david_senesac

Jeff >>>"...Please give an example where someone's attempts have been labeled as ridiculous. Thanks in advance."

As someone posting on various photo forums many years I have regularly seen comments like the below. Some go into a lot more detail as to why of course which others ramble about further down the thread list. You are welcome to plumb the many Google hits on "digital versus film manipulation". Look at is the second post in yet another long loose thread on the subject:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=15638&highlight=digital+film+manipulation

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

Paddy Quinn >>>"...all photogrpahs alter 'reality". Strand got rid of manhole covers that spoiled the composition and at times added other elements that improved it.

 

Big question is, so what? Unless you are documenting scientific work or crime scenes etc it really doesn't matter. The photographs you talk about are "art" in the broadest terms - how they were made is really of little issue.

 

"The camera never lies" has always been the biggest lie of all, from the very first days of the medium.

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

 

Here's a rather old 1998 photo.net thread that could have been written yesterday:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000Fac

 

A long classic here in photo.net:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006Qxg

 

Here's a thread where I made a similar post a year ago here near the bottom of the list then the next person tried to make the ignorant statement that Velvia is really the most natural rendering color slide film. A denial attitude which I've seen in the past.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DwUr&tag=

Tom, I generally concur with those sentiments. Issues I have concern with so regularly voice mainly in internet forums my perspectives. The current status quo of landscape and nature photographers overwhelmingly embraces the unnatural and manipulated anything goes. Not something that is inherently wrong or unethical as long as the photographer is honest about what they are doing with their public audience. In other words any pre or post creative image manipulations are fine as long as they are up front about what they are doing and so label their work. Not my personal style or preference in what I appreciate in others work but nonetheless still perfectly valid as creative art. And I think this is at the heart of much of the controversy and subsequent miscommunication that regularly surrounds discussions of the subject.

 

There are a few vocal photographers that argue against any pre or post image manipulation and condemn such even if the photographer is up front about what they are doing. Taking such a rigid, inconsiderate, selfish stance will only continue to aggravate and be immediately rejected by others. Conversely there are those that have embraced manipulations and interpret any attempts of some that prefer to capture natural images with accurate fidelity as ridiculous. They then rant away with the long history of photography starting with the black and white artists about how nothing they created was anything close to the natural experience or how such and such processes are unnatural in order to rationalize the anything goes ethic. In doing so they ignore the middle ground I personally tend to articulate. In fact the tone of statements by either of these two extremes is often hostile. There ought to be enough in this realm of art for all these styles. The key is for photographers to be honest and up front with their public audience. Unfortunately many of those manipulating their work don't want to explain anything to the public and instead be on the same level playing field with every other nature and landscape photographer. One will often see early and late light images shot with high saturation films or with digital with heavy handed used of contrast and saturation controls or hue shifts to pinks and purples. If questioned some become emphatic in expressing how the experience really was like that...in their minds eye. Instead of just saying, yes I use Velvia and adjust the contrast, saturation, and hue to create the most striking, spectacular image.

 

The current TrustImage guidelines are well detailed although interpretations will always be somewhat open to some debate with those that will push color enhancements as much as they can. Almost all images I market on my website would qualify for the TrustImage label although I haven't applied such at this point. Now in the 21st century we do have the materials, processes, and tools to reasonably reproduce with good color fildelilty on high quality archival print media, transparency film captured color subjects. And this is indeed a rather recent development available to average photography users for not much more than a decade. My whole body of work and style has been based on the notion that some in the public will inherently value photographs that reasonably represent a moment captured in time versus others that have been manipulated for whatever purposes. Thus an advantage I will actively market to differentiate my work from others. ...David

 

http://www.davidsenesac.com

Hello Scott,

 

