tlitody
Well-known
I'd suggest a fuji low contrast negative film. For me a river bank is so full of colour it just won't look right in B+W. But again if its a mountain stream with a lot of rocks and earth then maybe B+W is OK but the rivers I fished on were all greens and browns with splashes of colour from reeds and flowers. In B+W that will look very medium grey and lifeless. In colour it'll look vibrant. Really depends on the rivers setting. Take both colour and B+W and see what you find.
I thought, is that a dog? Then thought no it can't be, it's bear cub with those ears.
I thought, is that a dog? Then thought no it can't be, it's bear cub with those ears.
Last edited:
dave lackey
Veteran
Ken Smith
Why yes Ma'am - it folds
My problem is that the fishing is always more important at the time than photos. The photos come after the fishing, when waiting for a hatch, or after I put down a big fish and I'm waiting for him to resume rising. And I usually have the curse of camera on person - no fish. Left camera at home - the trout are fighting for my fly. Which can be a pain since the Missouri here in Montana is my home water - and it's famous for big rainbows/browns.
Anyway - back to the OQ. Depending on the size of the water. Here in Montana on a big river like the Missouri - a medium format like a Fuji 690 series to convey the vastness. Fuji Acros 100. The angler bent over and following the drift his #22 Trico or #18 PMD. To another flyfisherman - it's body position that conveys the concentration and anticipationt involved in fishing wee flies dry flies. To those of you that don't fly fish - you can fit 2 of these on the your pinky fingernail.
As the photographer you need to be on your knees if the water is shallow or at least offering a smaller profile to not spook the fish. If the angler is fishing down stream or across - you need to be upstream.
If it's a small stream - same set up. If it's really skinny stream (shallow), a polarizer to show the clearness of the water. perhaps behind and off to the side on the bank - out of his casting plane. A lot of times you don't need to see the angler's face to convey concentration - body position will tell all that.
If you want to slow shutter speed down and show the blended fluid movement of water over the rocks - a tripod.
Ken
Anyway - back to the OQ. Depending on the size of the water. Here in Montana on a big river like the Missouri - a medium format like a Fuji 690 series to convey the vastness. Fuji Acros 100. The angler bent over and following the drift his #22 Trico or #18 PMD. To another flyfisherman - it's body position that conveys the concentration and anticipationt involved in fishing wee flies dry flies. To those of you that don't fly fish - you can fit 2 of these on the your pinky fingernail.
As the photographer you need to be on your knees if the water is shallow or at least offering a smaller profile to not spook the fish. If the angler is fishing down stream or across - you need to be upstream.
If it's a small stream - same set up. If it's really skinny stream (shallow), a polarizer to show the clearness of the water. perhaps behind and off to the side on the bank - out of his casting plane. A lot of times you don't need to see the angler's face to convey concentration - body position will tell all that.
If you want to slow shutter speed down and show the blended fluid movement of water over the rocks - a tripod.
Ken
Ken Smith
Why yes Ma'am - it folds
Just saw the camera selection - can't venture to guess. I live in Montana - a big vast state famous for big rivers and a big sky. It takes a big negative to soak it all in.
TXForester
Well-known
I tell ya what I wouldn't do. The grip and grin with angler pointing the trout like a scatter gun at the photographer. :bang:
You might going to the Itinerant Angler website. They have a photography forum that could provide you with ideas.
http://www.itinerantangler.com/cgi-bin/board/YaBB.pl?board=Photography
You might going to the Itinerant Angler website. They have a photography forum that could provide you with ideas.
http://www.itinerantangler.com/cgi-bin/board/YaBB.pl?board=Photography
tlitody
Well-known
Check out Tim Flach's website for some very cool pet shots. Goto the Dogs Gods section. Image 10.
http://www.timflach.com/
jan normandale
Film is the other way
I'd take 3 rolls… Delta 100 in case the light is strong, TMax 3200 for late evening shots and I'd bracket ones I really wanted to be sure of nailing.
For colour if you can get it the Sensia is an interesting film as is Provia at 100 ISO for mid day.
For shooting I'd not take the M3 just might be more thinking than photographing on the river. Watching your step, not falling in, making sure the light is taken into account prior to taking the shot. That leaves the R4 or the Nikon AF . I like Leica glass for colour rendition slightly more than the Nikon. But it's close and it's a personal choice. I would go for the R4 because it's got a top end of 1/1000th which will help in the strong light situations and it's got a good meter. I think the 50 mm will cover most of the shooting so you don't have to think about comp and framing / zooming. Just 'zoom with the feet'
The Nikon with the AF and zoom is a strong second if your style is to use a zoom to crop or move in. The choice between the two will be what suits your style that you will be using for this photoset. Also the comments that Ken made above are good ones but I'd put a larger fly on just so you will be able to follow the drift. Maybe a deer hair caddis or something readily visible for you as a photographer.
It sounds like you've given a fair amount of preparation and thought to this. I'd just show and shoot. Then put the camera away and fish. Good luck
BTW I'd be interested in the shots of the cane rods. I had a friend in PA who was quite an accomplished builder George Maurer. If you get a chance to cast one; his ideas about rod taper made for unique rods.
For colour if you can get it the Sensia is an interesting film as is Provia at 100 ISO for mid day.
For shooting I'd not take the M3 just might be more thinking than photographing on the river. Watching your step, not falling in, making sure the light is taken into account prior to taking the shot. That leaves the R4 or the Nikon AF . I like Leica glass for colour rendition slightly more than the Nikon. But it's close and it's a personal choice. I would go for the R4 because it's got a top end of 1/1000th which will help in the strong light situations and it's got a good meter. I think the 50 mm will cover most of the shooting so you don't have to think about comp and framing / zooming. Just 'zoom with the feet'
The Nikon with the AF and zoom is a strong second if your style is to use a zoom to crop or move in. The choice between the two will be what suits your style that you will be using for this photoset. Also the comments that Ken made above are good ones but I'd put a larger fly on just so you will be able to follow the drift. Maybe a deer hair caddis or something readily visible for you as a photographer.
It sounds like you've given a fair amount of preparation and thought to this. I'd just show and shoot. Then put the camera away and fish. Good luck
BTW I'd be interested in the shots of the cane rods. I had a friend in PA who was quite an accomplished builder George Maurer. If you get a chance to cast one; his ideas about rod taper made for unique rods.
Last edited: