Firstly a big thanks to Gerry for inviting me to do this blog entry – I’ve kept an eye on the Photo-Africa blog site for ages and it’s wonderful to be part of it now.
When Gerry suggested that I do something on how wildlife photography has changed over the years it was a bit of a surprise that he’d come up with this topic as it’s something I’d been thinking quite a bit about it in the preceding weeks and have now incorporated discussion on this into our photographic workshops.
The biggest change over the years (from an equipment point of view) has been the advent of digital cameras. Thinking back; how we ever managed to get great images using film is almost beyond me now.
The first major issue was the sheer quantity film. It was not uncommon for us to take 100 rolls of ISO 50 Velvia into deepest, darkest Africa for a week-long shoot. Can you imagine arriving at some far flung border post with all this film and a bag full of camera gear (including a 600 f4 and a 300 f2.8)? The customs and immigration people would be thrilled – finally something to really get their teeth into! Pat and I would be there for hours – lying through our teeth! And as good as Velvia was, if you have a look at a scanned transparency you will notice the huge amount of grain that’s visible. Compare that to an image from a Nikon D3 or similar and you’ll see what I mean!
There were 2 other hugely limiting factors (actually, there are probably more but…). The first is the ease at which we change ISO rating – at any time. You can’t do this with film. At best you can push the speed a stop or 2 but the thought of using anything beyond about ISO 200 (for transparency film) was ludicrous. The quality was appalling. Now I think nothing of using ISO 1600 on my D3X and if you are using a Nikon D3 or a Canon 1D Mk IV then you upper limit is over 100 000! Think about the possibilities that that open up…
The other thing is the number of images you could shoot – 36 and then we had to have a film change. And invariably what happened was you’d get to about image 28 or 30 and the elephant would charge and you’ve got 6 images left! On my camera, with its 2 memory card slots, I can fit about 600 RAW imaged on a “roll of film”. Of course there was also no correcting minor exposure errors in Lightroom later – what you shot was what you got! And the cost! We’d spend about R50 000-00 a year on film and remember that was in the late ’90’s when R50k was still R50k.
The other big thing that has happened over the years is that the style of photography as changed – substantially. When we worked on our book, The Big Cats of MalaMala, it was all about crystal clear, sharp, well lit (Mostly front lighting with a little fill flash. And no i-TTL by the way), fairly posed images. It was simply about the image and not the beast. By the time we started on our book on Tuli, 4 years later things had changed. A little creative licence had crept into the images. Some blur perhaps. A smattering of the images would have been shot at twilight (remember that ISO at 200 was about the practical upper limit for the digital cameras that were around at the time) and we were trying to bring out a bit of the “spirit” of the animal.
In the old days, exposure and technical aspects ruled supreme.
Digital cameras allowed a little more experimentation and the message behind the image was becoming more and more important.
Low angles, selective focus and a more “documentary” style is becoming fashionable.
This image was shot with the camera attached to a monopod and held upside down out the side of a vehicle.
And now? Well it’s over to you. What are you trying to say? What’s the message? Almost anything goes. It’s less about technical aspects and very much more about the message coming through. Sure, we still all like to see well exposed, sharp, beautifully composed pix but there is more that is needed. Much more! And what is the “more”? I don’t know – you tell me…!
Stay well.
Roger de la Harpe
Roger’s Links:
- Website: Africa Imagery
- Blog: Africa Imagery Blog
- Workshops & Safaris: Workshops & Safaris
on 
on 
on 
on 
on 
This was a phenomenal guest post! I love this line you mentioned when you were referring to how safari photography used to be: “It was simply about the image and not about the beast.” You are absolutely correct. The most raw and moving photographs are the ones that bring out the real “personality” behind the animal. It’s more documentary style than “posed.” Documentary style is always more moving and realistic than posed photographs of animals.
I love your work and I hope you will guest blog again soon! I especially love the photo of the giraffe and the wild dog (or so it looked like a wild dog!).