Photogrpahy at the zoo

Just out of interest, i was wondering what you need to take photos at the zoo, and if anyone has any tips. I've heard that a rubber lens hood is good as you can put it right up against the glass, but are there any other tips, like what speed film you'll need, and what focal length lens is needed?

Well, here's a shot list from somebody who has shot pictures in a zoo or two.

1) Do not go on a weekend.

2) Do not take your children if you have them... unless you just want pictures of your kids.

3) Wear a red jacket that you can take off for behind glass pictures (reducing glare). Animals track red.

4) If you want a critter's attention, try rattling your keys. This sometimes reminds them of a keeper bringing dinner.

5) If you have to shoot through a silver fence with the sun on it, don't waste your time. If you can find a dark spot on it though (a friend holding a cap to make one dark spot) you will be able to shoot through it OK with a 300mm or longer lens, as long as the critter isn't close to the fence.

6) If you shoot through a fence, shoot wide open.

7) Focus on the eyes. They MUST be crisp or the shot won't work.

8) Use a fill flash for catch lights in the critters eyes... even if you are a long way away and have a puny flash it will still work.

9) Watch for wear spots in the grass. Critters follow the same path time and again, so plan for it.

10) Wear a black hat, you can use it to shield fence and glass glare.

11) Go early, critters are more active then.

12) If the critter is doing something, take lots of shots and throw the bad ones away later.

13) Don't let the goat lick your lens.

14) Black swans are mean.

15) Some of the best shots are people looking at the animals. If you plan to publish, don't shoot people's faces.

16) Polarizer (obviously)

17) High shutter speeds are a must, animals move quick. Push your ISO up if you have to, better to have a bit more noise than everything blurry.

That's all for now.
 
Thank you all very much. Unfortunately, if the 2 times converter reduces the lens by three stops, I'm going to have to use it without, so I'll have a 200mm f5.6 lens. Will this blur fences enough?
 
You need a complete lack of interest in investing energy into finding your subject matter.

Going to the zoo to take photographs of "wild" animals is tantamount to going to a prison for portraits.

:lmao:
 
You need a complete lack of interest in investing energy into finding your subject matter.

Going to the zoo to take photographs of "wild" animals is tantamount to going to a prison for portraits.

With over 500 million photographers in the world, do you really want 500 million people trashing a game preserve?

Do you want the pollution from 500 million people traveling thousands of miles in a jet stinking up the atmosphere?

Still don't care? re-read Sabboth's posts.


(and that makes 1500 posts. )
 
With over 500 million photographers in the world, do you really want 500 million people trashing a game preserve?

Do you want the pollution from 500 million people traveling thousands of miles in a jet stinking up the atmosphere?

Still don't care? re-read Sabboth's posts.


(and that makes 1500 posts. )

Interesting use of logical extension here. Not a very good approximation of reality though.

Would I will that everyone who wants a photo of a tiger go to Africa? Yes. Because from a practical standpoint, I can count on the fact that not very many of those 500 million photographers (is this even a real figure?) would actually go, even if it were the only way for them to get the photo. This is precisely what I was referring to in the first line of my post. People shoot photos at the zoo because there are a bunch of animals conveniently locked up somewhere nearby. I'm not judging any particular area of photography by how much work or money it requires. I don't believe there's anything objectively different between shooting photos of a tiger on safari, and shooting a girl in an alley. I do, however, believe that there is a fundamental difference between shooting a tiger on safari and shooting one in the zoo. That's because the safari is part of the territory. People who take photos of animals in zoos have no right billing themselves as wildlife photographers. They're just people who take photos of locked up animals. If you don't have the means to afford the safari, then I'm sorry but you should pick some other area of photography to focus on because going to the zoo is not the same thing. Given the state of the world's animal populations, I applaud Sabbath for doing what he's doing. But he's a pretty singular guy...not many other people use zoo photography to that end. Almost all people who take photos at the zoo do it out of sheer convenience, if not laziness.
 
Here's some zoo pictures I took in July http://s24.photobucket.com/albums/c17/4ets/ChattanoogaJuly07/Chattanooga%20final%20edits/?start=all . They aren't perfect, but I was still learning my camera's settings.

