Trying to make shots of animals more interesting.

H

harmonica44

I was invited by a producer to go to the U.S. to direct a nature/travel documentary. However, because of the budget, we only have a 50mm lens and that's it. Not an ideal lens for shooting animals since you cannot zoom in, and you cannot get close to them without them moving away further.

I feel my shots are very limited cause of this, especially when wanting to make animals interesting and close up, rather than always being at a distance. Is there anything I could do, or any shots I could come up with, to compensate, to make up for the lack of close ups?

What can I do to make animals interesting in distant shots? We're shooting beavers, birds, whatever is in the Pacific Northwest, that I could get the camera on. Thanks.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
I think you're pretty much out of luck without something longer than that, you're just going to be wasting your time and whatever money is spent on travel.

Why not rent a zoom lens? This one would cost you less than $100 for a week:

http://www.borrowlenses.com/product...on-SP-150600mm-f5663-Di-VC-USD-Lens-for-Canon

On an APS-C sensor that covers roughly a 240mm - 960mm equivalent, which should be good for all but the most distant subjects. Add in an extender for $20 more:

http://www.borrowlenses.com/product/canon_extender/Tamron_1.4x

And you can push the long end of the lens out over 1300mm.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
LOL!
For travel you'll need a wide lens as well to get nice panoramic views.
For animals you'll need to follow IDOM's advice.

Otherwise you need to go to an oldschool zoo to maybe get close enouh to an animal with your 50mm.

Or cover yourself with bait ;)

Anyway, IDOM is right: you'll be wasting the budget like this.

With only 50 mm you'll end up making a trip, shooting a lot and then asking 1000+ questions how we can solve the lack op close shots.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Okay thanks. I already suggested to the producer to rent the lens, but he says he is not sure if he can cause of the budget, and has already put a lot of towards other equipment and sound. He says he will see what he can do. I even suggested that he could by a zoom lens and then return if it's in good condition and get the money back from the store, as long as it it's returned in two weeks, if he really cannot rent one. He says he will see if he can get the money to do it.

Do you think I should really put the pressure on him and threaten that it will be a waste of time?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
That's not threatening. It's harsh reality kicking in.
I don't know who is handing out money to him, but I'd like to know whether it's accessible to Dutch citizens as well. Sounds like it's free money if such a producer gets it...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I hate to say it.. but this 'producer' might have enough budget to rent proper equipment if he wasn't flying you in from canada to shoot nature stuff.. surely there has to be someone closer to the location with at least comparable skill -- probably even with their own gear better suited to the task.

I'm curious, especially since we've never seen anything from you indicating that you're worth flying into another country to work as DP on anything.
I know that's not going to come across very nicely, but do you have a reel even? How'd you manage to get hired for this gig in the first place?

I'm fairly sure I'm not the only one thinking this... I mean.. good on ya for getting a gig, but I'm suspicious. :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Lens options aside, there are some really good points here about the business decision. What do you think is going to damage your relationship with this guy more - warning him about the lens limitation, or handing him footage that he may not like after he spent the cash to send you there?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
He's not flying me, he is driving their himself. So I guess it's not really extra money for him besides food, since we are both riding in the same vans, with other crew. I know him from before, when we both started out wanting to make movies. He says he wanted me cause I have more determination than anyone he knows, and I know things about cameras that others do not. He has seen a lot of still photography from me, and I showed him a lot of video tests I did to get the looks he wants.

I am suspicious too. I don't think I am the best for the job, and I told him that, but he says I am more ambitious and has more faith it will get done better, because of it.

He is spending a good portion lav mics for people, cause it is a documentary and he doesn't want to use a boom therefore, when interviewing people. However, I am going to try steer his money away from lavs, and maybe he can put it towards a 300mm zoom lens first. Even ADR is better if it saves money to get that lens perhaps. I mentioned renting as well, and he seems to be rethinking the photography approach.

