cris benton

I offer my thanks to all for their comments and to the Elves for placing the fostering discussion of the image. I am moderately embarrassed by the lack of specific in my description of the image and my lateness in response.

Just before our Fall 2008 semester began I posted a gallery of images from the salt ponds of South San Francisco Bay. These photographs were selected from several years of shooting in that area and were posted en masse. It had been my intention to then complete the posting by adding descriptive information during the following weeks. Unfortunately, I became sidetracked during the semester and only today, as the Fall Semester is ending, discovered that the selection of this image as POW – a most pleasant albeit embarrassing surprise. I will try to make amends.

Landing Ruins at Dumbarton Point belongs to a series of aerial images I have been taking of cultural sites in South San Francisco Bay. Don Peterson correctly places the subject at Dumbarton Point, west of Newark, California but the landing that once thrived here predates both the salt ponds in that area and the earliest of the Dumbarton Bridges. It belongs to the late 19th Century, a time when commerce-related transportation in San Francisco was decidedly nautical. The landing ruin can be seen from the eastern end of the contemporary Dumbarton Bridge.

You can read more about my project and this site in a newsletter article I wrote for the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge (http://www.fws.gov/desfbay/pdf/Tidelines/tideline%20summer08-C.pdf) . The article includes an oblique aerial photograph of the Dumbarton landing site taken after I secured permission to visit the actual site.

This POW photograph is a stitched montage of two adjacent digital photographs taken with a Canon S500 Digital Elph. The resulting image was cropped to be rectangular. I took this photograph in 2005 I held restricted permissions from the Don Edwards refuge and could not approach this site directly. So, from a location that was accessible I sent a camera out over the landing. The geometry was such that I needed to use an underpowered kite so that the camera would stay relatively low for the 500-foot range to the subject. As it turns out I was underpowered and the camera was too low to photograph the entire landing ruin.. Happily, there were two adjacent images that, stitched together, provided near complete coverage of the landing site. While my original motivation was a documentary view of the site I have also found the image pleasing as a minimalist, abstract composition.

Michael Chang’s comments art, science, and technology resonate strongly with me, as does Art X’s reference to the documentary aspect to this image. One of the aspects of kite aerial photography that has sustained my interest is the ability to have multiple readings of the same image. That said the principal intrigue for me in this image is its role as a window through which I can imagine the lay of the land when this site was a hub of activity and I tend to agree with Marc. G.’s ambivalence regarding its aesthetic merit (although it does look fine printed at 8” x 12”.)

Regarding a few questions in the comments:

Michael Chang wondered about using a video downlink as an electronic viewfinder. I have built three rigs that do this only to find I dislike the approach in the field. Video adds complexity, distraction and expense. At the end of the day I prefer to think through the shot.

Landrum Kelly wondered about statistics on camera mortality. In 13 years I have lost two cameras, both Canon Digital Elphs. I let one fall into San Francisco Bay (on purpose) and another met an untimelyend at the University of Virginia. For details see:

http://steel.ced.berkeley.edu/cris/kap/discuss/comments.php?DiscussionID=36 and
http://steel.ced.berkeley.edu/cris/kap/discuss/comments.php?DiscussionID=30

Again, thanks to all for their comments.

This image is one of a series on the colors and textures of the Salt

Ponds of South San Francisco Bay. I am currently working on a couple

of exhibits involving this series and would appreciate your comments.

Is this one to keep or boot? Why?

This image is one of a series on the colors and textures of the Salt

Ponds of South San Francisco Bay. I am currently working on a couple

of exhibits involving this series and would appreciate your comments.

Is this one to keep or boot? Why?

The geometric shapes in the bottom of this drained salt pond are

traces of former works from perhaps 100 years ago.

is one of a series on the colors and textures of the Salt Ponds of

South San Francisco Bay. I am currently working on a couple of

exhibits involving this series and would appreciate your comments. Is

this one to keep or boot? Why?

Drawbridge is an interesting place. It developed as a small town in

the late 1800s on marshland along the railroad tracks in the middle of

South San Francisco Bay. Abandoned by 1970, the structures are slowly

sinking into the marsh.

This image is one of a series on the colors and textures of the Salt

Ponds of South San Francisco Bay. I am currently working on a couple

of exhibits involving this series and would appreciate your comments.

Is this one to keep or boot? Why?

This image is one of a series on the colors and textures of the Salt

Ponds of South San Francisco Bay. I am currently working on a couple

of exhibits involving this series and would appreciate your comments.

The South San Francisco Bay salt evaporation ponds take on a variety

of colors due to halophilic organisms that adapt to the various

salinities of the ponds. It makes for a vibrant landscape. Prompted by

a recent post in the

href="http://steel.ced.berkeley.edu/cris/kap/discuss/">KAP Discussion

page

These are aerial photographs, most taken from kites, others from

poles. This project is like a jog saw puzzle. How would you put them

together?

While I have a view of this structure that shows the entire circular

shape, it is this tightly framed version that sings to me. As I

photograph from the kite the image framing is inexact and

serendipitous since I am lining things up mentally. I find the

imprecision often has charm and yields images quite different than

what I would frame were I with the camera. Does this one work for you?

This is a side track for rail car storage in Fremont. Would you

'retouch' trash lying about or leave it as it is?

I am newly returned to photo.net and sort of feeling my way around.

This is the early morning scene of bicycle riders chatting after a

grueling hillclimb on Mt. Diablo near San Francisco.

