david_senesac

The last half dozen years I've owned and heavily used three point and shoot

compact digital cameras that complemented my primary 4x5 view camera outdoor

landscape work as well as serving many other minor non-landscape informational

purposes. Despite the fact at the turn of the new millenium these little

cameras were initially just convenient camera toys to me when top specs were

just 2 megapixels, today any camera of more than about 4 megapixels becomes a

quite viable capture camera for closeup photography. Their small sensor sizes

inherently allow considerable depth of field at close distances and their small

sizes make positioning much simpler without blocking light or requiring much of

a tripod. Thus my considerable old 35mm SLR gear that had filled in when I

needed closeups was sentenced to the dust heap without further purpose. Of

note to any of those wondering, closeup - macro work with large format is so

tedious and limited due to several reasons I won't bore you with here, as to

not be a field option. With a number of current higher end P&S models in the

7mp to 10mp range, the resulting quality is quite acceptable. With my 7.1mp

Nikon Coolpix 7900, the full 3072x2304 captured image is enough to print at

200ppi to about 11x14 size. That is about as large as I ever wish to print

closeups of small subjects like wildflowers because I believe such subjects

tend to view best when printed at near life size.

 

Not surprisingly due to the market these smaller, cheaper, mass marketed

products target, they are less than ideal for closeup work due to limited

features. Actually many of these cameras pack in quite a suite of features

that are simple to incorporate in camera software. However because of the

target market, all designs tend to be about the same with minor brand

differences. The three primary shortcomings for closeup - macro work with

these cameras are the following:

 

1. Lack of consistent auto focus at close distance without a manual focus

option.

 

Due to the design of autofocus we can't really expect improvement here. Most

camera spec the closest autofocus can work with an ideal target at a given zoom

point. Usually lens optically limited. Anything less than that is at a futher

distance. For instance with my Coolpix, a product bar code with thin black

lines against a white background is an ideal sort of target any camera will

readily focus on. However one can simply rotate the bar code lines 90

degrees and note how seriously many camera's minimal focus distances are

increased. Add into that lower light levels and subjects without much detail

and the minimal distances often increase significantly. I actually carry a

small bar code off a product package around in my gear that I use to help my

camera focus when suffering these limitations. The cure is a manual focus

option. A few models do have manual focus like Fuji Finepix that I wish all

the higher megapixel cameras offered. Also of note the Nikon does have the

ability to move the point in a frame the autofocus targets that indeed is a

useful function though does not help when it simply refuses to focus.

 

2. Lack of a way to capture briefly still subjects in order to not have motion

blur on the capture.

3. Lack of a focus lock.

 

Most of the P&S models have tripod sockets to help stabilize one's camera and

countdown timers to allow a shutter to actuate without causing camera shake and

resulting camera motion blur on the capture. My Coolpix has both 10 and 3

second selectable options on the timer. That works well with static subjects

however there are many subjects people wish to photograph that do tend to be

moving most of the time. As an example one is taking pictures of their baby's

facial expression. In order to really capture what little Billy's face is

showing, the timer delay would need to be about a half-second that would not be

functional for its purpose of waiting till shake stopped. Other examples that

happen to be in my line of work are wildflowers that of course tend to be

moving in breezes more than not and small animals, birds, and insects that may

only momentarily stop moving about. A three second timer is essentially

useless.

 

What these cameras universally have is a function that samples the exposure and

locks the focus when the shutter is depressed halfway. Thus the way to take

such images is to set the focus by depressing the shutter half way and then

trying and keep it so depressed as long as is needed before actuating its

button. Ever try keeping a shutter depressed so for minutes on end waiting for

breezes to lull while a wildflower is wobbling and bobbing endlessly? Well it

just is not any fun. Makes me want to blow the dust off my old 35mm gear.

Now there is a simple solution if only some of these camera designers would

take note. They cannot add shutter release cable sockets to these cameras

because such a mechanical feature takes up way too much space. However they

could use a tiny infared sensor port that could actuate the same internal

mechanism as used by the timers. The electronic circuitry required is

inconsequential and could easily be incorporated into typical tiny integrated

circuits all these cameras tend to operate from. This would require an

optional piece of gear they would need to sell, a tiny cheap handheld infared

transmitter about the size of a AA battery that would work from within a few

feet. With just the infared shutter firing, one would still need to hold

down the shutter release button, so inherent in using an infared shutter firing

mechanism would be a mechanism that locks focus once the shutter is first

depressed half way without needing to keep depressing it. Such functions

could be incorporated without requiring yet another space consuming button by

simply adding it as an on or off menu option. So when the infared shutter

mechanism was ON, that would be the only way the camera took pictures until

switched back to normal mode.