But I agree, I am not the best choice for this, but took it anyway, because I want something. He will be there on shoot the whole time though, so if he sees shots he doesn't like, I will ask him to speak up, so we can make a change. I did tell him though that such a lens for getting close ups would really help the movie's chances to sell, rather than fail. I am going to mention the lenses to him for rent that were provided in those links. A 600mm zoom would be awesome for animals probably. Hopefully he will do something about it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
harmonica44 said:
I am suspicious too. I don't think I am the best for the job, and I told him that, but he says I am more ambitious and has more faith it will get done better, because of it.
Click to expand...

Having someone come to you with test shots they've done is very reassuring.

harmonica44 said:
Even ADR is better if it saves money to get that lens perhaps.
Click to expand...

Recommend to him that you do ADR for a documentary and his confidence in you will vanish real quick :lol:

I recommend a monopod for nature videography. You can't do handheld with a long lens and monopods are a quick and portable way to travel with significantly more stabilization than handheld.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Okay thanks, I thought of the monopod as well, but I felt that it would move to jerky. Like a long lens on a camera that is on a tripod, with a smooth pan and tilt, is smoother than trying to pan and tilt a monopod, no?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
harmonica44 said:
Okay thanks, I thought of the monopod as well, but I felt that it would move to jerky. Like a long lens on a camera that is on a tripod, with a smooth pan and tilt, is smoother than trying to pan and tilt a monopod, no?
Click to expand...

Yes a tripod is smoother. But in nature you don't always have time to set up a tripod.
Depends on your subject
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
:lol:

Ok.. so, correct me if I'm wrong, but is this guy BUYING lav's and thus can't afford to BUY a proper lens?

Great Zeus' Beard... get that fool to RENT the gear, there should be plenty of budget for both. if not, he should really delay this trip until there is proper budget, otherwise it'll end up being a waste of everyone's time and.. well, apparently a miniscule amount of money.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Will Vincent said:
:lol:

Ok.. so, correct me if I'm wrong, but is this guy BUYING lav's and thus can't afford to BUY a proper lens?

.................
Click to expand...

If that is the case the producer is canabalising/parasiting on his own project to buy lavs.
He can do that and it will be the last time someone will trust him with money to actually make something.
If he would just hire what is necessary, you 2 would be able to have the TOOLS to make it work.
That way there could still be a future after this project...

BTW, ADR for a documentary?
From which planet did you fall to the face of the earth?
That's the worst idea I heard in ages...

I asked it a few times already: who is paying for this project?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
He is paying for the project. Okay ADR is bad I know, but some movies have made it work. But I will not recommend ADR to him. Plus that's not my field, that he is hiring me for. Well I told him the advantages of a monopod, less shake compared to a long lens on a tripod. I also told him the disadvantages of a monopod compared to zoom lens.

I will urge him even more as he did not seem to get the message and is concentrating on other parts of the production more.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
harmonica44 said:
Okay ADR is bad I know, but some movies have made it work.
Click to expand...

You said this is a documentary, right? It's not a question of whether ADR is bad or not, it's that it's almost completely useless in a documentary setting where you're not having people read from a script. If you don't get good audio the first time you shoot an interview, you're going to end up having to go back and shoot the interview again.

Well I told him the advantages of a monopod, less shake compared to a long lens on a tripod.
Click to expand...

The monopod is to get less shake compared to handheld. A tripod will be even more stable. Ideally you would always use a tripod with a long lens, but a monopod is a lightweight alternative that may be better if you're running around a lot, especially in nature/the woods/etc. It will end up having more shake than a tripod would though.

I also told him the disadvantages of a monopod compared to zoom lens.
Click to expand...

I'm not even sure what you mean here. You need a zoom lens for the project you are describing. You also need at minimum a monopod, and possibly a tripod as well/instead. There's no "monopod compared to zoom lens" - you want both.

I will urge him even more as he did not seem to get the message and is concentrating on other parts of the production more.
Click to expand...

Is the nature footage you're supposed to shoot a key element of the documentary? Or is it just something additional he thought it might be nice to have?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top