DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Current Challenge >> Natural Environment?
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 118, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 09/27/2004 12:40:10 PM · #51
Originally posted by scalvert:
waist-deep in a swamp looking for gators.

i wouldn't go quite that far (and i'll admire those who do), but all the same, i look at this challenge as an opportunity to try to get out there and do something different, rather than take a trip to the zoo and pop off some shots of caged animals...

and i know that even that is not always easy, but you still have tons more opportunity to get the shot.

the question for me really comes down to whether or not someone wants to take advantage of the challenge, to take advantage of an opportunity, to get out of town and spend a little time experiencing something more than a maddening crowd...
 09/27/2004 12:44:49 PM · #52
perfect challenge for me to go and try my new 70-200 F4L lens supposed to arrive today. Unfortunately, the B+W polarizer I ordered is backordered, so don't expect nice sky contrast ;). And I hope I don't wish for a 300mm after going out and shooting this!
 09/27/2004 12:50:02 PM · #53
Originally posted by nshapiro:
perfect challenge for me to go and try my new 70-200 F4L lens supposed to arrive today. Unfortunately, the B+W polarizer I ordered is backordered, so don't expect nice sky contrast ;). And I hope I don't wish for a 300mm after going out and shooting this!


Mike is jealous...yet happy for you!
 09/27/2004 12:53:16 PM · #54
Yep, I think the zoo is the easy way out. I will be out in the bush, day and night, looking for animals ;) I noticed that fish were exclude, which was one of my ideas. Oh well..
 09/27/2004 12:55:32 PM · #55
I would think this counts as natural environment, but it is one day too late (and not a very good shot anyway). Recent arrival of migrating HD creatures through our town.

09/27/2004 12:56:45 PM · #56
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Hi flip89, I just wanted to point something out:

The subject should be non-domesticated and living in a natural environment. Not one or the other, it should be both...


You're right about that, that is my interpretation of the challenge rules too ... don't we all wish that we live in South Africa or somewhere ... but how about the San Diego Wild Animal Park where wildlife is free range?
 09/27/2004 01:09:52 PM · #57
Originally posted by flip89:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Hi flip89, I just wanted to point something out:

The subject should be non-domesticated and living in a natural environment. Not one or the other, it should be both...


You're right about that, that is my interpretation of the challenge rules too ... don't we all wish that we live in South Africa or somewhere ... but how about the San Diego Wild Animal Park where wildlife is free range?


...or southwestern Ontario, where there's lots of chipmunks. Wait...my Wildlife photography dreams have come true!

Chipmunks are fabulous!

{shhh...i'm trying to swing the votes}
 09/27/2004 01:12:37 PM · #58
Here are a couple image I took this summer. The hawk was in downtown Kansas City. It swooped down on a pigeon for its afternoon lunch. The moth was taken during a short hike at an area state park outside of Omaha. Certainly opportunities are available for urbanites.







Message edited by author 2004-09-27 13:16:51.
 09/27/2004 01:29:07 PM · #59
Wildlife is a members' challenge which means it is unlikely to get more than 200 submissions. Those people who have access to 'real' wildlife AND have the time to spend 5+ hours waiting on a good opportunity are going to be few. We will still have the photographs from people who will love their squirrel in the park shot (which I'm not saying is a bad thing but in a wildlife challenge a shot like that 'may' not be as impressive), as well as shots of animals from quite a distance because people dont have the 500mm+ lenses to get a 'safe distance' shot of a wild animal. Which brings up another point.

Do we really want to encourage inexperienced people into the wild to shoot wild animals? Just a little closer becomes within 10 feet and a nice bit of fill-in flash and you have a repeat of the moose (or elk) incident. Let alone the danger to the 'natural environment' of the animals with people stamping, wading or other into it.

Zoo photography is safe for both the animal and the photographer, and it gives more people access to the animals, which would hopefully raise the level of photographs in the challenge. In the end I would much rather look at 100 good zoo photographs than 90 'almost' shots and 10 good shots of the atypical wildlife found - ie bears, elk, deer, mountain lions (if you're lucky or unlucky), seagulls, and squirrels.
 09/27/2004 01:31:09 PM · #60
I guess there's a difference between Natural Habitat and Natural Environment.
 09/27/2004 01:42:04 PM · #61
Originally posted by flip89:
... but how about the San Diego Wild Animal Park where wildlife is free range?


