PNWPhotos.com a friendly and growing community of photographers with an interest in the Pacific Northwest region.
We feature a Photography Discussion Forum and Pacific Northwest Photo Gallery. It's a fun and friendly place to talk with other photographers, ask questions, share you knowledge, view and post photos and more!
After seeing the gorgeous image a friend posted of a Snowy Owl with Mt. Baker in the background near sunset at Boundary Bay, I wanted to try to get at least something similar. With the nice weather, I went up to Boundary Bay on Friday, the 3rd. Kneeling in the grass, here is what I found. Do you know how hard it is to wait for 3 Owls to turn enough so you can see eyes in all of them? All images but #2 were shot with a D300, 200-400 AFS F4 VR, hand-held. "Off to Dinner" was D300, 400mm f2.8 AFS-1 with TC-20E III, on a tripod.
The Three Amigos ( or whatever the Canadian equivalent of Amigo is ):
I think I was at a pretty good spot when one Owl decided it was time for a change of venue. A question, please. When the Owl took off it really lit up in the sun. Do you think I should add just a touch of warmth to the other two as well?
Off to Dinner:
I also had my big lens set up on a tripod next to me for some "portraits" when ...
Leaving so soon?:
Almost an hour earlier I thought I was the luckiest person in the world when I was watching a single Owl with Baker in the background and it took off.
Coming at You:
While I actually did plan to get the shot with Mt. Baker in the background, I am so darned lucky to have been there when they took off, just truly blessed by the moment. One more time, thank you Canada, thank you Boundary Bay. But most of all, thank you Snowy Owls.
Absolutely stunning shots! I am fascinated by the owls, and you've done amazing work, capturing them in their environment for the rest of us to admire! Thanks!
Beautiful shots! I love the direct eye contact you got in shot#2. As to your question, IMHO I don't think the other two owls need to have warmth added... the main owl making eye contact is the center of attention, and the other two are watching him, so it seems natural for them to be a little "cooler" in tone, as their color and eye direction both naturally lead the viewer to look at the center owl. If that makes sense.
Thank you very much for the kind comments. The trip to Boundary Bay isn't all that far, couple it with a day in Vancouver and you have a nice weekend from your neck of the woods Then again, Damon Point is much closer for you.
Absolutely stunning shots! I am fascinated by the owls, and you've done amazing work, capturing them in their environment for the rest of us to admire! Thanks!
Thanks a lot, Rob. Given that we only see the Snowy's in our area every 6 years or so, we really do need to take advantage of the opportunities presented.
Beautiful shots! I love the direct eye contact you got in shot#2. As to your question, IMHO I don't think the other two owls need to have warmth added... the main owl making eye contact is the center of attention, and the other two are watching him, so it seems natural for them to be a little "cooler" in tone, as their color and eye direction both naturally lead the viewer to look at the center owl. If that makes sense.
Thank you very much for the detailed explanation, that makes perfect sense. When I looked at this image and saw the direction of the eyes, I almost fell on the floor
Ha-ha! I'll post one in the next few days of, I think, 6 of them sitting together. You just never know. It is like trying to plan for a flight shot. Best you can do is to set yourself up in a place you think might work, then wait and pray. And expect to be DISAPPOINTED But when it all comes together, it is hard to contain the grin on your face.
Bill, from your description of being in the grass, it sounds like you may have been out in the wetlands, where the signs expressly ask photographers not to go. Or were you shooting from the dike? Regardless, for anyone reading this who is considering going up to Boundary Bay, please stay out of the marshes. I'm a photographer as well -- but also a wildlife rehabilitator. And those signs and cautions exist for a reason.
It is distressing and frustrating to see photographers violating the rules posted at the park. It is bad for the owls, and it makes all photographers look bad. Last week, volunteers from the owl rehabilitation center were informing people that three owls were brought in, emaciated, possibly from the stress of this type of human interaction. I just urge anyone photographing wildlife to abide by posted signs, and interact with wildlife according to the North American Nature Photography guidelines.
Semipalmata, what you're saying is important, and your message has merit.