Must be a couple years since I've seen a good thread on this subject here in photo.net. And it has been quite beaten up at times in the past both here and on a number of other photo enthusiast forums. I spend more time these days on other forums where there is obviously a heavier concentration of those sporting the new DSLRs. The status quo of most landscape photographers today is neither to attempt to capture reality nor to process the resulting file to such. What seems to strongly influence the style and ethic of most landscape photographers is the concern to create the most appealing image they can during the capture phase and then editing it in Photoshop with whatever tools they have skills at to create something that will both impress their peers and their potential customers. So the current lack of ethic is about peer and public appreciation and money. At the same time most such photographers would go out kicking and screaming if they were forced to publically admit what they are doing. So instead of being up front about their gear, film, technique, processing etc, the status quo is to not say anything. Of course the undercurrent is that they prefer to have their audience believe whatever the end print or image was is something they naturally experienced and when commenting on such images the respondees all jump in wowing and ooohing how "lucky" they were to have been there. Of course the relatively ignorant public is increasingly becoming more aware of what digital cameras and image editors like Photoshop can do to change reality so photographers can expect the public to increasingly consider any and all scenic images to be highly suspect as to reality.

 

My own background as a photographer goes back to the early 80s. Before Velvia came out Kodachrome tended to be the default film of choice for color landscape work and is regarded as having relatively decent color fidelity when shot in even daylight, especially KR64. So back in those days color photographers did tend to have more an interest in producing natural looking images, however the abysmal non-linearities of film to print processes made such not much an issue anyway. Besides any of the actual color print processes were quick to change hues and fade which soured any museums and galleries from taking color too seriously. So any fine art pros were black and white. Thus pro color photographers were almost invariably color stock photographers. And the business end squarely preferred high saturation films which continues to this day and with it natural fidelity. It was only in the mid 90s when Evercolor prints surfaced after drum scanners had a few years to evolve that we had the first opportunity to really work with a reasonably available and attainable film to print process. At the same time Adobe came out with Photoshop and Kodak their PhotoCD product that began the current digital march with earnest.

 

Despite the majority of landscape photographers preferring high saturation films, there was always the choice for KR64 and EPN-100. And later in this decade as Kodachrome shrivelled up, Fuji Provia 100F and Astia 100F. All these latter films can if used intelligently produce images on transparencies that reasonably reflect the natural experiences. On the heals of the EverColor pigment ink archival print process were the Cymbolic Sciences Lightjet 5000 and Durst Lambda that finally freed we photographers from being at the whims of commercial labs to take control of our own images. Of course that spurred the evolution of scanners, archival print media & printing inks, and all the computer color management software and tools we have today. And here in just a few years of the 21st Century, digital cameras have spurred a tremendous explosion in camera use. However even at the high end there are few landscape photographers that bother to calibrate their DSLR equipment in order to capture reality. In fact per above they are not really interested in reality but rather something artistic in their own minds eye as the phrase goes. There are some commercial photographers that do fork over $1500 to X-Rite for their Eye-One Photo Kit and the $300 Gretag-Macbeth digital color chart to better get a handle on color fidelity but that is still quite a can of worms with only the most plugged in commercial people with solid CMS skills really having much of a chance to work digitally with good day to day fidelity.

 

So today we landscape shooters can produce archival color prints that if captured on one of the better fidelity color films and processed with an intent to match what one captured on a transparency that do an arguably decent job creating a print that reasonably represents a natural experience. And that folks is the style and ethic in my own body of work. It is not that I'm saying there is anything wrong with those that use processes that result in creative, manipulated, or artistic images but rather it is my own choice of what I prefer to produce and what I value more in others work. And anyone that whines "natural print reality is dull" just hasn't seen quality work by the few pros that are working with that style and ethic. What I do criticize per above is the status quo of others not be honestly up front about therir work both with peers and the public. If one is using Velvia, warming filters, jacking saturation, changing hues, cloning out awkward elements, adding elements, etc one ought to just say so in at least some way. ...David

 

 

Select the "Backpacking" field on my homepage at:

 

http://www.davidsenesac.com

I've answered that question on these boards a few times. Not only do I backpack with my photography gear but I've been doing so seriously since 1980 and carried 35mm, then 6x7, and now 4x5 the last few years. I have some information on my website below. Briefly I've always piggybacked a daypack on the back of my regular gear backpack with custom sewed on Quickrelease buckles. In order to be able to strap a longer tripod onto a daypack you will need to use a longer daypack than standard sizes. Such daypacks designs are usually marketed to climbers. And one thing I learned long ago is one doesn't need much camera and lens padding like one usually finds with all those huge dedicated photo backpacks. ...David

I've just loaded an html coded story onto my website homepage covering my three

foliage road trips during this fall of 2006. I was out a total of 18 days on

those three road trips. The story is brief overview of each day's key

situations from the perspective of a landscape photographer considering

strategies on when, and why to go where, and then what happens around the

activity of capturing images and roughing it on the road. How evalutating

conditions from day to day is better than rigid planning. How fickle weather

and timing is such a critical factor. Thus some insight for the rest of you.

