markr

Martin,

As to why I went to Chernobyl, I have been studying the accident, evacuation, and aftermath for several years. During that time, I have been in contact with several former residents of Pripyat. I have become good friends with some of them and volunteer some of my time helping them with their website (www.pripyat.com).

The first purpose of my trip was to be able to meet some of these people in-person. The second reason was to experience the area first-hand as I felt an emotional need to go. I had the opportunity to travel in the Zone with a former Pripyat resident and that made the experience much more special (and at times sad). I never went there with the sole purpose of making it a formal photo shoot. The photos are a nice addition to the stories and information I gathered while there and to the experience as a whole. Trust me when I tell you that being there is so much different than just looking at pictures of the area.

As to the amount of time spent there, I had a limited amount of time to visit the area. Eleven hours of flight time between Detroit and Kyiv basically killed two full days, so that didn't help.

The photos I posted in those galleries are there to show people what I saw during the trip - nothing more. In the form of the current presentation, the gallery is not meant to make a statement or in any way be artistic. If I use those photos for a true documentary project in the future, I will take more time with the photo editing, use fewer photos, and also add text descriptions that would put the photos into context related to the accident. For instance, a short narrative about my friend Sasha and his mother would certainly add substance to a photo of their apartment.

I do appreciate your comments and understand your viewpoint. If I do some more formal work with these photos, I will certainly keep your comments in mind as you make some valid points.

Thanks,

Mark

Eugene and Gabriele,

Thank you for your comments. I agree that the editing needs some work. As I said, I wanted to get these photos on line quickly and therefore only did some quick PP on the JPGs to get them looking decent.

To do anything serious with these photos such as a show or for publication, I would definitely do more work on the RAW images (which I will do anyway as time permits and re-post with the improved images).

At the beginning of June, I took my Nikon D200 to Ukraine and spent a day in

Kyiv and two days in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone.

You can view the photos here:

http://www.iciclelanding.com/markr

I had a focus problem with the camrea in the Chernobyl plant (it had nothing

to do with radiation levels - damn focus mode selector!!!), so the photos of

the control rooms are not in sharp focus, but you can definitely get the idea

of what I saw.

I shot all the photos myself, except for several that were taken by friends

with a different camera and are noted as such in the captions.

Equipment used:

Nikon D200

Nikon 18-200 VR Lens

Nikon SB-800

Sandisk Extreme III 2GB CF Cards

60GB Hyperdrive HD-80

3 Backup EN-EL3e batteries

Backup AA Lithium Batteries for the SB-800 and HD-80

Shot RAW+JPG

I wanted to get these photos on line, so only did some quick PP off the JPGs.

I will deal with the RAW photos later when I have time. PP was basic Levels,

Auto Curves, and a little sharpening. The photos were converted to sRGB and

downsized for the web.

If you are curious as to how Pripyat looked before the accident in 1986, there

are some photos at this site (captions are in Russian):

http://www.pripyat.com/ru/photo_gallery/before_1986/

Enjoy,

Mark

I have been to Isle Royale twice, staying at the Rock Harbor Lodge each time (my wife does not like to camp). Both times we stayed for three days and both times we saw a moose on the last day.

The first time was an adult bull moose that was in the water of Tobin Harbor, just off the Tobin Harbor Trail. We followed him for about 10-15 minutes and then he came right out of the water. He layed down not more than 10 feet from the trail!! Unfortunately, some idiot decided he needed to get closer and the moose got up, crossed the trail and layed down about 100 feet from the trail. Some people are so stupid!! Anyway, this was a great photo op, though it was dark with all the vegetation covering the area.

The second time was just after sunset. Just above a rise behind the store at Rock Harbor, a young bull moose was resting. Watched him for about half an hour. I was not able to get any photos because it was too dark and I didn't want to disturb him with a flash.

You never know where you will find moose on the island. It always seemed that they were by a different trail than the one we were hiking on. Most of the sightings I heard of were near water, whether one of the harbors or inland lakes.

Anyway, from my experience, I was able to get away using a 35-105mm Zoom lens most of the time for photos of moose and fox. I think what you are planning for should be just fine. You shouldn't need anything more than the 300, especially with the teleconverters.

I am headed to Alaska at the end of August for two weeks. We will be

spending a good amount of time outdoors in attempts to see wildlife.

I have a Nikon F100 and was wondering what everyone does to protect

their cameras from the rain, while still having quick access to it

when a photo opportunity presents itself?

I have heard of people using plastic sandwich bags to cover their

cameras, but this doesn't sound very good to me.

Thanks in advance for your input.

I just wanted to post an update and let you all know what I did. The Gitzos were just a bit out of my price range, so I got a Bogen/Manfrotto 3443D Carbon Fiber Tripod with a Bogen/Manfrotto 501 Video Head.

The complete setup includes:

The above tripod and head

Nikon F100

Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED AF Zoom Lens

Nikon MC-20 Remote Trigger Cord with Timer

Swarovski AT-80 HD Spotting Scope

Swarovski 20-60mm Zoom Eyepiece

LensPlus 2Plus LE-Adapter (to connect the camera lens to the spotting scope eyepiece)

About two weeks ago, I took this gear out for a field test. Carrying the weight of all the equipment was not a problem at all. I had the scope connected to the tripod and used a tripod strap. The camera was around my neck and I had a few extra items in a lumbar pack. The tripod setup proved to be sturdy enough. I setup near a great blue heron rookery and got some descent pictures (they could be better, but not bad for my first time with such a setup). I did get some vignetting because I forgot to set the aperture wide open as recommended by LensPlus for such a setup.

I have included a photo of the setup.

Thanks again for all your suggestions.<div></div>

Shun,

Which carbon fiber legs would you recommend for my height? Also, do you have an impression of Velbon/Hakuba which cost less than the Gitzos? What head would also work best? You can include ball and pan & tilt. I think it would work to limit the total cost to $500-600.

Thanks

My budget includes the tripod legs and a head - it can be a ball head, but can be something else like a pan/tilt head. Therefore, I can purchase the legs and head separately or as a unit.

I am 6' tall and my wife is 5'4". I will be the only one using this setup for photography. My wife will only use it for viewing, but she has a nice set of binoculars, so she probably won't use this setup much.

I forgot to add that I would like to keep the tripod purchase below $300, preferrably around $200-225.

Thanks

I am getting equipment which will allow me to do an offshoot of

digiscoping with an SLR camera. The setup will be a Nikon F100 with

a 70-300 zoom lens attached with an adapter to a Swarovski AT80 scope.

What I am looking for is advice on a good sturdy tripod that can

support the above equipment and is light weight enough to carry

while hiking with the above equipment.

Thanks for your help.