Photo sharing: Zoos

[jrc-elpaso]

Then there are the ones who are at the Grand Canyon in the evening using their flash - which is good for about 10 feet. Both of my cameras always have the flash turned off - that way I don't have to worry about it. If I need it I'll turn it on. And even a majority of my indoor pics turn out good - without the flash. That's the beauty of digital.

 

[Liljam]

Could be a number of things, but I saw more men with the big cameras than woman - I should clarify that it was mostly people with families and the man was carrying the camera/taking the pics. I suppose I was just so surprised that they didn't turn off the flash for the fish or other glass areas at least. I wish I would have asked the man with the mega lens what he was shooting because it was cool to see him in the same place for so long, and I never would have noticed him if I hadn't taken up this as hobby. I never would have noticed the other DSLRs either if I hadn't gotten my own. I tend to usually mind my own business in parks and stuff but yesterday, I was just more surprised than anything because I'd seen it so much. My DH's Uncle recently got a DSLR and can be classified as one of these people that won't really learn how to use it, but he's happy because he gets better photos than his old camera and it's impressive. Oh well !

 

[delilah]

It depends on the personalities involved, but, sometimes you can help people learn more about their cameras in situations like this. Two weeks ago, I was at the San Diego Zoo, and there was a nice fellow there who was trying to get a picture through glass without the glare. I explained to him about changing his settings so he could get a picture without flash without glare.

 

[handicap18]

If you think the zoo is bad...... they've got nothing on Disney tourists. OH MY!!

 

[annnewjerz]

Same thing happened while we were in DC a few weekends ago. We were in the museums and so many people were using dSLRs but MOST of them were taking pictures of the exhibits in glass cases with a flash, such as the ruby slippers and Kermit the Frog puppet at the National Museum of American History.

Like Jann had mentioned during a previous trip to the zoo, I overheard one man saying my pictures were going to end up so blurry if I didn't use a flash and in my head I just thought "Dirty Thirty to the rescue!!! " but didn't bother saying/showing anything. They would be the ones who went home disappointed with all of their shots and that would give me satisfaction enough.

 

[jann1033]

i wonder if what is happening with some is when zoos had open exhibits instead of so much behind glass( and usually at least at ours dirty scratched glass to boot) a flash may have helped and maybe it's still on the internet some place? or they just figured low light ie aquarium/ rain forest= flash but the glass component messes them up. what really drives me nuts is if i am trying to take a photo and somebody sets off the flash in my field of view just as the animal has the expression i want...which is then a lovely photo of a washed out gorilla body with a white blur for a head or even better some person's reflected head( hmmmm, could maybe sell that as a bigfoot photo maybe?)

 

[JR6ooo4]

It depends on the personalities involved, but, sometimes you can help people learn more about their cameras in situations like this. Two weeks ago, I was at the San Diego Zoo, and there was a nice fellow there who was trying to get a picture through glass without the glare. I explained to him about changing his settings so he could get a picture without flash without glare.

Flash is great, like to remove noon shadows in daylight. And other times as well. But I prefer to preserve the low light look when the display is lit that way.

Maybe that guy was waiting for a shot when his subject in a low light area was not moving. Heheheheee

Mikeeee

 

[MICKEY88]

I shoot thru glass all the time using my flash, I either shoot at a 45 degree angle or use off camera flash and hold it right against the glass,

you can also put your lens right up against the glass, this wil also eliminate the flash kicking back into the lens..I always have a lens hood on when I do this..

if you google it, you will find many articles by pros giving this advice..

here is one article that also shows that by using flash you can reduce or eliminate other reflections in the glass

http://dpnow.com/forum2/showthread.php?t=2571

 

[Liljam]

I shoot thru glass all the time using my flash, I either shoot at a 45 degree angle or use off camera flash and hold it right against the glass,

you can also put your lens right up against the glass, this wil also eliminate the flash kicking back into the lens..I always have a lens hood on when I do this..

if you google it, you will find many articles by pros giving this advice..

here is one article that also shows that by using flash you can reduce or eliminate other reflections in the glass

http://dpnow.com/forum2/showthread.php?t=2571

Cool, thanks for the tip! I'm gonna check out the info for sure. This isn't how these guys were using there flash at all though. I certainly have tons to learn (like good ways to use flash in glass.)

 

[jann1033]

I shoot thru glass all the time using my flash, I either shoot at a 45 degree angle or use off camera flash and hold it right against the glass,

you can also put your lens right up against the glass, this wil also eliminate the flash kicking back into the lens..I always have a lens hood on when I do this..

if you google it, you will find many articles by pros giving this advice..

here is one article that also shows that by using flash you can reduce or eliminate other reflections in the glass

http://dpnow.com/forum2/showthread.php?t=2571

usually when i see someone using a flash it's an on camera flash and they are standing a good few feet from the glass and taking the photo head on.

the problem at our zoo at least is most of the glass is dirty( inside the cages, the glass is muddy, ok i hope it's mud even though there isn't much mud indoors) for as high as i can reach( or/and scratched) so finding some place to take a photo is a challenge in itself. for me personally it's usually easier to just use a low light lens. i try to take it from an angle anyway( although it may mean i have to push some little kid out of the way just kidding) . i really don't think they think about photography at all when they design zoos.