Not necessarily a way to approach such photography but rather just a story of

one photographer's way. Images on the html story page were all taken with my

little 7mp Coolpix 7900 except for the image at top while the slideshow of 22

images is all 4x5 view camera transparencies that have been crudely scanned

with my cheap flatbed.

 

From my homepage at http://www.davidsenesac.com

Select the "Fall 2006 Foliage Road Trips & Slideshow" link. The link to the

slideshow is at the bottom of that page. There is also a link in the story to a

short slideshow I made with my Coolpix one day searching for aspen leaf

closeups. ...David

I shoot 4x5 transparencies and only use Provia 100F though Astia is probably would work just as well. Those two films like EPN-100 render color neutrally. My interest is in capturing landscapes whether fall foliage or anything else with good color fidelity and then print them out with reasonable accuracy. The intense unnatural glowing results many seem to admire makes me shake my head and chuckle. Each to their own. When fall colors are good those colors are already intense and wonderful just the way they are. What a joy to be beneath a canopy of such colorful peaking leaves. I market several fall foliage images on my website index, all of which are quite fine just the way they are representing the wonderful natural experience. ...David

Sometimes it takes years to get specific shots even if one already has figured out the exact tripod setup and location. This spring I drove 50 miles to and from a coastal area here in Northern California five times while some wildflowers on coastal sand dunes were prime. Each time it was either too foggy or too windy. On the sixth attempt I got calm enough conditions briefly and exposed a sheet of Provia that nailed it. Then there are images we've seen like the one you are trying to get where we don't have an exact location because of its nature. Thus we expend efforts searching for those shots when conditions are good at locations that are promising. Last fall I managed the below image which was an image I'd imagined of a giant sequoia trunk with Pacific dogwood leaves in color change. The exposure would only work with thin overcast or cloud mist. I knew a ridgeline where clouds often formed. After considerable driving about dirt roads and hiking around I came upon the below location which at the time was too dark beneath clouds. I knew it was a winner so set up my view camera then patiently waited several hours until the clouds thinned briefly where I took a single exposure of Provia nailing the image. You seem to have that vision on the shot you're imagining so stay with it even if it takes a few years of off and on attempts. ...David

 

http://www.davidsenesac.com/images/print_05-bb1-2.html

Renato, I weigh just 133 pounds. Average fit men can already lift weights I typically carry but would quickly find it quite painful beyond a short distance. Our human ancestors were often faced to become beasts of burden so we do have more capacity for doing such than we modern folk are aware of. Its a matter of gradually strengthening ones body over time. Backpacking with such weight for hours going up and down mountains, taking steps where one steps down several inches and forces become greater due to accelleration of gravity puts considerable stress on one's knees, ankles, feet, and wherever the backpack comes in contact with one's body. The only real way to build up strength to contend with those forces is by backpacking or mountaineering with a pack. Besides obvious leg strength one might build up with conventional exercises, one's torso muscels need to develop in ways to keep straight and upright while carrying a heavy pack. My own experience is one of backpacking several trips summer after summer for three decades which has built up my body to handle such gradually. The beginning of each summer I require an easy trip or two to regain strength enough to tackle more difficult trips.

