Angling Photography

R

Ron Clay

Guest
Lots of people of my aquaintance would like to do the odd article for a magazine. Often the article is good yet the photos let them down.

The point is that the pics need to be of top class quality to attract editors. I have been having stuff published all over the world for something like 40 years and maybe a bit of advice will help.

Get an SLR camera with a 28mm to 70mm and a 80 to 210mm lense. A decent camera helps and here stick to makes such as Nikon, Pentax & Canon.

I am using a Nikon F50 with Nikkors at the moment but when my wallet starts swelling again I may upgrade to an F80

Use colour slide or find a photo finisher that can do really quality prints. I use my local Boots for both and have never had a problem.

Use your imagination. Most anglers are fed up with trophy shots and want to see something different. Action and atmospheric shots are great.

I'm sure Graham and others will add to what I have said, or even criticise
 
GrahamM

GrahamM

Managing Editor
Joined
Feb 23, 1999
Messages
9,773
Reaction score
1
The only thing I can add to Ron's comments above is that it depends on who (or what) you intend to write for. A 35mm SLR as described by Ron (except I use just the one lens, 28mm to 105mm zoom to cut down on weight) for magazines but buy a digital camera if you're going to take pictures just for the web.

In fact, if you're extremely flush (like Ron) I'd buy a top of the range digital SLR which will do both jobs. About 3 grand should do it.

But seriously, for magazine work buy a half decent 35mm SLR from one of the top manufacturers, with the emphasis on it having a good quality lens rather than a heap of gizmos.

Most magazines much prefer trannies but will accept prints if there is no alternative and they've been processed super-sharp.

If you really get into magazine work and become established then the mag will be happy to receive the film and process it for you.

This applies to all kinds of magazines too, for I've written for photographic and video magazines and they work in exactly the same way as fishing mags.
 
B

Birds Nest

Guest
What is the best method of getting trophy shots when your on your own... Them Cows aint no good with a camera...
 
R

Ron Clay

Guest
Personally the only time I take trophy shots of myself is when I'm fishing with a friend. Somehow I've never been that vain or worried about taking pictures of myself with the fish. I would rather compose a nice shot incorporationg say the rod, landing net, set of scales and box of flies(if it is a trout). Chris Yates is a master at these sorts of shots.

Also you can incorporate in them some pretty bankside herbage as well.

You can get a tripod, cable release and other bits and bobs for self portraiture without too much trouble.
 
R

Rob Brownfield

Guest
I use a Minolta SLR..Dynax 7000i...craking piece of kit...BUT...i take a little point and shoot camera as well. This way, I can grab a passer by to take a trophy shot. The amount of times I have handed a SLR to someone and they have looked totally blank. Hand them a point and shoot and there is no probs..

My mate Steve carries around a Bronica Medium Format camera for his trophy shots. The bloody thing needs a barrow on its own!!
 
R

Rob Brownfield

Guest
I use a Minolta SLR..Dynax 7000i...craking piece of kit...BUT...i take a little point and shoot camera as well. This way, I can grab a passer by to take a trophy shot. The amount of times I have handed a SLR to someone and they have looked totally blank. Hand them a point and shoot and there is no probs..

My mate Steve carries around a Bronica Medium Format camera for his trophy shots. The bloody thing needs a barrow on its own!!
 
R

Rob Brownfield

Guest
I use a Minolta SLR..Dynax 7000i...craking piece of kit...BUT...i take a little point and shoot camera as well. This way, I can grab a passer by to take a trophy shot. The amount of times I have handed a SLR to someone and they have looked totally blank. Hand them a point and shoot and there is no probs..

My mate Steve carries around a Bronica Medium Format camera for his trophy shots. The bloody thing needs a barrow on its own!!
 
J

john conway

Guest
You needn’t get a digital camera, when you send in your photos in for developing you can have both the prints and a CD ROM of your photos. The knack if you are doing it this way, is don’t get 36 exposures just get 25. Thought I need to check next time I send in a film, if I can get transparencies and a CD ROM? Does anyone already know this?
 
R

Ron Clay

Guest
One of the gizmos that I consider to be vital with an SLR is a Noddy or Pratt proof switch. My F50 has such a device. Then the idiot can virtually point and press.

Problem is that some of them get upset when you tell them you have put it on Pratt Proof.

