Now that the /fap/pening is over, time to post some shots from

File: 721.jpg (230KB, 1000x586px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 1000x586px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: 465.jpg (233KB, 1000x586px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 1000x586px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: 377.jpg (113KB, 1000x668px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1000x668px

A couple might be a little older, I dunno... mostly stuff since my last photo dump.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2017:04:02 13:13:04
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1000
Image Height	668

File: 643.jpg (233KB, 1000x586px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 1000x586px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

Those are nice, what happened to the fox ? The picture looks flat and desaturated

File: 7845.jpg (320KB, 1000x586px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 1000x586px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>3049880

Thanks. ISO 6400, after sundown.

File: 734.jpg (217KB, 1000x586px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 1000x586px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: 674.jpg (259KB, 1000x586px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 1000x586px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: 844.jpg (253KB, 1000x586px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 1000x586px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: 331.jpg (187KB, 1000x586px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 1000x586px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: 622.jpg (238KB, 1000x586px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1000x586px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: 753.jpg (236KB, 1000x586px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 1000x586px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: 732.jpg (176KB, 1000x586px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 1000x586px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: 756.jpg (469KB, 1000x586px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 1000x586px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: 672.jpg (156KB, 1000x586px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1000x586px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>3049893
This one is really great

what kind of camera and lens and whatnot?

>>3049915

Thanks.

>>3049917

D610 and D7100, and either 105 f/2.8, 300 f/2.8, 70-300 f/5.6, 400 f/2.8, or 600 f/4 with and without a teleconverter.

>>3049899
gorgeous

>>3049922
Thats a lot of money

>>3049899
looks like fucking Fox McCloud.. great shot.
Could you post a crop of just the face?

File: crop.jpg (125KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 480x480px

>>3049931

Maybe, but it's inevitable. I started with a F65 and kit lens 16 years ago.

>>3049966

Sure.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

I like threads where you don't talk, just post pics.

File: bird_00017.jpg (607KB, 1185x790px) Image search: [Google]

607KB, 1185x790px

didn't start taking pictures till early this year this is one of my oldest

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3400
Camera Software	Capture NX-D 1.4.3 W
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/6.3
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	952
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	450 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2017:02:11 14:57:40
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/6.3
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	1000
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	300.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1185
Image Height	790
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: 644.jpg (253KB, 1000x586px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 1000x586px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: 744.jpg (210KB, 1000x586px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 1000x586px

Most of what I post from now on will be older.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

damn Ambush, I've been in your background for two weeks, but I got no time to go behind wildlife in Banff... Got a couple squirrels shots, some birds and wolves/elks/moose tracks only. I'll need to go back someday and see if I have more time to hike :(

>>3049991

why not make your own thread then?

File: 422.jpg (234KB, 1000x586px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 1000x586px

>>3050008

I am east coast but would love to check out Banff sometime.

Wildlife is pretty sparse out this way... I usually spend at least 16 hours per weekend out and sometimes won't get a decent shot of anything for 6 months.

What more can you do but try? Helps to enjoy the outdoors no matter what. Treat the shots as a bonus.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: 533.jpg (274KB, 1000x586px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 1000x586px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>3049872
You've got to post some of these at a higher resolution and less compressed man, they look wonderful and I imagine they have so much detail, but instead I'm faced with something that covers under 20% of my monitor.

>>3049872
Really like your work. These inspired me to want to give wildlife a go again.
Keep it up man :)

>>3050013
you would love the spring in Banff. You can spot some very large prey birds like hawks and bears. Some trails close to Tunnel Mt. are good to some moose, elks and wolves.

But, I was out of luck and time... just took some landscapes tho worth it for sure

>>3050331
,* and bears. hahah wrong syntax

File: 233.jpg (153KB, 1000x586px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 1000x586px

>>3050223

Sry, 1000px is all I post to 4chan.

>>3050302

Good! Sometimes I shitpost too much... nice to see someone getting something out of my posts. Thanks, m80.

>>3050331

It's on the list for sure. Going up North for vacation this year, though. Yeah, I know... even less wildlife up there. But I feel it beckoning.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

Pretty great, fuckhead, but i've always liked your stuff.

Also, does anyone else wonder how non-americans feel when they see a majestic-as-fuck bald eagle?

File: 238.jpg (199KB, 1000x586px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1000x586px

>>3050994

Glad to see you in here, I always enjoy your vicious attacks on people.

They certainly are majestic looking and badass toward other birds, and nothing is as cool as seeing one going fast and low, but they are so skittish around people it's sad.

You want something really nasty, Goshawk would be it. I stumbled across this one while mountain biking and had to use my bike as a shield and back out of its territory as it tried to take my eyes out. Naturally, I went back with the camera the next day.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>3049876
>>3049881
>>3049893
>>3049898
>>3049900
>>3050986
>>3051005
These are real nice

>>3049899
You've posted this a few times before but it's GOAT so I aint mad

>>3050994
I've never seen one, however here in aus I was lucky enough to get close to a wedge tailed eagle. I was kayaking down a creek and it hopped of his perch and flew right over the top of me fairly low to the ground, it was fucking huge and probably the most impressive wildlife experience I've had

>>3052573

Thanks, m80

I'd love to see a Wedge Tailed... maybe one day.

>>3049872

moar like /flap/pening

>>3054098

Terrible

File: 534.jpg (211KB, 1000x586px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 1000x586px

Remembered a few more from not too long ago.

Trying to keep this confined to the past 365 days...

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>3056502
This is terrible, would it hurt too much to get lower? Too much down angle makes the background distracting.

>>3056525

Would it hurt? No. Was it possible? No.

