Neutral setting, and adjust in post."

.....And if you use (at least for Nikon), a Nikon Raw converter, your in camera settings will absolutely have an effect on the image, in that it can be converted immediately to a jpeg, and retain the in camera settings and out of camera appearance. Yes, I realize all in camera settings can be changed on RAW images, but if you take a little time adjusting your in camera settings, you will usually have a better starting point, and in many cases (as I mentioned) a perfectly usable image. This is true for jpegs, as well as RAW images I plan to work on. If I make no attempt to change my in camera settings, I'm left with the factory default, which may require more post processing than had I took the time to "tweek" my in camera settings. My D7000 (the same camera Jack has BTW), had a factory Picture Control Setting, than when ran through my RAW converter required more adjustment, than the current settings I start with. Taking the time to understand the Picture Control Settings, saves me time, and gives me a better starting point.


----------



## Todd Caswell

A good read on jpeg VS Raw

http://www.michaelfurtman.com/jpeg_myths.htm


----------



## jackh

A shot from today with my normal workflow in Lightroom, but didn't touch anything in the HSL tab. Left the exposure as shot, added slight vignetting and a graduated filter to darken the sky a hair. This look better to yall?


----------



## Todd Caswell

I like it, good contrast, nice color without being overbearing.&#55357;&#56397;


----------



## HPL

jackh said:


> A shot from today with my normal workflow in Lightroom, but didn't touch anything in the HSL tab. Left the exposure as shot, added slight vignetting and a graduated filter to darken the sky a hair. This look better to yall?



Looks very nice. I have just started with LR. Used Aperture for years, but Apple has thrown in the towel on it so switched to CC. What it the HSL tab?


----------



## jackh

Hugh - It is where you access the hue, saturation, and luminance settings. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi1-8qYHWaQ

I've watched the first 3 videos of his in this series and it helped immensely in actually developing the photos. The two hour video you recommended watching before ever importing photos was crucial in starting off correctly, but he never talked about developing, so I found these.


----------



## HPL

jackh said:


> Hugh - It is where you access the hue, saturation, and luminance settings.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi1-8qYHWaQ
> 
> I've watched the first 3 videos of his in this series and it helped immensely in actually developing the photos. The two hour video you recommended watching before ever importing photos was crucial in starting off correctly, but he never talked about developing, so I found these.


Tim Grey has lots of tutorials for both LR and PS and puts out a daily letter where he answers a question on one or the other. Google "Ask Tim Grey". I believe that he is Adobe certified.


----------



## Todd Caswell

Got my new lens today, had very little time to play with it, very harsh light and we are very brown here at this point so very little color, but it does seem sharp and very fast AF.. I have had the 300mm F/4 IS and i believe I had a bad copy, soft and slow AF, and have had 2 used copies of the 100-400 vs. I, and after one hour with this lens it blows both of them out of the water so far.


----------



## Todd Caswell

A couple non dog related with the 100-400 VS.II


----------



## HPL

I have never owned the 100-400 but have used it on at least two occasions and really did not like it. I don't particularly like lenses in which wide open varies across the zoom range and I didn't like the slide zoom feature, shifted the COG too much when zoomed back and forth. I have been hearing good things about the MkII though. Really wish I could visit your waterhole. Those are some cool waterfowl shots!!


----------



## Todd Caswell

Thanks,it's my back yard, but I think were going to get screwed this year on spring waterfowl way to early of a spring, way to much open water, really not complaining because we have had snow free training for the past two monthes so my dogs are way ahead of there normal "winter" training, but I really look forward to the spring migration and I believe we are going to miss most of it. 

I really hope this lens works out, I know of a couple full time photographers that have sold off there 300 2.8's and are using it with there 1.4X and 2.0X III's and getting the same results, both have had the original 100-400 and they agree the two lens are night and day with AF and IQ.. But I kinda liked the old push pull..


----------



## jackh

Typical golden lip curl. I currently only have a nikkor 17-55 f2.8. Great for stuff like this but I can't really reach out and touch something.


----------



## HPL

This photo cracks me up! What's going on over there to your dog's right?

HPL



Todd Caswell said:


>


----------



## Jamee Strange

tzappia said:


> Know what? You can have the most expensive camera body and camera lens money can buy, but if your composition and lighting is crap, so goes your image. *Learn these two very important photographic concepts and you will be able to attain award-winning images using a $200 camera.*


Care to elaborate? I love taking pictures, but would love to learn how to get better with my current cameras than spending thousands on one for a hobby I have. I could buy so much dog stuff with $1000....


----------



## jackh

Jamee Strange said:


> Care to elaborate? I love taking pictures, but would love to learn how to get better with my current cameras than spending thousands on one for a hobby I have. I could buy so much dog stuff with $1000....


http://digital-photography-school.com/5-elements-of-composition-in-photography/
http://digital-photography-school.com/?s=lighting


----------



## Jamee Strange

thank you!


----------



## HPL

Jamee Strange said:


> Care to elaborate? I love taking pictures, but would love to learn how to get better with my current cameras than spending thousands on one for a hobby I have. I could buy so much dog stuff with $1000....


First step is to READ the Camera manual (several times, with camera in hand). Next, check with your local community education group or look for a camera club. Also lots of stuff on the web. Ask specific questions here and folks will answer. Google "rule of thirds". Keep the sun at your back, but don't assume that direct sunlight is the best light available. Take your camera off "program" and learn to use it in the modes where you make some of the decisions. You also need to understand the relationship between shutter speed and aperture setting (F:number) and how shutter speed relates to stopping motion and how F:number relates to depth of field. Those are several good starting points.

HPL


----------



## Todd Caswell

youtube is your friend..


----------



## Todd Caswell

Sometimes overcast days aren't bad for taking pictures either..


----------



## RockyDog

I may be just a tad bit biased, but I think those are great shots of my little guy.  Thanks Todd!


----------



## Wayne Nutt

How do you post pictures? From windows photo gallery.


----------



## Headgear

Here is Hattie-4 months old at the time. Now 3 years old and will be running first Masters test next month. Taken with Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR and Nikon D300.


----------



## Jamee Strange

Headgear said:


> View attachment 22822
> 
> 
> Here is Hattie-4 months old at the time. Now 3 years old and will be running first Masters test next month. Taken with Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR and Nikon D300.


I want to learn how to take pictures that look this good! Cool action shot!


----------



## Headgear

Jamee Strange said:


> I want to learn how to take pictures that look this good! Cool action shot!


Thanks for the kind words Jamee. I am be no means an expert but I enjoy photography and how it can help preserve memories of my other hobbies-dogs and waterfowl hunting.


----------



## Wayne Nutt

HRCH Shadow is almost 10. How do I make the image to show up larger here? Photo straight from the camera.


----------



## HPL

Wayne Nutt said:


> View attachment 22823
> HRCH Shadow is almost 10. How do I make the image to show up larger here? Photo straight from the camera.


Howdy Wayne!
How's the weather been? 
What you do is load the image into Photobucket. Photobucket then has a feature that allows you to copy and post a link to the image which will then produce a full size image on the forum. 

HPL


----------



## Chris Atkinson

Wayne Nutt said:


> View attachment 22823
> HRCH Shadow is almost 10. How do I make the image to show up larger here? Photo straight from the camera.



Wayne, click "edit", Then double click the image and a popup box will open. Click the radio button for "center" and click the button for either "large" or for "full size" then save it.

That should make it big.

No need for a hosting site.

Chris


----------



## Chris Atkinson

Wayne, here is another way to make your picture, uploaded to the RTF server, appear large.

I clicked your picture and opened it. Then I clicked the picture again, which gave the URL for the image in the address bar.

I copied that URL 

Then I made a new post, and uploaded the image, but instead of uploading from a file, I uploaded from a server. I pasted the URL into the address bar and unchecked the box. Then hit save.


----------



## JS

My old friend.

Just a lucky shot with my phone and PS vignetting.


----------



## Wayne Nutt

A new try









I did it. I finally understood Chris' second option.


----------



## Wayne Nutt

Chris, Your PM inbox is full.


----------



## jackh

Headgear said:


> View attachment 22822
> 
> 
> Here is Hattie-4 months old at the time. Now 3 years old and will be running first Masters test next month. Taken with Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR and Nikon D300.


Love that picture and I want your lens.


----------



## Headgear

jackh said:


> Love that picture and I want your lens.


Thanks jackh. If my wife knew what I paid for it both the lens and I would be looking for a new home!!!


----------



## Wayne Nutt

Another picture. Rowdy, SH


----------



## Wayne Nutt

My next question. What improvements to the picture of Shadow and Rowdy would Lightroom make?


----------



## HPL

Wayne Nutt said:


> My next question. What improvements to the picture of Shadow and Rowdy would Lightroom make?


Right off the bat, you could level the image and crop in a bit on the left to get rid of that piece of chair or whatever it is encroaching on the image of Rowdy. It also looks to me like the photos were taken in total shade or on an overcast day, so they have a bit of a bluish or cyan cast that could be removed. You could also probably give them a bit more "snap" by adjusting the contrast and vibrancy. Going back to when you actually captured the images, I would try to have the dog farther away from the background as that fence, with all the vertical and horizontal lines is pretty busy.


----------



## Wayne Nutt

HPL, Thank you for the comments. I will work on the items you mentioned.

Our weather has been pretty stormy. The rain amounts have been variable. Over two days I got 1" at my house. But at my training grounds we got 4 1/2". The ponds are coming up. The small ones are almost full and the big ones have a way to go but up significantly.

The Ackerman training ponds are overflowing.


----------



## HPL

There is quite a bit of discussion on this forum about photography and how to take better photos or how to make them better after you take them. The first part is of primary importance, with only limited ability to make improvements AFTER capture. Two of the biggest problems I notice are really bad backgrounds and poor framing. Here are two grab shots, something that I would have a very hard time posing, of my dog on the futon. I was really hoping to catch him napping, but he woke up. First, I intentionally took what was a really busy photo showing our messy house, then by adjusting the zoom on the camera and my position, I captured an image that I would at least not be embarrassed for folks to see. These are just snapshots. Not intended to be great works of art, just something to show my knucklehead in a "cute" moment. They have had virtually no post processing except a tiny bit of color temp adjustment, most importantly, NO cropping.


----------



## BJGatley

Excellent thread!!!!


----------



## Wayne Nutt

My latest effort.

These were taken this morning at about 8 am. The sun rises at about 7 but it takes a while to get above the trees and houses. This was taken just as soon as the shade line disappeared. It was using spot focus and spot metering settings on my Minolta 70-210 lens. Straight from the camera except I cropped the picture.

It seemed in some of the pictures there was too much sun and it bleached the background. 

HPL pls comment.
P.S. The ears perked up because I said "Mark".


----------



## wheelhorse

I'm not a professional, but the first thing that my eye is drawn to after Rowdy, is the wine bottle tree in the background. Then the landscaping log cuts right though his shoulders

Personally, I don't mind a little bit of a wash out of the surrounding background if the black dog is properly exposed. I like the top one better because he's not looking directly into the sun and his eyes are wide open. And there is a highlight in his eyes that makes me more drawn into them.


----------



## HPL

Howdy Wayne!
I like these much better than the previous shots, the background is a big improvement. Yes, as Kathleen mentioned, there are still some distractions, but they are much less worrisome than in the previous images as they are significantly out of focus. You don't say what your camera settings were, but if you were not wide open, you are getting less blur than you could. The way to maximize background blur (referred to as "Boca" in the trade) is to shoot wide open with your lens at max zoom. You want to be physically as close to your subject as possible with your zoom at max, filling the frame with your subject. You also want your subject as far from the background as possible. Maximizing your zoom has the added benefit of narrowing the angle of view, tightening up the frame, and cutting down the amount of background. I also suspect that you shot these in landscape and, in my opinion, if you are photographing a sitting dog, and the dog is the only subject, that is a "portrait" frame, which will allow you to get physically closer at the same lens length AND will further cut down on background.