 

What I would suggest is to start by carrying less weight on shorter trips then subsequently adding incrementally more weight and distance. One simply cannot hope to do so by taking one trip a year. For instance you might carry 50 pounds on a two-mile hike up 1000 feet. Then carry the same 4 miles. Then try 60 pounds doing the same. Trying to carry really heavy weights a long ways without building up strength would be a certain formula to destructively tear tissues and become sore. That ought to be avoided as much as possible in order to retain the best long term natural structure. As for food and gear, you can get such information from books. Far too involved a subject to discuss here. I have all that information on spreadsheets. I eat a lot. Maybe 1.5 to 2 pounds a day. On the trip on this thread, I carried 124 types of non-food camping items and 86 photography types of items. ...David

Hello Gary,

 

I started a thread here about a year ago about that very subject although I would hardly describe such as high quality. The largest images on my site are the quality one could shoot with tiny $40 1mb digital cameras. My thread suggested given increasing bandwidths by average users that the old conventional wisdom of displaying only tiny web images was in question. That I would grate against the wisdom and display my images at larger screen sizes. I argued that anyone with reasonable graphic skills, especially with Photoshop could take any image that fits on a monitor screen and edit out any copyright text or watermarking. That an image of SVGA size of a bit less than 1k really can't be used for any high quality purposes besides web use which is really just chicken feed business wise unlesss someone can make an argument to me otherwise. For instance at 300 dpi that makes for a 3.3 inch wide print. My fine art prints for such images with the same level of detail are three feet wide. I of course do have up front copyright notices on my site making it clear that I will resort to legal action to protect my images including these small ones posted on my site. Thus someone that decides to screen capture and use the image for purposes of a screensaver might do so and I would never know but in any case would really not care. Someone else might snag an image and put it on a coffee mug. Big deal. However another with a legitimate business might put one in their stock portfolio as a image for web stock sales or sell it to other image vendor businesses for like. If I find out about that, there are lawyers who will bother to prosecute such and take a fee from the legal settlements. Likewise if some fly by night eBay vendor does the same, and are so identified, eBay will warn or will remove them from their business. In any case the internet is worldwide and it is possible anything one can display may end up being used in an unauthorized way. Unless one is a large business like a stock house with considerable resources, it is difficult to search and monitor, and prosecute the small thieving and usage. I can accept that a bit of that may occur I won't find out about. None of that ought to hurt my own fine art print business. If someone bought a large print and used a graphic arts camera to copy it and then tried to market such as a half sized print, that would certainly result in my inititiating legal action as it is at the core of what I am interested in protecting. Someone could copy my images and input them for critique right here on photo.net and I would not be aware of such unless others alert me. If I noticed this kind of thing with other photographers, I would be quick to alert them with the details as we small business really can't hope to do so ourselves. So I won't be rejoining the rest of you that continue to limit your displays to tiny 4 inch wide representations. ...David

Thanks folks!

 

Hi Sheldon, there are certainly lighter ways to carry even a 4x5 system than what I do. I do have some information on my own gear and the way I carry it into the backcountry. On my homepage select the "Backpacking" field.

 

Bruce, I 'm sorry but I don't know where or what I've written that lead you to comment on "one size fits all". As I stated above, I shot the small format many years for just some of the reasons you gave. I've backpacked three decades and lugged camera systems up there with a tripod for two dozen. Early on I just didn't want the excessive weight to burden me down. It was only when I got older that I began being a slaving mule. Bringing 4x5 into the backcountry gave me a new challenge and reason to revisit the many places I backpacked to while younger. It certainly is not pleasant carrying such weight and few people will ever be able to do so with camera systems we now use. ...David

Not many of we view camera users ever get much past road areas because the

logistics and weighty effort to do so have always been rather daunting. Those

who do venture beyond roads usually hoist one of the well known dedicated

camera backpacks on their backs and day hike out to what is invariably limited

to just a few miles distance. By time they reach their destinations, there is

often not much chance of working anything but more harsh midday light. So not

backpacking but rather dayhiking with a backpack. On this photo.net Large

Format discussion forum, one occasionally reads a post where someone actually

is backpacking with large format. That means carrying one's camping and

photography gear out in the backcountry and staying over night. There are

certainly a few of us that do so mainly in our western states. I'm one of

those folks and recently documented one of those trips in order to give others

some idea what that is about since it is rather obvious from the way others

comment on threads here or the lack of such stories in popular photo magazines,

that most LF users have little exposure to the nature of such adventures.