 

[ssanders79]

I personally hate flash, except for the occasional fill flash. I would love to go home with some people I see in the parks and sit with them while they review their pictures and say to themselves I need a better camera, these pictures are horrible.

Not to mention the people who use the flash on dark/indoor rides or anyplace where flash photography is specifically prohibited.

Flash is a privilege, not a right.

 

[MICKEY88]

I personally hate flash, except for the occasional fill flash. I would love to go home with some people I see in the parks and sit with them while they review their pictures and say to themselves I need a better camera, these pictures are horrible.

Not to mention the people who use the flash on dark/indoor rides or anyplace where flash photography is specifically prohibited.

Flash is a privilege, not a right.

tell us how you really feel...

 

[GrillMouster]

...I was just quite shocked that people had spent so much money on something they took no time to learn how to use properly...

Every hobby has a group of enthusiasts who feel the same way about anyone else who doesn't share their passion. Case in point: A/V forums on the net are filled with posts saying how moronic people are for spending hundred or thousands dollars on a new HDTV and/or a home theater system, yet not bothering to learn how to properly calibrate them to get the best picture and sound possible. Most people just leave the default factory settings in place, or tweak a few settings by "eyeballing" until it looks satisfactory to their untrained eyes (shameful). Or how about this...most people spend tens of thousands of dollars on an automobile but don't learn all about how it operates, how to repair it, or how to drive it at its peak performance (like a stuntman/racecar driver). The fact is that not everyone has the time or the genuine interest to study the background of every purchase.

The non-photographers we're talking about probably assumed that they would get better pictures from a DSLR in auto than they would from a point-and-shoot in auto. For the most part they were correct. For the most part they're satisfied with the pictures they get, so they don't see the need to study photography for few photos that they're unhappy with. It's just not that important to them. Granted, it's a little funny when they try to act like experts and you hear them giving bad photographic advice to others (or you). I just ignore them, or say "I'm a pro; I know what I'm doing". But if I see a nice mother or father struggling to get a good image of his/her kids, I'll kindly offer some friendly advice, showing them the image I took on my camera, so they can see that I know what I'm talking about. Some times I'll go so far as to take the picture for them using their camera. Some times I've offered to take the picture with my own camera and email it to them later (I remember the pair of elderly woman in my Epcot Segway Tour group who said, "Our kids wouldn't believe that we did this if it weren't for the photos you emailed us!").

 

[steery1]

Every hobby has a group of enthusiasts who feel the same way about anyone else who doesn't share their passion. Case in point: A/V forums on the net are filled with posts saying how moronic people are for spending hundred or thousands dollars on a new HDTV and/or a home theater system, yet not bothering to learn how to properly calibrate them to get the best picture and sound possible. Most people just leave the default factory settings in place, or tweak a few settings by "eyeballing" until it looks satisfactory to their untrained eyes (shameful). Or how about this...most people spend tens of thousands of dollars on an automobile but don't learn all about how it operates, how to repair it, or how to drive it at its peak performance (like a stuntman/racecar driver). The fact is that not everyone has the time or the genuine interest to study the background of every purchase.

The non-photographers we're talking about probably assumed that they would get better pictures from a DSLR in auto than they would from a point-and-shoot in auto. For the most part they were correct. For the most part they're satisfied with the pictures they get, so they don't see the need to study photography for few photos that they're unhappy with. It's just not that important to them. Granted, it's a little funny when they try to act like experts and you hear them giving bad photographic advice to others (or you). I just ignore them, or say "I'm a pro; I know what I'm doing". But if I see a nice mother or father struggling to get a good image of his/her kids, I'll kindly offer some friendly advice, showing them the image I took on my camera, so they can see that I know what I'm talking about. Some times I'll go so far as to take the picture for them using their camera. Some times I've offered to take the picture with my own camera and email it to them later (I remember the pair of elderly woman in my Epcot Segway Tour group who said, "Our kids wouldn't believe that we did this if it weren't for the photos you emailed us!").

Well said. I totally agree
I have an expensive cellphone. Its takes photos, video clips, edits them etc. Sends and receives emails, connects to the internet, plays loads of video games. It has a calculator, radio, alarm clock too.
I use it to make calls and text.

 

[Groucho]

I did see one MEGA lens (big big big) and the man stayed in the same spot for over four hours, not sure what he was doing, but he was in his groove for sure!

That reminds me of my favorite "roll them eyes" person, the "gear (insert favorite non-family-friendly term here, preferably one for a member of the world's oldest profession)"... the guy who has the megabucks camera with the biggest possible zoom lens he can find (he'd sooner slit his wrists than use a prime) and walk from place to place with a grumpy expression, occasionally stopping to raise the camera to his eye and instantly fire off a machine-gun burst of photos then move on.