As to exposure, solid black subjects are VERY difficult! If you spot meter off of something solid black, it is very possible that EVERYTHING will be over exposed, just like metering off of something white will cause you to under expose. There are several ways to address this. You can meter off of something of neutral tone like green grass or a 17% grey card (available at camera shops), take a shot and then adjust your exposure, you can set your camera for center weighted averaging and try that, or you can set your camera for automatic bracketing and dial in about a half or one stop under exposure in your exposure compensation function. Todd should weigh in on exposure as he has posted many excellent images of black dogs.

Actually the primary little oops I noticed was that your frame again appears to be off level (something I fight myself all the time). That is easily fixed in pretty much any photo software. My new camera has a level in the viewfinder and I STILL have to straighten practically anything I shoot hand held and even some stuff from a tripod. Makes me crazy. Another thing to keep in mind is that the eye is drawn to light colors so the hot spot on the landscaping timber is a bit of a problem as are the white flowers. All in all though, a very good effort. I will say that although I like both shots, I to prefer the first image. Your choice to shoot from a slight angle was very good as it reduces the somewhat pornographic view often seen in straight on images of male dogs ;-)


----------



## Wayne Nutt

Thank you for your comments. I did have it I portrait mode. When I get Sun again I will try to implement your suggestions. Looks like next sunny day is going to be Wednesday.


----------



## HPL

Wayne Nutt said:


> Thank you for your comments. *I did have it I portrait mode.* When I get Sun again I will try to implement your suggestions. Looks like next sunny day is going to be Wednesday.


Not sure if you and I are talking about the same thing here. When I said "portrait" I wasn't talking about the setting on the top of the camera but the _orientation_ of the camera. Framing vertically (with the camera rotated 90 degrees) is "portrait" format. Is that what you meant, or were you talking about the exposure control? I would have my _exposure control_ on "aperture preferred" (AV on Canon equipment) which allows ME to select the aperture, assuring that I shoot wide open, thus maximizing boca.


----------



## Wayne Nutt

Yes I was talking about control not orientation. Now I understand.


----------



## MooseGooser

http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=22854&d=1430092912


Flinch and I at a recent HT


----------



## KwickLabs

Recently, I have found a significant part of the planning that goes into a training setup depends a great deal on decent lighting.


----------



## Wayne Nutt

My next shots.

This morn we had a brief period of sun. Settings: max distance for 210, spot focus, center weighted metering, portrait control, portrait orientation. Not sure about AV yet. Have to read the operating manual about that. 
For Rowdy I was sitting on a low stool to be level with him. For Shadow I was standing, thus no garden in the background. Rowdy is a better poser.


----------



## HPL

Howdy Wayne!
Well, a much better use of the frame, and from what I can tell, you probably have better background blur, but actually both images look soft to me. Can't tell for sure if it is a case of being out of focus or some motion blur. It sort of looks like motion blur to me, but not sure. The shot of Rowdy still has a pretty distracting background (lines can be a real bugger), and I would like to see a bit more air between his nose and the edge of the frame. I know I said crop tight, but since he is looking to our right, there probably needs to be a bit of space in front of him. I would like to see the middle of his forehead about where his right ear is. I haven't held a Minolta in about 30 years so I am not familiar with their icons etc, but I am going to go on line and see if I can look up your instruction manual so I can give you a little better input as to what settings, etc. When you say spot focus, does your camera have multiple, selectable focusing spots?


----------



## Wayne Nutt

Minolta has been bought out by Sony. My original lens are Minolta. When I replaced my original Minolta SLR body to go digital I got a Sony a300. The original Minolta lens fit my Sony body and is what I use. There are three choices on focus: wide, spot and local.
Thank you again for your help.


----------



## HPL

OK Wayne, here's what I think you should do: Set the mode dial to "A" which allows you to control the aperture. Use the dial in front of the shutter button to set the aperture wide open (lowest F:#). Choose AF-S (which is single shot auto focus). With that AF chosen, you can put the little focus "pipper" on the dog's eye, press the shutter button half way (which should activate the auto focus) then hold the shutter button at half depressed (which will maintain focus) and move the camera to compose your shot. Once properly composed, fully depress the shutter button thus taking the photo. You MUST NOT zoom in or out after focusing, so don't compose by changing zoom, but rather by repositioning the camera to give proper composition. For this to work, the camera must be set on AF-S. Hope this is relatively clear.


----------



## Wayne Nutt

OK, I understand. Thanks again. Waiting for the next sunny day. My wife has that fencing everywhere. She thinks to keep the dogs out. They fool her by just leaping over it. I will move to the front yard. More natural background.


----------



## HPL

Wayne Nutt said:


> OK, I understand. Thanks again. Waiting for the next sunny day. My wife has that fencing everywhere. She thinks to keep the dogs out. They fool her by just leaping over it. I will move to the front yard. More natural background.


Out on the property where I do a lot of my nature photography there are several places where there are either barbed wire fences or metal gates in the (distant) background. Even at 100+feet beyond my subjects the wire can show up as blurry lines running through the photo. I got some flat black and some flat olive drab spray paint and took the shine off the fence and the gates. Works pretty well to remove the lines from my images. (just a thought)


----------



## jackh

You might try the first or last hour of daylight rather than mid day. 

Anyone have good links to spot metering techniques? I feel like that's the one thing I am lacking on. I know the concept but I don't think I am very good at it yet. I actually feel like my pictures are usually underexposed when I spot meter. I guess that's not entirely a bad thing though.


----------



## jackh

http://www.thegreatcourses.com/sets/set-7924-7901-7923.html

Anyone have experience with these classes? Not sure if I am better suited reviewing my old class' notes, googling, and shooting more or paying $100 and slowly going through 24 video hours of more classes.


----------



## HPL

OK Wayne,
Here are some I shot this aft in my little residential backyard. These are as shot, no adjustments as of yet. Two I shot at about 1:30 or so in the aft, direct sun slightly behind the dog, but pouring down on his head. As you can see, parts of the images are really hot, probably so hot that I won't be able to do much about it. The next two where shot late afternoon after the sun had dipped behind a cloud band. They are a little darker and have a slight bluish tint (since the exposure was from the blue sky). I had the white balance set appropriately for each set so the colors are pretty good. I was shooting my 70-200 F:2.8 wide open with the zoom set at about 180mm (after viewing the images I see that I could have tightened up a bit). As you can see, there is pretty good blur (bola) in the background, and I think with a little adjustment, the images from the shade are going to be relatively nice. 

My main mission here was to show a blurred background. The two in the direct sun were at 160mm, the two in the shade were at 130mm (just an accident, has nothing to do with sun or shade) and you will notice that in the ones shot at 160mm, the background is substantially more blurred.






































Here is another from the shade, but in post production, I cropped in a bit, adjusted color and exposure some, and added some vignetting to darken the corners and accentuate the dog.


----------



## Todd Caswell

> As you can see, there is pretty good blur (bola) in the background


Just so Wayne has the right term it's Bokeh not bola.. It doesn't always have to do with aperature but how far your subject is from the background. I don't like shooting wide open unless I have to. ALL lenses have a sweet spot for sharpness and it usually isn't wide open, so rather than shooting wide open to blur the background I like to adjust my subject and be able to shoot at that lenses sweet spot. Some lenses have a nice creamy Bokeh and some always look busy..


----------



## HPL

Todd Caswell said:


> Just so Wayne has the right term it's Bokeh not bola.. It doesn't always have to do with aperature but how far your subject is from the background. I don't like shooting wide open unless I have to. ALL lenses have a sweet spot for sharpness and it usually isn't wide open, so rather than shooting wide open to blur the background I like to adjust my subject and be able to shoot at that lenses sweet spot. Some lenses have a nice creamy Bokeh and some always look busy..


Thanks Todd, I've been hoping you would weigh in here. The "L" was a typo. That 70-200 F:2.8 II is sharp enough though the full range that it is sharp enough for me at 2.8, but I get your point on the "sweet point". 
Wayne and I have been discussing blurring the background and one can't always get the perfect combination of distance from camera to subject + distance from subject to background + focal length + perfect aperture. Since I don't actually know what Wayne's exposure settings have been, I suspect, from the images he has posted, that he is shooting at less than wide open, as it looks to me like the background is far enough back to be adequately blurred, so my point was that a large aperture will increase background blur.


----------



## Todd Caswell

If lighting allows I try to shoot portrait type images at F/8 or above, this ensures that all of my subject will be in focus, nose, eyes, ears. And I like to pick a neutral background one that doesn't have different shades of color, and then have it far enough back so it blends well and isn't busy.

Something like this that I posted earlier in the thread, every part of the subject is in focus but nothing in the background that is distracting, not sure but I know it was shot at over 5.6


----------



## BJGatley

Damn guys...My hat is off to you guys.
You give true meaning to the sport. 
I am at awl(sp)...


----------



## HPL

This image is not a good example in relation to what Wayne has been shooting. As you know, bokeh is not only affected by distance of subject to background but also by distance of subject from camera. You are so tight on your subject, it is much easier to blur the background than when photographing the entire dog. 



Todd Caswell said:


> If lighting allows I try to shoot portrait type images at F/8 or above, this ensures that all of my subject will be in focus, nose, eyes, ears. And I like to pick a neutral background one that doesn't have different shades of color, and then have it far enough back so it blends well and isn't busy.
> 
> Something like this that I posted earlier in the thread, every part of the subject is in focus but nothing in the background that is distracting, not sure but I know it was shot at over 5.6


----------



## Todd Caswell

Middle and bottom bottom backgrounds are a bit busy for me, and middle may be a bit tight but if I'm taking a portrait I like them tight, top was taken in the fall frosty morning, fall colors, taken on the shoreline of a lake.


----------



## HPL

You are clearly shooting under nearly ideal conditions in these photos where your background is WAAAAY back behind your subject (esp in the first photo). I don't know how big Wayne's yard is, but the LONG shot in my backyard is about fifty feet from camera to background. That's not much room to create bokeh. At F:8 you would be able to tell what species the plants in the background were. Certainly, when one is shooting under conditions like you appear to have had, one can afford to stop down some, but when just trying to get some decent shots in the yard, one may have to make some compromises. Were I shooting the entire dog as Wayne was, I would choose to forego the sweet spot for improved background blur. Now, I am with you that perhaps the better option is to move in and just do a head shot, which will certainly increase blur AND greatly decrease the amount of background one has to deal with in the first place. 

How are you metering the black dogs? How much exposure compensation are you dialing in?

Back to your comment about different lenses producing different qualities of blur. I have always thought that the 400 F:2.8 had the prettiest and most striking bokeh or any lens I have used. I don't own one, and probably never will, but it does produce amazing bokeh. The 300 2.8 and 600 F:4 are pretty nice also.


----------



## Wayne Nutt

My latest effort.


----------



## Wayne Nutt

View attachment 22875
My latest effort.


Taken at 7:15 this morning. A dial setting, F5.6, AF-S focus setting, 1/320 and max distance at 210. Only editing was cropping. I see I have two vertical lines in background, which are trunks of trees, on second photo. Photo seems a little dark. I probably need to start using a tripod.

I like the first one best.


