Join Now
Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Hi all.
Whilst out with my friends (Mossyoak, Maiwand & Teocali) a few weeks ago Stag hunting, I had a moment of madness and got up close and personal with a Stag and a 105mm macro.
This particular Stag was obviously shattered from charging about bellowing for the females and decided the time had come to take a rest. I took the opportunity to drop down and close in slowly as I wanted to safely get close and feel the raw power of the beast. He permitted me to get close about 6 feet and capture him mid bellow; boy did he need a tic tac mint. Afterwards I backed off slowly and allowed him to rest in peace.
I chose this image to upload because of the low POV and the clarity showing the saliva string in his mouth. I realise the sky is rubbish but you can’t have everything, and I prefer to show what I capture not what I can do in Photoshop; which to be honest is minimal anyway.
!
Well have a good look and let me know what you think.
Cheers
Paul
I would add that no animals were harmed in the capturing of this image!
| Camera: | Nikon D3 1/800sec @F4 ISO 640 |
| Lens: | Nikon 105mm f2.8 Micro |
| Recording media: | RAW (digital) |
| Title: | Stag mid Bellow |
| Username: | |
| Uploaded: | 30 Oct 2010 - 8:12 PM |
| Tags: | Animal, Bushy park, Close-up / macro, General, Red stag, Wildlife / nature |
| VS Mode Rating |
101 (100% won) These stats show the percentage of wins and the rating score that your photo has achieved. You can go to the VS Mode by clicking on this icon. Signup to e2Signup to e2 to see which photo this has won or lost against in the vs mode |
| Votes: | 30 |
Comments
Nice to see an upload Paul
Cracking capture mate,excellent detail and timing !! Love it
great shot BUT I do think you were taking a huge risk Paul, you got away with it this time and no doubt you were careful but consider the damage an animal of this size can do.
I'm not sure a 100mm lens was the best option in this instance for the following reasons;
1) The narrower field of view of a longer lens would have been beneficial in excluding the white sky and tree protection guard, neither of which add anything to the scene and detract from the main point of interest.
2) For your safety and to minimize any disturbance or stress caused to the animal, particularly as he was already exhausted, a longer lens would have been a much better option.
Just because you can get close, doesn't mean that you have to.
Just my opinion for what it's worth.

I think you'll find you were more than 6ft away, at least when this photograph was taken. At that distance, your field of view is about 2'x1'5 at the focal plane, which isn't nearly enough to include the whole stag.
However, I agree with Justin that it was irresponsible to approach the animal so closely. Your judgment (some might say, 'gamble') about your personal safety turned out to be correct. However, as you know, he would have attacked you had you come this close to him while he was not exhausted. By approaching to a distance where he wanted to attack you, you were causing it unnecessary distress.
And I must admit to being confused by the apparent contradiction between MossyOak's endorsement of this shot and his condemnation of photographers getting too close in his comment here.

Take a chill pill people, you may have read I said "about 6 feet" clearly I MUST have been further away than I estimated. As for causing the animal distress; I don't think so! the animal showed no signs of distress and I was especially careful not to cause any. As for "By approaching to a distance where he wanted to attack you, you were causing it unnecessary distress." I feel sure that if I had encroached on his "space" he would have charged; tired or not. I was taking particular care to read his body language to avoid distress.
That said, thanks for the comments.
Paul
Add a Comment
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.



