 

I have no interest in obtaining a heavier, bulkier, pricier, more time

consuming to operate and process images with D-SLR mainly because I don't have

room in my pack nor do I wish to carry the extra weight. While one ought to

expect the P&S by nature not have many of the advanced features that D-SLRs

have, I think manufacturers could interest quite a number of potential

customers of smaller pocket sized cameras with these modest easy to incorporate

features alone.

 

...David

 

http://www.davidsenesac.com

Seemed a bit hard to believe optically until I read this sentence haha!.

 

"...a 16MP image resolution would be reduced to an output of a 300x300 pixel image."

 

...David

 

http://www.davidsenesac.com

From the perspective of a serious photography and not simply a tourist. Somewhere scenery is spectacular, weather pleasant, water still in streams, grasses pleasantly green, and wildflowers adding color to landscapes? That removes many mountain areas that are too high in elevation because they are more scenic during summer. And it removes some lowest elevation desert areas because their springtime is between February and April. A large area of the West that fits this to a T is the Colorado Plateau in southeastern Utah and northern Arizona. Yes May in Moab go together as do a number of the other big National Parks. ...David

Yes I agree Justin, same old same old. Photography has a long history of being ignored by the mainstream art world. And photographers of all sorts here in the West have a long history of being relatively ignored by those to the East. To rise to some level of recognition, a western photographer almost always needs to set that foundation out here first in the West. Ansel spent much of his life struggling with little notice until he ventured east and began publishing photography books. Quite a number of others that have much in the publishing world to their public credit never rose much past that. Probably much of that is to be expected due to the vast distances and resulting cultural insulation. It really isn't a bias against we Westerners but rather against nature and landscape photographers wherever. And of course in the art world there has always been countless unknown artists of all media types fighting to find a path towards public awareness and recognition with galleries and museums often in the middle of that battle zone. Black and white prints took many years to gain some credibility which occurred in part because it became a financial plus to some galleries that displayed such prints.

 

Color photographic prints as art have long been rejected in part by the art world due to deficient longevity of media and relatively flawed processes between film and print. Although that may no longer be true, the rest of the mainstream artworld is not likely aware of that or interested that it has. So what! From the perspective of art museum curators and gallery directors, just because something is aesthetically worthy of art doesn't mean they ought to be interested in displaying such to the public. Thus they will continue to choose what they show and keep a finger up in the breeze to sense the current media their small community chooses to offer the public.

 

Another thing working against photography is the usual discussion as to whether or not it is art? Just what is photography? Some genres of photography are certainly art worthy but others like news photography and most of what is nature or landscape photography of the natural world is in a gray area. Personally I would prefer not to include what we do as art because art people immediately start holding photography to usual art critique standards that really ought not apply. To the mainstream art folks, landscapes or nature subjects are labeled "done to death" or "cliche" or "socially boring" regardless of whether an image can be rendered in fresh ways. With nature, the vast variables of weather and light make for myriad possibilities. And so what that technology has vastly improved the processes that now deliver compellingly beautiful prints. But to the usual urban art mind, little of that matters. Given their shallow usual experience to anything beyond the urban world it all looks the same to them. To those who regular enjoy experiencing natural places on our planet Earth, to those who enjoy images of the natural world, the subtleties of natural are apparent so it does matter. Thus a cultural disconnect that is likely to continue unless they ever notice a financial benefit of embracing what we offer.

 

...David

http://www.davidsenesac.com

There's nothing wrong with just looking at images on a monitor, a light table, or from little 3x5 snapshots if that's the modest level one is enjoying. But I think there is much to be learned in printing images and regularly viewing them if one has a desire to make prints regardless of the image source, processing required, output printer, and output media. Of course processes and printing equipment are continually evolving so some of what one might have learned a decade ago is probably of modest worth today. The other aspect that takes learning, is by printing out one's own images, and hanging them on one's own walls to regular see, one may evolve a better appreciation of what works as prints. One may be surprised how some images one may have held in high regard simply don't work well as prints while images that didn't impress when small rather look nice larger. Some popular colorful images like a sunsets often have little detail. Thus one may enjoy looking at such an image initially but then become increasingly unaware of the image over time maybe because it lacks detail and complexity. Or some types of darker prints don't display well unless they have adequate lighting while some lighter overall prints don't seem to have that issue. Or one will find some friends will like, dislike, or not take any notice of different images than you or orther friends and such may be worth understanding. There is much more to looking at prints that one is not likely to appreciate. As one develops an appreciation of some types of larger prints, such might affect the kind of images one pursues so there is that benefit too.

 

Now me if I was well to do haha, I'd get a large well lit building, fill it with corriders of display panels, and print out and display about 100 times as many images as can fit in my small residence.

 

...David

 

http://www.davidsenesac.com

Jay Jeffery >>>"... Did any of the picture at the shore that day tun out well?

 

Yes it was quite an excellent day both with my 4x5 and Coolpix. Here is a closeup image I've labeled "The Giant Red Spot of Jupiter" I wasn't able to set up for with my view camera due to timing with the tide but did manage a fast Coolpix image.

