D500 & "playing with light" FX style

[lenscaper]

Hi guys,

I currently have a d7100.

I have been trying to 'play with light' in the style of Michael d'oultremont's wildlife photography - see here for example: http://micheldoultremont.com/en/portfolio/swamp/

The d7100 is a great camera and I've no issues with the sharpness of shots etc but I'm struggling to get the sort of depth of light, vibrance, sparkle, smoothness etc. per the above link. It always comes up looking flat.

So I've been pondering the D500 as an upgrade. I understand that the D500 is a stellar piece of kit, nothing much can rival its autofocus wise apart from the D5. But will I be able to achieve the sort of look in my shots that I'm going for with the D500 or do I have to bite the bullet and remortgage my house for an FX camera to achieve the creamy whites and smooth blacks?

I see a lot of tack sharp BIF & animal portrait shots shots with the D500, but I don't see many 'artistic' wildlife shots? (can't think of a better way to describe it!).

I was thinking of getting a used D3s/D4s if I have to go full frame.

Thanks,

Al

 

[bjn70]

I'm struggling to get the sort of depth of light, vibrance, sparkle, smoothness etc.

This is all post processing magic, has nothing to do with the camera.

 

[tdwesbo]

Most of those images are very heavily manipulated. Some may even be composites.

Your camera is perfectly capable of doing its part to create images like these. Now you just need a few dozen hours of photoshop instruction

 

[tom graham]

As others above have said, it is not the camera that is making those linked images. Especially NOT a camera of Nikon DSLR quality. In fact, probably a 20 year old Coolpix of 1 mp sensor would work best. It giving a good start for those types of images. Grab one of off ebay and try it.

Tom

 

[lenscaper]

Interesting - thanks all. In that case, I've just saved a chunk of money!

Can anyone expand on the editing style or point me in the direction of some suitable instruction?

Not really sure how composite/linked images would product this style (never used composite images before).

Best

Al

 

[Ruekon]

The "playing with light" must be mostly from postprocessing indeed. But maybe also from early morning hours when the pictures might have been taken, like this one:

http://micheldoultremont.com/en/portfolio/swamp/#jp-carousel-354

The photographer is working with shallow depth of field a lot, meaning he must be using a fast tele lens. Here is a quick test with 100mm f/1.8:


Test shot with 50-100mm f/1.8

Or, because it's too late to get up early, the same photo with flat picture control ... the "playing with light" starts:


Test shot with 50-100mm f/1.8 (flat picture control)

Moreover, the photographer places the camera close to the ground. If not more, at least the articulating screen of the D500 (or D7500) helps in this situation. But DX is also well suited for tele work. Head for a fast tele lens primarily. If 50-100mm f/1.8 is too short, then a 70-200mm f/2.8 offers twice the reach and is still quite fast.

I don't think that a simple compact camera would do it, unless combining a tele lens with computational photography and maybe a depth map from dual pixel AF to emulate shallow DOF ... but this doesn't exist yet.

 

[lenscaper]

Great thanks for this. I can see how the articulating screen would actually help quite a lot. I'm pretty sure he uses a Canon 500mm f4 (there's a video somewhere of him shooting).

What is going on in post with the image 'flattening' you mention?

 

[Ruekon]

Great thanks for this. I can see how the articulating screen would actually help quite a lot. I'm pretty sure he uses a Canon 500mm f4 (there's a video somewhere of him shooting).

What is going on in post with the image 'flattening' you mention?

OK, 500mm f/4 is out of reach for most of us. But with a 70-200 f/2.8 and DX you reached an equivalent to full frame 300mm f/4.

Picture control influences a couple if image parameters: clarity, sharpening, contrast, brightness, saturation, and hue (coloration) with one descriptive selection, like standard, vivid, flat, monochrome, ... Have a look into the menus of your D7100.

 

[lenscaper]

Great thanks for this. I can see how the articulating screen would actually help quite a lot. I'm pretty sure he uses a Canon 500mm f4 (there's a video somewhere of him shooting).

What is going on in post with the image 'flattening' you mention?

OK, 500mm f/4 is out of reach for most of us. But with a 70-200 f/2.8 and DX you reached an equivalent to full frame 300mm f/4.

Picture control influences a couple if image parameters: clarity, sharpening, contrast, brightness, saturation, and hue (coloration) with one descriptive selection, like standard, vivid, flat, monochrome, ... Have a look into the menus of your D7100.

thanks v much. Was shooting in standard, didn't know flat mode existed. d7100 doesn't appear to have it but neutral seems the next best thing.

 

[tdwesbo]

Btw, the Exif on one of the linked images reveals that the camera was a Canon 5D iv, along with a 400 f2.8 and 1.4x teleconverter. You’re looking at $15k in gear to duplicate the photographer’s field equipment. Luckily that’s not necessary.

Really, he’s just pointing the camera at good subjects and has mastered his own style of post-processing. Looks like he’s not afraid of getting wet, showing up at sunrise, and putting in the work. That’s a big part of it.