----------



## HPL

Howdy Wayne!
Sorry it has taken this long to get back to you. Much better background and background blur. I am pretty sure though that you are getting camera shake induced motion blur. A tripod is the best cure for that. Except for the motion blur I think this is a good effort. Anytime you can see ANY detail in the background there is the possibility that there will be something that you would like to change. The tree trunks in the back of the second photo don't disturb me that much, ideally they wouldn't be there, but we don't live in an ideal world. The thing that bothers me the most (and I doubt that I would have seen it until I was looking at the photo in the computer myself) is the shadow of a tree trunk or a pole or something, that catches Rowdy just under his right eye in the first photo (and that is really being pretty nitpicky). I like his placement in the frame much better in these than in the one where I felt he was too close to the edge. The motion blur is a bit of a problem though. Keep them coming.

Hugh


----------



## HPL

Here is a series shot one stop apart going from F:2.8-F:8. The focal length was about 140mm. Watch the detail in the background increase as the F:# increases. Again, these photos were shot in typical residential backyard conditions. Pretty restrictive as to distances and choice of background. The light is also pretty difficult there as I am surrounded by trees and other houses, so no direct light when for the last hour or so before sunset. 










F:2.8









F:4









F:5.6









F:8


----------



## HPL

Now, here are some tight head shots. For these, I moved in closer, still keeping the zoom at around 150mm, but because I was closer to the dog, the background blur was significantly greater, and even at F:8 the background is virtually wiped out. 










F:2.8









F:5.6









F:8


----------



## HPL

Here are a couple of the head shots with a minute or two of post production adjustment to color, sharpness, and exposure.


----------



## Wayne Nutt

Ok. Thanks again. My 70-210 lens is wide open at f5.6. Next ones with tripod.


----------



## HPL

Wayne Nutt said:


> Ok. Thanks again. My 70-210 lens is wide open at f5.6. Next ones with tripod.


I thought that might be the case. Tripod should help quite a bit. You also might look and see if there is a 135 or 200mm F:2.8 lens made for your camera. Used prime (as opposed to zoom lenses) tend to be pretty affordable.


----------



## Wayne Nutt

My best effort this morning.


----------



## Wayne Nutt

My best effort this morning.
View attachment 22948


Taken this morning at 7:30. Settings: AF-S, local focus, f5.6, 1/320, 210, using tripod in portrait orientation. Editing was cropping only.


----------



## HPL

Howdy Wayne!
Sorry it took so long to get back to you. The Bokeh is better, but I still think you either have motion blur or are not focused on the eyes. There is a way to put the focus spot on the dog's eyes and focus, and then recompose without having the focus shift, but it is a bit harder to explain without having the camera in hand so that I can demonstrate. To check if it is motion blur or soft focus, enlarge the image to 100% on your computer screen and move the image around looking at different areas of the image. Looks a bit to me like perhaps the actual focal point could be the dog's chest or perhaps his knee, but without seeing the original at 100%, it's pretty hard to tell. I just know that the eyes look soft. If NO part of the image is sharp, then it is probably motion blur, but if some area is in sharp focus, then you are just not focused on the right part of the dog.
Wish Ft Worth wasn't so far away.

HPL


----------



## Wayne Nutt

Thanks i'll work on it some more.


----------



## Todd Caswell

Looks out of focus to me as well, focus point seems to be on the chest of dog. Wayne try shooting in high burst mode, rip off 5 or more frames at a time, change your angle and do it again ect. Sometimes when shooting in single frame just the pushing of the shutter button can cause blur, but if you hold it down it gives you a better chance of getting a good one. I see that as one of the biggest differences in film VS digital. It doesn't cost you a penny to hold the button down..


----------



## Headgear

I agree that it is out of focus but I am not sure that anything is really in focus. If something is in focus other than what the camera was focused on then the lens is either front or back focusing. You can test this easy enough by setting a number of object on different focal planes and focus on the center object and fire the camera. If an object other than what was focused on is in focus than the camera/lens combination is not working properly. Has this lens given you properly focused and sharp photos in the past?


----------



## Wayne Nutt

Thanks for the suggestions. I am just renewing my interest in photography. I have had this lens for twenty or more years but don't use it very often. I last used it about 4 years ago on our Alaska cruise. It seemed to work fine. My eyes don't correct to 20/20 but close.
I have a recent shot that is in good focus I think but lacking in other areas. I will post it and see what you think.
I really appreciate all the help.


----------



## wheelhorse

Wayne, are you using an old lens on a digital camera? Sometimes they won't "talk" well with each other and you can't get the sharp pictures you want.


----------



## Wayne Nutt

Yes my 70-210 was bought long ago before the digital world.
No Sun until next week. Then I will try again.


----------



## Todd Caswell

Wayne you don't have to have sun


----------



## HPL

Todd Caswell said:


> Looks out of focus to me as well, focus point seems to be on the chest of dog. Wayne try shooting in high burst mode, rip off 5 or more frames at a time, change your angle and do it again ect. Sometimes when shooting in single frame just the pushing of the shutter button can cause blur, but if you hold it down it gives you a better chance of getting a good one. I see that as one of the biggest differences in film VS digital. It doesn't cost you a penny to hold the button down..


IF some part of the image is in focus (and at this point I would say that is pretty iffy) then I would bet that the center of the frame is what is in focus. We need to figure out how that camera can be set so that one can put the focusing point (I like the term pipper) on the dog's eye, achieve focus, and then recompose without losing focus. That is pretty easy on my Canon bodies, but I have never even held a Sony SLR.

And... Todd is completely correct, you don't need sun, just sufficient light and it has to be pretty overcast to not have enough light. Open shade and overcast skies can actually be easier and more pleasing than direct sun.


----------



## Wayne Nutt

This is the best I can do. How can this be so hard?








I tried very hard to get the pippen on his eye, half press on shutter release, hold down and then recompose.


----------



## wheelhorse

Wayne Nutt said:


> Yes my 70-210 was bought long ago before the digital world.


That could be a reason why you aren't getting the sharpness you want. When I switched to digital, I kept the same lens, and I saw a degradation in the ability to focus.


----------



## Wayne Nutt

Well shoot! You must be right. There is a focus lock green light that comes on when I half depress the shutter button and it has been lighting up.


----------



## Todd Caswell

Wayne I think you have a equipment issue, no offence because I know you are trying really hard at this but I can get sharper, more in focus pics with my phone..


----------



## HPL

Todd Caswell said:


> Wayne I think you have a equipment issue, no offence because I know you are trying really hard at this but I can get sharper, more in focus pics with my phone..


Todd, look at the second photo above. Obviously shot in really flat light so not a lot of snap, but compared to the previous efforts, this image is pretty sharp. Look at the dog's eyes and the stitching on the collar. MUCH sharper than they have been. The dog doesn't look like he is particularly enjoying it, but the image is relatively sharp, you can see the vibrisi (sp) and everything.


----------



## Wayne Nutt

Hugh, That was them best shot of about 50 that I took at various times during the day. I used every possible combination of settings that have been suggested. I think Rowdy was getting worn out.
I think I am going to start researching new equipment.


----------



## HPL

Howdy Wayne!
I am not at all familiar with Sony cameras, but both Canon and Nikon (and I suspect newer Sonys) have multiple, selectable focusing points (what I referred to as pippers). They also have assignable buttons that allow you to separate the autofocus function from the shutter button so that you can activate the autofocus by pushing one button and then releasing that button and then using the shutter button to take the photo. Also, many newer lenses have image stabilization which helps eliminate camera induced motion blur. I am a big proponent of previously owned equipment (purchased from a reputable dealer) and I think I have seen Todd voice the same opinion. I personally like KEH.com in Atlanta, and Roberts Imaging in Indianapolis.


----------



## Wayne Nutt

Hugh, Thanks for all your help. I am going to try one more test to determine if it is the body or lens. In my library I have some photos that are focused very well using my smaller Sony lens. 
If that fails then off to the sites you mentioned for a new camera.


----------



## Headgear

Wayne, if you do end up buying used equipment another resource is Fred Miranda website under their buy/sell forum. I have bought multiple lens there and the transactions went smoothly.


----------



## HPL

Headgear said:


> Wayne, if you do end up buying used equipment another resource is Fred Miranda website under their buy/sell forum. I have bought multiple lens there and the transactions went smoothly.


Good thing about KEH, you get either a 90 day or six month warranty (can't remember which).


----------



## Headgear

HPL said:


> Good thing about KEH, you get either a 90 day or six month warranty (can't remember which).


Yes-it is a trade off certainly. You can usually save some money buying from FM but you do not get any warranty. Either way he will save money either way by purchasing used equipment!!


----------



## Wayne Nutt

Comparing photos using Sony lens (18-70) from about a year ago to a photo this afternoon. Light and location about the same.














What do you think? In the originals you can count the individual threads in the collar. So, do you think it is a question of my old Minolta lens not matching with the Sony body?


----------



## HPL

It is very possible that the Sony lens is better optically than the old Minolta lens, however, short lenses are easier to use than telephoto lenses generally (greater depth of field, less subject to camera shake induced motion blur), and that might also account for some of the difference. I don't know anything about the Sony lens lineup, but, depending on how old your current tele-zoom is, there may be a newer version with better engineering. The other thing that is in play here is that Todd and I are using lenses that retail new for over $1000.00, and if I remember correctly,Tony Zappia is shooting a 300 F:2.8 which retails over $3000.00. There is a reason folks are willing to pay for those lenses. The optics are noticeably better than the kit lenses. You can get very acceptable results with the kit lenses, but it is a bit unfair to compare them head to head with the "pro" lenses. Pro lenses for Canon and Nikon at least, are usually available previously owned for about 3/4 to 2/3 retail price. Same may be true for Sony.


----------



## BJGatley

JMO Wayne....
The ribbons are crisp, but your dog is not...
Just saying.


----------



## Wayne Nutt

Thanks Hugh.


----------



## BJGatley

Please understand that what I said is in good intentions. 
I am Adobe Photoshop certified and pass all the tests while recently in college.


----------



## HPL

Wayne Nutt said:


> Thanks Hugh.


No problem. It wasn't clear which photo was the old one and which was the new one.


----------



## HPL

BJGatley said:


> JMO Wayne....
> The ribbons are crisp, but your dog is not...
> Just saying.



If you have been following, you know that's what we are working on at the moment. Since he is a full day's drive away from me, and since we can only base our advice on what we can see on the screen (looking at a pretty small file) it is a bit difficult to be sure exactly what is going on. (wish he lived closer)


----------



## BJGatley

HPL said:


> If you have been following, you know that's what we are working on at the moment. Since he is a full day's drive away from me, and since we can only base our advice on what we can see on the screen (looking at a pretty small file) it is a bit difficult to be sure exactly what is going on. (wish he lived closer)


I understand and there is no way I will take that from you guys helping him. 
I hope you believe that.


----------



## jackh

Should I get a 70-200 f2.8 or 300 f4? I've read excellent stuff about that 70-200 and have seen them priced pretty affordable used. I haven't read much about the 300. It is less expensive but not as fast. Right now I only have a 17-55 f2.8. The 70-200 would be a little more versatile for me at the moment and I could maybe get a teleconverter later on to reach out a little further. I don't know anything about teleconverters though. Not sure if its worth the cash or just save and buy bigger glass. What do you guys think?


----------



## Keven

jackh said:


> Should I get a 70-200 f2.8 or 300 f4? I've read excellent stuff about that 70-200 and have seen them priced pretty affordable used. I haven't read much about the 300. It is less expensive but not as fast. Right now I only have a 17-55 f2.8. The 70-200 would be a little more versatile for me at the moment and I could maybe get a teleconverter later on to reach out a little further. I don't know anything about teleconverters though. Not sure if its worth the cash or just save and buy bigger glass. What do you guys think?


Go for either the Nikon 70-200 F2.8 VR II or the Nikon 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 VR. Both recommended highly to me via our Mark Atwater. You also might want to contact him and see if he's currently got any glass for sale. Good way to save a few bucks and you can trust what you're getting without a doubt.

