'Moonrise Over the Sierra'

This is what California's Sierra range looked like recently during a warm

spell in winter, with snow-capped peaks and partly melted lower

elevations at a very high point in the mountains, estimated somewhere

east of Fresno, CA. between Hetch Hetchy and Yosemite (from dead

reckoning, albeit). Your ratings, critiques and remarks are invited and

most welcome. If you rate harshly, very critically, or with to make a

remark, please submit a helpful and constructive comment; thank you in

advance for sharing your photographic knowledge to help improve my

photography. Enjoy! John (Let me know if you recognize and can

identify the precise location of the topography, please. View is east.)

The liquid glow of the moonlight has made a soothing photo. The fog at the far end helps (is there a bit of pincushion distortion that you have chosen not to correct?). This photo is all about providing visual pleasure.

What were your camera settings?

This photo was taken at about 35000 feet with a wide angle and an older DSLR camera/whatever was in my hands as the scene went by fast.

I made NO attempt to correct for just about anything, preferring if this were successful to have it professionally photoshopped AFTER being shown here. 

The camera was a newly-acquired D200 (yes, a D200) at about 1/13th second, hand held with 10-24 mm f 3.5~3.5 very waning sunlight, rising moonlight.

Yes, an ancient camera; I suggested long ago I'd pick up a replacement for bright light situations when the time came and just got an essentially brand new camera, extremely low shutter click count, no marks at all, in 'new' condition in box for $400, and in bright light it's wonderful and here, at ISO 800 or so, it's not a bad performer either.

You pay in high noise at ISO 800 for portraits, etc., and lack of tonal range, so Photoshop skills are essential for things like portraits, whereas with the D300, D90 and above series, they're ordinary shots requiring almost no work.  For the price, for bright daylight, though a great bargain; it will take landscapes as well as anything made, I think, except it won't go 14-bit and is 10.2 megapixels, but has greater sensitivity than the D2X and D2Xs, which are built to last forever (and weight as much).

This camera will do 5 frames (or six) out of the box, and no increase with battery booster.  Many PN members have such a camera, and don't want to wholesale them, for good reason; I'd like to pick up another or a D2Xs, perhaps.

I like the wonderful and latest cameras, and use one with great tonal values and good ISO sensitivity, but what the heck; it pays to have low-cost backup cameras for use in daylight.

I used to think it was the camera that made the picture, and with the most modern cameras there is a higher percentage of keepers, but an older camera in brighter light can be a great performer; just keep it within its limits OR use it for high-noise artifacts at higher ISO situations, as I did with my 'drunk guy laying over woman's knee' shot, with a D2X shot at ISO 3200, for a wonderful effect.

It pays to know your equipment. 

Have you approached Meir Samel yet; I think he has information that can help you about reproduction 'look' and 'values'?

I value your questions as they cause me to think; and I think my writing has many readers, based on feedback I get.

john

John (Crosley)

Thank you.

If you follow my work, it's not what you expect, is it?

I try to do everything once in a while.

john

John (Crosley)

Yes, John, I have emailed Meir Samel. That was probably a week ago and I'm awaiting his reply. I'm not sure if I should contact him again just now, given that he may be busy.

I've noticed this propensity not to crop/correct in some photographers. HCB never did it. In fact, as is said, he framed it so that he would know if someone tried to crop before publishing; am I right? How would you view your approach to this? Is it to do with being a purist or aim to produce a good end-result? One can be both, I suppose, but perhaps that's not common.

I think (and can be absolutely sure in fact) Mr. Samel is aware of my referral of him to you, and he has health issues that may prevent a quick response; and if your religion calls for the annihilation of his country (Israel), then forget it, but I doubt that's the case.

He's an expert I think on reproduction quality, and may need a reminder or a note under a photo he posts, but you two need to get together I think for he can teach you what you need better than I, and not the use of Photoshop, as he uses Elements, not the full version. 

Photoshop Elements is a good deal cheaper than the full version of Photoshop, but the controls are a little harder to find and/manipulate and some just are missing entirely . . . . but mastery of one will help toward mastery of the other, even if the tools sometimes have different names --Photoshop is an industry standard for image editing, though there are many programs for image editing.

But please, if he helps you, listen carefully (read carefully?) as he is an expert on tonalities, which is the area I think you need to watch most carefully.

It is not true that Henri Cartier-Bresson never allowed cropping; his work for Vanity Fair, I think was cropped and he had arguments with its editor when he traveled America after his World War II return about cropping.

One 'Life Magazine' cover shows the magazine logo overprinted on his photo - a form of cropping.  There are others that are cropped including perhaps his most famous (the man leaping the mirroring mud puddle at Gare St.  Lazare (St. Lazare Train Station, Paris), which he cropped, as he was not close enough.  He has claimed that's his only crop, but that's not entirely true.

He did compose almost 100% for the viewfinder the the no-crop edict was because editors often would trim a 'head shot' out of a well thought out composition, destroying the composition entirely.  Life Magazine must have negotiated with him for their right to overprint their log on his cover photo, but 'Cover of Life' was every photographer's dream (it was from his first trip to the Soviet Union for a Western photographer after the war, and he had very leftist leanings, despite coming from one of France's 200 wealthiest families . . . . and having the finest, and costliest education - and apparently never worrying too much about money either because of a family fortune in sewing thread (Cartier-Bresson thread was in every sewing basket in France during his youth and early days).

He tried not to trade on his family name and at first called himself 'Cartier' leaving off the '-Bresson' part, but eventually he just succumbed to using his full name.

Cropping 100% in the viewfinder is a superb goal, but one not always attainable, even by Cartier-Bresson.  One wonders how many possibly great shots he didn't take because of his no-crop stricture.  That stricture did attach to his photos in Magnum (photo) Agency which he co-founded, and no one has kept reliable count of how many times it's been broken with his consent or because an editor prevailed with his knowledge.  Magazine pages have a certain 'aspect ratio' which does not match with the 2:3 aspect ratio of a 35 mm camera.

After World War II, he printed almost nothing at all, leaving that to a personal printer, and insisted the clearness around every frame be printed as 'black ' to show the four edges of the photo as he framed them . . . . so as time progressed it was harder and harder to break the no-crop stricture.

But during World War II, at its outbreak, he took scissors or razor blade and trimmed from his best negatives ALL the clear plastic except the image, and apparently printing those negatives is a special task.  He kept them in a bank safe deposit box of his parents and/or relatives, I think, in a cookie tin, for the end of the war. 

I hope that fills you in on the history; I am quite sure it's right;' also he did not always shoot with a 50 mm lens; he also shot with a 35 mm and a 90 mm and maybe others of Leica.  (He had been reliably described one time as wearing three Leicas, presumably all with different lenses as he was expected to be outdoors during his trip in SE Asia where he is reported with so many cameras. 

Don't believe all you read about Cartier-Bresson.  In the Charlie Rose Interview (see it at the Charlie Rose site on the Internet, the famous interviewer shows him with a photo of a religious man and says it appears to be the pontiff (pope) and Cartier-Bresson, then in his '80s but sharp, very sharp, seems to agree, but the religious figure actually is known to be a cardinal (not a pope and never became one).

Cartier-Bresson also described taking his famous puddle jumping photo as being 'unable to see through the viewfinder' as it was blocked by boards, leaving the impression he could see nothing at all and magically pushed the shutter, a view  he seems to foster -- something 'magical' motivating his shots.

In fact, his unauthorized biography describes his being there the previous day, seeing the puddle jumper and returning the following day, jamming his Leica into a board fence (viewfinder blocked) but then he could see 'over the top of the camera!'  No magic, but indeed a magic image.

One has to be careful to separate the man from the myth; he was ornery as heck sometimes ('mercurial' is how he's described' as he apparently had enough money throughout his life to be able to tell anybody off if he chose to.) 

He did have one of the widest acquaintanceships of anybody in the art/literary/fashion/political world of his entire time, which stemmed from his early days, and only grew as his photographic fame spread.

It is not well known that he young writer who accompanied him on his photo tour for a well known American magazine on assignment to 'shoot the USA' was a young Truman Capote ('In Cold Blood' -- one of America's premier authors of all time, when Capote was just a young man.)

Imagine Cartier-Bresson being driven (mostly) by Capote through the West and Old South, New England, etc., and the exchanges they must have had, as Capote became more than something of a snob , but Cartier-Bresson for all his potential snobbishness had a touch of the common man with him and was a lifelong leftist sympathizer.

It's interesting, but when he describes that USA photo (for him) trip, and in his work, Capote never gets a written word, and only a portrait of Capote survives . . .  . that I know. [written from memory and if anyone wants to correct -- please do so after reading Assouline's memoirs of his conversations with Cartier-Bresson, etc.)

I don't want to vouch 100% for the accuracy of Cartier-Bresson and Capote, as that is from something I read three years ago, and I haven't refreshed my recollection.

I hope, Samrat, that this answer is encyclopedic.  Where else can you get personal essays typed to your specifications in answer to your questions, but from my point of view, they're very interesting questions that others have raised and OFTEN HAVE RECEIVED MISLEADING ANSWERS, so I hope to help set the record straight.  (corrections invited).

With thanks again.

john

John (Crosley)

To anybody familiar with geography and the sun's and moon's rotation around earth, the note this is sunset and moonrise will show this photo is facing east, but I want to point that out for those who are not so familiar or who missed those cues.

This was taken from an airplane flying over lower elevation 'foothills' of the Sierra, across the higher portions of the Sierra in an area where there are many canyons, but I doubt if many or possibly any East/West highway routes.

But then I dead reckoned this photo based on personal knowledge of the Sierra from a lifetime AND flying time (Seattle to LA).  I'm open to ideas about the precise geographical point from those who know these mountains 'cold'.

john

John (Crosley)

Yes, Yes, once in a lifetime view for a non-pilot; and seat next to me was 'blocked' because of having attained (once again)  high status with airline -- I get two seats if there's room, so I had aisle AND window seat, and dropped everything when I saw this.  (I also recognize this area, though it's from a route along mountains that's almost 1,000 miles long since I lived so long and played so much in those mountains.)

(They also board me specially, give me three bags allowance -- very large bags -- let me eat in the boarding lounge -- free eats and drinks -- no charge, etc.).

I formerly had such status for years but let that status drop, (Oh and double miles too - I fly 16,000 miles and they give me 32,000 miles on my account.)  There are advantages to knowing how to 'work with the system'.  Sometimes (not often) they even answer my call button.

This view was better than any 'high status' an airline could give, and any passenger lucky enough to sit next to a window on the proper side could see it -- they haven't figured out how to charge extra for it -- YET!

Oh, and I buy the absolutely lowest priced tickets, no one buys them cheaper than I, but I fly a lot, and my airline alliance only counts miles not dollars, thankfully.

My last trip to the USA cost a little over $500 round trip to Seattle and Los Angeles and almost as much again in taxes, landing fees, security fees, etc.).   

And they gave me 32,000 miles for a 16,000 miles round trip, with 55,000 being enough for a 'free' transoceanic trip.  It pays to know the rules and the perquisites; I once wrote a book on it - and finished it on 9-11-2001, the exact hour that the World Trade Center catastrophe killed air travel and ruined the market for such a book.

Your comment is very much appreciated.  (You can see I've been gone for a while!).

john

John (Crosley)

A true inspiration for CCR

If only John Fogerty had dedicated 'Bad Moon Arising' to this photo . . . and put it on the cover.

Thanks for the comment and the link.  It's be hard to dislike that song with Fogerty singing it.

john

John (Crosley)