Is it possible that he's so advanced that he doesn't need to compose with a viewfinder but already knows what he'll see, his machine-gun bursts are actually bracketed shots instead of 10 copies of the same image, and the grumpy expression is a byproduct of intense concentration? Well, maybe, but I doubt it.

 

[dmccarty]

I just took this photo at DHS. My youngest and I must have watched the artist work for 30 minutes before I took the photo. The glass was very dirty reflective. If you look carefully you can sorta kinda see the photographer. As soon as I saw the paints I wanted to take a picture. This was with no flash, D700 with 50mm/F1.4 at 3.5 with 1/50 of a second. ISO was 3200!

This photo was the Viking in EPCOT that is in the church at Norway. D200 with the same 50mm/F1.4 at 1.4 with the internal flash and a 1/60 second shutter. Mr. Viking looks real and almost scares the stuff out of me!

Ye can take photos of subjects behind glass with and without flash.

The trip during which I took the Viking photo, I was out EPCOT and saw a couple of very heavily burdened photographers with expensive zooms and cameras. One was on the phone talking with someone on about how to set the white balance. People start out with cameras they can afford. For most of us, myself included, this meant a cheap camera and lens that eventually grew into something expensive. I surely never thought I would spend the money for a D700! Some people just start later and higher up the camera dollar chain than most of us.

Later,
Dan

 

[Liljam]

That reminds me of my favorite "roll them eyes" person, the "gear (insert favorite non-family-friendly term here, preferably one for a member of the world's oldest profession)"... the guy who has the megabucks camera with the biggest possible zoom lens he can find (he'd sooner slit his wrists than use a prime) and walk from place to place with a grumpy expression, occasionally stopping to raise the camera to his eye and instantly fire off a machine-gun burst of photos then move on.

Is it possible that he's so advanced that he doesn't need to compose with a viewfinder but already knows what he'll see, his machine-gun bursts are actually bracketed shots instead of 10 copies of the same image, and the grumpy expression is a byproduct of intense concentration? Well, maybe, but I doubt it.

I think he was shooting birds past the Lion Exhibit. Maybe a PA bird or something... He seemed friendly and had a few chatters stop to talk but I was dealing with a hungry toddler and didn't want to mess up his flow or I would have stopped to ask him about his lens and what he was shooting for knowledge. It definitely looked like one of the Canon telephotos - white, about a foot long, maybe built in hood. He DEFINITELY knew what he was doing whatever it was. There were many photogs there that looked like they knew what they were doing but there were many more who acted like they did, but clearly didn't have a clue - and even I could tell that just from reading about techniques on the board. One guy stopped me after he saw me take a fish pic and he complimented ME on how well I captured the image (not the camera.) It's nothing great compared to some of the aquatic pics I've seen here, but thanks to reading how they were taking, I was able to get a better image than I would have otherwise !

Oh and Dan, love both pics.

 

[dmccarty]

Oh and Dan, love both pics.

That Viking looks so ALIVE. The eyes just stare at you. Amazing work on whoever created it/him.

We were at AK in Dino Land and my wife and two of the kids were on the Dino Dumbo Ride. Know which one I am talking about? Anywho, I am trying to take photos of them but they are always too high up so I cant get a good photo. As I am mumbling that I sure wish the kids would fly lower, a man walks up to me and asks if I am using a Nikon?. I said, uh yeah, and he proceeds to tell me how bad the D90 is and that he sent back his for repairs several times. Now I suppose he could get a bad camera but I really had to wonder if the error was the user and not the hardware. From what he said it was pretty obvious that he did not know much about photography and he just bought the camera at the camera store based on the sales person. It did not sound like he had done much research and did not have much photo experience. Its a shame since I think the experience soured him on photography.

And I really wondered why he was telling ME, a complete stranger, about his D90 woes. But if it made him feel better its ok by me. He ran up to me, said his piece and before I could say much to him, he ran off.

What is funny is that over on the Nikon photo of the day thread a person who does not know the definition of DSLR just posted some VERY good photos of bees and flowers.

Later,
Dan

 

[MICKEY88]

What is funny is that over on the Nikon photo of the day thread a person who does not know the definition of DSLR just posted some VERY good photos of bees and flowers.

Later,
Dan

what is the definition..LOL

 

[dmccarty]

what is the definition..LOL

As a world famous WSJ Photographer you should know that DSLR stands for Digital Single Lens Reflex.

DSLR/SLR cameras have a mirror that redirects the light from the lens up to the prism which redirects the light again into your eye. A 90 degree turn UP from the lens followed by another 90 degree turn back to the horizontal. If that makes sense. When the shutter button is pushed the mirror flips out of the way as the shutter moves so the light falls on the digital sensor or in the old days, film.

How the heck they get the shutter and mirror to move so that a camera can take 3,4,5,6, or more photos in a second is a mystery to me.

Congrats on your WSJ story. Tis very cool. You need to have your family and friends getting all of the 4/27/2009 editions they can get!

Later,
Dan