 

...David

http://www.davidsenesac.com

 

http://www.davidsenesac.com/slideshows/seashore_cu720/red_spot_jupiter.jpg

Yesterday Saturday February 17 was quite a pleasant day here in Northern

California with sunny record 70F plus degree temps so I was down working the

local shoreline with both my view camera and the my 7mp Coolpix 7900 digital

camera. As a long time photographer of wave zones on Pacific shores I know

well one ought always needs to keep an eye and ear on approaching waves.

Although it is inevitable I will occasionally receive ankle deep overwashes of

the rushing surf on a beach, I rarely get soaked above my knees. When near

deep water right next to the shore, one ought to always be aware of rogue

waves.

 

The sound of the first of a large set of waves caught my attention as I was

focused on the sand so stood up looking seaward. As a large swell arched up a

couple hundred yards out, I decided to merely climb atop a nearby 5 foot high

wall of rock instead of walking further up the shore. The wave was far larger

than any others, exploding over boulders at the shore edge then racing up to

my position where the water splashed upward over my boulder. I had turned my

back to the ocean, hand over the camera lens against my chest, but seawater

still managed to penetrate down onto the back LCD/button side of the camera. I

quickly wiped off some seawater on the lcd and buttons. The display at first

continued to appear normally but then some image breakup began. After a couple

minutes button control stopped so I pulled out the battery to turn it off.

 

I've been an electronic tech and hardware electronic test engineer for three

decades so had some hope of bringing the camera back to life. I thought about

a handheld LCD game I used to enjoy playing then years ago died after a soda

with its conductive sugary liquid had gotten inside and killed it. Although I

rinsed the insides out, it never worked again. Little digital cameras have all

manner of easily damaged tiny electronic and mechanical parts densely squeezed

into tiny packages. Even though I've worked on a great many microelectronic

systems, unless one has instructions of how to disassemble specific devices,

just taking the cover screws out to look inside can be dangerous as mechanical

parts and wires may move out of proper positioning.

 

Quickly back in my car with the backside of my clothing wet, I used a jewelers

phillips screwdrive to remove the half dozen case screws and was glad the

LCD/button side of the camera opened up without anything going boing. Also

was glad to see just a few drops of seawater had gotten inside here and there

which I soaked off with a tissue. On top three cables from a printed circuit

board led up to the now loose LCD side of the case. The circut board had

several fine pitch large scale integrated circuits surface mount soldered to

the board along with lots of tiny discrete electronic parts and wires. I

could see the seawater could have easily enter around the edges of the LCD

panel or any of the several small buttons. From the way the failure

gradually occured, I reasoned the seawater probaby caused the highest speed

clocking signals to degrade where the conductive liquid bridged between

adjacent IC pins. My strategy would be to hopefully rinse out the salty

conductive seawater.

 

I drove home then under a strong light at my bathroom sink worked the camera

above a metal tray to catch tiny screws. For an hour I carefully used small

pieces of duct tape to cover circuit board holes and mask off ways the water I

would be applying, might enter the considerable areas of the camera beneath the

circuit board. This highest grade Nassua 333 duct tape has terrific glue for

sealing off holes or keeping wires out of the way. If any of the rinsed salt

managed to get below the board, that could also be electronic death. I would

not be able to disassemble the camera beyond the point I'd managed. Like other

modern circuit boards, there is a protective coating atop board traces so the

likely places contaminated were just around the many unprotected IC pins. I

had to gingerly remove a few tiny cable connectors and more screws to work on

the board.

 

I took an old well cleaned Windex bottle sprayer and dipped it into a glass of

distilled water. Note pure water is non-conductive while tap water impurities

may be conductive enough to disrupt electronic functions. Then with the

camera's circuit board face downward, carefully aimed the sprayer upward and

rinsed all areas of IC pins. Next with the board still facing downward so

water would not seep below the board, I used a hair dryer on warm to dry the

board from below. I took apart the button/LCD side of the case that likely

still had salt residues on it and likewise rinsed out those areas. Even though

it had no electronic parts, I wanted to rid those areas of salty residues lest

they manage to recontaminate insides in the future. Finally I removed the

tape, reinstalled the cables, and screws.

 

Over at my battery charger, I picked up one freshly charged battery, and pushed

it into the battery slot. As I did so, the camera automatically caused the

lens that had been extended all this time to now retract back into the camera

body, its normall off condition. Well that was a good sign! I pushed on the

POWER button and heard the standard power up tune play with the LCD lighting up

into an initiation menu for setting the date and time. Well all seems back to

normal. I had a $400 smile!

 

...David

 

http://www.davidsenesac.com

 

During the recent Christmas period, one of my print shipments was damaged

during the UPS shipment. There have always been some horror stories of we

photographers dealing with reimbursement of claims from the various shipping

companies so I thought it would be of some worth to share my current experience

here with others. Having to absorb the full cost of a damaged shipment

without insurance reimbursement is certainly painful considering the meager

profits most of us reap from our work.