Mark told me that the 70-200 VRII is in every pro's camera bag - it's the "go to" lens, so to speak. I'm going to try the 80-400 (http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Pr.../AF-S-NIKKOR-80-400mm-f%2F4.5-5.6G-ED-VR.html). 

My photos suck, but it's operator error. Don't hold it against the 70-200 - or those in the future against the 80-400. I have LOTS to learn when it comes to manual settings on a DSLR. ;x


----------



## Headgear

I have both the Nikon 70-200 2.8 and the 300 f4 AFS non- VR(will be selling the 300 f4) Both are extremely sharp. The Nikon 300 is often regarded as the best bang for your buck to get to 400mm(with a teleconverter). I use the 1.4 tc with both lenses. There is very little image quality loss with either but you do lose a stop of light when you use the tc. If you are going to use the lens for wildlife shooting I think the 300 paired with a tc is the way to go-the 70-200 will be too short. If it will be for general use of taking pictures of dogs and I would choose the Nikon 70-200 2.8. I looked at the 80-400 and after comparing cost, size, weight, and image quality I would choose one of the Nikon 300 f4 versions. The 300 f4 AFS can be found for around $800 used in good condition. I think it boils down to how will you use the lens. Good luck.


----------



## jackh

Not all dog related, but some recent pictures of mine that I liked:











I really need a bigger lens.


----------



## HPL

jackh said:


> Should I get a 70-200 f2.8 or 300 f4? I've read excellent stuff about that 70-200 and have seen them priced pretty affordable used. I haven't read much about the 300. It is less expensive but not as fast. Right now I only have a 17-55 f2.8. The 70-200 would be a little more versatile for me at the moment and I could maybe get a teleconverter later on to reach out a little further. I don't know anything about teleconverters though. Not sure if its worth the cash or just save and buy bigger glass. What do you guys think?


Sorry I didn't see this sooner. I am a Canon shooter, and don't know specifics on the Nikon lenses, but I have a definite opinion on what I would choose and I think I can back it up. I have used both Canon's 70-200 F:2.8 IS and Canon's 300 F:4 IS. The 300 F:4 IS is an incredible lens for the price and I think it is one of the best deals in the Canon lineup. It is a great entry level wildlife lens and if your primary goal was to photograph relatively approachable wildlife, I would probably say buy that one, however, if wildlife isn't your primary target, the 70-200 F:2.8 wins in a walk. I own the Canon 70-200 F:2.8 image stabilized, and I can say that it is a great lens, very fun to use (if not to tote). Extremely versatile, fast, and sharp. The extra stop in speed (F:2.8 vs, F:4) will provide invaluable dividends in the ability to stop motion and blur the background. I can absolutely say that I would purchase the 70-200 F:2.8 before the 300 F:4 and I can prove it since a while back I had the option of purchasing one or the other and I jumped on the 70-200 like a duck on a June bug. I wouldn't even consider the 80-400 F:4.5 - 5.6 zoom mentioned by another poster. I have a strong prejudice against zooms with variable minimum apertures. You need the most speed at the longest part of the zoom and of course, that is where the lens is the slowest. I won't own a zoom with a variable minimum aperture, if someone gave me one, it would be on ebay or traded in to KEH. 
What did you end up doing?

HPL


----------



## Tyler Pugh

I know this is off subject somewhat but what is the best way to blow up a picture taken with a phone without it coming out looking so grainy. Im not sure if its possible since its taken on a cell phone but I would love to have this blown up to put on the wall. I took this in Mississippi last year with my iPhone 5. Obviously with some editing.


----------



## HPL

Not familiar with phone cameras, but normally, grain prevention begins with the settings when you capture the image. The higher the ISO, AND the physically smaller the actual sensor, the grainer the image is going to be. There are grain reducing features in the most popular photo editing software, but they tend to have the side effect of softening the image. If you can change the ISO on your phone camera, you want to use the LOWEST ISO possible.


----------



## jackh

HPL said:


> Sorry I didn't see this sooner. I am a Canon shooter, and don't know specifics on the Nikon lenses, but I have a definite opinion on what I would choose and I think I can back it up. I have used both Canon's 70-200 F:2.8 IS and Canon's 300 F:4 IS. The 300 F:4 IS is an incredible lens for the price and I think it is one of the best deals in the Canon lineup. It is a great entry level wildlife lens and if your primary goal was to photograph relatively approachable wildlife, I would probably say buy that one, however, if wildlife isn't your primary target, the 70-200 F:2.8 wins in a walk. I own the Canon 70-200 F:2.8 image stabilized, and I can say that it is a great lens, very fun to use (if not to tote). Extremely versatile, fast, and sharp. The extra stop in speed (F:2.8 vs, F:4) will provide invaluable dividends in the ability to stop motion and blur the background. I can absolutely say that I would purchase the 70-200 F:2.8 before the 300 F:4 and I can prove it since a while back I had the option of purchasing one or the other and I jumped on the 70-200 like a duck on a June bug. I wouldn't even consider the 80-400 F:4.5 - 5.6 zoom mentioned by another poster. I have a strong prejudice against zooms with variable minimum apertures. You need the most speed at the longest part of the zoom and of course, that is where the lens is the slowest. I won't own a zoom with a variable minimum aperture, if someone gave me one, it would be on ebay or traded in to KEH.
> What did you end up doing?
> 
> HPL


Thanks HPL. Just what I expected about the variable minimum aperture. I haven't bought any photo equipment in a few months. Just having fun learning with what I have right now. I have read the nikon 70-200 isn't a true 200 at the long end. That doesn't bother me, I just wonder if 180, or whatever the true length is, is really enough to get some shots of ducks coming into spreads or my dog on retrieves. If not, is the 300 enough? Then I need to decide which one I would use more right now. My gut says the 70-200 is more versatile for me right now.


----------



## HPL

jackh said:


> Thanks HPL. Just what I expected about the variable minimum aperture. I haven't bought any photo equipment in a few months. Just having fun learning with what I have right now. I have read the nikon 70-200 isn't a true 200 at the long end. That doesn't bother me, I just wonder if 180, or whatever the true length is, is really enough to get some shots of ducks coming into spreads or my dog on retrieves. If not, is the 300 enough? Then I need to decide which one I would use more right now. My gut says the 70-200 is more versatile for me right now.


A 200 is pretty marginal for most wildlife but I think that Todd Caswell (who contributes here pretty regularly and has some spectacular images) uses a Canon 70-200 for a lot of the dog photos he posts. On the other hand, I know that Tony Zappia (another contributor here) uses a 300 F:2.8 for much of his dog photography. The F:2.8 is a salient point here. A 300 is pretty much at the lower end of what one would use in most wildlife photography and as most wildlife photography is shot around sunrise and sunset, having a fast maximum aperture is a real consideration, but one pays a hefty premium for that additional speed. At this point, my recommendation would be to go to KEH.com and to Robertsimaging.com and search their previously owned departments for the 70-200 VR lens first (give them a call also, as stock turns over pretty quickly sometimes). The 70-200 MAY be capable of capturing images of ducks dropping into the spread, and will certainly be great for getting photos of your dog returning with birds or when you are able to set up photos of your dog working or just posing. Also an excellent lens (although a bit heavy) for photographing candids of family and friends, etc. Then when you are ready, same deal for the 300 and by then you might be able to consider a previously owned 300 F:2.8, but the F:4 should also be a very nice lens, just a bit more limited in low light conditions. If you are used to using a "kit" lens, you will be amazed at the optical quality an build of the pro lenses, and shocked by the weight. If the Nikon 70-200 is anything like the Canon, it is going to feel like a boat anchor at first and will certainly be a bit more cumbersome than what you might be used to, but well worth it. The 300 F:4 will be lighter, and the 300F:2.8 pretty heavy. Once you upgrade your equipment, you might want to get scheduled all hazard insurance. The insurance is pretty reasonable and I know more of more than one camera that has ended up in the drink, and that will really kill your day.

I just went back and looked at the images you posted and if the one of your jumping dog was taken at 55mm, the 70-200 will enlarge that puppy approx. 3.6 times. That will be pretty close.

HPL


----------



## Peter Balzer

Off topic of the specific equipment used to photograph dogs/wildlife. Lately I've been wanting to get a short video made and edited with some stills mixed into and put to music for my YLM. He's been running really good lately and I just want something to put on youtube or to send to people who have no idea what an HRCH/MH is capable of. How much can I expect to pay for a service like this? Would it just be cheaper to buy the equipment myself and figure it out? 

My current equipment is a Canon EOS T3i with 18-55MM lens with IS and a fixed 50MM lens. I understand this is basically inadequate for my purpose.


----------



## HPL

Digital video cameras are pretty cheap these days. You will then need a computer (and since you post here, I'm going to jump to the conclusion that you may have that covered) and then you need software to deal with the editing, and some of that is pretty cheap too. If you only do it once, paying someone to do it MIGHT be cheaper, but probably by the second time you have it done, you will be better off doing it yourself. You might be able to capture the video with your phone (just remember to do it in LANDSCAPE format).


----------



## lforshee34

While I have only read a handful of the pages on this thread, there seems to be a general consensus on which lenses are best for most scenarios. In regards to Canon, what actual camera is best to use with a 70-200 or 300 lense?


----------



## Peter Balzer

HPL said:


> Digital video cameras are pretty cheap these days. You will then need a computer (and since you post here, I'm going to jump to the conclusion that you may have that covered) and then you need software to deal with the editing, and some of that is pretty cheap too. If you only do it once, paying someone to do it MIGHT be cheaper, but probably by the second time you have it done, you will be better off doing it yourself. You might be able to capture the video with your phone (just remember to do it in LANDSCAPE format).


I have a 1 year old MacBook Pro so yes I can handle that part. Are the smaller hand held video camera really worth owning? If so, any suggested models, for less than $300?


----------



## HPL

That is a much different question. The pro and pro-sumer bodies have sturdier builds and some are more weather proof than the consumer line (rebel), but the sensors are all very good. Until just last November I was shooting 30D's (8.3 megapixels) and achieving very good results. I have now moved up to a 7D MKII (20+ megapixels) and it is more sophisticated, offering more operational options, good weather proofing, a very fast "motor drive" (10 fps), lots of focus points, a magnesium frame, and a 200,000+ cycle shutter. Some of the cameras (all the rebels, I think) have a "crop" sensor and some of the pro and prosumer bodies have "full frame" sensors. The 7D is crop, the EOS 5 and the 6D are full frame. There are significant price differences across the the various platforms also. I like the crop sensors as they give additional magnification (in the case of the canon APSC sensors a 1.6X "telephoto factor") converting my 70-200 into a 112-320 and my 600 into a 960). If I did a lot of landscapes or architectural photography I would probably want the full frame sensor. I have more use for telephoto than for wide angle. I suspect this isn't much help.


----------



## HPL

Peter Balzer said:


> I have a 1 year old MacBook Pro so yes I can handle that part. Are the smaller hand held video camera really worth owning? If so, any suggested models, for less than $300?


I don't know anything about current models, as I have not been in the market for a while. How good does it have to be for posting to youtube? You aren't planning on screening it at Cannes.


----------



## bamajeff

Peter Balzer said:


> I have a 1 year old MacBook Pro so yes I can handle that part. Are the smaller hand held video camera really worth owning? If so, any suggested models, for less than $300?


All these are big name cameras(Sony, Cannon, etc). All shoot in HD, and the Go Pro is waterproof.

http://www.best5list.com/best-hd-camcorders-under-300


----------



## HPL

bamajeff said:


> All these are big name cameras(Sony, Cannon, etc). All shoot in HD, and the Go Pro is waterproof.
> 
> http://www.best5list.com/best-hd-camcorders-under-300



Go pro is extremely wide angle so it is probably not a good choice for what you are looking to do. You WILL want zoom, I would think at least 10X.


