vince_farnsworth1

Just returned from Nawlins with many nice pics (mostly of the French Quarter area). Went on Captain Terry's swamp tour and had a ball. The boat was ideal for tripod use (big flat-bottomed and covered). There were just a few people on board so maybe the situation would be different if it were crowded. Saw lots of alligators and a few birds. Not a great nature shoot because of the obvious limitations on mobility, but very fun and informative. Bring a flash to freeze jumping gators.

A technique I have used is to meter the scene at the desired aperture and note the recommended shutter speed. Divide this speed by the number of exposures to arrive at the multiexposure speed. For example, if you meter the scene at f/8 and 1/100 second and you want to take twenty exposures, use f/8 and a 1/2000 shutter speed. I usually hand-hold and try to superimpose all exposures as well as I can. Of course you can't superimpose perfectly while hand-holding and this is what gives the desired effect. Parts of the scene that all overlap will have the correct exposure and ones that don't will have varying degrees of underexposure giving a softer outline. Sort of a Monet-like impressionistic result. George Lepp described this technique in one of his magazine articles. Works great.

You might try to find an add-on lens hood to extend the existing hood length. I use this technique for astrophotography. The inside of the hood is absorbant. I got mine from Orion Telescope Center. When not in use, the hood may be stored flat. Also, try not to aim the lens up when not in use. If all else fails, there are electric lens heaters (battery powered) to keep the condensation off, although this is usually not practical for normal photography. If moisture does get on the lens, there are battery powered "hair dryers" that are used to evaporate it (also available from astronomy supply centers). Obviously, keep the cap on the lens when changing environments, especially going from cold to warm. As you may have guessed, astrophotographers face this problem all the time. Good luck.

Unless you are using a *very* stable tripod and cable release, your chances of sharp shots are slim. I am testing some 200 mm lenses at the moment and even those are extremely sensitive to stability. You mention pressing a button. If this is the shutter release, you're already on shaky ground. Use the tripod without full leg extension, collapsed center column and a cable release. For remote focusers, many astronomers use the JMI products. Good luck.

We went to Organ Pipe and Saguaro last year during this time period and the photography was wonderful. Some species of cacti were in bloom but very few wildflowers. If I had to pick one park it would definitely be Organ Pipe. It is much more primative and the vistas are incredible (if you appreciate the desert). Saguaro, while beautiful in its own way, is much closer to civilization and doesn't offer the same visual impact. In Saguaro, you have to be careful not to include man made objects in your photos. The east and west are both nice but the west is probably better for hiking and photo ops. There is also a very nice desert museum there.

 

While at Organ Pipe, we stayed in Ajo. The town of Why is another possibility. Also, be prepared for rain. We almost got drenched on one hike and the storm came out of nowhere and left just as quickly. Luckily, we found some caves for shelter.

The main optical problem with scopes used for photography is excessive chromatic aberration, color around the object. The ETX is a catadioptric scope (a Maksutov type like the legendary Questar) and has essentially none of this color. Even the best refractors have some color, although the latest offerings from Tele Vue and Astro Physics are extremely good in this respect (and their prices reflect this). For a daytime test, focus on a telephone wire against a bright sky and look for a purple and/or green fringe around the wire. Even my f/5 Genesis will show a bit of this color. A cheap Meade 4" cassegrain reflecting scope will not. The best small commercial refractor I've seen is the Astro Physics Traveler, which is a highly color-corrected triplet and uses ED glass. The very latest Tele Vues are also in this class and use ED glass or, in the case of the TV101, ED and fluorite. There are others (Zeiss, Takahashi, etc.) but they are even more expensive and not obviously better for most purposes.

 

As already stated, the large f number and lack of stability will be your most challenging problems in practical use.

 

By the way, Bob, the last time I inquired, you couldn't even order a Traveler. My friend recently sold two of these (used) for over $3000 each! Production is off and on due to demand for their other scopes and mounts. I think Astro Physics makes different model scopes available on a rotating schedule. I was on a list for over two years before I was put on the official waiting list to order a 6" scope. A few months ago, they called me and said I had until noon the next day to put down the deposit to reserve the scope. Mine is due in March, 2000.

As Bob said, this is a common problem with astrophotography, mostly with scopes having large amounts of unprotected glass exposed to the air. The easiest way to avoid fogging is to use a lens hood. The hood should be as long as possible so that the glass is well shielded. With long lenses, this should be no problem. I use about an eight or ten inch felt-lined hood with a 500mm telescope and have never had a fogging problem. You may have to make your own. Be careful to keep the lens very clean and don't point it straight up. If these tips don't work you may have to resort to lens heaters or battery-powered hair dryers made for this purpose. Check out an astronomy catalog like that from the Orion Telescope Center (they may have a URL).