 

A customer for a fine art print on the East Coast received a UPS ground shipped

package within the usual time frame and immediately noted the damage to the

container as received. I go to some length on my website alerting my customers

what they ought to do when receiving a package showing physical damage.

Additionally I have a custom label on my packages that advises customers to not

accept damaged packages when a UPS delivery person comes by so they can

initiate a return to shipper process immediately. In this case the recipient

business was not in position to immediately turn the package around because of

their daily volume of packages received. Per my website instructions upon

inspection, they did promptly contact me via email and attached a digital

camera image of that damage. The next day the damaged package was returned to

UPS for shipment back to the actual shipper Staples that is responsible for

initiating the claims process including collection of information.

 

Upon return of the damaged package, I began working through Staples which is

one of several national companies that have official UPS outlets within their

retail stores. Thus a claim number was created for the UPS tracking number.

Staples has a national claims office that works directly with UPS over shipping

damage claims so that I didn't need to personally communicate with UPS. A

week later, I have received status that UPS approved the modest insurance

reimbursement and I will be receiving a check within a couple weeks. All

individuals I communicated with on this matter have been quite helpful and

professional thus I can happily applaud their handling of this small case.

 

This was the first time damage has occurred during any shipment of prints to my

customers. Something I'd hoped never to have to deal with but knew would

likely eventually occur. In this case I use 36 inch long 4 inch diameter,

1.25 pound, white Uline shipping tubes to ship rolled Fuji Crystal Archive

prints.

 

http://www.uline.com/ProductDetail.asp?model=S-2361&ref=3654

 

The shipping tube is more robust with heavy 0.08 inch thick spiral paper than

usual tube containers. And I choose the larger diameter tubes so that my

prints won't need to be rolled quite so tightly. Regardless these containers

can be crushed inwardly if other heavy containers are atop them. Such

occasionally occurs at UPS receiving warehouses when their automated ship

movement conveyors become over clogged. For my fine art print business

model, I have chose not to ship matted or framed prints but rather rolled

prints in shipping tubes. Thus allow the customer to seek out the many framing

businesses that in any case are likely to do a much better job than most of we

photographers. Of course shipping framed prints, and especially those with

glass, require considerably more effort with packaging, and are inherently more

likely to suffer damage. Something I had done in previous days a decade and

more ago. Additionally the raw cost of even a 32x40 inch print is considerable

less than a matted or framed print such that in my case the cost is under the

$100 basic default insurance offered by UPS for all their shipments. Thus no

need to purchase an additional insurance fee. Finally I'll note that there is

an advantage when dealing with damage claims through one of the UPS authorized

shippers as Staple or The UPS Store versus delivering a package via the many

UPS non authorized outlets.

 

...David

www.davidsenesac.com

Jeff Spirer >>> "Since film has all sorts of distortions of its own, this can't happen. So the question is whether you are trying to match the transparencies or the scene you shot? These are two totally different things and they aren't particularly connected. It's kind of funny, before digital, there were tons of posts on photo.net on the relative color and contrast problems with transparencies. Now people like to pretend that they're accurate."

 

Jeff, you've countered those of us here on photo.net who think otherwise numerous times in the past. But about all you and your friends ever essenntially state is it ain't perfect or that Ansel or whomever did such and such in order to reject what arguably has reasonable fidelity. Of course there are many who will side with you just as there are those like the trustimage folks who won't. And there really isn't much we can prove here blathering words on this board because we would really need to see the items involved personally.

 

I'm bad news for those who want to deny it because when I exhibit my large prints, sometimes I'll bring along the original Provia 100F transparencies and a small light box for those that want to see. And I expect to be called on this some day by a magazine editor and taken to task publicly so don't state such like an amateur because I do have a lot of credibility at stake. Of course some of you are just playing word games and are really stating the obvious truth that photographic film or prints can never accurately represent the human visual experience. Of course that is true which no one would deny. I don't think any of us would dispute that the general graphic elements of images can be reasonable well produced by film and cameras. And it is perfectly ok for someone to even manipulate those elements by adding or subtracting whatever they desire, as long as they are up front about what they do in their art.