----------



## Mscott!

Awesome pictures.


----------



## jackh

HPL said:


> A 200 is pretty marginal for most wildlife but I think that Todd Caswell (who contributes here pretty regularly and has some spectacular images) uses a Canon 70-200 for a lot of the dog photos he posts. On the other hand, I know that Tony Zappia (another contributor here) uses a 300 F:2.8 for much of his dog photography. The F:2.8 is a salient point here. A 300 is pretty much at the lower end of what one would use in most wildlife photography and as most wildlife photography is shot around sunrise and sunset, having a fast maximum aperture is a real consideration, but one pays a hefty premium for that additional speed. At this point, my recommendation would be to go to KEH.com and to Robertsimaging.com and search their previously owned departments for the 70-200 VR lens first (give them a call also, as stock turns over pretty quickly sometimes). The 70-200 MAY be capable of capturing images of ducks dropping into the spread, and will certainly be great for getting photos of your dog returning with birds or when you are able to set up photos of your dog working or just posing. Also an excellent lens (although a bit heavy) for photographing candids of family and friends, etc. Then when you are ready, same deal for the 300 and by then you might be able to consider a previously owned 300 F:2.8, but the F:4 should also be a very nice lens, just a bit more limited in low light conditions. If you are used to using a "kit" lens, you will be amazed at the optical quality an build of the pro lenses, and shocked by the weight. If the Nikon 70-200 is anything like the Canon, it is going to feel like a boat anchor at first and will certainly be a bit more cumbersome than what you might be used to, but well worth it. The 300 F:4 will be lighter, and the 300F:2.8 pretty heavy. Once you upgrade your equipment, you might want to get scheduled all hazard insurance. The insurance is pretty reasonable and I know more of more than one camera that has ended up in the drink, and that will really kill your day.
> 
> I just went back and looked at the images you posted and if the one of your jumping dog was taken at 55mm, the 70-200 will enlarge that puppy approx. 3.6 times. That will be pretty close.
> 
> HPL


Thanks. The only lens I own right now is a 17-55 f2.8. It is an excellent lens, but really not meant for pictures like my boy jumping. That was cropped quite a bit to produce what I posted here. I also emailed Mark Atwater for advice. He said 70-200 f2.8 VRII hands down for now, then I can worry about long glass a little later. Time to start saving and selling some crap on craigslist.


----------



## tzappia

jackh said:


> Thanks. The only lens I own right now is a 17-55 f2.8. It is an excellent lens, but really not meant for pictures like my boy jumping. That was cropped quite a bit to produce what I posted here. I also emailed Mark Atwater for advice. He said 70-200 f2.8 VRII hands down for now, then I can worry about long glass a little later. Time to start saving and selling some crap on craigslist.


HPL: I just love the 300 2.8. Really like the image quality and ability to blow out a background. However, that said, my go-to, $$$ lens, has to be my 70-200 2.8 AF/IS. I've played with shooting dogs with my 600 but I do not like it. Too big and I do not like DOF when shooting on-coming dogs. The older I get; the lesser I like heavy lenses.... Can't wait till my IPhone improves their camera...


----------



## HPL

jackh said:


> Thanks. The only lens I own right now is a 17-55 f2.8. It is an excellent lens, but really not meant for pictures like my boy jumping. That was cropped quite a bit to produce what I posted here. I also emailed Mark Atwater for advice. He said 70-200 f2.8 VRII hands down for now, then I can worry about long glass a little later. Time to start saving and selling some crap on craigslist.


Look "previously owned", and I suspect that very few people would be able to tell the difference between an image shot through the Nikon original 70-200 F:2.8 VR, and the MkII, and it might be a significant difference in price (just something to consider). (Just ordered a previously owned 300 F:2.8 IS NOT MkII and am saving a couple of thousand over a used MkII) Once you upgrade, we want to see images. ;-)


----------



## HPL

?


tzappia said:


> HPL: I just love the 300 2.8. Really like the image quality and ability to blow out a background. However, that said, my go-to, $$$ lens, has to be my 70-200 2.8 AF/IS. I've played with shooting dogs with my 600 but I do not like it. Too big and I do not like DOF when shooting on-coming dogs. The older I get; the lesser I like heavy lenses.... Can't wait till my IPhone improves their camera...


I had coveted the 70-200 F:2.8 IS for years, but just couldn't justify the expense. Then I actually found a previously owned MkII for about $1700.00 earlier this year and got permission to jump on it. It appears brand new, and it is, of course, absolutely spectacular (heavy, but spectacular). I just got a contract to shoot sports for the university sports information dept. and so could also justify picking up a previously owned 300 F:2.8 IS, which I ordered yesterday. Are you using the original or a MkII?

As for the 600, I used it at a couple of hunt tests and it was great for some of the locations. It allowed me to get nice tight images of dogs on the line and was long enough to use on some of the retrieves. NOTHING is long enough for the long retrieves.


----------



## jackh

Any tips on shooting black dogs in harsh light? This is before and after post processing. After looks too shiny but I had to pull the shadows out and do some other stuff to see the eyes. I guess the lesson is don't shoot them in harsh light?


----------



## HPL

jackh said:


> Any tips on shooting black dogs in harsh light? This is before and after post processing. After looks too shiny but I had to pull the shadows out and do some other stuff to see the eyes. I guess the lesson is don't shoot them in harsh light?



I just watched a video on Youtube about skin smoothing in Lightroom and in the video, they also used one of the brushes to lighten and accentuate the eyes. I don't see why it wouldn't work on dogs' eyes too.


----------



## BJGatley

jackh said:


> Any tips on shooting black dogs in harsh light? This is before and after post processing. After looks too shiny but I had to pull the shadows out and do some other stuff to see the eyes. I guess the lesson is don't shoot them in harsh light?


Have you tried Photoshop....Your Gamma exposure and black and white threshold needs to be adjusted.


----------



## KwickLabs

Pounce provided a few "good looks" today.


----------



## jackh

Not dogs but critters nonetheless..


----------



## HPL

Cattle can be pretty comical. That first shot cracks me up.


----------



## BJGatley

HPL said:


> Cattle can be pretty comical. That first shot cracks me up.


I agree. Lol.


----------



## jackh

First evening hunt with my boy. Love my old Parker double gun!


----------



## BJGatley

jackh said:


> First evening hunt with my boy. Love my old Parker double gun!


Nice.
Kudos.


----------



## jackh

Rented the 70-200 f2.8 VRII from borrow lenses a couple weeks ago. Awesome lens, I am sold. Who wore it better?


----------



## tzappia

Couple that with a TC 1.4 and you are in business! Nice images.


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras

Beautiful pictures above!!! 

This is Mickey by FC AFC Windy City's Mighty Mouse X Flirt'n Lean Lex Of Babyduck. Just turning two at the end of this month.  Ready to run Qualifying. Can hardly wait!


----------



## golfandhunter

Mary Lynn Metras said:


> Beautiful pictures above!!!
> 
> This is Mickey by FC AFC Windy City's Mighty Mouse X Flirt'n Lean Lex Of Babyduck. Just turning two at the end of this month.  Ready to run Qualifying. Can hardly wait!
> View attachment 24893
> 
> View attachment 24894
> 
> View attachment 24895


Mary Lynn, He is a good looking boy. I am thinking about breeding Reese x Mickey.
How do you like him? is he like his dad?


----------



## Maddog10

A couple years ago I bought my wife a Nikon D3100 camera for basic photography uses and we are now looking to upgrade from the standard 18-55 lens that came with it. Let me be clear that we neither one are remotely close to a professional photographer, but we have improved as we have learned more about how the settings work together. For Christmas she has mentioned wanting to get a telephoto lens that will allow her to zoom in for better shots of our kids playing sports, along with other family photos and such. We can't justify the price of a professional lens, nor do we need that level of quality, but I'd like to find something that would work relatively well for your basic family photographer which will include action shots, still shots, occasionally some nature shots. More or less I'm talking about the stuff she wants to put on Facebook or blow up and hang on the wall of our house. I obviously have a bit of interest in what we get because I'd like to use it for action shots of my dog as well as pictures in the field.

This is a lens that I have been looking closely at. I'd love to hear some input from anyone that knows more than I do about them. Good, bad, etc.

https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-p...-zoom-nikkor-70-300mm-f%2f4.5-5.6g-if-ed.html


----------



## Mountain Duck

Maddog10 said:


> A couple years ago I bought my wife a Nikon D3100 camera for basic photography uses and we are now looking to upgrade from the standard 18-55 lens that came with it. Let me be clear that we neither one are remotely close to a professional photographer, but we have improved as we have learned more about how the settings work together. For Christmas she has mentioned wanting to get a telephoto lens that will allow her to zoom in for better shots of our kids playing sports, along with other family photos and such. We can't justify the price of a professional lens, nor do we need that level of quality, but I'd like to find something that would work relatively well for your basic family photographer which will include action shots, still shots, occasionally some nature shots. More or less I'm talking about the stuff she wants to put on Facebook or blow up and hang on the wall of our house. I obviously have a bit of interest in what we get because I'd like to use it for action shots of my dog as well as pictures in the field.
> 
> This is a lens that I have been looking closely at. I'd love to hear some input from anyone that knows more than I do about them. Good, bad, etc.
> 
> https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-p...-zoom-nikkor-70-300mm-f%2f4.5-5.6g-if-ed.html


As I was reading through your post, the lens that immediately came to mind (given your parameters), was the lens you posted. You can usually find them used or a refurb for under $300 if you're interested in saving a bit.


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras

golfandhunter said:


> Mary Lynn, He is a good looking boy. I am thinking about breeding Reese x Mickey.
> How do you like him? is he like his dad?


Sent you a PM Yes wonderful dog!!!


----------



## HPL

jackh said:


> Rented the 70-200 f2.8 VRII from borrow lenses a couple weeks ago. Awesome lens, I am sold. Who wore it better?



The stuff with the birds and the gun is nice, but all I can say about these two is WOW..LIKE WOW!! Just absolutely beautiful. Wonderful light, focus, and colors. If you don't insist on having brand new equipment, start cruising KEH.com, and UsedPhotoPro.com looking for a previously owned 70-200 F:2.8. I picked up a used MKII Canon 70-200 F:2.8 in pristine condition for about $1800.00 this past January. The 70-200 F:2.8 is one of the most versatile lenses out there, there are a lot of them, and thus they turn up used pretty often. I have to say that once one begins using the pro series lenses, one tends to become hooked, and it can be a bit of an expensive addiction. Again, really beautiful shots of the the dogs (I think I like the hairy one better, but just by a teeny bit).


----------



## HPL

Mary Lynn Metras said:


> Beautiful pictures above!!!
> 
> This is Mickey by FC AFC Windy City's Mighty Mouse X Flirt'n Lean Lex Of Babyduck. Just turning two at the end of this month.  Ready to run Qualifying. Can hardly wait!
> View attachment 24893
> 
> View attachment 24894
> 
> View attachment 24895


Since this is a dog "photo" thread... I don't know what kind of condition you are in or what your age is, but get down on one knee to shoot those doggy shots. The perspective looking down at the dog is a long way from the best way to see what the dog really looks like. 