This 400 ft2 Hagaman airfoil kite certainly qualifies as a beast.

Image was captured about 100 feet above Berkeley's waterfront

CesarChavez Park. Comments welcome.

Thanks for the comments Arthur. You are right in that no cows are visible, just their traces. I would estimate the camera height at around 150 feet. The kite is about 100 feet above that.

This is an image from a series shot at Briones Regional Park and

offers a plan view of a hillside pasture. The hill slopes

approximately 30 feet from upper left to lower right. While the

larger track, a maintainance road, follows the hill's contour the

cow's paths depart from their normal contouring and lead more

directly to a water trough in the lower right.

My wife immediately read this image as a woman's breast in profile.

Should I change the category to nude?

The shadow in this example conveys the shape of the bridge and the

topography upstream. Is the automobile a help or a hindrance?

Christiansoe's roofs were low to the wind and weatherbeaten. This

plan view could be cropped to follow a 'rule of thirds' proportion

but I prefer it this way. What do you think? I only wish the roof at

the bottom had been longer.

I find myself taking many shots with the camera pointed straight

down (as with these three rowing boats found in Gilleleje's chaotic

harbor). An interesting aspect of plan view images is that there is

no up thus leaving the photographer free to orient the image.

Which way is up for you in this image?

This is a shot from two weeks ago in Gudhjem's tiny harbor on the

north shore of Bornholm. The frame is split in half by 'ground

texture' and the boat is split in half as well.

In general I have enjoyed the comments and suggestions I have

received from Photo.net readers. When I first visited Photo.net it

was great. I would post images and folks would find them. I then

went through a period when it seemed like AZ was the only critic

interested in the work. Lately it seems even less likely that

someone will view or comment. Can someone in the know fill me in

developments at this site or provide suggestions on how best post my

work?

Taken 100 feet or so above the southern end of San Francisco Bay

this shot features a high salinity pond with crystallization evident

in the foreground and the bay proper with the San Mateo ridgeline in

the distance. The colors, vivid in the midday sun, are natural and

range from the bright orange of salt water rich in halophilic

bacteria to the greens of the windswept bay waters and the blues of

distant hill and sky. I adjusted curves in Photoshop and applied a

bit of unsharp mask to the reduced image and that was it (other than

adding the faux mat).

I would love to hear your thoughts.

As an architect I have long been a fan of Frank Lloyd Wright and

photographed this building in 1997. At that time the roof was in

disrepair (patching and very faded color) and the photographs were not

particularly satisfying. To my great delight they refurbished the roof

in 2001 and I returned this summer for another session. Let me know

what you think.

(I confess that I am somewhat sensitive regarding the single extant

rating for this image. I am curious to see whether there is broad

agreement with AZ).

Cheers,

Cris

My thanks to all for their comments.

In answer to J. ' question regarding cameras lost to date I can happily report none. I did leave a lens shade behind at Bryce Canyon after an "unscheduled landing."

Jaap Voets wondered how one lands a camera without it falling victim to the chaotic movements common to kites on a short leash. The key here is to attach the camera to the kiteline instead of the kite and to do so 30 meters or more below the kite. This allows the kite to fly in relatively stable air while one goes about camera rigging tasks.

Bernhard Mayr cites Ansel Adams fine images of the San Mateo Coast surfline (just 40 miles and 60 years south of my shot) as an interesting precedent. I have always admired this series but in truth probably owe a greater debt to the fine aerial photographer William Garnett for his stunning medium format images taken from light aircraft among them is a 1960 black and white plan view image of the same Pt. Reyes beach I photographed two weeks ago.

Encouraged by (Mr.) Ashley Hostens comment regarding the dark sand I have posted another image from this session that is perhaps my favorite though it may be understated to some. This roll was taken on a west-facing beach within a half-hour of sunset. Under those conditions the wet sand on the shadow side of the wave reflects precious little light to the camera.

Cheers,

Cris

Brad, while I wouldn't mind having a chopper, this photograph and most of the others I have posted on Photo.net are taken from kite-lofted cameras. A kite, unseen in the image, supports a small, radio-controlled cradle that holds a Canon SLR. I can position the camera by walking around and/or letting out or retrieving kiteline. I aim the camera and fire its shuttler using the radio while I stay at the ground end of the kiteline. The camera can rotate through the compass, tilt from horizon to nadir, and change from portrait to landscape format.

As a matter of (questionable) pride all of the images are presented full frame. I compose my images by watching the camera and imagining what it would see. The whole process entertains me to no end.

Details are available at http://arch.ced.berkeley.edu/kap

Cheers,

With the 24-mm lens the altitude is roughly equal to the diagonal distance in the frame for a plan view call it 150 feet in this case. The exposure was set by the camera using Canons landscape mode (this limits the motor drive to one exposure per shutter circuit closure). I never really know the actual shutter speed / f-stop since I am not near the camera when the shot is taken.

My hands were down on the ground flying a kite and the camera was held by a motorized cradle suspended from the kite. Details on the technique are available at my Kite Aerial Photography WWW site.

The colors are pretty much true to the negative. I ran an equalization but opted for minimal adjustment, ran an unsharp mask after reducing the scan. That's all -- no hue shifts or saturation adjustments.

This photogaph violates my "forget about photography and go do something else during midday" rule. I am usually out looking for the shadows and color saturation one finds at the edge of the day. It is a delight to have found this exception.