 

If one compares color accurate films like EPN-100, Astia, Provia, and even the old Kodachrome 64, by imaging a color chart like a Kodak Q-60 target or one of the Gretag-MacBeth charts and then does a comparison both visually or with a spectrophotometer, the results are reasonably close. Enough so a human knows what they are looking at. Of course all color films have gamut limitations and hue non-linearities. Worse print media, and printing inks have even smaller gamuts. But the more accurate films are pretty close. Note for the sake of your question, I don't always exactly duplicate my transparencies because I am more interested in reproducing the original scene. So if I have an image that includes bright highlights and dim shadows all captured within the range of my film, I know the usual compression occurred so the dark blue skies in the snow scene get more luminance while the snow gets cooled down a bit. Likewise if I underexposed a scene by 1/6 stop it is easy to boost luminance in the psd file. And I have to guess what that is and know it is just a reasonable guess. All these things together are good enough that we can make prints today that reasonably represent the scene we imaged. Enough so that it gives meaningful purpose to those of us that make an effort to produce reasonably accurate prints. As I've stated many times, there is nothing wrong with those that choose to be creative and design their own images by using post processing tools however they want. They just need to be up front with the public a bit about what they have done. Clone in a deer in that meadow scene. Fine just let your public audience know. And likewise there is a place for those choose to reproduce images with fidelity or the range of personal choice of limitations between. See we don't need to toss the baby out because the bath water was a little bit dirty.

 

...David

 

http://www.davidsenesac.com

Jeff Spirer >>> "Since film has all sorts of distortions of its own, this can't happen. So the question is whether you are trying to match the transparencies or the scene you shot? These are two totally different things and they aren't particularly connected. It's kind of funny, before digital, there were tons of posts on photo.net on the relative color and contrast problems with transparencies. Now people like to pretend that they're accurate."

 

Jeff, you've countered those of us here on photo.net who think otherwise numerous times in the past. But about all you and your friends ever essenntially state is it ain't perfect or that Ansel or whomever did such and such in order to reject what arguably has reasonable fidelity. Of course there are many who will side with you just as there are those like the trustimage folks who won't. And there really isn't much we can prove here blathering words on this board because we would really need to see the items involved personally.

 

I'm bad news for those who want to deny it because when I exhibit my large prints, sometimes I'll bring along the original Provia 100F transparencies and a small light box for those that want to see. And I expect to be called on this some day by a magazine editor and taken to task publicly so don't state such like an amateur because I do have a lot of credibility at stake. Of course some of you are just playing word games and are really stating the obvious truth that photographic film or prints can never accurately represent the human visual experience. Of course that is true which no one would deny. I don't think any of us would dispute that the general graphic elements of images can be reasonable well produced by film and cameras. And it is perfectly ok for someone to even manipulate those elements by adding or subtracting whatever they desire, as long as they are up front about what they do in their art.

 

If one compares color accurate films like EPN-100, Astia, Provia, and even the old Kodachrome 64, by imaging a color chart like a Kodak Q-60 target or one of the Gretag-MacBeth charts and then does a comparison both visually or with a spectrophotometer, the results are reasonably close. Enough so a human knows what they are looking at. Of course all color films have gamut limitations and hue non-linearities. Worse print media, and printing inks have even smaller gamuts. But the more accurate films are pretty close. Note for the sake of your question, I don't always exactly duplicate my transparencies because I am more interested in reproducing the original scene. So if I have an image that includes bright highlights and dim shadows all captured within the range of my film, I know the usual compression occurred so the dark blue skies in the snow scene get more luminance while the snow gets cooled down a bit. Likewise if I underexposed a scene by 1/6 stop it is easy to boost luminance in the psd file. And I have to guess what that is and know it is just a reasonable guess. All these things together are good enough that we can make prints today that reasonably represent the scene we imaged. Enough so that it gives meaningful purpose to those of us that make an effort to produce reasonably accurate prints. As I've stated many times, there is nothing wrong with those that choose to be creative and design their own images by using post processing tools however they want. They just need to be up front with the public a bit about what they have done. Clone in a deer in that meadow scene. Fine just let your public audience know. And likewise there is a place for those choose to reproduce images with fidelity or the range of personal choice of limitations between. See we don't need to toss the baby out because the bath water was a little bit dirty.

 

...David

http://www.davidsenesac.com

Shoot a USAF test chart and then check your film with a loupe. Or shoot an appropriate target, get a drum scan at 2400 dpi for Provia, and print out at 32x40 inches on a Lightjet.

 

You might check out this page on my website:

 

http://www.davidsenesac.com/david_aspen.html

 

And if you don't get vertigo:

 

http://www.davidsenesac.com/aspen_trunk100.html

 

...David

Scott you may have a long road ahead of you that you likely don't know is even out there.

 

A couple weeks ago I processed four 300mb and two 200 mb Tango scan files for large lightjet prints. How much time I spend with each varies as much as subjects and landscapes vary. I've been using Photoshop since 3.0 days in the mid 90's and know the application well. My intent is not like most photographers today that try to produce the most aesthetic images they can with whatever manipulation an image might bear while still remaining believable. Instead my task given my realist style, is to edit scan files in order to match my transparencies on my lightbox next to my computer as well as is possible in order to end up with psd images that reasonably reflect the scenes I exposed film on. That would be a very difficult task for many photographers, but I've long mastered the Photoshop tools to end up with images and prints that look quite close to my film. Far better results than anything I used to get in the 80s or 90s from classic enlargement processes. Generally there are a million miles of difference between editing small files for web or small printer use and really large prints because a Lightjet5000 print will readily show up tiny flaws in a print file.