W

 

[lenscaper]

Btw, the Exif on one of the linked images reveals that the camera was a Canon 5D iv, along with a 400 f2.8 and 1.4x teleconverter. You’re looking at $15k in gear to duplicate the photographer’s field equipment. Luckily that’s not necessary.

Really, he’s just pointing the camera at good subjects and has mastered his own style of post-processing. Looks like he’s not afraid of getting wet, showing up at sunrise, and putting in the work. That’s a big part of it.

W

Which exif viewer are you using because my attempts to read just come up with no data?

He certainly puts in the legwork to get the shots most definitely!

 

[tom graham]

Easiest thing to try is playing with the lens. Stretch a nylon stocking across the front. On a filter smear some vaseline on it. Across the lens tape a piece of clear wrinkled plastic. On the lens shoot through a piece of paper with a hole in it.

Got the idea? Google special effects lenses. Here is the first one that popped up for me - http://www.shawacademy.com/blog/ultimate-guide-to-special-effect-filters-for-digital-photography/

You really don't need a new camera. Especially a good one. What you need is imagination. And work. And both are much harder to do than buying gear.

Tom

 

[tdwesbo]

I’m using View EXIF Lite on my iPad. The single bird against a white background is the image I downloaded

 

[Morris0]

Hi guys,

I currently have a d7100.

I have been trying to 'play with light' in the style of Michael d'oultremont's wildlife photography - see here for example: http://micheldoultremont.com/en/portfolio/swamp/

The d7100 is a great camera and I've no issues with the sharpness of shots etc but I'm struggling to get the sort of depth of light, vibrance, sparkle, smoothness etc. per the above link. It always comes up looking flat.

So I've been pondering the D500 as an upgrade. I understand that the D500 is a stellar piece of kit, nothing much can rival its autofocus wise apart from the D5. But will I be able to achieve the sort of look in my shots that I'm going for with the D500 or do I have to bite the bullet and remortgage my house for an FX camera to achieve the creamy whites and smooth blacks?

I see a lot of tack sharp BIF & animal portrait shots shots with the D500, but I don't see many 'artistic' wildlife shots? (can't think of a better way to describe it!).

I was thinking of getting a used D3s/D4s if I have to go full frame.

Thanks,

Al

I don't believe this is about equipment or post processing. Michael appears to understand light and the value of shooting into the light rather than putting it at your back. He also shoots from a very low angle.

Morris

 

[lenscaper]

thanks guys. I tried out some post processing and managed to get close but I think like mentioned it's also a case of perfecting the lighting and technique. In any event, it seems the d7100 can get close! Now maybe I need the 500mm f4 instead.....

 

[richiebee]

thanks guys. I tried out some post processing and managed to get close but I think like mentioned it's also a case of perfecting the lighting and technique. In any event, it seems the d7100 can get close!

Now maybe I need the 500mm f4 instead.....

Nikon 200-500 f/5.6... or one of the third party equivalents...

R.

 

[AwesomeIan]

Hi guys,

I currently have a d7100.

I have been trying to 'play with light' in the style of Michael d'oultremont's wildlife photography - see here for example: http://micheldoultremont.com/en/portfolio/swamp/

The d7100 is a great camera and I've no issues with the sharpness of shots etc but I'm struggling to get the sort of depth of light, vibrance, sparkle, smoothness etc. per the above link. It always comes up looking flat.

So I've been pondering the D500 as an upgrade. I understand that the D500 is a stellar piece of kit, nothing much can rival its autofocus wise apart from the D5. But will I be able to achieve the sort of look in my shots that I'm going for with the D500 or do I have to bite the bullet and remortgage my house for an FX camera to achieve the creamy whites and smooth blacks?

I see a lot of tack sharp BIF & animal portrait shots shots with the D500, but I don't see many 'artistic' wildlife shots? (can't think of a better way to describe it!).

I was thinking of getting a used D3s/D4s if I have to go full frame.

Thanks,

Al

The advantage with the D500 is the AF and burst rate. It won't help you achieve the shots you linked IMO. That is more about being at the right place at the right time and not depending on the meter system of the camera. Some are underexposed and some are overexposed. They are shot during the golden hour. I can tell a long lens with a big aperture is being used.

 

[n057]

The advantage with the D500 is the AF and burst rate. It won't help you achieve the shots you linked IMO. That is more about being at the right place at the right time and not depending on the meter system of the camera. Some are underexposed and some are overexposed. They are shot during the golden hour. I can tell a long lens with a big aperture is being used.

 

[Ruekon]

thanks guys. I tried out some post processing and managed to get close but I think like mentioned it's also a case of perfecting the lighting and technique. In any event, it seems the d7100 can get close!

Now maybe I need the 500mm f4 instead.....

Nikon 200-500 f/5.6... or one of the third party equivalents...

What about the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 -- equivalent 450mm f/4?

 

[tdwesbo]

thanks guys. I tried out some post processing and managed to get close but I think like mentioned it's also a case of perfecting the lighting and technique. In any event, it seems the d7100 can get close!

Now maybe I need the 500mm f4 instead.....

Nikon 200-500 f/5.6... or one of the third party equivalents...

What about the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 -- equivalent 450mm f/4?

^^^^ best football lens ever, as well