gary_dewitt

Over the years I've developed my own technique for using flash in the field and it has never failed. FWIW, I use Vivitar 283 flashes, three of them, each fitted with a variable power dial in place of the auto sensor. I also have replaced the original, plastic hot shoe with a metal shoe that is not hot, has 1/4-20 threads and accepts a cable with a two-prong plug. Attached to the camera's PC socket is a short cable with PC on one end and a two-prong on the other end. Then I use household extension cords to get the length I need.

 

Automatic flash is too easy to fool, IMHO. So I always calculate the flash manually. The part I've developed myself is an easy way to do that:

 

1. Figure out the REAL outdoor guide number for your flash. At ISO 100 the manufacturer says my units are GN 120. But I suspect that is calculated indoors with reflective white walls. Through testing I've found that outdoors I can use 88.

 

2. Using your new GN, calculate a distance/aperture combination and memorize it. For example, with GN 88 my flash works out to f/8 at 11 ft. or f/11 at 8 ft. All I have to memorize are the numbers 8 and 11. Notice that 8 and 11 are even f-stops. Chances are you can come up with something very close to f-stop numbers. If you can't then use the closest combination of two f-stop numbers and then note that necessary correction as in +1/3 stop or -1/3 stop.

 

3. In the field when shooting, determine the necessary shooting aperture. Suppose I need f/11. I know, from memory, that I can shoot at 8 ft. But if I need to shoot at f/16, then what? Easy. From 11 to 16 is one stop, simply alter the OTHER number by one stop, from 8 to 5.6. Place the flash 5.6 ft from the subject. Note that placing the flash at roughly 5 1/2 ft is good enough, you don't need to calculate this to the inch. Conversely, if you know the required shooting distance, but not the f-stop, just count the number of stop-equivalents you've moved the flash. If the flash must be at 4 ft from the subject calculate it like this: 4 from 8 is two stops, add two stops to 11 to get f/22.

 

4. Remember that with LF lenses the shutter speed you choose is irrelevant as leaf shutters sync at all speeds.

By mid-August in Denali it is fall. The mosguitoes (sp?) are gone, as are most of the tourists. But the wildlife is there. The days have shortened up a lot. So late August is, I think, a great time.

 

June has lots of biting bugs and plenty of tourists. It doesn't get dark at all. Lots of wildflowers.

 

For landscape photography I would pick late August.

Also the end of the Mt. Baker Highway, which heads east out of Bellingham. Stunning views of Mt. Baker and Mt. Shuksan.

I've lived in central WA for about five years now. I don't know all the places, but I'm getting to know it fairly well.

 

Eastern WA on the Columbia Plateau is usually best in late April or early May. The Mountaineers publish a 50 Trails book on eastern WA and it talks mostly about wildlfower places. I find it a good resource.

 

My favorite places are Paradise Valley at Mount Rainier and Kulshan Ridge on Mount Baker, both in early August, depending on snow depth for the season.

 

The season moves up slope. In the valleys of the Cascades you'll find good flowers on the forest floors in June. In the higher elevations they are best in July and August. The display also varies through the season. At Mount Rainer, for example, the avalanche and glacier lilies are usally decent at the beginning of July and then every week there are different species in bloom. It tends to peak in early August and then taper off as August progresses.

 

Oh, one more, Hurricane Ridge in Olympic National Park is great for alpine wildflowers at about the same time as Rainier and Baker.

The 8000 has a "super fine scan" setting that completely eliminates banding. I use it for all scans. I believe the 9000 has the same setting.

I have spent scores of days in Yosemite and quite a few in the Olympics, too, now that I live in Washington.

 

Waterfalls should be good this year in Yosemite. In May the high country is usually covered in snow, so you'll usually be in the Valley. Late April or early May is typically the peak of the dogwoods and falls, but all through the month is usally nice. The weather is usually pretty good, but you could get a winter storm even then. The crowds are starting to show up and by Memorial Day it will be wall to wall people. But no time in Yosemite is particularly free of people, that's simply the reality of going there.

 

May is still fairly wet on the Olympic penninsula. IMO it is one of the best times to go to the rainforests, which are very hard to shoot in the summer. The beaches tend to be kinda drizzly that time of year but it is beginning to transition to a summer pattern, which is much drier, so you never know. Hurrican Ridge is usually still snowed in that time of year. The road is open year round so you can get up there but you'll need skis or snowshoes to get around and there aren't any wildflowers until summer.

 

If I were doing this I would go to Yosemite that time of year.

Also keep in mind that Adams wrote those books very late in his life, decades after he did his most famous work. He may well have changed his thinking about things.

I often feel as though the technology that has been brought to cameras over the years has made "it" more and more about the camera. I took up serious photography in school about 35 years ago. My favorite teacher loaned me his Exacta and his Leica whenever I wanted. Once I had learned to focus on a groundglass and with a rangefinder, I found I never had to think about the camera again. I used Argus, Canon, Graphlex, Hasselblad, Horseman, Nikon, Pentax, etc. all the same way: put the camera on a tripod, hang the meter around my neck, and off I went with never another thought for the camera. I had to THINK about composition and exposure, both of which affect the art, but not about the camera.