 

Some of my easiest editing sessions might just take three hours to produce a master psd file plus a tif print file. Just cloning out spots and dust squiggles on a 9000 by 11,000+ pixel wide image from a 4x5 transparency while zoomed out at 200% going right to left, top to bottom, one 21 inch monitor screenfull at a time, might take me two hours depending on how clean the scan operator work (and his Kami fluid) was. And even after that I may go back again days later because it is visually easy to miss the small things in a bewildering view of shapes and colors. I mask off my landscape skies and other smooth tonal areas as alpha channels so they won't generate any artifacts, film grain noise, or banding while I work to bring out other land areas. Like I avoid unsharp masking skies. And depending on the nature of an image that could be difficult to separate if say there are trees or vegetation up in the sky. I spent about 7 hours on one image before pulling the plug because I'd oversharpened it which created noise artifacts I couldn't back out of or reduce. I log the essential details of my editing so rebuilding the second time goes a lot smoother. I generally find it useful to revisit processed files a few days after completing them because hours in front of a computer can desentize one a bit, especially regarding luminance and accurate colors and levels.

 

This morning before sending two images out for prints, I bothered to take another look the four tif files I completed over a week before. I found a couple small dust squiggles on one that required about 15 minutes extra work editing and rebuilding files then noticed some noise in shadows on another image that took about a half hour of extra work. After that I burned a DVD with four 300mb tif files and brought them down to my lab for print masters that will each cost me about $100. ...David

April is prime time for lower elevation wildflower displays in California although the world class displays tend to be in Souther California including places like Antelope Valley State Reserve or Carrizo Plain National Monument. However for those areas to be worthwhile there needs to be above average winter rains and this winter thus far has been quite droughty. There are some fine areas with wildflowers in Northern California though they are not the vast fields of flowers like in the south. You might take a look at my website below as I provide some information on each image. Wildflowers along the California coast on average years often peak late April through early May however that can vary considerably both in time and numbers of flowers. ...David

 

http://www.davidsenesac.com

I'm guessing printing flowers large is really not going to connect to some untapped market. I recall one wealthy photographer who printed and exhibitted a number of large prints of colorful flowers. At least comments I heard were not too positive. Who wants to see inch wide petals blown up 10x? Fascinating yes at first but I'd speculate ordinary people better relate to flowers at their normal sizes in terms of what they might consider for a place on their walls versus some large framed magnified picture of a single poppy. One reason I shoot individual wildflowers with a smaller format and for closeups only point my view camera at masses of dense flowers. Wide landscapes of wildflower fields does work large of course.

 

The market for flower images is so saturated commercial clients easily are satisfied by well oiled stock, well known photographers, and image corps so they have little need to look at the myriad other sources screaming look at me me me. At the low end, ordinary folk, especially women love flowers. And they don't connect to those commercial sources so those selling locally in galleries and art fairs will always receive some business. ...David

As I've suggested before, I would not recommend any person that doesn't already have solid traditional photography skills from getting into large format by itself ti create "fine art" level work because of considerable time, effort, and material costs learning how to get it right. A person that isn't already an acomplished nature or landscape photographer had best hone their skills elsewhere.

 

...David

 

http://www.davidsenesac.com

What you say has some validity Paula though photographic images encompass a wide range of purposes for some of which a title has more purpose than with others. For instance a news image of a moderately well known person identifies them to parts of the public that might not yet know them. In general there are many reasons to title news images of people and the human world. On the other hand leaving a title off an abstract art photo allows just what you noted unless the idea in the mind of the photographer is too unusual for most people to easily see their point of view in which case a little help serves some purpose. Generally some types of images posted on the web for critique are likely better off not being titled than those that are part of someones business gallery. For those selling images of places and landscapes, a title immediately tells people where a location is. In fact when selling images, a title allows people to name an image by a title instead of some abstract index number they would otherwise find difficult to remember. For example consider the difference between a customer identifying an image they have interest in as 2006-FGH567 versus "Rainbow Over the Grand Canyon".

 

For my own marketed images I go as well beyond just titles versus other landscape photographers one might find on the web. Every one of the images I market on my below website image index brings up not only a page showing the image at a larger than usual display size for usual web photography galleries along with a title, but also below the image I include considerable natural history information plus information about what occurred and how I took the image. Most people that visit my website and look at the images do not bother to read that information. However some others do especially those that enjoy understanding deeper complexities of the natural world. For someone that is considering spending several hundred dollars for a large print they might have scene at an exhibit, the information provides considerable possible extra interest and detail that a viewer might otherwise only relate as abstract shapes and color. ...David

There is no parking anywhere along paved roads in Death Valley NP. However one can do so along dirt roads that are outside the gray areas shown on the below map link.