HPL


----------



## HPL

Maddog10 said:


> A couple years ago I bought my wife a Nikon D3100 camera for basic photography uses and we are now looking to upgrade from the standard 18-55 lens that came with it. Let me be clear that we neither one are remotely close to a professional photographer, but we have improved as we have learned more about how the settings work together. For Christmas she has mentioned wanting to get a telephoto lens that will allow her to zoom in for better shots of our kids playing sports, along with other family photos and such. We can't justify the price of a professional lens, nor do we need that level of quality, but I'd like to find something that would work relatively well for your basic family photographer which will include action shots, still shots, occasionally some nature shots. More or less I'm talking about the stuff she wants to put on Facebook or blow up and hang on the wall of our house. I obviously have a bit of interest in what we get because I'd like to use it for action shots of my dog as well as pictures in the field.
> 
> This is a lens that I have been looking closely at. I'd love to hear some input from anyone that knows more than I do about them. Good, bad, etc.
> 
> https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-p...-zoom-nikkor-70-300mm-f%2f4.5-5.6g-if-ed.html



I shoot canon and don't know about Nikon's lineup, but when you say that you can't justify the price of a pro lens, you don't really say what your price range is. Many very high quality lenses can be obtained used for far less than what their new price would be. The price often falls pretty dramatically on lenses that work perfectly and are optically undamaged but are cosmetically less than beautiful. I know that Christmas gifts are nicer when shiny and new, but many here would not be unhappy with a well maintained, but also well worn Purdey side by side, or a nice old Browning model 5, and one can to some degree look at pro lenses like that. A well built tool that will retain its value for many years. There are several advantages to Canon and Nikon's 70-200 F:2.8 lenses. The build is tougher, they are sealed better against weather, the glass is more sophisticated (which will show in the photos), the wide open aperture stays the same (F:2.8 in this case) throughout the zoom range, being F:2.8 they let in at least twice the light as the lens that you linked (F:2.8 lets in twice the light as F:4, four times as F:5.6 which is critical at sunrise, sunset, and shooting indoor sports), and so on. Before you just skip over the pro lenses out of hand, go look at KEH.com, Usedphotopro.com, B&H's used dept, etc. 

One other thing to remember is that image stabilization ONLY effects motion blur introduced by camera shake. It has no effect on blur caused by the movement of your subject. The advantage to VR (nikon) IS (Canon) is that one can shoot STATIONARY subjects "hand held" (as opposed to using a tripod) in lower light. Won't help one little bit photographing a running dog at dusk (or a child making a fast break down court). To get rid of that blur, one needs a big aperture, like F:2.8 for instance.

Just my $.02 worth.

HPL


----------



## Waterdogs

My boy Woodie, I find myself using my point and shoot more.


----------



## Phil_MI

My hunting pal Ditto, after a quick morning youth hunt a couple of weekends ago.


----------



## JRinNE

Here's one I snapped with my phone that I thought turned out.


----------



## Cold Iron

Pentax K-3 with DA*300mm f/4 lens. My oldest Toller a year and a half ago.










NSDTRC-USA National Specialty less than 2 weeks ago. My youngest guy was entered in BRT so I couldn't handle and take pics at the same time. Some pics of Chuck Hastedt of Soaring Heart Kennels handling his dog Speed. He put on quite the show and passed with flying colors.
During the Tolling leg of his WCX. DA* 60-250mm f/4










Delivering the goods


----------



## jackh

HPL said:


> The stuff with the birds and the gun is nice, but all I can say about these two is WOW..LIKE WOW!! Just absolutely beautiful. Wonderful light, focus, and colors. If you don't insist on having brand new equipment, start cruising KEH.com, and UsedPhotoPro.com looking for a previously owned 70-200 F:2.8. I picked up a used MKII Canon 70-200 F:2.8 in pristine condition for about $1800.00 this past January. The 70-200 F:2.8 is one of the most versatile lenses out there, there are a lot of them, and thus they turn up used pretty often. I have to say that once one begins using the pro series lenses, one tends to become hooked, and it can be a bit of an expensive addiction. Again, really beautiful shots of the the dogs (I think I like the hairy one better, but just by a teeny bit).


Thanks for the compliments. They look a little better on my computer before hosting on photobucket. I definitely like the one of my boy better, but I am biased... The lens is awesome. He seems to just pop out and glow in that one shot. The woods in the background was a long way off, and I had great bokeh. I am hooked, will be getting this lens when I can afford it. 

I took my camera on a teal hunt a few weeks ago. The case was in my house in the AC overnight, then in the cab of the truck in the AC on the way to the hunt. It took most of the morning for the lens to stop fogging, so most of my shots didn't turn out that trip. Any tips on this? I guess I need to make sure the camera case is in the truck bed when I leave the house to hunt. I use a pelican case, so I am not worried about shock or moisture. I just don't want that to happen again. Thanks.


----------



## Maddog10

HPL said:


> I shoot canon and don't know about Nikon's lineup, but when you say that you can't justify the price of a pro lens, you don't really say what your price range is. Many very high quality lenses can be obtained used for far less than what their new price would be. The price often falls pretty dramatically on lenses that work perfectly and are optically undamaged but are cosmetically less than beautiful. I know that Christmas gifts are nicer when shiny and new, but many here would not be unhappy with a well maintained, but also well worn Purdey side by side, or a nice old Browning model 5, and one can to some degree look at pro lenses like that. A well built tool that will retain its value for many years. There are several advantages to Canon and Nikon's 70-200 F:2.8 lenses. The build is tougher, they are sealed better against weather, the glass is more sophisticated (which will show in the photos), the wide open aperture stays the same (F:2.8 in this case) throughout the zoom range, being F:2.8 they let in at least twice the light as the lens that you linked (F:2.8 lets in twice the light as F:4, four times as F:5.6 which is critical at sunrise, sunset, and shooting indoor sports), and so on. Before you just skip over the pro lenses out of hand, go look at KEH.com, Usedphotopro.com, B&H's used dept, etc.
> 
> One other thing to remember is that image stabilization ONLY effects motion blur introduced by camera shake. It has no effect on blur caused by the movement of your subject. The advantage to VR (nikon) IS (Canon) is that one can shoot STATIONARY subjects "hand held" (as opposed to using a tripod) in lower light. Won't help one little bit photographing a running dog at dusk (or a child making a fast break down court). To get rid of that blur, one needs a big aperture, like F:2.8 for instance.
> 
> Just my $.02 worth.
> 
> HPL


Thanks a ton for this information. I will be sure to check out those sites, and the F:2.8 definitely sounds like the better option for what I'd like to have but I know that comes at a price. I was hoping to pick up a lens for less than $600. I don't know what those sell for used (I'll check the site) but I know that they are $2,400 new on the Nikon website. I can't imagine that they would take a 75% depreciation hit unless they are broken?


----------



## Mountain Duck

Maddog10 said:


> Thanks a ton for this information. I will be sure to check out those sites, and the F:2.8 definitely sounds like the better option for what I'd like to have but I know that comes at a price. I was hoping to pick up a lens for less than $600. I don't know what those sell for used (I'll check the site) but I know that they are $2,400 new on the Nikon website. I can't imagine that they would take a 75% depreciation hit unless they are broken?


You won't even come close to finding a used 70-200 f2.8 VR I or VR II for $600 (more like 2-3x that). The only Nikon 2.8 telephoto that you might find in that range would be the 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D. There are about 3 different versions of this lens. It is a great lens (I used to own one), BUT (and this is a BIG BUT)...... your wife's D3100 does not have the old style "screw drive" mechanism to run the autofocus on AF-D lenses. It would meter, but be manual focus only. You must use AFS lenses to have autofocus with that camera. 

You might find a used "3rd party" (Sigma, Tamron) f/2.8 in your price range. However, I would recommend staying with Nikon lenses if possible. I also stand by my recommendation that the lens you mentioned should suit your budget and needs.


----------



## Maddog10

Yea I'm not going to pay much more than $600 for any lens, new or used, just because the uses that we need it for do not justify that kind of expense. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have the equipment to take the best possible picture, but I think I can find a lens that meets my expectations within my budget. It won't do it as well as another lens might, but at the end of the day the picture is just going to be saved on a computer or possibly put on a wall frame in the house. I can absolutely understand people wanting the best lens available if that was their profession or even just a serious hobby of theirs, but that's not me (or my wife).


----------



## TIM DOANE

Phil_MI said:


> View attachment 24919
> My hunting pal Ditto, after a quick morning youth hunt a couple of weekends ago.


Ditto is a lean mean duck retrieving machine !!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## HPL

Maddog10 said:


> Thanks a ton for this information. I will be sure to check out those sites, and the F:2.8 definitely sounds like the better option for what I'd like to have but I know that comes at a price. I was hoping to pick up a lens for less than $600. I don't know what those sell for used (I'll check the site) but I know that they are $2,400 new on the Nikon website. I can't imagine that they would take a 75% depreciation hit unless they are broken?


I certainly understand budget constraints. It took me about 10yrs to be able to justify the 70-200 F:2.8. I expect to use it until I'm not longer able to take photos (I hope at least another 10 or 15 years). I am sure that the lens to which you linked is a very nice lens, but I also know the frustrations you will face using it under the likely conditions you will be photographing. Happy shooting. Be sure to share once you get started.

HPL

PS. I did buy a set of studio lights on e-bay for about 25% of retail price and they looked BRAND NEW, so, deals ARE out there.


----------



## HPL

Cold Iron said:


> Pentax K-3 with DA*300mm f/4 lens. My oldest Toller a year and a half ago.



Very nice. Really sharp. Besides, Tollers are just cute to begin with.


----------



## Phil_MI

TIM DOANE said:


> Ditto is a lean mean duck retrieving machine !!!!!!!!!!!!


And he has you to thank for that.;-)


----------



## Cold Iron

*Eye to Eye*



HPL said:


> Very nice. Really sharp. Besides, Tollers are just cute to begin with.


I do like the prime lenses for sharpness, if my LBA (Lens Buying Addiction) was any worse I would own the 3 Pentax FA Limited lenses. The three princess, maybe someday until then make do with what I have. In the end there is something to be said about being in the right place at the right time no matter what lens is attached.


----------



## HPL

Cold Iron said:


> I do like the prime lenses for sharpness, if my LBA (Lens Buying Addiction) was any worse I would own the 3 Pentax FA Limited lenses. The three princess, maybe someday until then make do with what I have. In the end there is something to be said about being in the right place at the right time no matter what lens is attached.



Can't afford to be addicted myself. I am hooked on L series lenses and now have 5 of them. It has taken many years to get there, and it is a bit of an odd assortment: 24-105, 70-200, 180 macro (most difficult to use), 300 F:2.8, and 600 F:4. Just acquired the 70-200 and 300 F:2.8 this year, both previously owned. Have coveted the 70-200 F:2.8 for years and absolutely love it. Would probably rather have the 400 F:2.8 over the 300, but simply couldn't justify the added expense. The 300 is easier to use and should be good for birds in flight and shots of the dog. Bought it to shoot football, and it's fun, but a bit challenging, the 400 would have been worse. Canon's 300 F:4 is a great lens too and I often recommend it to folks who are looking to move up from a kit lens if wildlife is their primary interest, although the slower F:# does pose some problems sometimes. I haven't had time to take the 300 F:2.8 out and really run it through its paces except at the ftbl games. Can't wait for a free weekend to go shoot the dog or some wildlife.


----------



## Irishwhistler

CHURN CREEK'S EL DIABLO NUTMEG REVOLUTION (call name REV). REV is a 1 year old Black Lab male owned by one o' me Mates. I snapped this photo with me SONY A6000 mirrorless compact camera whilst REV was being worked on steadying drills using live flyer homing pigeons , the bird making repeated circles in front of REV whilst I fired rounds from a 209 primer revolver. REV remained rock steady albeit he was excited to the point of drooling a wee bit. LOL.

Irishwhistler


----------



## Judd

Some good looking dogs on this thread!


----------



## jackh

Love our new Momarsh Invisilab G2.


----------



## Bryan Parks

Has anyone ever hired a photographer to go along on a hunt to shoot pics?