However, you could just as easily posted the reminder without calling out Bill for something that may or may not have happened. "Kneeling in the grass" sounds pretty generic to me, though I haven't been to the sight.
It is important to respect signs and boundaries and also to respect wildlife and keep your distance.
However, let's look at something very specific Bill did post...
> D300, 400mm f2.8 AFS-1 with TC-20E
D300 is a crop factor camera, with a 1.5 effective focal length. i.e. it turns a 200mm lens into what appears to be a 300mm lens.
So, we start with 400mm. TC20 is a teleconverter, 2x so now his 400mm is an 800mm. Add in the 1.5 crop factor with the D300, and you're at 1200 mm (!).
Granted, these guys are medium size birds, certainly not big, but not tiny either. With an effective focal length of 1200 mm you can still keep a respectful distance.
Bob, my apologies to you and to Bill for that assumption. I will be more careful about future posts in terms of personal characterizations. Sorry, Bill.
I had just returned from Boundary Bay and saw photographer after photographer in the wetlands area, approaching owls and going against the posted signage. A few flushed owls, others did not. But the main point is that there are signs expressly asking people to stay on the trail and to not venture into sensitive habitat and disturb the owls. I am beyond exasperated to see photos that, although gorgeous and beautifully shot, are described (by many photogs now) as being shot from the marshes.
In fairness to some who have gone out there, so many are doing it, it appears to give license to anyone. That behavior has made the papers and the evening news in B.C. Apparently, one of the photographers was identified and chastised for this behavior, but I wasn't there to see the telecast to know if this is true.
A friend of mine spoke with an official in the area and was told that they do not want photographers tramping about out there, careful or not. It's not just for the sake of the owls, which is important. But also, because wetlands habitat is sensitive and there are other plants and organisms affected when multitudes of people walk out with their gear.
I just hope that while the owls are still here, people take seriously these notices from the parks. They are there for a reason. They can't police the marsh, because it belongs to the a B.C. agency outside of theirs, but that agency has, indeed, put up at least one sign saying, stay on the dike. I just believe so strongly in field ethics, I think we should all speak up when this happens so as to limit this type of thing the next time around.
At the Nisqually Wildlife Refuge, they have volunteers that show up on the weekends and help with crowd control. They wear vests to identify themselves, and walk through the area helping people, providing information and also encouraging people to stay on the designated walkways.
Presumably they can notify the rangers if there's an issue.
I wonder if something like that would work here. Without knowing the jurisdiction and legalities it's hard to say. I do think that you're right about it being very difficult to resist entering an area like that when there's already a crowd of people out there. That doesn't make it right, but it does make it easier to justify... "Just for this one shot..."
I think we should all speak up when this happens so as to limit this type of thing the next time around.
I have no issue with that. We've had these kind of discussions before, and the same type of thing occured with the adorable fox kits in Mt Rainer National Park. Word got out and pretty soon the den area looked like the President was going to show up at any moment judging by the photographers who were there.
I have been to the site and have wondered the same thing as Semipalmata after looking at these pictures and reading Bill's comments. I saw many photogs out in the marsh though it was clearly posted many places to stay on the dike. While Bill's photos are fantastic, I have to wonder at what cost.
1. Subject distance should always be respected, whether it is a person, an animal, a bird or even a building. Those of us who do respect subjects are observant of this. In my case I carry a range finder to ensure a minimum subject distance when I photograph of 30-50 yards.
2. Specific to the Boundary Bay area. Trails exist througout the wetlands, and signage requests staying on trails, which people do. Hunting is also allowed in portions of this area, and the sound of a shotgun is not at all uncommon.
3. I respectfully suggest that those who are truly interested look for a message from Dr Dennis Paulson on our local WA birders list titled "thoughts about Snowy Owls and their aficionados". You can search for Dr Paulson to make your own determination if he is credible or not.
It is my opinion that singling out any single thread in a forum without any contact or knowing any facts is extremely rude and does nothing for the purpose of this forum.
