A continuing conundrum as a photographer is equipment.  One buys a camera and lens - whether film or digital - expecting the equipment to last a good, long time.  The original and subsequent purchases are based on potential use and type of photography one does.  Do I need to update my camera or buy new lenses, so that I can increase potential shooting or photograph different subject matter?  I suspect this is something that is in the back of many photographers' minds as they progress through and tackle new projects.  Then there is cost and justification of expenditures.   As the price of many digital single lens reflex or DSLR cameras has gone down, one can still spend a mind-boggling amount of money on both cameras and lenses, and in most cases, you do get what you pay for. These shiny objects with more bells and whistles are perpetually popping up in professional publications.  

In 1996, I started a photography project that eventually led to my book "A Place Like No Other:  people of an enchanted land."  A photography instructor happened to have a nice Mamiya 645 with a Schneider lens and he offered it to me for a good price, which was still a lot of money.  My constant thought is - just work on your technique and take better photographs.  You don't need more or bigger or better equipment.  In that particular case, I bought the camera and never regretted it.  It served me well, and the 1 3/4 x 2 1/4 format was perfect for those environmental portraits.

However, during the late afternoon/early evening hours this week, two bull elk drifted by the south side of our house, and I grabbed my Nikon D800 with 70-200mm lens to try to capture these rather large animals, with antlers in full velvet.  According to Wikipedia, the so-called velvet "is a soft layer of highly vascularised skin" that protects the growing bone until it is fully developed. This presented me with a "velvet conundrum" - should I buy a 500 mm lens so I could shoot more effective images of these animals during occasions such as this?  My logical brain's answer was a fairly straightforward "No".  I am not a wildlife photographer.  The shots I am lucky enough to get represent part of my general interest in nature and, although a definite interest, not one of my major subjects in the photographic field.  So included here are photographs documenting the elk.  Regardless of the philosophical ramblings here, it was great to see these bulls sporting their velvet.

Bull elk 1

Bull elk 4

Bull elk 2

The gash in this one's coat, probably from a barbed wire fence, is clearly evident in the image below.

Bull elk 3

Photographic conundrums are out there continually and I still try to balance true necessity, desire, and expense along with getting out there and producing really good images.

until next Monday,

DB

a passion for the image@