Amazing setup

I got this photo in an email from a professional photographer, who mistook me for someone who might be interested in his courses. I'm posting it because I just thought it was amazing, the extent people go to get bird photos.

Apparently these guys are after hummingbird photos. They have all the gear. Artificial background, shadecloth cover overhead to modulate the harsh midday sun, lots of flash units set up on tripods, 5 hummingbird feeders, and a bright red flower sitting right in the middle. I see 8 off-camera flash heads, and 2 on-camera with Better Beamers. I presume the birds are accustomed to coming in for the artificial feeders, but shift their attention to the real flower, which I'm guessing has some sort of attractant sprayed on it which is of more appeal then whats on offer in the feeders. The flower stem is sitting in a test-tube like thing of water so it doesn't wilt in the sun.

I'm guessing the lenses are 800mm Nikon or Canon, as that seems to be the new standard among the top amateur shooters. The cameras would be pointing at the flower, mirrors on lockup, remote triggered so they don't need to touch the camera and introduce vibration. I don't even recognise all the stuff hanging off the camera on the right - does look expensive though.

Binoculars in their own little camouflaged holders attached to chair frame. Reading material handy in case things get a bit slow.

The photos were superb, but I don't want to post them due to copyright issues.

I could never have that kind of attention to detail, even if I had the gear.

cheers
Arron

Attachment 393752

I think I can see why my point and click photography doesn't work very well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kuffy

I think I can see why my point and click photography doesn't work very well.

---

Yes, and me wandering around with my 300mm lens and ten year old camera - have to acknowledge I"m probably already at my limit.

I'm thinking the on camera (on lens?) flashes are there to trigger the remote units.
Flash because they're trying to freeze the hummingbird's wings.

going by the front ends, to me the lenses look more like 300/f4 or 400/f5.6, as they would want some depth of field -- but ...


yes, a very impressive set-up and shows the lengths you need to go to for that "perfect" photo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian

going by the front ends, to me the lenses look more like 300/f4 or 400/f5.6, as they would want some depth of field -- but

---

No, I have the 300/f4 nikon and they are a long way from that. I wish. The 400/f5.6 which is a canon is about the same size as mine.

Plus you don't want a long depth of field as it would bring the background into focus. Looking at the photos, the depth of field is about enough to cover the width of a hummingbird, hovering vertically, but not much more. I estimate about 100mm.

Plus the remote flashes are triggered from the separate flash trigger systems which are the small boxes you can see attached to the camera hot shoe. These trigger both the flashes near the feeders and the ones on the cameras which are also set up as remotes. The ones on the cameras are set up with better beamers which concentrate the light beam and provide fill flash - working easily at that distance. Many of the cheaper dslrs (like my D7000) have the ability to trigger remote flashes in commander/slave mode from the built in but better cameras like you see here don't.

Cheers
Arron

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arron

Plus you don't want a long depth of field as it would bring the background into focus. Looking at the photos, the depth of field is about enough to cover the width of a hummingbird, hovering vertically, but not much more. I estimate about 100mm.

---

have these guys removed the possibility of the background being in focus through the screen they have erected behind the feeders?

The way the background is done is sort of standard. You take some photos of a distant, out of focus background. Then print them out on a A3 printer. Then mount 4 or so of these on a bit of plywood. That becomes your artificial background. This you set up behind the scene.

Remember that there is only really one spot the bird can be to give you an acceptable image, and typically you control their movement to that spot by placement of perch, flower, mealworms or whatever. Therefore the fake background doesn't really need to be large.

Despite this, if you use a fake background you MUST still throw it well out of focus if you are working at these people's standard. Otherwise it looks like a photo of a fake background. So a very small depth of field is just as important as with real (distant) background, or maybe more so because the background is ver close here.

I have tried the fake background trick with my 300 f4 (with 1.4 teleconverter so therefor 440mm) and it doesn't work for me. It still looks like a fake 2d background to a discerning viewer.

And for those interested, this fellow is the master of the 'setup with fake background' in Australia. I understand some of what he does but he is so far ahead of my humble efforts that I can only wonder about most of it.

gregoakley

Yes Arron quite some set-up
I am into bird photography and this is not my style,the Fake backgrounds do still look fake.
The 2 guys waiting patiently would be using 500 or 600 f4 lenses.Not sure why you need on-camera flash with so many speedlites situated at the target zone.
I generally chase birds around the bush with a Sigma 300-800 f5.6 and Canon 5D MKIII with varying degrees of success and failure.

The on camera flash is used to trigger the speedlites.

Is there an 800 mm lenses available for an iPhone 6.
And does it help reception to.

Cheers Matt

Yes I wondered that but though it might be simpler just to use a wireless flash trigger.

I would suggest they may be using 500 f/4 lenses. Both Canon and Nikon make 500 and 600 f/4 lenses, but the 600 Nikkor is about 2kg heavier than the 500 and is virtually impossible to use hand held, regardless of how good any stabilisation system, if fitted, works. The Canon equivalents are about the same weights and about the same dimensions.

The 500 lenses though, can be hand held for short periods, say half a minute to a minute, then you need a rest of half a minute then you can have another go. However they really do like to be used on tripods.

I have used both the 600 f/4 and 600 f/5.6 Nikkor lenses and the incredible 800 f/5.6, all manual focus lenses. The effect you are generally seeing in photography as depicted by the set-up shown, can be the same if one uses an 800mm lens naturally with approximately the same distance to subject as shown.

In our travels to some quite remote areas of this country in the last few years, we have seen professional bird photographers, three that we encountered last year in far western Queensland in the Diamantina NP, were using a focal length of 500mm with at least one having a 300 f/2.8 for close stuff or bigger animals on the ground. 500mm seems to have the best advantages of pulling power over the 400mm lenses, but not the disadvantage the 600mm lenses have with their sheer weight and physical size.

Closer to home in Victoria on our last trip of last year, we stumbled across a couple who are avid bird photographers, they too had made the switch to a 500 f/4 (Canon). I was very impressed with the speed and agility of that lens and stood alongside the photographers as they shot hand held, then saw on their computer back at the camp some very impressive images.

Mick.

Love em or hate em, here's a shot of a fake background in action.

Attachment 393766

I think sometimes people are disappointed to learn how much trickery is involved in top level wildlife photography. I read an interview with one of the best and when he was asked what the most important bit of kit he owned was he replied 'my watcom tablet'

Cheers
Arron