I saw a new Kiev 60 (actually KNEB or similar was printed on the front of the camera) and it looked like an interesting possibility for long exposure astrophotography. It is fully manual and a cable release may be used in "B" for long exposures without a battery (unlike the Pentax 67, e.g.). It came with a metering TTL prism, a waste-level finder, two filters, a lens hood and a lens. It cost $495.00. This sounds too good. I have read that the 60 is much better than the 88 and, at least with the 88, that one should get a camera with "KIEV" in capital letters on the front to ensure the best "quality." Is this also true of the Kiev 60? Are there going to be film flatness issues? Obviously, for astrophotography, usage would be relatively light. Thanks for any help with this.

It is very difficult to take a flower shot that is both technically excellent and visually interesting. I use a 100mm macro lens with and without extension tubes and also use a hand-held TTL flash in some situations. Depth of field is definitely a problem (as is wind and lighting, etc.). The easiest way to get good results is with flash because you can use a small aperture and eliminate the effects of wind and distracting backgrounds. (If you get really close, there won't be any background). Of course, this is only one possible solution and many think black backgrounds look out of place in these kinds of pictures. I always shoot the same subject with and without the flash, if possible, and evaluate the results on the light box. Another advantage of the flash, if angled properly, is that it brings out the textures in the petals, pollen grains and other parts not easily seen with natural lighting. Both lighting looks can be interesting. As far as plane of focus, put it parallel to the part of the flower you are most interested in showing clearly. Selective focus can be very interesting because it draws attention to one particular aspect of the image. In general, experiment a lot with lighting, magnification, background color and composition. Others may have more specific guidelines.

I just reread my response and noticed a very obvious error. If the focus point falls on the background and there is little or no light being reflected to the sensor, the flash will be putting out maximum power to compensate and will likely overexpose, not underexpose, the picture. Sorry about that. Anyway, the rest of what I said is correct. It is still very important to have the sensor where it can accurately meter the reflected light. By the way, I use manual focus for macro so the focus point selected is just for the flash sensing and not for actual focusing.

One thing you have to be very careful about in macro with TTL flash is

that the focusing point that you use ends up where you are metering

the flash light. In other words, if you have a camera with five focus

points (like an A2 or 1N), make certain that the focus point in use is

where you want to meter the light. If the composition is such that

the focus point falls on the background somewhere, you will get a very

dark exposure since there was little or no light being reflected back

to the sensor. If you shoot bugs on flowers, choose a focus point

that falls on the bug or the flower in the final composition. Also,

if the flower or bug is very light-colored (e.g., white or bright

yellow), you must use flash exposure compensation because the light

reflected back to the sensor will be more than from 18% gray and turn

off the flash early. I appologize if all this is obvious to you but

it is something that I have found through experience to be very

important.

The above is good advice but focal length, not lens diameter, is the largest determining factor for how stars are recorded on film. The longer the focal length, the fainter the stars (point sources) that can be recorded. This is because the light from point sources doesn't spread out as fast as the background skyglow does when going to longer focal lengths. The sky gets darker but the star doesn't. This effect increases the contrast between the sky and the star. As mentioned, longer focal lengths take in less of the sky, however. If you can drive to a dark-sky site your chances of success will be greatly increased. You'll be able to leave the lens open for much longer periods before skyglow kills the shot. With 400/800 negative film, ten or fifteen minutes at f/2.8 is easily possible. From the city, use short exposures and hope for a lot of really bright ones. Good hunting.

Yes. Be very carefull with this stuff. According to Lepp, the 20% stuff works as well as the 100% formula, so I'd go for that. Also, you can get it in a roll-on and lotion form so spraying is eliminated. Some also include sunblock. I recently bought some of these variants for an upcomoing trip to Hawaii and will report back on their effectiveness. DEET partially dissolved a plastic lens hood that touched my treated arm. Others have reported similar experiences in related earlier threads. By the way, I recently tried a product called "AfterBite" (I think there are others, also) that works well to relieve the effects of bites. If you get to the bite early, the itching and swelling don't even occur. It evidently works by neutralizing the "venom" before it has a chance to take effect. Highly recommended.

Being slightly dissatisfied with the design of my Bogen 3001, I decided to consider trading up to the equivalent Gitzo (220 series). The 3001 has been great for long treks into Nature but the winged leg-locks tend to catch on bushes and things as I'm hiking through overgrown areas. The Gitzos have a very sleek design without protruding parts and looked ideal. After trying a 226 at the local camera shop, I have several observations: 1) The tripod was designed by a sadist (or masochist, if the perpetrator was an outdoor photographer), 2) The center column collar can't be grasped with a hand when the tripod is up, 3) The head is attached by just screwing it onto a center bolt with no way to lock it in place, 4) My hands were raw from tightening and untightening all the sticky locking collars after only about five minutes. My question is this: Did I miss something here or are all the Gitzos beautifully made torture devices? I still think they look great and would give it a second chance if I thought there was some hope for a reconciliation. Maybe a 1227/1228?

My wife and I just returned from four days in Death Valley, CA and I thought I would post a few brief comments for those interested in making the trip.

 

<p>

 

February saw over two inches of rain and there have been four inches since September. That is a lot of rain for this part of the desert and the results are spectacular, turning the region into a wildflower wonderland. The alluvial fans are carpeted with yellow and purple. The surrounding mountains are capped with snow and there is green everywhere. The floor of the valley around Badwater is now a large lake and offers mirror-like reflections of the mountains and sky for postcard images at dawn and dusk. Very beautiful.

