Monday in Nature Weekly Photo Dec 7, 2015

[Laura Weishaupt]

<p>I took the day off today and spent hours on a couple of lakes with the camera, lens and TC, and of course, the manual. There's lots of new stuff to learn that's for sure. Scary and exciting all at the same time.</p>

<p>Dieter, welcome to MiN.</p>

<p>John Farrar, yes, it must be GAS. Being married to another photographer must mean that we just enable one another. It certainly makes life easier. We're optics junkies. <br>

Christoph, that's hilarious. I tossed a coat on the box so the eyes in the back of my head couldn't see it. Automated focus stacking........most impressive!<br>

Randy, I believe that is the same plant that I opened with, a species of Goldenrod. There are many, and your right in every way about them. <br>

Tom, that's making the most of a rainy day. It's lovely.<br>

Edwin, thanks, that's one taken from the car, which did shake a bit. I love that sound. I'd like to be around a big flock, like a couple 100k. There is one bird in that shot with a neck collar that was clear enough to report. There is a large local quarry where snowies gather during the winter. It has steep high walls and their take off sounds echo around. Then, they fly right over the edge at the top, where people wait. It's very cool. <br>

Edwin, your image made me think of toothed fungi till I read further....bones, wow. I think I'd like to lean how to use a bellows for macro someday.<br>

Leszek, Mary, have you ever read about the origins of apples and what complicated plants they really are? <br>

Paul, that's cool. There is a similar colored polypore that grows in North America, <em>Pyncnoporus cinnibarinus. </em>I wonder if they are the same. </p>

<p>Colin, maybe the cure is to be true to who we are and live a well balanced life. Salty ocean air, now that's a remedy to many ills.<br>

Thanks for the well wishes on the camera. I think it will serve me for a long time. I'm always inspired by the work here each week, and constantly amazed at the variety of toys we use to get the images.</p>

[sallymack]

<p>Thanks, Edwin. Algae is cool! --Sally</p>

[MTC Photography]

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18085767-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="452" /><br>

Lake Ashi</p>

[Laura Weishaupt]

<p>Anthea,<br>

Thanks for pointing out the date error. That's entirely my mistake. I blew getting in the right date for the thread. Not enough coffee that early in the morning. Perhaps Shun can fix that for us.<br>

I'm seeing the most recent threads, November, at the top. Are you seeing the dates the way you mention on all forums, or just here? We can sort the posts by thread creation or last post. </p>

[Mary Doo]

<blockquote>

<p>Roman P: Stony Creek of Adirondacks. Contax 645 (11 yrs old!)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Beautiful all around! I bet it was made with Fuji Velvia (?).</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I completely overlooked the date in the thread title too. It is corrected now.</p>

[Mary Doo]

<blockquote>

<p> I bet it was made with Fuji Velvia (?).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh sorry Roman, you specifically stated "Ektachrome E100VS" below the image. The colors saturate beautifully. Come to think of it, Velvia would expose more to the green. </p>

[Laura Weishaupt]

<p>Thanks Shun.</p>

[ShunCheung]

Back in 1990, I didn't like the exaggerated colors in Velvia initially, but I got used it after a few years. However, I tried the

E100VS a couple of times and never liked it. Can be great for foliage, though, especially when it is not sunny.

[Mary Doo]

<p>Back in those pre-credible-digital days, I was always happy with Fuji Velvia 50 and Provia 100 for nature photography. In general, Kodak leaned too much to the earth tone to my liking. Agfa was very nice but didn't seem popular in the US. Wildlife photographers were so happy when Fuji replaced the grainy Provia 400 with a new smoother version, which was tentamount to replacing today's digital sensor with one that accommodates high ISO with reduced noise. ISO was "ASA" then. :)</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I see images from film these days and think to myself, "Wow, those are really over saturated." In the digital world, it seems like only Saturation noobs get carried away with the Saturation slider.</p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>David, think you can be referring to Velvia's "vivid" colors. I tend to like some saturation, but hopefully not overly so. To each his/her own. IMO Roman P's beautiful water image has an elegance that lends impact to a scene.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Mary, I was, indeed, thinking of Velvia, but Agfa, Kodachrome and others come to mind as saturated to a point where we might criticize a noob today for such saturation. OTOH, I expect saturation similar to Roman's lovely fall scene shot.</p>

<p>When I'm faced with such naturally saturated scenes as fall leaves or some of our Colorado sunrises and sunsets, I work extra hard to make the scene match what my eye saw. It's not so easy when the colors get extreme, which that actually do in nature.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>As I said, the first time I used Velvia was in the fall of 1990, during an October trip to New England to photograph foliage. After that trip, I did a quick presentation to the camera club at work. I showed some A/B comparisons between Kodachrome and Velvia; everybody noticed the drastic change.</p>