 

I've created the below story in html that includes a modest number of embedded

images both taken with my tiny 7mp Coolpix and those of my 4x5. Long before

backpacking with my 4x5 system, I did so for many years with a rather

comprehensive 35mm systems and later with a 6x7. Eventually I figured out how

to effiiciently bring the view camera system out there too which is all I bring

out backpacking any more. Although the story doesn't go into how I do that

since that is mainly specific to my own brand of gear, it does provide some

insights into what I do photographically on such trips, along with the

exertions and dangers one might face in such an effort. ...David

 

On the below link to my website homepage, select the following field. One

ought to have a broadband internet connection else turn off browser image

viewing:

 

"Shadow & Minaret Creek Headwaters Backpack August 2006"

 

http://www.davidsenesac.com/

John in any of our national forests, you are allowed to camp anywhere such is not specifically prohibited. That is referred to as "dispersed camping" though is rarely promoted though is well used by many experienced outdoor enthusiasts. Areas that are prohibited tend to be in areas where there are public campgrounds, towns, motels, and heavy use. Vast areas of national forest land beyond such is free for such camping. One will need to stop by a ranger station and obtain a California campfire permit. At that time ask for a handout explaining the limitations and expectations of those who do so. Areas where dispersed camping is prohibited is shown on the Inyo National Forest Map so buy one of those. Any dirt spur roads along the White Mountains paved road are fair game. This map shows the Grandview Campground:

 

http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?lat=37.33408&lon=-118.18636&size=l&u=4&datum=nad27&layer=DRG

 

Notice the dashed line dirt road about a half mile north of the campground entrance loop beyond the bend east in the paved road. That leads to what on the map is shown as "borrow pit". Actually there are several more branches on that dirt road which are not shown on map. You will see signs of places others have camped in a number of places. ...David

Unless you are just planning on being there one day, I'd recommend staying up there overnight whether in the Grandview campground or dispersed camping along any of the several dirt roads before the reserve entrance off the main paved road. There is no legal overnighting in the reserve. The time to be at Patriarch is realy early in the morning. Bishop is so far away that if you get up at sunrise, by time you drive to reach that area it will be too bright. That is because the landscape geology is bright white dolomite. So toss in a sleeping bag and whatever else you need to be comfortable. Also expect to walk around quite a bit if you want good images. Few of the best trees are right next to the road though there are some. ...David

A 61 liter pack (~3660 cu in) is a modest sized trail backpack. You might reconsider your strategy of carrying everything in one pack. By using a two pack system you can use a smaller daypack that fits within or attaches to a larger backpack with the rest of your gear. That way while you are camped somewhere with the rest of your gear set up at a campsite, you won't need to lug the larger pack with the remaining photo gear everywhere you shoot. Your situation is marginal versus mine as your gear sizes even with the technical pack are not really that large. I do lots of more serious backpacking and carry considerable view camera gear in a 40 liter pack (2400 cu in) that attaches through custom Quickrelease buckles to the back of a 90 liter Lowe trail backpack.

 

...David

http://www.davidsenesac.com

I would not use the incident meter for sunsets either. All my current work is complex outdoor 4x5 landscapes. I have a digital meter with a 5 degree spot and an incident meter both of which I only use in a EV reading mode. From the EV readings I independently select shutter speed and aperture via a chart. By doing so I simplify exposures decoupling it from mental complications of camera and film. However much of what I learned was from many years with a high end 35mm SLR that had a spot meter function. My method is mostly about getting readings and then guessing what EV shooting setting needs to be used evaluated from my experience.

 

I use the incident mode far more than spot. With spot one has to consider too many variables like the color of the target area and its orientation to the sunlight. Cetainly others have learned solid methods just using spot readings, however that is just not the way I have chosen to work. And I don't use the incident mode as is often recommended like with portraiture photographery of placing the sensor in front of the target and aligning its orientation towards the camera. That would of course be what I would want to do in a studio setting but outdoors is far more complex. There is direct illumination from the sun mixed with indirect diffuse light from the atmosphere, clouds, and nearby terrain. The main idea for my method is knowing what the general illumination is on the landscape and not trying to meter the deepest shadows and brightest highlights per a zone system method. I don't need to because I just use one film, Provia 100F film, and know that it will usually be able to handle the latitude of usual situations once I understand the general scene illumination. Thus if I take a general incident EV reading of a landscape scene with a modest amount of distant snow in the background, I don't worry it is going to clip the highlights. When shooting on axis with the sun on a fair blue sky day, I simply align the sensor perpendicular towards the sun and take an EV reading. From that I mentally estimate given experience, a shooting EV reading that is often 1/3 to 2/3 below that reading. When there is a more complicated combination of indirect lighting I will modify that approach and take additional readings. The difficult situations are early, late, and shaded, thus generally any dim situations. For those I increasingly rely on taking many spot readings and then interpretting what the shooting EV ought to be using my experience. ...David

