christiankiely

I currently use a Fuji S2 Pro w/ #87 filters. I used to shoot Kodak HIE and Maco 820c IR films. I can tell you that once you go digital IR you'll never go back :)

 

There is one problem that I have w/ the S2, tho' it might be the uncoated fliters, not sure. If I shoot stopped down a lot I get a really hot spot in the center of the image. I have to shoot pretty wide open for this not to happen. So I lean towards the wider end of lenses so that I still get plenty of DOF.

 

Just my thoughts... hope that helps.

I have a Nikon SB-25 that is currently stuck on my Fuji S2 Pro... all

attempts I have made to remove it have failed. I leave on a photo

trip in a week and none of the local repair shops can give me any

kind of assurances that they'll have it back to me in that time frame

(not that I blame them).

 

At first it was merely an annoyace in that it made for bulkier

packing, but now there is a communication error where the flash only

works in manual mode and I can't use TTL or set things like -1.7ev

flash. All of the flash is way overdone and garrish. At this point,

all I want to do is remove it in one piece, and be able to use the

wimpy on camera flash for fill.

 

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks all for you replies, very helpful.

 

PS I found this link on a Google search today:

http://www.57z.com/page/2786/page.html

Sorry... I also wanted to state that I am not planning a trip from scratch to go to YBB, I will be in the moderately closeby in that timeframe. So, while I may be forcing the issue, the timing works for me. If there's nothing going on, or the snow conditions are bad, I will just to to Black Caynon of the Gunnison, Mesa Verde, Canyon of the Ancients, etc.

Is there any kind of hotline, or web update, for the flowers like there is out in SoCal for the desert wildflowers?

Any helpful links for planning a trip to YBB in June '05 would be

appreciated.

 

If you've had any specific experiences w/ things like 4x4 rental,

lodging, etc that would be very helpful.

 

Thanks.

My thought is to just show up and shoot what's there that day. Sometimes it will be cloud formations, sometimes a ball a fire dropping below the horizon... others it will be cloudy and "moody", or sometimes even "people" shots.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=385205

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=460369

 

Most of 'em are near sunset... as you can see, if the lighting was bad I would just go find something else to shoot.

 

I say just take what's there and make the best of it everytime you go... don't go looking for "the great one." Be pleasantly suprised if you come away w/ it, but don't count on it.

This may be over an done w/ 6-months later, but Singh-Ray filters are much longer and allow for placement anywhere in the frame. I love them!

Well, I am not going to take a run at anyone for posting some tips that someone might find use in. But, in all honesty I don't like the idea of rules for proper photography.

 

I think the biggest thing that you can do to change your photography is "see" differently. For a great read, try Galen Rowell's "The Inner Game of Outdoor Photography."

 

I would also say that it is fun to strech your boundaries by breaking the rules, or limiting your options. Try shooting all of your photos w/ a 50mm prime one day, black and white another, infrared and just macro sometimes. Doing this will force you to think about your compositions differently. I wouldn't do this on a real photo trip, but day trips and a random hike, etc. Once I began to do things like this I felt that I could begin to open up the range of possible photos.

 

Even saying all of that, I probably don't stray all that far from the "rules" posted above.

 

 

PS as for the mid-day, that's when IR photography is at its best. So, it gives you something to do while the light to too harsh. I try to catch morning/evening light landscapes in color and then go have some IR fun during the middle of the day.

How 'bout both? I own soft and hard ND grads and still work with them in PS. Often what I find myself doing is creating my own verion of a grad. I will take the same RAW image usually the "even" exposure of a bracketed set and convert one at say -1 and another at +1 or something along those lines. I will bring them into the same image as separate layers and then use a large brush, and erase the bottom of the image at 100% opacity. Then I will use very large brush with soft edges with 33% opacity and ensure a smooth "transition" between the two layers so it looks seemless.

 

I find it a lot easier to work w/ grads in the field and then again in PS. It reduces the really artificial look.

 

I have tried those digital blending techniques and I am never happy w/ them, they usually look too artificial to me.

