Inside Galen Rowell's Camera Bag (Must See Link)

Hi All,

 

I've always been impressed w/ Galen's photography. Not til recently did I

realize he passed away in 2002.

 

Attached is a link to his webpage - gear section. I'm posting it because I

think it still remains an excellent rundown on Nikon gear. We're always looking

for great gear at the lowest cost, right? Then check out this link.

 

http://www.mountainlight.com/rowell/gr_camera_bag.html

 

Thanks, Galen. God's Speed.

 

Paul

That must have been his "current" system before he passed. If you read "Mountain Light", which has a lot of older images, he talks alot about (and the images have credits to) the F3, 20, 24, 55 macro, and the 75-150 AIS.

A lesson for the camera snobs.

Agreed. Whenever I feel a bout of Nikon G.A.S. coming on, I re-read that chapter.

We need to keep in mind that Galen Rowell was an avid rock climber and was apparently in excellent shape in his early 60's, when he died in a plane crash 4 years ago. Obviously he also had some big lenses, but most of his cameras and lenses were small ones suitable for rock climbing. That was why he didn't bother with medium and large formats while he was mainly a landscape photographer.

 

He and his wife Barbara passed away on their way home from a trip to the Bering Sea. Reportedly, during the Bering Sea trip, Barbara was using a then brand new Nikon D100.

Hi Shun,

 

Thanks very much for the info. I always liked his work from the first time I saw it in American Photo magazine in the early-to-mid 1990's. It is one of the few magazines that I kept from that era.

 

I lived in Berkeley years ago and we had that connection. But that was before I got into photography so I had no occasion to meet him, although he probably lived just down the street.

 

Again, thanks for bringing us up to date. Best - Paul

Mountain Light is still alive and still doing workshops I think. Of course they do them with other photographers. I wish I'd taken the time and money to go on one of Galen's workshops.

 

If you look at John Shaw's current bag (another of my personal photographic heroes) you'll see what I think Galen might be using these days.

http://www.johnshawphoto.com/equipment.htm

 

hmmmmm.... I'm surprised at the lack of primes. John was another one in his early books who used a 24, 50, and 85 or 105 -- I guess the zoom quality is finally getting there.

I can vouch for at least two of the lenses in that bag: The 20mm F4 is an amazing lens and one I'll probably never give up. I've only had that one for two years. But for a decade, the lens I used almost exclusively - at least all my very best Nikon images were taken with it -- was the 28-80 AF, first version. Very sharp, excellent color. I sold it when I switched to a Lecia M6 and cut back my Nikon gear to an FM, F3 and a half dozen manual primes.

"I wish I'd taken the time and money to go on one of Galen's Workshops."

 

I, too, would have loved the opportunity to meet him. Hwvr, you can still see him in action through the video that he and Frans Lanting made: "Creative Outdoor Photography". I bought mine two years ago at Mountain Light Gallery in Bishop, CA. There is a DVD version now.

 

"If you look at John Shaw's current bag (another of my personal photographic heroes) you'll see what I think Galen might be using these days."

 

I am not sure about this. Galen was very much into rock climbing; so equipment-weight consideration was one of his major concerns. A number of his published images was made with the inexpensive but light Nikon 70-300mm, sometimes with the super-light Gitzo 001. John is not known to be a rock-climbing photographer.

 

Mary

Shortly after Galen Rowell had passed away, I had an opportunity to talk to a professional nature photographer who knows Rowell quite well. He feels that what is really special about Rowell was that he managed to reach remote places and unusual angles because he was a rock climber.

 

In other words, it is very easy to duplicate his equipment, but unless you are a strong hiker and a rock climber, it is impossible to shoot what Rowell managed to do because you cannot get to many of the same spots.

 

Moreover, I have heard from multiple people that Barbara Rowell was the marketing brain behind the scene that made Galen Rowell so well known. Without her, Galen would have been a little known rock climber. Unfortunately, they were both gone in the same plane crash.

Photography is 90% being there with a camera in your hand. :-)

Isn't this true for everything else in life as well? LOL!

 

Mary

In his book, "The Inner Game of Outdoor Photography", Galen Rowell writes:

 

"Ninety percent of my best life's work could have been made with a manual body, a 24mm lens, and a telephoto zoom in the 80-200mm range."

 

Not that this is what he actually used for the 90%, but that it would have been sufficient. It's something to think about.

Rowell was primarily a landscape photographer. A lot of serious landscape work is shot with large-format cameras, e.g. Ansel Adams' famous black and white. Not only don't you need AF; those large-format cameras don't have light meters built in and looking at an upside-down image on ground glass is much harder than the viewfinder on the D70/D50 that people often complain about.

 

Why would Rowell's comment surprise you?

 

AF is unnecessary for landscape, macro, still fine arts, and most potrait photography.

Galen's comment didn't surprise me, and he's not the first prominent photographer to make a similar point in print. My observation is that it's something we should all keep in mind as we discuss the infintesimally small points of equipment choices when, in practice, it's probably not that all that material to the making of a fine photograph. We are truly blessed in this day and age with the choices available to us at a reasonable cost and I, too, appreciate the beauty and functionality of fine equipment. For most of us, however, it's our skills and creativity that need our attention more than our equipment choices.

<I>My observation is that it's something we should all keep in mind as we discuss the infintesimally small points of equipment choices when, in practice, it's probably not that all that material to the making of a fine photograph.</I>

<P>

Bob, I am afraid that you are drawing a partially wrong conclusion here. There is no doubt that this forum is way too obsessed with equipment and lens sharpness. You might notice that I never discuss bokeh, for example. If your photography is in the areas I mentioned above, equipment may not matter that much.

<P>

However, if you shoot sports, news, wildlife action, etc., having good AF equipment makes a big difference. If you shoot weddings, high ISO performance under dim light can make a big difference.

<P>

Equipment indeed doesn't matter much in some cases. In some others, it can make or break your shots. IMO, it is very wrong to make a generalization one way or another.

Indeed there are many things in photography (and in life too!) that we can do without. But if there is something that makes it more convenient to achieve an end more easily or more efficiently without compromising one's standards, then perhaps it makes sense to look into it.

 

I will never forget how Jack Dykinga used a pure black card as his "graduated neutral density filter". He just zigzagged it up and down before the lens to control and feather the exposure. But would I still prefer to use my Lee grad ND or would you still talk about the Galen Rowell grad ND? I bet we would. LOL!

 

Mary

After a while one gets used to the image being upside down and reversed. Then one pays more attention to the ...composition !

 

It is said that for many of his shots HCB used an external VF that that showed the image upside-down.

 

As far as AF: Different strokes, different folks. I know that on shoots here in L.A. I'm usually the only one w/ a manual focus Leica, where everyone else has these impressive big lens AF cameras. Makes me a little insecure until I jump into the crowd and start clicking. OTOH I'm able to move around less noticed.