----------



## jackh

No, I just take my camera hunting. I trade gun for camera throughout the hunt, especially if I am hunting with other people that can kill birds for the dog while I shoot.


----------



## HPL

Would probably be a fairly expensive endeavor and I wouldn't guarantee results myself as I wouldn't be able to control the conditions as well as I would like. A better idea would be to have a club photo day, share the expense with other members, and use pen raised ducks.


----------



## Blake Peterson

How do y'all get such crisp pictures? I'm no expert by any means and just take pictures for fun... I have a canon T3i with a Sigma 18-250mm I believe. I know I don't have the best glass in the world but I feel like I'm doing something wrong. is there anything setting wise to get clearer pictures or would I need a better lense?
I took these the other day...


----------



## Blake Peterson

Geauxtigers1421 said:


> How do y'all get such crisp pictures? I'm no expert by any means and just take pictures for fun... I have a canon T3i with a Sigma 18-250mm I believe. I know I don't have the best glass in the world but I feel like I'm doing something wrong. is there anything setting wise to get clearer pictures or would I need a better lense?
> I took these the other day...
> View attachment 25767
> View attachment 25768


Okay well those are tiny but hopefully you can see them, haha


----------



## 25-ott-06

Some of these photos a amazing here's a couple a friend took with bad light.


----------



## HPL

First, the photos ARE a bit small. It would also be nice to know not only what equipment, but what settings. If you shoot on "P", or on the green square, you need to learn how to use AV, TV, and M. There has been some discussion and some varying opinions on this forum as to which of those three modes is the best for photographing dogs most of the time (I come down on the AV side). Glass is important. I know that Todd Caswell, Tony Zappia, and I all shoot pro glass. It does make a difference, but very acceptable results are quite possible with consumer lenses. See if you can load those images in a bigger size.

HPL

Hope your Thanksgiving was better than the turkey's ;-)






Geauxtigers1421 said:


> How do y'all get such crisp pictures? I'm no expert by any means and just take pictures for fun... I have a canon T3i with a Sigma 18-250mm I believe. I know I don't have the best glass in the world but I feel like I'm doing something wrong. is there anything setting wise to get clearer pictures or would I need a better lense?
> I took these the other day...
> View attachment 25767
> View attachment 25768


----------



## Blake Peterson

HPL said:


> First, the photos ARE a bit small. It would also be nice to know not only what equipment, but what settings. If you shoot on "P", or on the green square, you need to learn how to use AV, TV, and M. There has been some discussion and some varying opinions on this forum as to which of those three modes is the best for photographing dogs most of the time (I come down on the AV side). Glass is important. I know that Todd Caswell, Tony Zappia, and I all shoot pro glass. It does make a difference, but very acceptable results are quite possible with consumer lenses. See if you can load those images in a bigger size.
> 
> HPL
> 
> Hope your Thanksgiving was better than the turkey's ;-)





Hopefully that works!
Oh sorry about that, I usually shoot on AV in the lower settings and just play with the Iso a bit. I'm not completely camera illiterate and know what each setting does and how to use them... I just don't as much know when to use them correctly and all the finer details about the cameras and how to get better quality pictures. Every now and then I'll get lucky but in a day of messing around and hundreds of pictures, I'll only keep a handful of them haha. 
Not that I'm in the market or anything right now but what is considered pro glass?

Thanks for the help and Happy Thanksgiving!


----------



## jackh

HPL said:


> First, the photos ARE a bit small. It would also be nice to know not only what equipment, but what settings. If you shoot on "P", or on the green square, you need to learn how to use AV, TV, and M. There has been some discussion and some varying opinions on this forum as to which of those three modes is the best for photographing dogs most of the time (I come down on the AV side). Glass is important. I know that Todd Caswell, Tony Zappia, and I all shoot pro glass. It does make a difference, but very acceptable results are quite possible with consumer lenses. See if you can load those images in a bigger size.
> 
> HPL
> 
> Hope your Thanksgiving was better than the turkey's ;-)


I missed that discussion part of this thread, what page is that on? And what is AV? Im a Nikon guy, not keen on Canon lingo. I shoot in aperture when the dog is still or shutter when moving, but have started playing in manual recently.


----------



## Blake Peterson

jackh said:


> I missed that discussion part of this thread, what page is that on? And what is AV? Im a Nikon guy, not keen on Canon lingo. I shoot in aperture when the dog is still or shutter when moving, but have started playing in manual recently.


AV is aperture and TV is shutter on the Canons


----------



## James Hurst

I would also like to hear more on what aperture settings and techniques are used to take quality pictures of black dogs.

I am not an experienced photographer. I was planning on using my Canon EOS Rebel with a Canon EF 70-200 1:2.8 lens. Take the picture in early morning light, so light is directly showing on dog. Or in late evening to get the same kind of lighting. Set my aperture as low as I can at F 2.8 or 4, so background would be out of focus, but have good detail of the dog, and my ISO at 100. Have the dog positioned well in front of the background , to get depth of field separation.
Does this sound about right?
Also, if you take a picture of a handler and dog, how do you do it and not get the shadow from the brim of a hat on the subjects face? Do you use a flash even in outdoor daylight?


----------



## HPL

"Crispness" is dependent on several factors: point of focus, depth of field, shutter speed, quality of light (contrast, specularity, etc.), AND quality of glass. You want to try really hard to focus on the eyes. These days with pretty accurate auto focus, if one is reasonably careful, the focus should be right on. Motion blur is another story. You want to do everything you can to avoid motion blur: make sure that your shutter speed is as high as lighting conditions will allow, hold the camera properly with the lens cradled in the palm of your left hand with your elbows in, braced against your torso, control your breathing, and squeeeeze the shutter button (very much like shooting a long gun). Just as jerking the trigger has let lots of deer run free, poor camera technique is responsible for a huge proportion of unsharp images. When possible brace yourself or the camera against something solid, or better yet, use a tripod or monopod. Contrasty, highly specular light can make images look crisper, but a good, sharp image shot under more diffuse light is often more pleasing. Finally, many of the consumer lenses simply aren't capable of producing the image quality possible with the pro lenses, otherwise, they wouldn't be able to get the prices they get for the pro glass. 

Now that I can see the images I think they are pretty nice as "we're out in the blind" type shots. Might be nice if you could have had a bit less stuff between you and the dog, but at the same time, that's what it looks like out in the field. You have one huge handicap that I don't have to deal with photographing my dog. Your dog is BLACK!!! Makes it really tough. Tougher still when it is backlit. Anything really black or really white taking up a significant percentage of the scene will really blow the cameras mind. As you can see by Jack H's post above, that's a problem for many. I hope Todd weighs in on that as, if I remember correctly, he has black dogs. As to the AV, TV, M discussion(s), I'm not even sure that they are in this thread. It boiled down to this: I tend to shoot AV wide open or perhaps one stop closed down unless for some reason I need increased depth of field, as most of the time, motion blur is my problem, either from subject movement or camera shake. Shooting in AV wide open ensures that I will have the fastest shutter speed possible given the current lighting conditions. I began that practice years ago shooting film and continued into the digital realm. I now have a camera that has "auto ISO" letting me shoot in manual (M) where I set both aperture AND shutter speed and the camera chooses the appropriate ISO, so I may need to rethink AV vs M. 

Canon's L series lenses are the pro line. Much more sophisticated glass and a tougher build (also mostly weather sealed and heavier). The 70-200 L series family is a good group of lenses to consider. There are four lenses in the family currently in production, two with image stabilization (IS), two without: F:4 IS, F:4 non-IS, F2.8 IS MkII, F:2.8 non-IS. The MKII just came out two or three years ago I think, so there one can still find the original F:2.8 IS in treat condition in the used market for somewhat less than the MkII. These L series lenses are tough, so previously owned is a viable alternative when purchasing from a reputable dealer (KEH, Roberts Camera, Adorama, B&H, etc.) Todd uses an F:4 (IS I think) and gets great results. I recently purchased a previously owned F:2.8 IS Mk II and really love it. My preference in order would be F:2.8 IS MkII, F:2.8 IS (original), F:4 IS, and really stops there. If I couldn't at least afford the F:4 IS, I would wait until I could. There is a significant price gap between the F:2.8's and the F:4, but an original F:2.8 should be relatively reasonable. Another nice L series lens for photographing dogs and some wildlife is the 300 F:4 IS. As a prime lens (as opposed to a zoom, i.e. variable focal length lens), it is VERY sharp, but also as a prime lens, much more limited in its capabilities (you would have had to be 20+ feet away to get the shot you posted). For dog action, my current favorite lens is the 300 F:2.8 IS, but used it runs about $3000.00, whereas on can pick up the F:4 IS for under $1000.00 all day long. Hope there was something useful here. Again, I hope Todd posts on this one.

HPL




Geauxtiger
s1421;1364665 said:


> Hopefully that works!
> Oh sorry about that, I usually shoot on AV in the lower settings and just play with the Iso a bit. I'm not completely camera illiterate and know what each setting does and how to use them... I just don't as much know when to use them correctly and all the finer details about the cameras and how to get better quality pictures. Every now and then I'll get lucky but in a day of messing around and hundreds of pictures, I'll only keep a handful of them haha.
> Not that I'm in the market or anything right now but what is considered pro glass?
> 
> Thanks for the help and Happy Thanksgiving!


----------



## HPL

I'm not going to be a lot of help here, as black dogs give me a pain too, but that camera is probably capable of doing auto exposure bracketing, and you could set that up to shoot three exposures varying the exposure in each. Flash can help with black dogs, as can reading your exposure off something with a neutral reflectance value like green grass, shooting in manual, and using that meter reading as a starting point. If you read directly off the dog, you may actually have to dial in some negative exposure compensation. If you read off the grass or even the general scene, it will probably take positive ex comp. Difficult subjects (like black dogs) are often best shot in Manual exposure.

HPL



James Hurst said:


> I would also like to hear more on what aperture settings and techniques are used to take quality pictures of black dogs.
> 
> I am not an experienced photographer. I was planning on using my Canon EOS Rebel with a Canon EF 70-200 1:2.8 lens. Take the picture in early morning light, so light is directly showing on dog. Or in late evening to get the same kind of lighting. Set my aperture as low as I can at F 2.8 or 4, so background would be out of focus, but have good detail of the dog, and my ISO at 100. Have the dog positioned well in front of the background , to get depth of field separation.
> Does this sound about right?
> Also, if you take a picture of a handler and dog, how do you do it and not get the shadow from the brim of a hat on the subjects face? Do you use a flash even in outdoor daylight?


----------



## James Hurst

HPL,
any feedback on eliminating shadows cast by hat brim when taking picture of dog and handler?


----------



## HPL

Depends on how close you are. If you are close enough, fill flash works wonders. Farther away, put your subjects in the shade where the exposure latitude should be narrower, have a helper use a portable reflector (they make them that collapse like the pop open window shades for your vehicle) to bounce light on the face of your subject, or...take the hat off and deal with the glare from the shiny head ;-)



James Hurst said:


> HPL,
> any feedback on eliminating shadows cast by hat brim when taking picture of dog and handler?


----------



## HPL

I just got asked a question by PM so I am bumping this back up to make it easier to find. Wish this thread was pinned at the top.


----------



## tzappia

James Hurst said:


> HPL,
> any feedback on eliminating shadows cast by hat brim when taking picture of dog and handler?


Photoshop: Shadow/Highlights edit will solve that problem!


----------



## jackh

ISO 400 55mm f/3.5 1/250 sec, D7000 17-55 f2.8 shot in manual.