Interesting the nature of these responses. Answers all over the place. Likely most are simply places specific photographers have visited and enjoyed. And most have likely been to just a few places so can't give an objective answer of someone that has visited many parks. Better to find that answer in any of the many guide books written by experts on traveling in the West. I would ignore any that suggest trying to avoid crowds. With only two shots as a never ever visitor that ought to be of very low priority. I would not even try to answer the question without first asking Eddie a few very basic questions.

 

First what time of year? That makes a tremendous difference and more so in some parks than others. Visit Death Valley NP or Grand Canyon in August or Yosemite NP in September and you might as well be guided by Homer Simpson.

 

Second question is do you hike, what kind of physical shape or limitiations. Much of the most awesome scenery one often sees on postcards and in guidebooks is NOT close beside roads. Indeed despite the expectation of many visitors from our East Coast that think drive up scenery is the status quo, such is in fact not so. Instead visitors may need to hike a little or a lot. Some parks like Yellowstone, Bryce, Arches, and Grand Canyon, are well suited for those that can go at most short distances from roads, while others like Kings Canyon are pretty much worthless for auto bound visitors. Other parks like Yosemite, do relatively well for the auto bound visitor while also having tremendous additional to offer the day hikers or backpackers.

 

Since you are on a photography forum, I expect you are a photographer. Not having photographed outdoor landscapes you may not be able to say much of what you like or are familliar with. However even a little bit of your own background outdoor interests would be worth some value. Or even what you saw in some book or magazine that excited you. ...David

When I made this little decision, I too wondered if I would bother wasting a few bucks just to put releases on each lens. But then I thought, gee I've just got three lenses, and I always want at least an extra release anyway in case one breaks. Of course torquing a release where they come out of their attachment is a common way they break. Also in field work I'd hate to have to add playing musical chairs with a single cable release each time I changed lenses. Just too much opportunity to occasionally drop it in the often treacherous places I do landscapes at. I buy the cheap short $6 generic B&H cable releases and have yet to break one on a LF lens though did so regularly with my smaller format cameras. I have to remove my lens plus lens plate when packing up my field camera and simply wrap the release around the lens body as others do.

I've only visited Utah May thru early June when water is still flowing and wildflowers are peaking. Shooting Provia, midday, when I rarely shoot is about 10:30am to 3:30pm MDT. At midday hide from the sun, change film holders, eat lunch, do laundry, organize gear, study maps, make plans, take a nap. ...David

Pretty much just a minimal UV lens protector. Long ago in the past I played around with polarizers, warming filters, grad ND's and was not happy with any results. However the grad ND's I used were not neutral gray and that was my main criticism. I've seen what current well balanced grad ND's offer and will likely buy some in the future. Never really likely the effects of polarizers except for closeup vegetation work. Comparing a polarizer mountain landscape image with one without a polarizer, invariably the former does not look reasonably natural and natural is what I strive for and deliver just using Provia unfiltered. ...David

I'm in the process of submitting a copyright registration for images I market

on my web site. Thus have gone to the US Copyright office website, read their

information, downloaded forms, and read information about photography copyright

submissions on various internet sites and forum threads. I am interested in

submitting all my web images with the group form with one CD for the $30 fee.

However some images were first loaded onto my web site last year in 2005 when

my site went public while a few others have been loaded onto my site now in

2006. Although I considered my images under copyright from the moment I

received the developed transparencies often years ago, it was not until I began

marketing them on my website that they fit the definition of published

material.

