Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Looking to get into Wildlife Cinematography

To create stock footage library of your on... Easy, get a Super-telephoto lens like the RPP 300mm with a PL Doubler to save big money... Or get a Caonn or Nikon mount and then get Super-Telephoto Still glass... Then spend countless days and nights in the wild and shoot away... ;)

Something I have been craving to do myself for years, which I might start doing soon, just long walks and hikes, nice clean air and extremely relaxing outdoor quietness...

But depending on where and when, meaning time of year, one must always use extreme caution, for wild animals, as they can not only provide you with great imagery but also become your worst night mare and possibly even kill you!

Best of Luck!!
 
The above sounds about all one needs to know. My guess is that wildlife photographers are mainly people who just love watching wildlife and end up shooting it to preserve the experience. I'm not sure there's a ton of money in it, but of course the best (and most coveted) shots will be the most difficult shots, meaning the shots that required scaling a cliff and waiting for three days in a storm or (literally) swimming with sharks. The first question I would ask myself is if I had the steel for going the extra mile to get to the most remote and wild places....
 
Mike McMillin said:
Hey I was just wondering if anyone out there knew an outlet to get into some wildlife cinematography or if anyone knew how it works as far as getting gigs or just creating a stock footage library of your own.
Click to expand...

Hi Mike, I think it's a matter of getting out there shooting, and figuring out what direction you want to go it. Most wildlife life guys I know are not only shooters, but also directing, producing, and writing their own content. There are few others on this form. Other people do well in the stock world or specialty world, and get gigs for the big players like BBC, Nat Geo. Although many of them are specialist in on area.

Because of 24 hour nature channels, there has been a shift from pure wildlife/one-off films to series. It can be limited to 4 one hour show or something like 12 half hours. They appeal more to broadcast who need to block fill time. Blue chip wildlife will always be in demand, but you have to be top of your game.

Shoot lots, get good at your craft. What we do is very diffifrent then a lot of people on these boards.

I always wanted to shoot nature docs, I grew up on them, and when others watched MTV, I watched Discovery and Nat Geo. I made it to Africa filming a little heather care mission and went on safari one week-end. Sitting on top of land rover with a camera was pure heaven! I said to myself that this is what I need to do with my life. I went back the following on my own dime, found a story, shot it, and pitched it to Animal Planet. It was interesting enough to get me in the door but not enough for a job. They gave me a few pointers, told me where I went wrong, and said if I ever shot anything again, they'd have a look. I jumped on plane back to Africa, shot a proper pilot, and was back at AP. They bought it on sight, and sent me back to shoot more. That series ended up going two season, and picked up by National Geographic International. It's been 10 years now, and 5 series later, I'm still going back. I actually leave Thursday again for something like my 60th trip.

All the natural history guys from this board contribute to an ongoing thread here.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?69848-NATURAL-HISTORY-CINEMATOGRAPHY&highlight=natural+history

But to answer your question, there is not set way or school, it's usually a passion that drives us.

If you want a sure way to get in, emulate Christian Munoz! You can find him on these boards, here is his latest production! Stunning stuff.

[/QUOTE]
 
Eric M Hurt said:
The above sounds about all one needs to know. My guess is that wildlife photographers are mainly people who just love watching wildlife and end up shooting it to preserve the experience. I'm not sure there's a ton of money in it, but of course the best (and most coveted) shots will be the most difficult shots, meaning the shots that required scaling a cliff and waiting for three days in a storm or (literally) swimming with sharks. The first question I would ask myself is if I had the steel for going the extra mile to get to the most remote and wild places....
Click to expand...

I know an retired filmmaker who flies his kids to school in his own helicopter. There is money to be made, but it's also probably one of the toughest fields of film to make money in.
 
My point exactly. Not a lot of money in it = one of the toughest fields of film to make money in.

Michael Dalton said:
I know an retired filmmaker who flies his kids to school in his own helicopter. There is money to be made, but it's also probably one of the toughest fields of film to make money in.
Click to expand...
 
Lakis Amarantithis said:
I encourage you to buy this lens, I use it for animals and I love it. Very sharp. Also a very good tripod like an OConnor 120ex

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/381606-REG/Sigma_595306_300_800mm_f_5_6_EX_DG.html

some samples I shot with it in 2D and 3D: http://red.3dmovies.com/search.php?keywords=sigma+300-800mm
Click to expand...
That's what I'm using now, and I love it. I started out shooting with a Canon FD 150-600mm, and traded up when I started focusing my shooting mostly on birds and wanted the extra 200mm of reach. It is, however, huge and heavy. You have to get in pretty good shape to carry an Epic rig with that thing on it from location to location over the course of the day. I wouldn't dream of taking it on a backpacking trip unless I could hire an extra person just to haul gear. Especially for someone just breaking into the field, the Tamron 150-600mm is really worth a look, since it's a lot cheaper and a lot lighter than the Sigmonster. If it's not long enough, you can always trade up.
 