I clicked on your link, and it was like "wow, I know that place..." and then it was like "wow, I was just there last week".

Chattanooga is a pretty town, we shot the zoo and aquarium there the day after thanksgiving.

Here is our take on the zoo (it was too cold for some of the animals to be out).Chattanooga Zoo @ zoopictures.net & Chattanooga Aquarium @ zoopictures.net
 
Sorry Max, the thread is about shooting in Zoos and nothing was said until just now about anyone billing themselves as Wildlife photographers (someone who did that wouldn't be a wildlife photographer, they would just be a liar).

As to the 500 million number, how many people in the world have cameras and would love to travel the world and take photos of the wildlife? Obviously you can but I know I can't, maybe you could spare a few hundred thou so I could? That still leaves out that other half a bazillion people though, doesn't it.

Please don't take this personally as I don't personally know if you meant to imply that some one who availed themselves of a municipal amenity (that also helps preserve habitat and works to save many species from extinction) to take a photo of something is a lazy, no account bum.

Most people have cameras to preserve happy memories- just that- let them have their fun.
 
I said just that in my first response. I can say that everyone who wants to shoot wildlife should go into the wild because I can count on the fact that most of them can't afford to do so. I love the environment just as much as the next guy. I can't personally afford any safaris, either. I just think that taking photos at the zoo is completely lame on principle in all but a few (such as Sabbath's) cases.
 
Slightly OT but I recommend Garry Winogrand's book The Animals... one of my favorite photographers goes to the Zoo.
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
I clicked on your link, and it was like "wow, I know that place..." and then it was like "wow, I was just there last week".

Chattanooga is a pretty town, we shot the zoo and aquarium there the day after thanksgiving.

Here is our take on the zoo (it was too cold for some of the animals to be out).Chattanooga Zoo @ zoopictures.net & Chattanooga Aquarium @ zoopictures.net


:hail: Experience and skill makes a world of difference. I always enjoy your (the pair) photos.

I was wondering how you got such a great picture in the "No Flash" section of the Aquarium and then I noticed your disclaimer. We were up there the day before Thanksgiving and stopped by the aquarium. Then we walked through Rock City Enchanted Garden of Lights in the pouring down rain. Aside from some fairly good butterfly shots and some "Penguins on strike" snapshots (either nap time or they were waiting for food, but not one was swimming or looking our way), I didn't get much of anything this time.

Next year we'll have a family membership at Zoo Atlanta.


BTW, white swans aren't always nice either and they aren't so graceful out of water.
 
I gotta agree with Max on this one. Shooting animals at the zoo, to me at least, is boring. Your not catching them in their natural habitat. If you want to photograph the cage and all and show the treatment these animals get then that is actually a great idea but to simply get shots of a tiger, lion, monkey, etc just seems fake to me. I just had a friend get back froman african safari,he borrowed my old D50 for the trip and then I edited a bunch of the photos. Its amazing to see lions elephants, gazels and the like in their natural habitat, hunting, sleeping or just walking, I feel the backdrop reaaly adds to the photos even if its just the open plains.
 
Well, I thought that taking zoo pictures was no different than taking pet pictures. And since I am fairly new...I figured it would be good practice. But, maybe not.
 
Well, I thought that taking zoo pictures was no different than taking pet pictures. And since I am fairly new...I figured it would be good practice. But, maybe not.

taking pictures at the zoo is a great time. You get some great pictures, and learn lots.
The big boys are just arguing about whether these "zoo photogs" woulc be classified as wildlife photographers. While I agree that they wouldn't...they'd still be animal photographers...

Take pics of whatever makes you happy. It's not like you're losing out on anything by shooting an animal at the zoo...
 
So my zoo photos make me a lazy bum whos living a lie? lol. I think not. Some can say if you go on one of these African trips its not really nature photography for the fact that they feed the animals so they can be found by the side of the road where the bus with 20 people can take snapshots. does that make them wildlife photographers? What if someone was using a point and shot on one of those trips? what would they be called? :)
 
I'm shooting at the zoo to get some nice pictures and practice, not to class myself as a wildlife photographer. I would also like to take pictures of animals in their natural environment, but i think that the zoo pictures will help a lot in imporoving my animal photography.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top