Need some advice on this one. It was very overcast, windy, and misting right then. I wanted the dog and all the ducks in focus. I didn't want to just square up to the ranger, I thought shooting from an angle would make a cooler shot. Here was my thought process on settings:

Focal Length- this is a portrait, so I need to zoom high to prevent distortion, but I know this is going to tighten my DOF.
Focus- AF-S (single) and single area or whatever the one dot is called. Focus on his eyes.
Aperture- needs to be small for a large depth of field, but I need it low to let in light.
Shutter- I think 1/250 is as slow as I can go hand held, nobody is going to wait around for me to set up a tripod and the dog damn sure won't hold still enough to shoot slower without motion blur.
ISO- I hate noise, keep as low as possible.

I metered off some green grass next to me and started shooting. The shots looked decent in the playback, histogram looked OK to me although I'm still learning that, and the exposure level indicator in the camera was reading just slightly overexposed. Naturally, I get them in lightroom and the ducks are out of focus. What should I have done? I'm guessing fill flash, increase aperture, adjust shutter speed accordingly? Thanks for the help.


----------



## mikep123456

Awesome photos! 

Any suggestions on a lens for a field hunt? I have a Cannon T3i with 18-55 and a 55-250 lenses. Heading to Kansas and would like to carry a camera into the field. What lens would you add?


----------



## Todd Caswell

jackh said:


> ISO 400 55mm f/3.5 1/250 sec, D7000 17-55 f2.8 shot in manual.
> 
> Need some advice on this one. It was very overcast, windy, and misting right then. I wanted the dog and all the ducks in focus. I didn't want to just square up to the ranger, I thought shooting from an angle would make a cooler shot. Here was my thought process on settings:
> 
> Focal Length- this is a portrait, so I need to zoom high to prevent distortion, but I know this is going to tighten my DOF.
> Focus- AF-S (single) and single area or whatever the one dot is called. Focus on his eyes.
> Aperture- needs to be small for a large depth of field, but I need it low to let in light.
> Shutter- I think 1/250 is as slow as I can go hand held, nobody is going to wait around for me to set up a tripod and the dog damn sure won't hold still enough to shoot slower without motion blur.
> ISO- I hate noise, keep as low as possible.
> 
> I metered off some green grass next to me and started shooting. The shots looked decent in the playback, histogram looked OK to me although I'm still learning that, and the exposure level indicator in the camera was reading just slightly overexposed. Naturally, I get them in lightroom and the ducks are out of focus. What should I have done? I'm guessing fill flash, increase aperture, adjust shutter speed accordingly? Thanks for the help.


The only way to get everything in focus is to crank up the ISO to get the shutter and the depth of field you need 3.5 is pretty shallow


----------



## Todd Caswell

mikep123456 said:


> Awesome photos!
> 
> Any suggestions on a lens for a field hunt? I have a Cannon T3i with 18-55 and a 55-250 lenses. Heading to Kansas and would like to carry a camera into the field. What lens would you add?
> 
> View attachment 25921


Are you looking for a longer zoom? I see you have a 55-250 but it is a pretty slow lens, can be very sharp but focus is very slow on moving objects.. I use my 70-200L F/4 alot in the field, alows plenty of light for outdoor work, is very sharp, super fast focus and is very light to carry. I also use my 100-400L II but it is heavy to carry around all day..


----------



## mikep123456

Todd Caswell said:


> Are you looking for a longer zoom? I see you have a 55-250 but it is a pretty slow lens, can be very sharp but focus is very slow on moving objects.. I use my 70-200L F/4 alot in the field, alows plenty of light for outdoor work, is very sharp, super fast focus and is very light to carry. I also use my 100-400L II but it is heavy to carry around all day..


Thats a good question... Here are the type of photos I'd like to improve on.













































Help appreciated. 

Thanks,

Mike


----------



## HPL

jackh said:


> ISO 400 55mm f/3.5 1/250 sec, D7000 17-55 f2.8 shot in manual.
> 
> Need some advice on this one. It was very overcast, windy, and misting right then. I wanted the dog and all the ducks in focus. I didn't want to just square up to the ranger, I thought shooting from an angle would make a cooler shot. Here was my thought process on settings:
> 
> Focal Length- this is a portrait, so I need to zoom high to prevent distortion, but I know this is going to tighten my DOF.
> Focus- AF-S (single) and single area or whatever the one dot is called. Focus on his eyes.
> Aperture- needs to be small for a large depth of field, but I need it low to let in light.
> Shutter- I think 1/250 is as slow as I can go hand held, nobody is going to wait around for me to set up a tripod and the dog damn sure won't hold still enough to shoot slower without motion blur.
> ISO- I hate noise, keep as low as possible.
> 
> I metered off some green grass next to me and started shooting. The shots looked decent in the playback, histogram looked OK to me although I'm still learning that, and the exposure level indicator in the camera was reading just slightly overexposed. Naturally, I get them in lightroom and the ducks are out of focus. What should I have done? I'm guessing fill flash, increase aperture, adjust shutter speed accordingly? Thanks for the help.



To start of with, you could stop trying to harvest all the ducks in the state singlehanded!! 

It looks to me like that brown deke at the tip of the dog's collar is in pretty good focus. As a rule of thumb, depth of field is generally extends from about 33% in front of your actual plane of focus to about 66% behind it. In this photo, it looks to me like the ducks are about 2/3 in front of the dog and 1/3 beyond him. What you could have done was focus not on the dog, but a bit in front of the dog. 
What you really want to do, if you have time, is push the depth of field preview button and adjust the focus so that you can see what your area of acceptable focus is and adjust the aperture and focal point to optimize the area that is acceptably sharp.


----------



## jackh

Hideout last weekend.


----------



## HPL

Pretty cool.


----------



## 12jfallin

rotcsig443 said:


> This is the lense I am currently looking at purchasing. http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-F4-5-6-Cameras/dp/B00EFILVQU


I got that one for Christmas, and so far, I love it. I'm still learning too, but the new lense makes a huge difference. It's a good camera to start with. I had to upload this one from Facebook, as I'm at work, but this was taken the day after I got the new lense.


----------



## tzappia

jackh said:


> Hideout last weekend.


Ohhhhh! Me likey!!!!!!


----------



## HPL

12jfallin said:


> I got that one for Christmas, and so far, I love it. I'm still learning too, but the new lense makes a huge difference. It's a good camera to start with. I had to upload this one from Facebook, as I'm at work, but this was taken the day after I got the new lense.



Pretty cool. I really like it when one can find a place where one can photograph a water entry from in front of the dog. You may need to look at the white balance setting on your camera. Both of these images appear really blue/cyan on my monitor.


----------



## Lurker

Awesome pictures!!


----------



## 25-ott-06

friend took this in bad light


----------



## HPL

That's not such bad light. Really like the stop action tail drip forming a bit of a curl behind the dog's head.


----------



## jackh

tzappia said:


> Ohhhhh! Me likey!!!!!!


Thank you sir! My first mallards and his 3rd hunt. I love the Momarsh Invisilab.


----------



## jackh

HPL said:


> Pretty cool.


Thank you sir


----------



## jackh

Some recent foster dogs.


----------



## HPL

Aren't they cute!! Wonder what the mix is on the second with that black splotch on the tongue.


----------



## Bryan Parks

iPhone


----------



## Brokengunz

Puppy pix.


----------



## blind ambition

Bryan Parks said:


> iPhone



Up to now I thought Apple's latest ad campaign featuring images taken with iPhone was an exaggeration. This is a great photo!


----------



## mrman

A buddy of mine just got himself a camera and wanted to shoot some photos while I worked my pup. These were straight out of the camera!


----------



## crackerd

'Vet in full fruit-bat mode (and it ain't just because she climbs fig trees to feed) upon learning a FT is in her immediate future. Canine psychosis unit on standby.

MG


----------



## jackh

HPL said:


> Aren't they cute!! Wonder what the mix is on the second with that black splotch on the tongue.


Not really sure. I don't think she was a pure golden, but my golden boy has a blue spot at the beck of his tongue too and he is definitely pure. I guess it's similar to some having a white patch on their chest.


----------



## ipap2

Nice pictures!!!


----------



## jackh

Canoe golden


----------



## jackh

Hidden in my Hybrid NL layout boat last season


----------



## HPL

jackh said:


> Canoe golden


Pretty cute! Golden ain't half bad either. ;-)


----------



## Sleepytrout

IMO, the 70-200 f/2 IS by Canon is sweet. It is my workhorse lens by far. I have really enjoyed going through this thread and seeing the amazing talent that you guys have.


----------



## jackh

B&W or sepia?


----------



## gaustin

Sepia .......Great shot too


----------



## tzappia

Black and White. My reason: Sepia gives an image a more old-fashion look. However, the dog is wearing a neoprene vest and is laying in a modern retriever hunting hide. If the dog had been sitting in a swamp, without all that gear it would have given it the Sepia look. That said, I love the image.


----------



## jackh

tzappia said:


> Black and White. My reason: Sepia gives an image a more old-fashion look. However, the dog is wearing a neoprene vest and is laying in a modern retriever hunting hide. If the dog had been sitting in a swamp, without all that gear it would have given it the Sepia look. That said, I love the image.


You have an artist's eye.


----------



## tzappia

The one tiny, tiny thing I would have done setting up this image is to have the dog looking up in the sky. Tossing a hat or something in the air will get his head up and be a bit more expressive, too.


----------



## MikeJFalkner

tzappia said:


> The one tiny, tiny thing I would have done setting up this image is to have the dog looking up in the sky. Tossing a hat or something in the air will get his head up and be a bit more expressive, too.


Yes, that would make a compelling image. I also like this, though, because so much of our time in the blind is spent waiting on the action. Great work Jack.


----------



## Rig Magician

I have some better pictures of him on my My Mac that I took with my Nikon. I will try to post some tonight. This is when he got his HR title. 

I


----------



## jackh

tzappia said:


> The one tiny, tiny thing I would have done setting up this image is to have the dog looking up in the sky. Tossing a hat or something in the air will get his head up and be a bit more expressive, too.


Yeah, he gets pretty tired/bored of me shooting him and it's hard to make him look good these days. He was watching my hunting partner pick up decoys and I at least got his ears perked a little bit. Once I pull out the camera, there is almost no noise I can make or object I can throw to make him interested now days lol.


----------



## tzappia

In my camera bag I always keep a few of those plastic squeekly thing-a-ma-bobs that my dogs rip out of their toys. They'll always get an ear perk! 



jackh said:


> Yeah, he gets pretty tired/bored of me shooting him and it's hard to make him look good these days. He was watching my hunting partner pick up decoys and I at least got his ears perked a little bit. Once I pull out the camera, there is almost no noise I can make or object I can throw to make him interested now days lol.


----------



## ZEKESMAN

jackh said:


> Yeah, Once I pull out the camera, there is almost no noise I can make or object I can throw to make him interested now days lol.


 Try a DUCK.


----------



## jackh

ZEKESMAN said:


> jackh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, Once I pull out the camera, there is almost no noise I can make or object I can throw to make him interested now days lol.
> 
> 
> 
> Try a DUCK.
Click to expand...

It's hard to throw a duck and get a good shot with a big dslr.


----------



## HPL

Get a couple of predator calls, including a squeaking mouse. Blow very softly at first. Don't blow until you are focused and ready. Don't blow continuously.


----------



## jackh

HPL said:


> Get a couple of predator calls, including a squeaking mouse. Blow very softly at first. Don't blow until you are focused and ready. Don't blow continuously.


That's a great idea, I have some mouth calls for coyote hunting I will throw in the bag next time.


----------



## jackh




----------



## tabascoT

Any tips on shooting black dogs--still having trouble with curly or black labs. Not so much with others.


----------



## fredzeff

shopclues Lucky Draw Announces 1st Winner Of The Day. shopclues lucky draw offers you to win first Prize(A Brand New TATA SAFARI CAR). shopclues coupons page is the right place for you to find the best discount


----------