 

In the quest to make things easier, cameras have grown menu systems that computers didn't have a few years ago. Camera reviews run many, many pages comparing the numerous "features" of the different cameras. But are the pictures any better than they were with that old Exacta?

 

So in some respects I long for the "simpler" days of old cameras. Partly because I really think they are easier to use. But mostly because I wish a lot less time and ink were devoted to cameras and a lot more to photography.

I carry little sheets of stickers in my notebook. The stickers are about 1/2" long and I prenumber them in pairs with roll numbers. When I'm done shooting I stick one of the pair on that roll's notebook page and the other one of the pair on the sealing tape of the roll of film.

I own all of the books mentioned by Bill Atwood. For use in the field my preference is:

 

1. Peterson

2. Kaufman

 

I rate the Peterson higher as I like the paintings better than the photos. Even though the photos have had a fair amount of Photo Shop work to make them more "generic" they still aren't as good as paintings, IMHO.

 

For reference:

 

1. Sibley

2. NGS

 

Both are excellent, but I find the variety of pictured plumages helpful in the Sibley.

When I went from an Epson 3200 to a Nikon 8000 ED I was astounded. There are two areas of improvement: sharpness/detail and dynamic range.

 

The difference from the Nikon to a drum scan is also astounding, but the primary area of improvement is dynamic range again. Sharpness is improved sometimes because the film is held flatter, but I don't find any benefit in higher scanning resolutions.

 

I found it well worth buying the Nikon and I'm really glad I did, but it doesn't eliminate the need for the occasional drum scan. Also, you can do a lot of drum scans for the cost of a high-end film scanner.

I own a Nikon Coolscan IV, Nikon Coolscan 8000 ED and Epson 3200.

 

If I had a boat I would use the Epson for an anchor. That's about all it is good for, IMO.

 

Both Nikons produce beautiful scans with very little effort. The Coolscan IV is quite reasonably priced, too, and offers a lot of bang for the buck.

Paul, I also have an Epson 3200. I never got a satisfactory scan from it. The 8000 was worth every penny by comparison.

1. After trying Velvia 100F I decided I would never shoot Provia again. I have 10-15 rolls of 120 Provia in the freezer that I no longer have any use for.

 

2. I recently spent a week in Yosemite and, for the first time, shot several rolls of Astia 100F. I really, really like it. From now on I think I will be carrying one back with Astia and one with Velvia. The former will get used the most and the Velvia will only come out when the light is really soft.

I recently bought a Nikon Coolscan 8000 ED. It is one of the best purchases I have ever made.

 

I primarily use it for 6x9 transparencies, but have used it for a 35mm slide or two as well. It took me a little while to figure out the best workflow, but I am very happy with it now. Scans are sharp, noise free, have natural colors and I can really bring out detail in dark areas of my transparencies. In fact, I can get more detail out of a scan of Velvia than I can see on the light table!

 

If you are in the US, be sure to get one soon as there is a $500 rebate through December.

 

If you have any specific questions I'll try to answer if I can.

I've done some side-by-side comparisons of Astia 100F and Velvia 100F recently by having two 6x9 Horseman backs, one loaded with each, and changing backs to shoot the same image. Here are some observations, in no particular order:

 

Colors of Astia are very neutral and pleasing.

 

On the light table the Astia appears to have extended latitude in shadow areas. However, as I scan it more and more I get the impression that the additional latitude isn't real. With my Nikon Coolscan 8000 ED I find that I can tweak the shadow areas of Velvia, both 50 and 100F, to bring in detail that doesn't appear on the light table. But I can't do the same to Astia. The end result is that Velvia and Astia produce scans with similar shadow detail. OK, there's a little more in the Astia, but not much.

 

I use a Pentax Digital Spotmeter. With both films I set it at ISO 100. When there are bright highlights in the scene and I set my exposure based on them, then I invariably prefer the exposure first chosen, meaning ISO 100 works great. But when I meter off of middle tones to set my exposure, I generally prefer a frame that is "overexposed" by 1/3 stop, so perhaps ISO 80 would be better for that.

 

But the bottom line with any film is not whether or not they are "true" to their marked speed. There is an industry standard for that and they all meet that standard. The questions is whether or not "you" prefer it at something else. My preferences can't help you determine your preferences. Nor can the majority of other photographers. You really, really need to go shoot some, test it and decide what YOU like.

As I recall, the cause of the pepper grain is the substrate. And also, as I recall, it is different on 120 and 35mm.

 

Gary DeWitt

Steve, you asked about focal-length equivalent and DOF.