Nothing more than a zoom/crop of the 1,500mm image.<div></div>

1,500mm equivalent view.<div></div>

Just wanted to drop a line here in case anyone is interested. I don't

profess to have a lot of knowledge on this subject, but there are a

pair of bald eagles that have apparently nested on Conn Island in

Great Falls Park (Potomac, MD) for many years. But, as I understand

it, it is an on again, off again thing. Some years yes, others no.

 

Anyway, they're there this year.

 

I am posting some photos and a map for viewing.

 

1) The photos are not meant for critique, I'm just showing you where

they are and that they are in fact in the nest.

 

2) They are NOT close! The photo I took is a 35mm equivalent of a

1,500mm lens. 500mm + 2xTC + 1.5 digital multiplier. The second image

is simply a cropped version of the original.

 

More information can be found at:

http://www.nps.gov/choh/Nature/Eagles.html<div></div>

OK thanks. This is a dead subject... I'm done w/ the questions. That was just a last ditch effort to see if the difference in rear element would change things.

 

And by dead, I mean really dead. I even found a camera shop today that stocked the 14mm extension ring and let me try it out. You guys were 100% correct, forget about infinity focus, try like a few feet. Besides, another issue all together is that the IX lenses have no aperature ring and w/ the extension ring you lose the ability to change it, so the camera just reads "f EE" and will not even take a shot.

 

But, what if... just kidding :)

OK, I'm hoping to put this issue to rest for once and for all, yeah right. Here is a photo of the two lenses that I have referenced, the Nikkor IX 20-60 and the Sigma 20 1.8.

 

As you will see, given the same mounting point, the rear element of the Nikkor IX extends farther back than the Sigma 20 (both at a focal length of 20mm). So, assuming that I could find an extension ring that would bring the rear element to the same position that the S2 would expect to find the Sigma 20, is there a reason why this would not work?

 

It may be an optics question that I don't understand, that is possible, if not probable. I guess in laymans terms, if I can put the rear element of the lens exactly where the S2 expects it to be, would I still lose infinity focus?

 

PS as you can see from my photo, you macro guys are safe from me!<div></div>

"The IX lens may fit the S2 (and any 35mm camera), in the sense it will mount without hitting the mirror"

 

YES! That is exactly the problem... it *does* hit the mirror, I know that for a fact. I have tried it on an N6006 that I bought on eBay, I would not try it on my S2. That was the whole crux of the "will an extension ring help" question.

 

But, from you all I have learned that it is technically possible to do, but I would lose the ability to focus to infinity. And, if that is the case, then forget it.

OK guys, thanks for the answers.

 

re: the ill fated Pronea only lenses. These lenses, the IX series, maintained the focal length specified. i.e. the 20-60 was a true 20-60 on that camera. If you put a non-IX 20-60 lens on it you'd get about a 28-84. However, the IX lenses will not fit on a non-APS camera because the rear element of the lens protrudes too far back and the mirror would hit it if you try to take a photo.

 

I have "modified" (read: it involved a saw) a 20-60 IX Nikkor that is doing me no good right now. It *does* fit onto my S2 and will meter, and it still meters, focuses and shoots on a Pronea that I have lying around too. All that I really did was to remove a protrusion that keeps the mount from fitting onto another camera, it is like a little plastic piece, nothing major.

 

When I view thru the IX lens mounted on my S2 there are no dark areas that suggest that it is missing parts of the mirror, etc. I know that I am totally out of my element technically here, but what I am saying is that to the untrained eye it seems that it should work. That notion I am learning is incorrect. I was hoping that all I'd need to do is put an extension ring on there to move the rear element of the lens forward so that it didn't hit the mirror and viola, instant wide zoom out of a otherwise useless lens.

>I was under the impression that the IX lenses protrude further back

>into the camera than normal lenses

 

This is correct.

 

re: mirror sizes. The mirror of the Pronea 6i is much smaller than a standard 35mm. The mirror of the S2 Pro is the same size as a N6006, but I don't think it uses the whole mirror.

