Wildlife Photographer of the Year

**Nacho** · 29-Nov-09, 17:37

this years winning picture is mesmerising

the link explains how he set up the shot

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-...ory=56&group=4

**Scout** · 30-Nov-09, 15:50

I don't know if any one has notice but the picture was taken on Film. So Film is not dead. I have gone back to film. It is fun and I think better colors

**cuddlepop** · 30-Nov-09, 16:36

Thats a brilliant caption of the "wolf" or is it something else?

**John Baikie** · 30-Nov-09, 16:37

Originally Posted by Scout

I don't know if any one has notice but the picture was taken on Film. So Film is not dead. I have gone back to film. It is fun and I think better colors

i'd love to hand a medium format camera and a few rolls of film to some of the so called experts these days and see what they can produce. Shot on transperency film as well. None of this shooting RAW, fixing it later and then applying HDR/Photoshop techniques.

**nirofo** · 30-Nov-09, 16:52

Originally Posted by John Baikie

i'd love to hand a medium format camera and a few rolls of film to some of the so called experts these days and see what they can produce. Shot on transperency film as well. None of this shooting RAW, fixing it later and then applying HDR/Photoshop techniques.

Got to agree, film gives something to a photograph that digital can't match yet. Having said that, you need to know how to handle it and that doesn't come quickly, it can take years of practice. Unlike digital transparency film is unforgiving, even when scanned into digital format, if it wasn't right to start with then it's difficult to do anything with it, even in Photoshop.

nirofo.

**Mystical Potato Head** · 30-Nov-09, 20:04

Originally Posted by John Baikie

i'd love to hand a medium format camera and a few rolls of film to some of the so called experts these days and see what they can produce. Shot on transperency film as well. None of this shooting RAW, fixing it later and then applying HDR/Photoshop techniques.

That really does come over as a bit of old school elitism.
Its a bit like me going up to someone who has made a camera adaptor with a 0.75mm pitch thread on a CNC lathe and saying,"Very good but could you make that thread on the manual lathe that i learnt on 20 odd years ago when i were a lad,lad.
I wouldn't call the CNC operators expertise into question just because he is using a more modern technique.

**kas** · 30-Nov-09, 23:08

All I can say is thank goodness for digital. I would never have managed film.

The shot is great Nacho. I do not know how the judges manage to choose the winners in this competition as the standard is something else. I attended a talk by David Maitland in September, who won European wildlife photgrapher of the year in 08. It was brilliant.

Here is another wildlife photography set up, that took my breath away.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...rden-pond.html

**Mystical Potato Head** · 30-Nov-09, 23:28

There's dedication in that setup Kas.
My favourite in Wildlife Photographer of the year was this one.
Big Fjord,Little Auks.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-...ory=12&group=1

**kas** · 30-Nov-09, 23:38

It sure is a set up and a half.

Nice one they are all totally awesome are they not. I could look at them all day.
However this one below has to be one of my all time favourite photos, it was in last years competition.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-...08&category=48

**Mystical Potato Head** · 01-Dec-09, 00:47

Awesome indeed.Think its time to quit while i'm behind.

**John Baikie** · 01-Dec-09, 15:53

Originally Posted by Mystical Potato Head

That really does come over as a bit of old school elitism.
Its a bit like me going up to someone who has made a camera adaptor with a 0.75mm pitch thread on a CNC lathe and saying,"Very good but could you make that thread on the manual lathe that i learnt on 20 odd years ago when i were a lad,lad.
I wouldn't call the CNC operators expertise into question just because he is using a more modern technique.

It certainly wasn't meant that way MPH, I just see a lot of photographers amateur and professional who can't even get the exposure right, and wonder how they'd have coped without RAW and Photoshop to fix the errors.

**Mystical Potato Head** · 01-Dec-09, 18:06

Originally Posted by John Baikie

It certainly wasn't meant that way MPH, I just see a lot of photographers amateur and professional who can't even get the exposure right, and wonder how they'd have coped without RAW and Photoshop to fix the errors.

No probs John,point taken.

**Kenn** · 01-Dec-09, 19:40

I never cease to be amazed by the time and expertise professional photographers put into getting stunning shots of wild life.
What does it matter that they have access to equipment that most of can't even dream of ever owning if they can come up with the fantastic results that they do?
It's even more to be praised when people manage to do it with very basic equipment and for most amateurs that's all we have plus a great deal of patience.
I would still prefer to use my conventional cameras which normally produce much better results but the cost of film, developing etc; now makes it an expensive luxury.

**North Light** · 03-Dec-09, 15:21

A stunning image, the ability to "See", plan and create this photograph is what really impresses me.

Reference the Transparency Film vs Digital discussion, I think that the top end DSLR's and Medium Format backs do now more than rival their equivalent size transparency film, but to make the most of this equipment you need to be as diligent about technique as you would have been with transparency film.

I swapped from film to digital in 2003, using a Canon D60, I found that dynamic range of the sensor was similar if not worse than transparency film, my years of using films such as Fuji Velvia were very helpful in the transition.

**Deemac** · 03-Dec-09, 22:48

I see this film to digital debate similar to my interest in music production (and listening).

Vinyl records were generally plagued by surface noise, cracks, pops, rumble and you had the inconvenience of having to physically turn over to access the other side! Granted with very expensive replay systems and immaculate conditions the audio output was stellar.

Digital audio (particularly 24bit, 96khz recordings in 5:1 surround) is truly sublime and for me having the my entire collection reduced to hard drive instant, searchable playback is difficult to resist.

Photography has taken the same transition for me. At work medium format film was the day to day norm. (C41 & E6). Now digital is king and I see no reason why (particularly in a commercial environment) I'd ever want to go back to it. HDR and photoshop are wonders of the modern bitmap age.

The image is very, very good and the planning fabulous (but I'd have liked the wolf to have been very slightly more to the right so the back left leg was not obscured by the gate post!!)

**John Baikie** · 04-Dec-09, 00:03

Originally Posted by Deemac

I see this film to digital debate similar to my interest in music production (and listening).

Vinyl records were generally plagued by surface noise, cracks, pops, rumble and you had the inconvenience of having to physically turn over to access the other side! Granted with very expensive replay systems and immaculate conditions the audio output was stellar.

Digital audio (particularly 24bit, 96khz recordings in 5:1 surround) is truly sublime and for me having the my entire collection reduced to hard drive instant, searchable playback is difficult to resist.

Photography has taken the same transition for me. At work medium format film was the day to day norm. (C41 & E6). Now digital is king and I see no reason why (particularly in a commercial environment) I'd ever want to go back to it. HDR and photoshop are wonders of the modern bitmap age.

The image is very, very good and the planning fabulous (but I'd have liked the wolf to have been very slightly more to the right so the back left leg was not obscured by the gate post!!)

Now that IS taking the proverbial Duncan