 

http://www.nps.gov/pwr/customcf/apps/CMS_HandF/Pictures/DEVA_DEVA_Map.jpg

 

In order to more clearly understand where these boundaries are enough to camp in those areas, you might also download the followed detailed map:

 

http://www.nps.gov/pwr/customcf/apps/CMS_HandF/Pictures/DEVA_30kmhaj7_DEVA_Map.gif

 

Generally if one is interested in any of the features of the Stovepipe Wells, Furnace Creek, to Badwater areas, it is often more expensive in terms of gas burned and time wasted to reach the legal points on any of the dirt roads. So most people dispense with that hassle even if they dislike public campgrounds like me just pay the $12 to stay at the main Sunset campground. The one chink in that is if one wants to work Dantes View. The legal dirt road in Greenwater Valley is a bit less than 20 miles or a couple gallons of gas roundtrip from Furnace Creek. Of course any deserts roads are dangerous places to get stuck at during the rainy season if one doesn't have a way to regulary check weather forecasts. ...David

Leonard >>>"The one advantage that reversal film has is that you can look at the transparency on a light table without having to scan it or print it. But you should not be misled in thinking that you will get more accurate color renditions if you scan transparencies. It is true that you can compare a scan to the original transparency, but the latter won't generally be an accurate rendition of the colors in the scene. If you want accurate color, you need to use color references such as gray cards in either case."

 

Just to expand your terse statement that I expect you could have, if one starts with one of the few transparency films with good color fidelity like Astia, Provia, or EPN-100, and chooses daylight subjects where the luminance is not too contrasty, and properly expose a subject, one can consistently capture excellent real life color fidelity that with today's digital processes result in end product prints that reasonably replicate the original subject like never before. On the other hand it is all too true if one starts with the more popular high saturation transparency or positive films then such results are not generally easily produced. ...David

 

http://www.davidsenesac.com

For my body of work as a long time landscape photographer, the most important skill I have that allows my work from others is natural science knowledge of and photographic experience with subjects.

 

To get an idea of what I am referring to read the four stories on the right side at the top of my below home page, for example "Shadow & Minaret Creek Headwaters Backpack August 2006". Accordingly I tend to seek out scenery that has never been shot because I know from experience that there are a considerable amount of such virgin landscapes out here in the West. On the other hand, when targeting icon images, one had better be prepared to regularly visit such locations while considering weather, time of year and day, while understanding that if one keeps plugging away, that sooner or later exceptional conditions might occur simply due to chance. In some cases I've never got a successful image at places I've been to too many times. But overall I've had enough fortunate opportunaties to make a difference. Of course one needs the skills to pull off such captures when those opportunities occur that is the other facet of that issue.

One serious problem with 4x5 large format is the lack of consumer priced scanners to digitize the results. What is available are flatbed scanners. But the output of flatbed scanned 4x5 film is hardly better than MF scanned on say a top consumer film scanner like the Nikon 8000. So to get results with large format that are significantly better than MF on film scanners, one will either need to shoot 8x10 or have film drum scanned. Well shot 4x5 transparencies on films like Astia or Provia drum scanned at 2400 dpi will in comparison just kill results versus any smaller formats or DSLRs. But such results only are meaningful if one is intent on printing really large. ...David

I would suggest going down to a bookstore and getting one of the many cheap basic digital photography imaging guide. You have asked a few basic questions that reflect a lack of understanding all novice camera users today are asking. There are dozens more questions sure to rise with just a bit more understanding. So get grounded in some basics. Any of such questions on this forum are likely to provoke responses that will likely hijack the intent of your questions to other subjects like image manipulation as has already been done herein. If you are interested in posting either film camera or digital camera sourced images onto the web or using them in computer applications, you will need to understand and acquire some skill with an image editing program. There are many cheaper, simpler image editing programs available for a novice than Photoshop that would be way overkill and bewildering. ...David

<p>Billy >>>"Why are trees so "<b>photographical</b>"</p>

 

<p>Only some trees are aesthetic enough to get our attention just like plants. From vast choices our visual senses processed further by our minds can select what looks pleasantly better regardless of subject. And we humans enjoy reveling in beauty. Trees are more than just another natural landform feature because they are often large, project significantly up into the sky, and sometimes have interesting form and color. Features that can readily be put to use by photographers. I have long been seeking wonderful trees out in the natural world and have managed to capture a few incredible ones while still am working on quite a few more I know about. </p>

 

<img src="http://www.davidsenesac.com/images/94c_12-33.jpg" width="672" height="480">

Douglas, sounds like you need to take your G-1348 apart and clean it. Also for trouble shooting purpose you could move leg parts around since they are identical if you thought something was out of shape. I clean mine every so often and it always makes a difference.