I'm not getting into the "zoo isn't natural" debate, but I will agree that in the end, nobody is going to notice, as long as the photographer does a good enough job masking the background.

Why debate it :)

I thought about the Wild Animal Park as well, but the entrance fee scared me away. I'm heading out to Lake Cuyamaca again. It is closer than the WAP, and has some wildlife in nature :) My vision is to actually include the environment in the photo, not just a tight crop of an animal's face.

It'll still score in the 5's, I'll bet :)
 09/27/2004 01:47:28 PM · #62
Originally posted by xion:
I guess there's a difference between Natural Habitat and Natural Environment.


Okay, I think it's making sense to me now...

Is the photography at DPC viewed to be so studio-esque that they actually had to include the 'natural environment' bit at the end of the description?

Would voters actually prefer a shot of a zebra portrait with a backdrop or a monkey riding a cute little bicycle in a studio over an actual "Wildlife" shot? Is that why the 'natural environment' wording had to be included?

I fear that makes sense...
 09/27/2004 01:47:51 PM · #63
Originally posted by moodville:
Do we really want to encourage inexperienced people into the wild to shoot wild animals? Just a little closer becomes within 10 feet and a nice bit of fill-in flash and you have a repeat of the moose (or elk) incident. Let alone the danger to the 'natural environment' of the animals with people stamping, wading or other into it.


HAHAAH While taking this shot



I was 'attacked' by the geese :

Charge!

...yes...he's charging :) Made a funny sound, too :)

Message edited by author 2004-09-27 13:52:18.
 09/27/2004 01:54:16 PM · #64
Originally posted by jbeazell:
Originally posted by moodville:
Do we really want to encourage inexperienced people into the wild to shoot wild animals? Just a little closer becomes within 10 feet and a nice bit of fill-in flash and you have a repeat of the moose (or elk) incident. Let alone the danger to the 'natural environment' of the animals with people stamping, wading or other into it.


HAHAAH While taking this shot



I was 'attacked' by the geese :

Charge!

...yes...he's charging :) Made a funny sound, too :)


He was probably hissing at you for getting too close :D
 09/27/2004 03:18:51 PM · #65
To summarize:

The successful photographer (who does not shoot in a zoo) will be camping out in a blind, sitting in a hedge/field waiting for that awsome capture, shooting blackbear, deer and wolves, sopping wet in the mud with camera, waist-deep in a swamp looking for gators, slipping down to a small pond in the dark, in camoflage, with face paint, and will live in South Africa or somewhere AND have the time to spend 5+ hours waiting on a good opportunity, have the 500mm+ lenses to get a 'safe distance' shot of a wild animal, will put themselves in danger because they are an inexperienced person in the wild and will damage the 'natural environment' of the animals by stamping, wading or other into it and will also be ‘attacked' by the geese! And, there will be a lot of crappy snaps of the back end of rabbits.
09/27/2004 03:24:45 PM · #66
Originally posted by KaDi:
To summarize:

The successful photographer (who does not shoot in a zoo) will be camping out in a blind, sitting in a hedge/field waiting for that awsome capture, shooting blackbear, deer and wolves, sopping wet in the mud with camera, waist-deep in a swamp looking for gators, slipping down to a small pond in the dark, in camoflage, with face paint, and will live in South Africa or somewhere AND have the time to spend 5+ hours waiting on a good opportunity, have the 500mm+ lenses to get a 'safe distance' shot of a wild animal, will put themselves in danger because they are an inexperienced person in the wild and will damage the 'natural environment' of the animals by stamping, wading or other into it and will also be ‘attacked' by the geese! And, there will be a lot of crappy snaps of the back end of rabbits.