 

Yes yes yes, I know... square peg, round hole ;)

OK. Can you briefly explain that? I've never worked with them before and I don't really understand the technical aspects.

 

What if, after using the extension tube, the rear lens element was where the camera is expecting a traditional lens element to be? I hope I'm making sense.

I know that I�ve asked this question before somewhere, but I don�t

think it was on photo.net and I don�t think that I ever got to the

bottom of my answer. I did search photo.net forums and I didn�t see

anything, so here goes.

 

I am trying to determine the feasibility of mounting a 20-60mm Nikkor

IX onto a Fuji S2 Pro (or consider any traditional Nikon camera, or

D100, etc). As you know, IX series lenses were designed to be used w/

Nikon�s SLR APS film cameras (i.e. Pronea 6i). The Pronea accepts

standard Nikon lenses, but suffers from a similar magnification

effect as using standard lenses on a Nikon mount digital camera

(something around 1.4x or 1.5x).

 

The Nikkor IX 20-60mm is a very small compact lens that for me would

be a great range for landscape work. I would like to carry one lens

when hiking or biking, but my current wide zoom (24 - 50) is becomes

more of standard lens (~33 � 70) when on the S2. Even if the math

didn�t work out to the lens equaling a 20mm exactly it would still be

much wider than my current setup.

 

I already own a Sigma 20mm 1.8 that is a very nice lens, perhaps

around 28mm on the S2, but it is huge, uses 82mm filters and fixed

focal length. This is my favorite lens, but when space is limited and

I want to carry one lens it makes things difficult.

 

I have some IX lenses sitting around and I have in fact been able to

get one of them mounted on a traditional Nikon body and it meters, AF

works, etc. It took some modifications, but it is on properly. But,

the lens element protrudes back into the camera and interferes with

the mirror� there�s not enough clearance.

 

So, I was thinking that an extension tube might solve that issue. I

don�t shoot macro and I�ve never used one before. I do understand

that they have the effect of increasing focal length, which has the

potential of negating the intended effect. But, bear in mind that the

lens element is going to go backwards thru the tube toward the

film/CCD plane so some of that effect would be minimized. Like I said

earlier, even if this became a 24mm that would be wider than what

I�ve currently got.

 

Thoughts? (other than telling me to go get one of the new super-wide

lenses designed for digitals.)

OK thanks... but I am just planning for several months out. If I can make the time to get there!

Thank you all for your wonderful information! This is exactly what I was hoping for. Quang-Tuan Luong, your portfolio is inspiring... keep up the good work! One of the photos you posted was what I asking about in the original post, trying to avoid the canyon in deep shadows.

 

PS I'll bring all four of my grads with me when I go!

I do not know these photographers, but these are the types of shots that I am looking for:

 

http://www.roberthildebrand.com/shop/toroweap.html

 

http://www.gavrilisphotography.com/southwest2i.html#one

 

"Zapped" thank you for the topo, but the shot is right from the ledge of the canyon, about 3,000 feet to the floor. It is reasonable to think that the shot I am looking for is right near there, the only question is where on there it is... there's an unimproved road some 60 miles long that comes in fromt the North to get to the point that I am looking for.

 

Thanks

I am in the beginning stages of planning a trip to the Grand Canyon

and I have a very specific question for those of you who have been to

Toroweap for a sunrise shot.

 

From looking at it on a map, it would appear that when you are

standing at the ledge looking across the canyon up the Colorado, that

you'd be looking in a direction generally 60* to 70* E of N.

 

I often research sunrise/sunset angles, and I see that for

approximately 40* N latitude, the angle of sunrise can be anywhere

from 57* E of N to 120* E of N depending upon the time of year(i.e.

http://www.locationworks.com/sunrise/2040.html#40).

 

From looking at a map it is my assumption that somewhere in the range

of 60* - 90* E of N would be ideal for the best shot, and that the

120* E of N would put virutally the entire canyon floor in a deep

dark shadow.

 

I guess I can make the question a little easier, sunrise is around

60* in mid-summer and 120* in mid-winter. Any comments about the

seasons you've been there would be helpful.

 

Thanks