 

As for the tripod height, even though one's head/eye height may be lower that the maximum adjustable height, in the field on slopes one will sometimes need all that and more. Also are situations where one can climb up on a rock or log to get higher that often is useful in reducing the need to tilt a lens up at tall subjects. Thus I also have the G-1318 center column and regularly use it. ...David

What you are describing in art is referred to as "impressionism". Such derives from a visual psychological advantage in interpreting the visual world evolved in many higher animals. The degree to which we humans add visual information and meaning to what we see varies considerably depending on subject, setting, and individuals. ...David

The following pro/con debating posts were cut and pasted from this other thread:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=15729&page=4

 

It goes to the heart of my point above that some will submit a premise arguing all photography is a lie in order to follow with the essential conclusion that anything goes ought to be ok while here the articulate responder effectively reduces the validity of such an overgeneralized point. Of course please read on more in this thread as one would need to read through the earlier posts to that thread to understand the context of these excerpts. ...David

 

==========================================

 

Kirk Gittings >>>

I fail to see how any photograph, analogue or digital, is anything but a manipulation of reality if by nothing else simply the framing/selection process. B&W is by nature an abstraction. Saturated color films exagerate color.

After all, even unfiltered Panchromatic films alter normal tonal relationships, because they are not truly panchromatic. They manipulate normal tonal relationships. But by some peoples arguments, if I use a light yellow filter to more "realistically" portray grey tones, I am not manipulating, but if I use a red filter I am manipulating? It is all some form of manipulation.

Some aesthetic philosophies and methods simply strive to hide the manipulation.

Photography is an art form that always utilizes some manipulation. It is inherent in our materials. It is a continuum from imperceptible to obvious but it is always present.

We should celebrate the controls that we have, because they give us artistic tools and license.

============================================

 

paulr >>>

"(quoting) I fail to see how any photograph, analogue or digital, is anything but a manipulation of reality if by nothing else simply the framing/selection process. B&W is by nature an abstraction. Saturated color films exagerate color."

 

There are differences in HOW different mediums manipulate reality. A photograph that we traditionally consider unmanipulated does alter reality in a number of ways. But there are certain key ways in which it doesn't alter reality. Its the combined effect of the ways it alters the world and the ways it doesn't that we think of as a "phtographic" depiction.

This is part of what I posted to the original thread:

Photography introduced a way of seeing that is in some ways distinct from other art media. Semiologists have refered to it as "indexical," meaning that the image is in some way created by that which it depicts. The indexical quality introduces an element of objectivity into photographic seeing--which is not the same thing as saying a photograph is objective. A photograph does, however, in its purest forms (I was hoping to avoid the P word ... really) have a relationship to the subject that is fundamentally different from what a painting has.

In "straight" photographs, all of the deviations from objectivity, whether contibuted by the process (the optics, the format, the spectral sensitivity of the materials, etc. etc.), or by the artist (cropping, adjusting exposure and contrast, selective lightening and darkening, etc. etc.) change the way the image looks, but do not alter the indexical nature of the image.

In the images that we tend to think of as manipulated, the indexical nature is typically altered. An element will be added, moved, or removed. A scene that fundamentally never existed in front of the camera will be depicted.

I'm not addressing any claims of heirarchy. But i am suggesting that claims like "all photography lies, so there's no such thing as purity" might be every bit as naiive as believing that photography always tells the truth...

============================================

 

Kirk Gittings >>> "(quoting) A photograph does, however, in its purest forms (I was hoping to avoid the P word ... really) have a relationship to the subject that is fundamentally different from what a painting has."

 

...This is true and this is what gives photography its unique power, but that does not negate the fact that all photography does lie to some extent. That is not naive. It is undeniably obvious. It is naive to believe otherwise. Some photographers adocate an aesthetic which denies this but that is simply marketing to an audience who basically distrusts ART and ARTISTS. These photographers simply hide behind the veil of truth because they lack the self worth to simply own the fact that their work is their creation, their personal point-of-view of reality, absolutely devoid of objectivity...

 

============================================

 

paulr >>>

"(quote)This is true and this is what gives photography its unique power, but that does not negate the fact that all photography does lie to some extent."

 

It's the "to some extent" part that needs to be examined before the statement can be seen as useful or not. As a parallel, all maps lie to some extent: they all make omissions, they all distort, and they can never be up to date. But we don't consider them fundamentally wrong if the information fundamental to their primary purpose--getting us from here to there--is correct. Is the map really "lying" if the scale is off by half a percent, if all the trees along the route are not marked, if this section of road is marked as unpaved even though it's paved?

It's a slippery slope if if we call everything that isn't 100% accurate a lie. We would have to accuse every form of representation of lying, and as jj points out, every form of perception. While you can make a case for this, I don't know what purpose it serves, because it suggests all lies are equal. Which we intuitively know not to be the case...