About two weeks ago, I returned from a week of shooting in Olympic National Park in Washington state.  First time I had been back there since the summer of 1999.  What a great location for a landscape photographer, lots of variety in both scenery and in weather.  From Alpine mountain vistas to pacific beaches to temperate rainforest in the space of a couple of hundred miles.  Over the course of the next week, I'll put up a gallery of some of my favorite images from the trip.  For now, here is a vertical panorama shot with a Nikon Tilt/Shift 45mm lens that allows you to shoot very tall subjects without the distortion that would come from tilting the lens upward to get the treetops.  Great place to be a photographer; look for the new gallery soon.

About 10 days ago, I was hiking in Illinois Canyon at Starved Rock State Park, IL.  It was late afternoon when I came upon the den site of a family of red fox, (Vulpes fulva).  There were five pups around the den site.  I was carrying only one lens, my 70-200 f 2.8 and no tripod.  The light was low but with vibration reduction and an ISO of 1600 I was able to get a few decent shots.  Still, I wanted more from this find.  So, 2 days later, I returned with my tripod and 500 mm lens along with a 1.4 extender.  This time there were only 2 pups out and during the three hours I waited, they were asleep for all but about 5 minutes.  Next, I resolved to get there early morning for better light and, hopefully, more action.  I arrived at 7 A.M., this time my 3 hour stint yielded no fox images, either the den had been abandoned or they were off with Mom learning to hunt.  Finally, thinking my luck would change I came back again a fourth time, returning again in late afternoon when I had first seen them.  Another 3 hour observation with the foxes again deciding not to show.

So, what does a landscape/ wildlife photographer do with all that time in one place, a single camera with a long telephoto lens and with no little critters to shoot?  This one decided to use the lens  to experiment with some landscape shooting, not what one usually uses a 500 mm lens for.  Remembering that this location is nearly always devoid of direct sunlight because of the canyon walls and the solid overhang of large trees, I ended up with slow shutter speeds, and relatively high ISO settings.  I also tried to get as much depth of field as possible, therefore using shutter speeds of f8 and f11.  Even on a solid tripod and with the best long lens technique I know of, my shutter speeds were down around 1/15 to 1/50 of a second, far from optimal with a long lens.  I threw out at least half of all my shots; the most minimal of camera shake on the tripod is amplified due to the weight of the rig and the magnification of the 500 mm lens.  Still, I ended up with a few that I like.

Here is an example, a shot of a large mushroom/lichen growing out of a dead log.  The shot was taken at a distance of about 50 yards, at ISO 400, f8 with a shutter speed of 1/50 of a second.  Note that even with an f8 setting, only the center of the target is in focus with both front and back edges being soft.  By getting closer with a shorter focal length lens, it would have been easy  to have the whole target in sharp focus.  Not having that option in this case, I kind of like the resulting image with only the center being sharp.  Making lemonade from lemons.

When I was in Yosemite last spring, I saw this little tree, probably a California Red Fir, (Abies magnifica) growing up along side the fairly large rock.  As I love trees and forests as subjects, I spent some time working to get the composition I wanted, one that showed the relationship between the rock and the tree and the adaptations made by the little tree to co-exist with the rock.  Looking back at the time I was composing the image, it now amazes me that I failed to see all of the clutter of the dead branches and twigs around the bottom of the tree.  Without the clutter, the image would have been clean and simple, telling a story of the relationship and the tough circumstances that sometimes shape nature.  As it is, all that clutter ruins the image for me.  Lesson learned; don't spend a lot time working on making an image that will always be flawed because of background elements that can not be overcome photographically.  (In our national parks, it isn't legal to trim branches from a tree to improve your composition.)

One of the photography blogs that I try to read daily is The Online Photographer by Mike Johnston.  It is broad based, conceptually oriented (not focused on equipment) and quite thought provoking on many things photographic.  Yesterday, March 15, 2010, Mike introduced a topic that, because of my own interest in nature and wildlife photography, I thought to be a familiar one, the frequent use of trained 'wild' animals as subjects of photographic interest.  Most of the images of 'wild' animals that are used in advertising and in many publications are not really wild, rather they are housed at commercial businesses that rent them to photographers for commercial shoots, calendars and some magazine articles.  There has long been an ongoing controversy about whether the use of these game farm animals is really wildlife photography.  Apparently my concept of its being a readily understood and aired topic isn't accurate in the broader photographic community.  The Online Photographer posted a blog on the topic and referenced an extensive article in the current Audubon Magazine that takes a pretty strong position against the use of these trained, wild looking animals.

While there are arguments on both sides of the question and big name, well known photographers taking opposing positions, The Audubon article may begin to turn opinion against the game farm approach.  Up until this latest focus on the subject, the middle ground seemed to be that it was OK to use images of captive animals, if, it was accepted by the client and there was full disclosure that the animal/s were/are captive.  That seems a reasonable position so long as animals are not mistreated or abused in any way other than the obvious condition that is implied in simply holding them captive.  I'm pretty sure that the controversy won't go away as a result of this current exposure to the sunlight but it may help to push opinion in the direction of those who oppose using captive animals.  To read the Audubon article, click here.  To read the whole article and comments on The Online Photographer, click here.  If you go to the T O P site, remember to scroll back to March 15.

I was probably like most kids that didn't grow up on a ranch in the western U. S.  My view of cattle and cowboys was formed by what I saw in the movies and read about in books.  Pretty romantic stuff with lots of heros and good people conquering the wild west.  Although it probably wasn't even an accurate picture then, it surely isn't today as the issue of cattle ranching on public land is a highly contentious one.  At one extreme of the argument, the ranchers argue that their use of public grazing rights keeps the west from being turned into a patchwork of real estate developments that would further degrade or eliminate habitat used by native wild species.  (Thus the reference to Condos)

At the other extreme, environmental organizations contend that the cattle trample the landscape, eat all of the forage and destroy many of the stream and river beds, thus destroying habitat for native wildlife such as elk, deer, sage grouse and pronghorn antelope as well as damaging fish populations.  They further contend that the government charges only a very small fee for use of the land and therefore the American taxpayers are subsidizing habitat destruction.  While the reality of the situation is likely between the extremes, it is probably closer to the environmentalist view. 

To understand the scope of this issue, some statistics are in order.  The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is an agency within the Department of Interior.  It is responsible for 256 million acres of land,  of which 160 million acres are leased for cattle and sheep grazing in 21,000 'Grazing Allotments'.  The fee for such use is $1.35 per month per animal unit.  In 2008, there were 8.6 million AUM's used.  An AUM is defined as a full grown cow or horse, a nursing female with calf or 5 sheep or goats.

The U.S. Department of the Interior is about to release it's findings about whether to grant the Sage Grouse protection under the  Endangered Species Act.  The issue of grazing on public land will again be in the national news.  Here is a very thorough and compelling article.  Click here.