 

1. Maury answered with field-of-view (FOV) equivalents. To roughly calculate this figure out the diagonal of the targeted film format. I shoot 6X9, for example, which has a 56X82mm image and a 99mm diagonal. The diagonal of 35mm is 43mm. So 6X9 is 2.3X bigger. To find an equivalent 6X9 lens I can multiply 2.3 by the focal length of the lens I like for 35mm. I don't know the exact size of the 645 format, but I think it is 56X42mm for a diagonal of 70mm and a multiplier of 1.6.

 

2. You also mention DOF. Keep in mind that DOF is determined by the focal length, not by the FOV. The 645 equivalent of your 50/1.4 is an 80, but it will give the DOF of an 80mm lens, not a 50! (more or less. Actually, you may be willing to accept a larger circle of confusion in MF) DOF is one of the necessary sacrifices of larger formats. In my experience you lose DOF at approximately the same number of stops as your format multiplier. So my 6X9 images, 2.3X the size of my 35mm images, have about 2 stops less DOF for the same lens FOV.

--- And leave the T/S lens behind. To properly set one shot up with the tripod takes me around ten minutes anyway. And there are no converging lines in the woods, only in the city

 

The Olympic penninsula is known for its rain forests. Lots of big conifers. Any angle other than level means converging lines. If there is one lens I would NOT leave behind it is the 24T/S.

I lived most of my adult life at Lake Tahoe, albeit on the other, not-so-crowded, side of the lake. Here are some of my favorite places:

 

Emerald Bay. The mouth of the bay on either side is great, as is Eagle Falls, Emerald Bay State Park, Vikingsholm, etc. If you get some morning clouds then sunrises can be really spectacular. Shortly thereafter the bay will fill with boats this time of year.

 

East Shore. There are some wonderful stretches of rocky shoreline beginning in the area of Zephyr Cove and extending North all the way to Crystal Bay. Nice early in the day as it is the only time the lake is flat and because you can look across the lake at West slopes catching the early morning light.

 

Highway 89 south of the lake between Luther Pass and Hope Valley and then west on 88 to the Carson Pass/Kirkwood area. Beautiful subalpine scenery.

 

Mt. Rose Highway between Incline Village and Reno. The Tahoe Meadow area near the top has nice views of the lake and, though it might be a bit late, good wildflowers. You have to hike a short distance from the car to get the nice views. The first mile of the hike to Mt. Rose has wonderful views and is a gentle hike.

 

A note about photography at the lake shore. The lake is very, very big. Those peaks across the way, which stand out in your mind's eye, don't stand out so well on film. My best results have usually been with longer lenses, except at Emerald Bay where wide angles work well. For near/far compositions along the shore I have almost always needed long lenses on a view camera.

 

Gary DeWitt

Melissa,

 

Most people don't realize that Yosemite Valley, surrounded as it is by incredible mountains scenery, is fairly low elevation. In summer it is very hot. From Memorial Day to Labor day you can also expect it to be extremely crowded. The crowds begin to taper off in September. The best time for low crowds is, as previously stated, winter.

 

Winter is also usually surprisingly mild, again because of the low elevation. However, sometimes the valley is snowbound and because of the high south wall of the valley and low sunshine it never gets much sun.

 

March and April are the best times for the waterfalls and everything is in green and some of the wildflowers are beginning to bloom. However, everybody in the world seems to know that and so the crowds, while not up to summertime levels, can be pretty daunting.

 

My favorite time is early November. That's the peak of fall colors. Best morning light is from about 0700 to 0900, so I don't have to roll out of bed in the wee, wee hours. Sunset is at about 1800 so I can eat dinner at a reasonable hour. The crowds aren't too bad, as nobody knows about it. In fact, that's when I'm going this year. Considering the few hundred days I've spent in Yosemite over the last 30 years I can't believe I've been away for 6 or 7 years now.

 

Gary DeWitt

In the past week there have been two sold on eBay. Each sold for $1100.

 

 

Gary DeWitt

A search of photo.net on 'Horseman' will return many threads on this very subject. The consensus is that shorter than 65 and you sacrifice movements. Some have managed to use shorter lenses with recessed lensboards (no longer available) and/or hacking pieces of the body away to allow for movements.

 

On my VH a 65 is the shortest that will allow for movements and it will just barely clear the body.

 

Gary DeWitt

FWIW, I was at Mt. Rainier NP two days ago for a couple of days. Mind you next weekend will be an order of magnitude worse than last weekend. I was out taking pictures by 0500 at both Sunrise and Paradise (different days). On Sunday Paradise was absolutely packed by 1030, but the parking lot at Sunrise never filled up at all on Saturday.

 

At Paradise there are a few nice patches of Avalanche and/or Glacier lilies, but essentially the area is still snowed in and we hiked many miles almost entirely on snow. Sunrise is more open. I suspect you just might hit the peak of the Glacier lilies there.

I'm waiting for an order now. Does anyone know about reciprocity failure? Fuji's Web site doesn't have any data sheets available for it yet.