What make of lense is that you carry Graham?
 
GrahamM

GrahamM

Managing Editor
Joined
Feb 23, 1999
Messages
9,773
Reaction score
1
I use a Canon EOS 50E SLR and the bog standard 35 to 80mm lens that comes with it. But the sooner I can afford a top of the range digital SLR the better. Then it means no processing and everything can be sent by e-mail.
 
R

Ron Clay

Guest
The Nikon F5E obviously. It shouldn't be long Graham.

The standard F5 can reel off a spool of 36 exposures in 3 seconds on the motor drive by the way. A friend of mine has just bought one, for photographing butterflies.

It cost him R42,000 in South African Money. You can buy a decent house for that!!
 
C

Carp Angler

Guest
I got some great butterfly photos whilst I was on holiday Ron.

Having not photographed a fish for 5 or 6 years, I got myself a digi that you can switch onto point and shoot auto everything.
I think I certainly made a wise purchase.

A friend uses a Canon EOS 5, way too complicated for fishing and it takes him 10 minutes to set everything up and get all the settings right.

At least with my digi, I can look at the screen and see if the shot is any good instantly.
 
N

Neil Wayte

Guest
I've got to agree with everything that has been said but I have found with my Canon 500EOS that even on the program mode your average passerby still does not get close enough and fill the frame properly.Recently I've had some good fish but I'm dreading the trannies coming back because the shots were taken by dog walkers.I also use a digital camera but have also head problems giving this to people because it seems to take ages to actually take the shot after the button has been pressed.
 
R

Ron Clay

Guest
From what I have seen of digital cameras, I think the technology is not quite there yet. You still can't get the quality with a digital that you can with emulsion. I forget the figure but to equal 200 iso film you will need 100,000,000 pixels. Digital camera can at the best get about 3 million pixels. A computor expert told me that it will be many years before the industry reaches that level of reproductive quality.

Still the who idea if digital photography is fascinating. If I won the lottery, even before I bought myself a fancy car, I would buy the best digital photo set up
 
GrahamM

GrahamM

Managing Editor
Joined
Feb 23, 1999
Messages
9,773
Reaction score
1
Neil, it depends what camera you have. I'm on my fourth and each successive one has processed the shot much faster than the last. This latest one is so fast, even on the best quality setting, there is no significant delay.

Ron, my camera, a Fuji Finepix, does 6 million pixels at its best setting. But the quality of the picture is still down very much to the lens. Luckily, although my camera is a viewfinder and screen type rather than an SLR, it does have an excellent lens. It also does AVI video clips.

Pictures from it have already been used in the Angling Star and Coarse Fisherman, BUT, A5 size is the maximum the shots can be used. Not bad, but I reckon the very best SLR digitals are good enough now. In fact, I think many of the news photographers in the dailies have now gone digital.
 
C

Carp Angler

Guest
My digi does 4.3 million and pictures from it have appeared in the Angling Times (Dai's roach).

Couple that with the fact that I mainly use mine for photographing the kids (4 and 2 years), I have over 8000 family pictures on my PC (or archived to CD) and most of those I wouldn't have taken had I had to weigh up the cost of film developing.

I can just crack off 50 pictures at outstanding quality and download them onto my PC.
 
R

Ron Clay

Guest
Thanks for the info. It really does seem as this tecnology is moving at a very fast rate. We are close to see the end of emulsions I suppose. It will be sad in a way. I fondly remember the days of orange light, developer and hypo and the old Durst.

I suppose it's time to throw my old Nikon on the scrap heap.
 
GrahamM

GrahamM

Managing Editor
Joined
Feb 23, 1999
Messages
9,773
Reaction score
1
I remember those days of developing and printing Ron, but not too fondly if I'm honest. It was just a pain in the arse, like brass ferrules on rods.

Long live technology!
 
R

Rob Brownfield

Guest
Ron, we deal in digi photos and video everyday at work, and , unfortuantly for us, the technology is infact in plce. It costs...a lot...but its there. When u have to edit 300mb photos or shift 6gb of video file, you will understand why I say unfortuantly..lol
 
GrahamM

GrahamM

Managing Editor
Joined
Feb 23, 1999
Messages
9,773
Reaction score
1
But think of that lot in paper terms and you sat there with a few pots of solution and a touch-up brush!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top