Alan Peterson said:
That's what I'm using now, and I love it. I started out shooting with a Canon FD 150-600mm, and traded up when I started focusing my shooting mostly on birds and wanted the extra 200mm of reach. It is, however, huge and heavy. You have to get in pretty good shape to carry an Epic rig with that thing on it from location to location over the course of the day. I wouldn't dream of taking it on a backpacking trip unless I could hire an extra person just to haul gear. Especially for someone just breaking into the field, the Tamron 150-600mm is really worth a look, since it's a lot cheaper and a lot lighter than the Sigmonster. If it's not long enough, you can always trade up.
Click to expand...

I am strictly a Nikon guy for my entire career but know several NFL trading card shooters whom used Canon's FD 150-600 exclusively in the 80's. Of course specs of that glass were before digital technology arrived; how does Sigma 300-800mm compare in clarity and sharpness when fitted on an EPIC?
 
Eric M Hurt said:
My point exactly. Not a lot of money in it = one of the toughest fields of film to make money in.
Click to expand...

That is not what I said, there is money to be made in it! You just have to figure out how.

Mike McMillin said:
Looks like creating your own stock footage is the way to go... Thank you everyone
Click to expand...

I would suggest making films, not Stock. With films you get stock, it's more lucrative when you have multiple streams of revenue.
 
Hmm, I think there is quite a few guys now with decent cameras and skills that think just that... I shoot some stock footage and live from the money I make.. Well first you need to get to the animals. Then what you really need is time and patient... I worked with some of the best wild life DP's and the things they go trough to make their films is just something different. One guy spent 4 years summer and winter in knee to waist deep water, summer with mosquitos almost killing him and during the winter he was literary standing in a hole in the ice every day. In the end he won quite a few awards and got priced for best nature short in Cannes and such. Still he is not collecting porsches to say the least. And that was back in film days when there was not a ton of people that had decent cameras, UV houses battery driven lights etc, so now I think competition for those kind of productions has really increased, same for stockfootage.
 
Having been there and dun that, do NOT go into for money. Our nature doc won a regional Emmy for best Cinematography and we make very little money on our HUGE investment.
As suggested, if and only if this shooting nature is a passion, then make GOOD COMPELLING FILMS on subjects that matter to you - start with ONE ;-)
If you are wise, you'll find a subject that people will take their kids to see = family oriented. Start working on a SCRIPT (we went the other direction and it took years).
Expect nothing but that satisfaction of getting some great shots and seeing some incredible things as you spend days, weeks and months waiting and hoping for your chances.
Money will only come if you are excellent, determined, don't care much about money, know the right people and have a lot of luck.

Best!
 
Daniel Murphy said:
I am strictly a Nikon guy for my entire career but know several NFL trading card shooters whom used Canon's FD 150-600 exclusively in the 80's. Of course specs of that glass were before digital technology arrived; how does Sigma 300-800mm compare in clarity and sharpness when fitted on an EPIC?
Click to expand...

I recommend it with all my heart. It's very sharp and you can play with the f stop to get a fantastic DOF if you need it. There is a point that you can focus at infinity and with an f:22 you can achieve endless DOF. Especially in 3D where I use it a lot it gives you a depth feeling that is unlike than everything you seen in your life. I shot with it in from a beam splitter almost overlap up to 3 meters inter axial distance and what I saw was pure Magic. Nobody ever in the history has experience what I did with these lenses. Orgasmic is a heavy understatement. I can't wait to try them with the Dragons/Phantoms in Africa/Australia/Europe etc.

You'll need to be very careful with the focus and must have an 120 ex or something equivalent.

Read the customer reviews here:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/381606-REG/Sigma_595306_300_800mm_f_5_6_EX_DG.html

I also think NASA has one side by side modified configuration like this but can not go more than a meter IA.
 
Last edited:
Daniel Murphy said:
I am strictly a Nikon guy for my entire career but know several NFL trading card shooters whom used Canon's FD 150-600 exclusively in the 80's. Of course specs of that glass were before digital technology arrived; how does Sigma 300-800mm compare in clarity and sharpness when fitted on an EPIC?
Click to expand...
Both lenses have their strong points, but the color, contrast and flare suppression are clearly better on the Sigma. The Canon (if you have a non-rehoused version) has a wonderful zoom/focus knob that allows you to frame your shots and focus without moving your hand between rings, and once you get some practice with it you can find your subject, frame it and focus much faster than with other lenses. Veiling flare is a big issue on the Canon - when you're aimed anywhere near the sun, your whole frame gets completely washed out. As far as sharpness goes, both are very good in the f/8 to f/11 range on the Epic-X. Wide open, the Canon has decent center sharpness but suffers at the corners while the Sigma is soft (but usable) at the long end and decent at the wide end.

These are at 12:1 compression, so it's not a true test of the lens, but here are a couple frames off the Sigma at f/5.6 and f/11 at 800mm
http://redwoodcoastfilm.com/files/300-800samples.zip
 
Björn Benckert said:
In the end he won quite a few awards and got priced for best nature short in Cannes and such. Still he is not collecting porsches to say the least. .
Click to expand...

Bjorn, real wildlife filmmakers don't buy porches! We're more Land Rover kind of guys!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top