File: 468.jpg (226KB, 1000x586px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 1000x586px

>>3049872

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: 755.jpg (132KB, 1000x586px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1000x586px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: 722.jpg (232KB, 1000x586px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 1000x586px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>3056575

Should have used f/8 to soften the background then.

Stop spamming your inane shit. In case you haven't noticed, nobody is interested in your threads.

You are a talentless hack. Fuck off.

File: 955.jpg (210KB, 1000x586px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 1000x586px

>>3056591

Gr8 h8 m8

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>3056588

>Should have used f/8 to soften the background then.

This shitty board in one sentence. Thanks for being a public retard my man.

>>3050015
ok a few question because I'm calling bullshit.
how close were you to this moose?
were you armed?
are you sure YOU took this photo?
let me guess there is a camera destroyed by a moose and a little baggy fulled with teeth to commemorate the find in your freezer, yeah?

File: 532.jpg (304KB, 1000x586px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 1000x586px

>>3056733

When it first walked past, about 10 feet, which was too close to get anything. That shot was from about 40 feet.

It wasn't rutting season, so not extremely dangerous. You just need to use some common sense.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: 510f0edf6ab6d4136414da215ce52c76.jpg (187KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 1000x667px

>>3056612

Hopefully just trollan about f/8, but >>3056525 is definitely inexperienced with perspective.

As you know, unless you're inches from such a small subject or lower than it from farther away, you're going to get some background in the shot... especially with a lens that's 7" wide. Pic related.

Pretty sure it's just a noob parroting the "don't shoot down at ducks" rule, but not knowing how to apply it. In any case, even if I could have gotten below sea level at the edge of the ocean, I'd have opted for water in the background instead of a blown out sky.

I agree, /p/ is a goldmine of ignorance.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>3056601

Just ignore, Ambush. It's just moopco trying to be relevant.

File: 873.jpg (152KB, 1000x586px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1000x586px

>>3057016

He must be excited at reaching Meme Status™.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>3049872
Have you ever used any of your 'scopes for wildlife? I recently got a tripod that will support mine (it's quite heavy).My old eq5 is sturdy as fuck but not really portable and setting it up as an alt az is a pain.

Any terrestrial photography I've tried seems to be a bit of a non starter, fiddly focusing and thermals seem to ruin everything. Would it be worth it if I found a spot? We have kestrels and owls nearby (also wild hares and whatnot).

I have a crop sensor and a 70-300mm but the wildlife here is pretty skittish being so close to the city. Stalking and getting close is the key I know but is a very long lens out of the question?

I've been thinking about a large heavy beanbag instead of the tripod. There are nature reserves nearby but that seems like shooting fish in a barrel.

tl;dr catadioptric for wildlife?
inb4 get closer faggot!

File: 12.jpg (122KB, 396x516px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 396x516px

>>3057036

Honestly, get closer faggot is the best advice.

I did try it out of curiosity once, but as expected, the quality is terrible; blurry, low contrast, slow, shallow DOF despite tiny aperture, tedious to set up... absolutely worthless. But I knew that would be the case.

I just stay mobile and do a lot of observing to figure out the patterns of the wildlife when I find it. Then go in with a plan, with the sun behind me. If I fuck it up, I try again in a few days. Animals keep schedules. I got a shot of a short eared owl flying at night once (using a 300 f/2.8) just by showing up the next day at the same place and time. I hid behind a small hill it had flown over, and it came right toward me from the same direction. Got it with manual focus.

I don't use a tripod or even monopod (unless at a nest) because they slow me down with setup and getting caught on shit, and have caused me to miss shots. You shouldn't have to do anything other than stand or crouch, and should be able to move without putting anything down or picking it up.

Wildlife here is skittish as well... you just have to be sneaky. You'll miss a lot of shots, but that's how it goes. >>3056801 was taken with a 70-300 on a crop body (pic related) after creeping up on it from at least 100 meters away. Saw 4 of them (3 young and an adult) flying down the coastline, and watched with binoculars until they stopped, then spent 10 minutes creeping up on them. Stepped out from behind a tree to get that shot... look at how scared it is.

TL;DR: Always risk missing shots to get closer before clacking away, and keep everything as simple as possible.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>3057056

>2013

Fuuck... that's the only time I have seen a Great Horned Owl. I keep searching, but no luck.

Would like to get one at dusk.

File: P1090056.jpg (583KB, 3648x2736px) Image search: [Google]

583KB, 3648x2736px

>>3049872
Really Great Shots, OP! You have The Knack...

>>3057066

Did you happen to notice all the fossils in those stones?

File: DSC00274.jpg (782KB, 5184x3888px) Image search: [Google]

782KB, 5184x3888px

>>3057068
Not really, but they're called "Churl" for some reason. Wish I had the time to shoot wild animals - you must live in CO or ID?

>>3057071

Canuckistan, man.

File: DJI00626 - Copy.jpg (121KB, 1318x1006px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1318x1006px

>>3057072
I presume your hobby is a full time job? You could, obviously, make $$$C with these pics? I work on communication Towers, and it offers lots of opportunities...

>>3057076

There's no money in wildlife. Maybe some kinds for game publications, but not much.

I just make time for it.

File: DSC02615.jpg (195KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 1600x1200px

>>3057081
Not to keep this diatribe going, but I'm honestly impressed with your stalking abilities. Are you part Indian? Most people scare off anything they're trying for, but it seems you get in pretty close.

>>3057082

Just break line of sight and be quiet, and you're good to go. Also, Wematanye.

File: 655.jpg (184KB, 1000x586px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 1000x586px

From today... don't give these guys enough love.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>3057382

This is terrible, would it hurt too much to get lower? Too much down angle makes the background distracting.