Quite wrong. The successful photographer freezes a tiger, poses him just right with the perfect lighting and black backdrop in their loft studio, sips on his/her martini, leans forward in their recliner, snaps the shot on their Canon 1ds Mark IV and 50mm portrait lens (L-glass, of course), boosts the saturation to infinity, NeatImages the photo and runs like hell when the tiger thaws out (but not before catching the perfect waterdrop shot of the melting ice on the tiger's whiskers!).

;0)

Message edited by author 2004-09-27 15:26:20.
 09/27/2004 03:26:40 PM · #67
Originally posted by KaDi:
And, there will be a lot of crappy snaps of the back end of rabbits.

... or whatever ... : )
09/27/2004 03:27:59 PM · #68
Originally posted by KaDi:
To summarize:

The successful photographer (who does not shoot in a zoo) will be camping out in a blind, sitting in a hedge/field waiting for that awsome capture, shooting blackbear, deer and wolves, sopping wet in the mud with camera, waist-deep in a swamp looking for gators, slipping down to a small pond in the dark, in camoflage, with face paint, and will live in South Africa or somewhere AND have the time to spend 5+ hours waiting on a good opportunity, have the 500mm+ lenses to get a 'safe distance' shot of a wild animal, will put themselves in danger because they are an inexperienced person in the wild and will damage the 'natural environment' of the animals by stamping, wading or other into it and will also be ‘attacked' by the geese! And, there will be a lot of crappy snaps of the back end of rabbits.


Sounds like a fair amount of effort for a virtual ribbon. ;-)
 09/27/2004 03:31:04 PM · #69
Originally posted by scalvert:

Sounds like a fair amount of effort for a virtual ribbon. ;-)


I'd make the attempt for a decent shot, not a ribbon...how else will National Geographic hire me in ten years?

I need to gain experience somehow! ;0)
 09/27/2004 03:32:14 PM · #70
*snicker*

Uhm, well I wouldn't go THAT far. I don't think the challenge is trying to create the next croc hunter or Jane Goodall.

I'm interest to see, why all the talk about Danger in the wild? I've been "out there" more times that I could possibly count and have, at most, come back with ant bites and cactus scratches. Are the "city folk" so contained that its a huge adventure to get away from where the Taxi's will take you?

And who is to say that you must get the next bear / deer / wild antelope / unicorn shot? Why not a cool shot of a bird, squirrel, or (more for the city folk) rat in a nearby alley?

I'm not trying to start a flame war or anything, just trying to say that there are more places out there that you may not have thought of. The subject of your picture does not necessarily have to live way out in the country; THEIR environment might indeed be the alley next to your appartment (rats/birds), the church bell (owl/bat) downtown, or in your local park (squirrels/birds/deer). If the animal is untamed/undomesticated and the area that you shoot it in is where it chose to live, shoot it and post it.
 09/27/2004 03:34:15 PM · #71
If you don't see me here after a week, you know what happened.
 09/27/2004 03:37:42 PM · #72
Originally posted by xion:
If you don't see me here after a week, you know what happened.


Kidnapped by a taxi-cab driver?
09/27/2004 03:40:44 PM · #73
Do you think it's ok if we ask the wild bears to pose like this?







Alaska

(This guy's nuts...these were wild bears..)
 09/27/2004 03:42:37 PM · #74
Now, why would the zoo allow him into the bears' natural environment like that?
 09/27/2004 03:42:40 PM · #75
In a blind? Ya right. Do it right out in the open. Don't piss them off and you will be fine.

Originally posted by KaDi:
To summarize:

The successful photographer (who does not shoot in a zoo) will be camping out in a blind, sitting in a hedge/field waiting for that awsome capture, shooting blackbear, deer and wolves, sopping wet in the mud with camera, waist-deep in a swamp looking for gators, slipping down to a small pond in the dark, in camoflage, with face paint, and will live in South Africa or somewhere AND have the time to spend 5+ hours waiting on a good opportunity, have the 500mm+ lenses to get a 'safe distance' shot of a wild animal, will put themselves in danger because they are an inexperienced person in the wild and will damage the 'natural environment' of the animals by stamping, wading or other into it and will also be ‘attacked' by the geese! And, there will be a lot of crappy snaps of the back end of rabbits.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 06:23:45 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 06:23:45 PM EDT.