 

<p>

 

We were up before the sun and photographed until dark every day and were always amazed at how quickly the time went. Oh yes, the weather was perfect (mid seventies) so the hiking was fantastic. It helps to have a four-wheel drive vehicle to get to the most interesting places. For photography, the only downside was the occasional contrails in the sky left by the dogfighting jets from the nearby China Lake Naval Weapons Center.

 

<p>

 

Last year, Death Valley was pretty much like one would imagine, dead. Pretty, but dead. It was a major find to see a flower blooming. This year is just the opposite with life everywhere. At the end of the day we were always covered with pollen (and we were very careful where we walked). My wife put it best when she said that we're ruined forever and will probably never return for fear of disappointment. What could top this?

We visited Alaska for the first time this summer in late August. Fall colors were already present, especially in Denali. An added benefit at this time of year is the lack (relatively speaking) of mosquitos. It rained a lot. The bus system in Denali is really first rate. You may get off the buses at any time and hike on your own (bring good boots). This makes for great photo ops, from tundra closeups to wide vistas to isolated shots of Denali itself. We used mainly a 20-35mm f/2.8 and a 200mm f/2.8 (with extension for closeups). Be really carefull with polarizers on the wide angles when shooting the sky. The 200mm was a bit short for wildlife from the bus most of the time. When the animals came right up to the bus it was perfect. We didn't plan to shoot animals in Denali, mainly scenics, so we didn't take any long glass. People who were serious about the animal shots had 300mm with teleconverters or 600mm f/4 lenses. I think a 400mm would work pretty good from the bus if you had a monopod or collapsed tripod to steady it. For glaciers and whales in the Kenai fjords, the 200mm worked well. Good luck.

This is getting way too complicated. If the question is: "Is it okay for Man to be part of my nature photo?", the answer is yes. If the question is: "Can there be 'the hand of Man' in my nature photo entered in a specific type of contest or posted at a particular web site?", the answer is no. The rules are merely a reflection of one group's opinion, not everyone's opinion. Actually, I'm now sorry that I posted this answer because it required really weird punctuation.

Check out the latest National Geographic. There is a technique described by the photographer of the North Woods article that sounds pretty interesting. He sets up the camera and tripod for a long exposure (fifteen seconds on print film) and then about halfway through it he picks up the tripod and walks toward the subject. The example shown is beautiful. Actually, all of his photos are beautiful and many are "artistic". Evidently, National Geographic thought so too as they published a *bunch* of them.

My wife, Maggie, gave me a small telescope for Christmas in 1990 and we both joined an astronomy club in April, 1991. We thought that astrophotography was a really stupid part of the hobby. Everyone in our club that did it was always cussing at the sky conditions, the seeing and their equipment. When they received their results, they cussed some more. Why would anyone subject themselves to such abuse? About two years later we got a Tele Vue Genesis to better view the Mars opposition of the following Spring. Meanwhile, there was a lunar eclipse coming up and Maggie suggested we try to photograph it. Unfortunately, the pictures came out great. Hey, this isn't so bad. Hardly cussed at all.

 

<p>

 

Those eclipse pictures were taken from our front yard with the Genesis mounted on a Bogen 3021 tripod. Now, we travel two hours to a site 8500 feet above sea level with a vanload of heavy equipment. The "tripod" took me two months to design and is custom machined from aircraft aluminum. It weighs in at about 80 pounds. The German equatorial tracking head (computer guided) is another 95 pounds. This is to steady an eleven pound telescope (we still use the Genesis). The entire rig cost about $6000, not including the van we bought to haul it around in. We still think astrophotography is stupid. There is lots of cussing.

 

<p>

 

Seriously, we have a ball and it doesn't have to be expensive. We've had excellent widefield results with a homemade "barndoor" tracker carrying a camera with a normal 50mm lens. Such a rig would be great for Hale-Bopp if you plan to do exposures of up to 15 minutes. By the way, the best films to use are Fujicolor Super G 800 Plus and Kodak Pro 400 PPF (be sure it's the PPF). These films exhibit little reciprocity failure and render the colors nicely.

 

<p>

 

For those who are interested in seeing a sample of our recent work, check out this month's (April) ASTRONOMY magazine or go to the Tele Vue homepage Gallery section.

 

<p>

 

By the way, although astrophotography can be extremely technically (and even physically) demanding, terrestrial photography still presents the greatest challenges. Every picture is a learning experience and the good ones are few and far between. Sort of like golf.

I've used the Canon 77mm circular polarizer on both the 20-35mm USM and the 17-35mm USM without seeing any sign of vignetting at the wide (or long) end. These polarizers are the thin-rim type and have no filter threads on the outside so you can't stack filters or use the lens cap. You can adjust the filter with the lens hood in place with your index finger. The quality seems to be high both mechanically and optically. B & H sells them for about $100. There has been a lot of discussion of this subject in the EOS mailing list archives. Use the search tool to pull up the relevant posts.