I have seen these same types of "discussions" over the years on various forums and various subjects, including "paparazzi" type people photo's and even crowd control of photograhers photographing an iconic landscape. In my experience they do not engender rational discussion, just people with a desire to push their point of view, whether or not it is supported by anything factual.
My last point regarding Boundary Bay. When was the last time you saw or heard anyone complaining about the children, and the adults for that matter, yelling on the dike within 20 feet of the Owls that sit there all day? Better yet, those folks who choose to allow dogs off leash? I saw 2 dogs run down the hill off the dike where they were easily within 15 feet of several owls. Funny thing, dogs ignored the owls, owls ignored the dogs.
Perpspective is what is required.
I respectfully request that this thread either be closed or deleted.
I'd like to make the argument for not deleting this thread. It serves as a good reminder everybody.
Semipalmata made an apology for the assumption of unethical shooting and Bill stated he uses good practices by using his range finder. End of that discussion.
I have been on other forums and seen conversations go south and I am hoping that is not the case on this forum. But I do think this is a good learning tool for all of us.
Regarding forum discussions. A reminder to ask questions before shooting the messenger (sorry I can't help a good pun from time to time) how far were you, did you use a blind, etc. We all like to know how these wonderful shots were taken. Or if very concerned we do have private messaging.
Regarding good practices, whether a photographer or any other visitor to our public lands. I've seeb bad practices online and in the field, we all have. In one forum I saw a photo proudly displayed of a loan hiker walking into the distance on a hillside in the Painted Hills in the John Day Fossil Beds. Those footprints quite possibly may remain for years or set off a chain of erosion that will impact forever alter that landscape. I've seen hikers set off across a meadow of wildflowers on Mount Hood in spite of the sign instructing them that the trail is not closed for rehab. There are many trails in the Columbia Gorge the stray off to get those special waterfall shots. I've been with photographers who don't respect private property and made them do so when I've shot with them.
Locking the thread, maybe. Deleting it, no. The Owls are beautiful. People need to know that wonderful shots can be made with the right tools. These beautiful birds should be admired and appreciated. People also must be reminded that we must take care or we shall kept from those sights we love or worse yet lose what we admire forever.
After some discussions with Bill (retief), I'm going to restore this discussion, but lock it to prevent further comments. We both feel that's a good approach. The comments posted here are good ones, but we also don't want to see the issue turn into an argument.
A note for future discussions of this nature:
Discussions of this type of subject are permitted, as long as they are of a general nature. Discussions related to the actions of any specific photographer, forum member or not, are not permitted.
The one exception to that would be a high-profile case that's covered in the media, such a photographer getting arrested etc. These are only general guidelines, and things will be considered on a case by case basis. As a side note, this is a private forum, not broadcast media, or a public venue so there is no "right to free speech" here. We reserve the right to moderate posts as we see fit.
In this instance, that would mean commenting on the needs to give the owls some room, but not questioning the location of a photographer when a specific image was taken. If you feel you need to ask that question, it should be done in an e-mail or a private mesage. If they agree to share that info publicly, that's fine, but they need to make that decision, not be forced into it by somebody else.
That is not intended to prevent a photographer from sharing their techniques and/or location if they're so inclined. So it would be fine to say "I got this shot by going down trail 27 to such and such a location, and then using a 400 with a 2x converter. This allowed me to pull in the subject without disturbing them". As long as the information is volunteered, that's fine, and at that point it would be OK to ask questions as well.
The goal here, first and foremost is to keep this place friendly and enjoyable. Keeping things non-confrontational is the best way to do that. Many of the photographers who post here have access to certain situations that others don't. As an example, you're not trespassing if you're an employee or you have permission to be on the property. So don't make assumptions.
If you do feel led to address something, try to do it in a manner that addresses the issue, not the photographer. Many of these issues are worth discussing, and as long as it can be done in an non-confrontational manner, it's useful.
As mentioned, the original poster has requested that this thread be closed before it causes any problems. We're honoring that request, so you will not be able to reply.
Affiliate Disclosure: We may receive a commision from some of the links and ads shown on this website (Learn More Here)
PNWPhotos.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com
):
Then again, Damon Point is much closer for you.