MattSullivan wrote:thanks Jasmine

hopefully soon i can start getting underwater more. that shot was with a sony a6000 and zeiss 12mm in a nauticam housing with a dome port (don't have that setup anymore though). I use dedicated underwater strobes, you can get housings for speed lights also but they're just as expensive if not more so than strobes
What set up do you have for underwater photography at the moment? Its something id love to get into but its just so expensive :/ Ill just have to admire your work for the time being!
bgorum wrote:
Here's one of my experiments with herp astro shots from last summer. This was really just trying to work out how to do this. I'm not a big fan of road shots, but that's kind of what I was limited to last summer. This summer I should have a lot more flexibility and I'm looking forward to working with this technique during night hikes with in situ animals.
Was this in a single shot or layered as well? I keep meaning to sit down and try and do it in one but were always so rushed when were out herping. Excited to see what you come up with next season
regalringneck wrote:Hello Jazz & welcome, ... try 2 4give me... but i find a thimble, & perhaps a bushel … of irony; that your post title seems to be completely incongruous w/ your thread title as well as your chosen posted pix.
While a gr8t thread concept, [ one, i note that has recurred throughout the history of this forum ] ... I suggest we also ought to consider line 22 of the US 1040 or equivalent ... therefore, & prior to the "unwashed" ladling the accolades too heavily, & despite having worked for & achieved a rarefied level of income myself, over many years; i note their seems to be a link between income & what one can fortuitously “discover in-situ” : }
I for one ( as a professional biologist) am far more impressed w/ a simple cell phone pix of something really rare & special vrs/ that which than can be created via sophisticated software that saturates colors &/or blends images … if knowledge is in fact the goal & not impression; the proximate objective … like a body builder poising.
I have no objection to illusion nor "reptile art" (& in fact often pay good $$ to obtain said illusion ) but hate to see it commingled w/ reality… & thus feel this ought 2 be pointed out … tho sometimes the art in fact indicates where we might be looking, & in any case these creatures inevitably bring our comparatively brilliant minds … back a million years or so … & that in itself is a good thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PzQuKXwOaA
perhaps i otta also leave a visual cookie in spirit w/ your original intent ...
Ah haters gonna hate. Im pretty comfortable with my standard of photography and how its received. I completely disagree with you saying it is an 'illusion' though. This is how the habitat looked, the sky was spectacular and the dunes were coming alive with these frogs. There is not a chance in hell i could have taken anything close to that on a phone. I was upfront with my photography technique, i didnt try to hide the fact the image was layered in camera.
From this photo i will get to educate people about Notaden, which is one of my favourite genus, as it is going to be on the cover of the Herpetological Review. This is why i love photography, so that i do get the opportunity to educate people about the animals i love and admire.
It would be great if you could stop derailing the thread now though.
MonarchzMan wrote:
As a professional biologist and photographer, I am somewhat offended by this. A blurry or crappy cell phone photo of a rare animals is worthless to me. The reason why I am a photographer is that I get to travel around the world as a biologist and see incredible animals both common and rare, pretty and ugly. Given that I primarily work on herpetofauna, I, as I'm sure everyone here would agree, am dealing with an uphill battle in public acceptance of these animals. Consequently, I seek to create photos that inspire others to care about these animals as I do. A crappy cell phone picture will not do that.
As a photographer, I absolutely love the Notaden image that Jasmine created. It shows forethought of wanting to capture the intrigue and biology of the animal and have it represented in the habitat in which it is found. There is absolutely nothing in her photos that gives false sense of what is actually happening in life. As a photographer, I recognize that a camera is not equal to the eye and cannot see what the eye sees. In order to get a more realistic image as to what the eye sees, a photographer must understand the medium in which he or she works, which can include taking multiple photos and stacking them or taking long exposures or what have you. This has absolutely nothing to do with income as you suggest. It only has to do with knowledge of the subject and knowledge of the camera.
As a professional biologist, I recognize that finding a rare or unusual animal is a great treat. But I also recognize that most people will not have the same opportunities I have, so it is my job to ensure that A) they can appreciate the rare animal for what it is and B) can also gain appreciation for common animals so that they are more likely to care for them and the rare animals together. I would take a well composed and visually engaging photo of common animal any day over a crappy cell phone picture of a rare one.
Ultimately, it comes down to Jasmine is taking time to compose a photo. You're just taking a picture.
And to keep with the theme of the thread. Here is a Northern Red-Legged Frog in Oregon. Hopefully its commonness or smoothness of the water doesn't offend anyone's photographic tastes.
Couldnt agree with what you said more MonarchzMan! Thanks for sticking up for me
For the record the smoothness of the water in your photo doesnt offend me at all. Im a massive fan of long exposures, another kind of shot ive been meaning to try out for ages.
To get back on track heres a frilly we found up in Darwin last year. The toads are smashing them and their populations are declining, along with most other wildlife in the region.
Chlamydosaurus kingii by
Jasmine Vink, on Flickr
Canon 7D, 8mm Samyang fish eye, 1/250 sec, ISO 500