 

From the information I've read one can submit photographs using the group

submission form and fee for images published in a given calendar year. However

to save a few bucks and making it simple, I'd rather submit all my images at

this one time. Thus am wondering what to put in the "Date of First

Publication" field on the Form VA? For those uploaded to my site in 2005, I

might date those at the estimated time I loaded them. For images I've uploaded

this year I'm wondering if I can date them when they were loaded in 2006 or if

the Copyright office will reject the package and ask me to resubmit them

separately? Or whether I might simply date the images as last year? Or if

they just don't really care given the enormous amount of such submissions they

need to process?

 

Am also wondering how much submission of web images protects usage of these

same images when larger formats of the same images are submitted to customers

for say stock use or my sending the images out to printing services?

...David

Like most replying for squeeters I'm a firm believer in high concentration DEET rather than the kid low concentration stuff. Squeeters also are attracted to sweaty smelly people so I tend to jump in a lake or river each day during times they are out. Many times I've been part of a line of hikers on a trail with a cloud of mosquitos tending to plague some hikers far more than others. Now black flies are another beast. They just are not deterred by much of anything except in my experience a head net. But given Rose-Maries post, I'll be sure to try her B-vitamin tip the next time I'm in Utah. ...David

I've been shooting at high elevations in the Sierra for a couple dozen years. Not using your negative film but rather slide films. Most of that time my lenses have either had no filter or only the mildest UV protection filter, which will not have a noticeable effect on film colors including blue. I also never use a polarizer for landscapes that include skies as it invariably tends to increase the variation of blues over the width of the sky more than what is natural. In any case, the hue and saturation of sky blues are going to vary tremendously depending on atmospheric clarity depending on water vapor and dust, time of day with sun elevation and azimuth, and direction of the sun in relation to the camera direction. You can looks at my website and see that I accordingly have no problem with my landscapes.

 

...David

 

www.davidsenesac.com

There are sure a lot of these kind of questions in the archives minus the 20D. And each time one is sure to read about how someone blows there <insert model> camera output up really big...and it looks good to them. Maybe that is why when I persuse art fairs or galleries, I'm seeing so many soft prints these days. ...David

Well your tips are appreciated folks and I'm going to make some changes to improve what I'm doing.

 

Van Camper, I stuck to Quickloads for a couple years while I worked on straightening out the rest of the quirks in my gear and technique. Then set about to change to sheet film to reduce its significant extra cost. I'll still shoot Quickloads if it is a significant advantage, otherwise my sheet film skills are quite consistent these days. And since I've been buying near dated Provia sheet film at about 1/3 regular pricing that cost savings is significant. A few years ago I was having a lot of light leakage and technique problems with sheet film holders so tended to use my 6x7 camera more often than not. Then I brainstormed all that and defeated the other problem of consistently exposing film without having to bracket and get good results. The one area that is still a bit weak is dust and dirt control.

 

Ronald and Mona, thanks for the Ziplock holder advice. I use those bags for a lot of things and now after thinking about your advice will start putting my holders in a Z bag from now on. Today I'll remove my film from my holders, clean all my holders thoroughly, re-insert the film, then put the holders in one of the new big double lock Ziplock bags. That has to be a major source of dust entry into my change bag just from stuff on the outside of the holders that then statically jumps onto the inside of the changebag. One still exposes them to outside contamination each time they are used for a shot. So I'll use a dedicated brush for dusting the outside of holders before returning them to the Ziplock. The other similar thing I will do is to put my unexposed and exposed film boxes into medium sized Ziplocks since they have the same issue. The last thing in this vein of thought will be to use some kind of easily cleanable polyethelene tube over my lower arms up to my wrist when inserting them into the changebag. I'd actually thought about that one and now will do it.

 

Pico, I'm going to check out what those Pledge Grabits are. The lint rollers work pretty good already.

 

Alan, per my original post I tried using a vacuum cleaner. I have several including an industrial computer cleaning vac but the cloth just gets pulled in by the suction so one cannot drag it along the surface.

 

Lee as for the damp cloth, at least with my change bag due to its cloth material, I am leary about what getting the material wet might do as to regarding keeping it light tight.

 

I own a cheap 26x28 inch change bag I bought a few years ago from Calumet. I immediately modified the design by adding a second elastic band a bit further inside about the arm entrances since the single elastic strip on mine seemed a poor design. I have not had any light leak issues due to film changing in the bag.

 

...David