<p>Initially a lot of people dismissed Velvia as "Disney Chrome" and it took a few years before it became main stream. My personal taste also changed at that time. If you check out those coffee-table books by David Muench and Galen Rowell, the color shift from the 1980's to around year 2000 is very drastic. (Rowell tragically passed away from a plane crash in August, 2002. Therefore, he used very little digital; by far the majority of his work was on 35mm film. Reportedly, in their final trip, Galen Rowell's wife Barbara was trying out a then brand new Nikon D100 DSLR. She was also in that same plane crash where there was no survivor.) In fact, I still find the colors in Rowell's late work quite extreme.</p>

[Mary Doo]

<blockquote>

<p>If you check out those coffee-table books by David Muench and Galen Rowell...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>David Muench shot Velvia. I love his photography - tranquil and inspirational. During one of the trips I went with him, he took us to Galen Rowell's gallery in Bishop, CA. Galen's work is definitely very Velvia. I value those memories.</p>

[roman_p]

<p>Thanks Mary. Yes, Velvia is my favorite film too, but in this situation I shot under heavy overcast conditions and spitting rain. Velvia 50 is usually rated at ISO 40 and it’s simply not enough light to execute a good shot. And you’re right- it usually gives some greenish cast. I found that in such situation Ektachrome 100VS might be a better choice.<br>

David, despite that the Velvia (and E100VS) is known as a “saturated film”, I believe that it still delivers much more natural feeling than many digital shots that we are seeing nowadays. I would say that Velvia 50 emphasizes colors of nature but not overpowered it.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I respect your opinion Roman, but we'll have to disagree about Velvia feeling "more natural." To each, his own. That's something we'll never settle. ;-)</p>

[Mary Doo]

<blockquote>

<p>we'll have to disagree about Velvia feeling "more natural"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>David, from reading Roman's comments, it appears he meant that even with Velvia's level of saturation and contrast, it delivers a more "natural" look than many digital shots that we see these days. To many the slight Velvia saturation enhances an image.</p>

<p>I like the natural look of your images. However, photography is an art after all. Unless we intend to capture a random snapshot, beside the choice of colors, we also compose carefully, we choose to include/exclude certain elements in the composition; we choose the combination of shapes, forms, lines, content, colors, and space, and their juxtaposition, and under a preferred lighting condition and background. Sometimes it is pure luck, many times there is nothing random about the process of making an image. So, unless it is for clinical, analytic or evaluative purposes, photography needs not record a natural scene exactly the way it is at first glance. The photographer should make an image that is pleasing to him/her.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Mary, I think that we interpret Roman's comments the same. He likes the bit of "unnatural" look that Velvia gives. So do many others. I remember back when we made our color balance choices mostly at the point when we loaded the film in the camera. All films in that day had major compromises and Velvia had a "pleasing" set of compromises to most eyes, then we got very used to it, after seeing it in many images and it almost became a standard in "nature" photography.</p>

<p>Now in the digital world, we can go "natural" or we can "enhanced." Either is a valid choice, in my view. I chose to lean toward the natural, but admit to moving slightly toward the "enhanced" after I realized that it sold more images. When I go into the leading photo galleries in Colorado, I see that my "vision" is still on the conservative side, but I'm sticking to it. I'm just thankful that we now have a choice and no longer have to make a compromise decision when we "load" our cameras. </p>

[tombest]

<p>Thanks for the nod, Laura.</p>

<p>Tom</p>

[roman_p]

<blockquote>

<p>So, unless it is for clinical, analytic or evaluative purposes, photography needs not record a natural scene exactly the way it is at first glance. The photographer should make an image that is pleasing to him/her.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mary, can't agree more. That's exactly what I tried to say. Velvia is an iconic film but it's not bullet prove. Sometimes it works sometime doesn't. But for me it works better than any other media helping me to express my personal vision on nature.<br>

Dave, I agree that the understanding of “natural color” very much depends on your personal vision and you’re right that it is the pointless discussion. But you also wrote </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I see images from film these days and think to myself, "Wow, those are really over saturated." </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I was really surprise reading this. Because I see how many magazines, websites and even Photonet are flooded with thousands over-manipulated, oversaturated, and unnatural looking digital shots that simply can blow out any gamut range or ICC profiles. Many of them got awarded and came from famous names. So, saying the film shots are more saturated than digital ones doesn’t make much sense to me. That I was trying to point in my previous comments.<br>

</p>