scott_jorgenson1

I ordered 15 boxes (20 mounts each) of 645 glassless Wess mounts (product number DGX002) directly from the manufacturer just last month. The price was good and I received them in about a week (I'm in California). Not sure whether they are actually still in production, or just being sourced from dwindling inventory. It doesn't seem like they are being distributed anymore; if you want them, you have to contact the manufacturer directly, it seems. See www.wessmounts.net - all I did was give them a call and place my order. I have been doing this every few years for about 15 years and even after film's great fall-off have never yet had a problem.

Scott

<p>Light Waves Imaging of San Francisco/Berkeley seems to be one of the last, if not THE last, full-service pro lab still offering onsite E-6 processing in the San Francisco Bay Area. </p>

<ul>

<li>Does anyone have any recent experiences/reviews they'd like to share, of E-6 processing at Light Waves Imaging?</li>

<li>Does anyone know of any other similar pro labs still offering E-6 in the Bay Area, preferably in the South Bay?</li>

</ul>

<p>Thanks in advance,<br>

Scott</p>

<p>Rick, I can recommend the Lowepro PhotoTrekker AW. I bought mine 5-10 years ago, but I believe its still manufactured (probably in a later-generation model). It holds my Pentax 67II with the prism AE finder and 3 lenses, plus my Pentax 645 with 4 lenses, and the usual camera accessories (a few filters, cable release, extra batteries, etc). And there is still a little room to spare. The interior compartments are fully configurable and well-padded, and a tripod harness runs up the back of the pack allowing you to mount your tripod vertically on the back.<br>

As for comfort, it comes with a waist belt, chest strap, and compression straps at the waist and shoulder; the back is well-cushioned and molded as well. Its basically a similar suspension system as incorporated in a real internal-frame backpack. While the pack is not waterproof, there is a rainfly tucked-away which can be pulled-out and curled up-and-over the pack (not sure how that works if you have a tripod strapped on; I usually wear a backpackers poncho instead where the "hunchback" in the poncho is big enough to accommodate the backpack too). <br>

Finally, there are some lashes on the sides, for miscellaneous items. This is where I usually attach a water bottle. Its not convenient and if the pack could use one extra feature, it would be a water bottle holder on one of the bottom sides. Hope this helps.</p>

I assume you're most interested in Anza-Borrego's famous and spectacular carpet blooms of annuals. Only in

a "good year" are these blooms really stunning. Now, the problem is that the definition of a "good year" is one with

average to above-average, soaking rainfall, starting early in the season (November / December) and continuing

dependably (every few weeks at least) until the peak bloom itself in late winter or early spring (the exact timing at

that point depends more on temperature and sunshine than amount of moisture). This all happens maybe 1 year in 3

(with the really great blooms you see in calendars and coffee-table books happening maybe 1 year in 7 or 8). You

see the problem -- the odds are against you, but predicting a "good year" is highly dependent on weather, and as we

all know, predicting the weather weeks and months into the future is impossible.

Wait until late January / early February. If you hear that the first rains have come to Anza-Borrego by

November/December, and have repeated every few weeks since then, with moderate temperatures and average to

above-average rainfall, then chances are good that it will be a good year. In such years, the peak bloom of annuals

tends to fall from late-February to late-March, but can never be called for sure more than a week or two in advance.

Make your plans accordingly.

If you hear by late January that no appreciable rain has yet fallen, or that 6 weeks or longer of drought have

happened in the December/January/February timeframe, or that rainfall by February is significantly below average, or

of a long stretch of 90-plus temperatures near the end of the winter -- any of these would be very good indicators that

the year will probably range from "not very good" to "terrible" depending on how many of these conditions pertain and

how extreme they are.

If you really must commit to a plan-of-action sooner, you are basically gambling. If it is an El Nino year, the odds

lean in favor of a good year with a good bloom; plan to arrive in late February to mid March (late March is usually too

late for an El Nino year since the mild temperatures start the growing season a little on the early side). If it is a La

Nina year, the odds lean against it being a good year. If neither El Nino or La Nina (which is the case most of the

time), there really is no telling.

Hope this helps,

Scott

Mint Pentax 67 bodies may sell on the used market for $500 or less, but if you are looking for a 67II body, you will

probably pay substantially more. Its quite surprising to me, considering the effect of digital, but excellent-condition

used 67II bodies are currently quite expensive. Right now at KEH, for example, they are selling 2 "Excellent-Plus"

rated 67II bodies for $1,219.00! That's for the body alone, without a finder or any lenses. Considering I paid $1,499

for my 67II body (new) in 2000, and that in the heydey of medium format a used price of between 60%-75% of new

was the general range for good-condition Pentax equipment, that's a used price which seems unaffected by the

digital advent. I won't speculate why, but I wish they were cheaper!

. The New Lab in San Francisco (http://www.newlab.com) has daily (weekdays) courier service to Keeble and Shuchat Photography (http://www.kspphoto.com, a large photo equipment retailer) in Palo Alto. New Lab does both E-6 and C-41 in many sizes including 120 and 220. Drop off your 120/220 E-6 at Keeble on a Mon-Thu morning, and it'll be ready for you to pick up the following afternoon (I don't know if that's standard on all the film sizes and/or C-41 as well). Keeble doesn't charge any overhead for this service; the price I pay at Keeble is the listed price on New Lab's Web site.

2. Calypso Imaging in Santa Cruz (http://www.calypsoinc.com) has twice-weekly courier service at Pepper's Mail Center in Santa Clara. There's a minimum order (currently $10) and a service fee (currently $2). Calypso only processes E-6, however (they stopped C-41 a year or two ago), and they do it only twice a week (the same days as the courier service); so you'll have to wait a few days to a week to get your film back, depending on the timing. They're cheaper than New Lab though.

Hope this helps,

Scott

Besides Gepe, there are Wess mounts. I prefer them because they're hinged and sturdier. They're 8.5cm x 8.5cm with a window size of about 54x68mm and are available in neutral or black, glassless or with glass. I use the neutral glassless ones.

Call the manufacturer (BCA) and order them directly. See http://www.wessmounts.net/ for a phone number -- no online ordering. I've ordered within about the last year, paid about $10 or $11 for a box of 20 glassless neutral mounts, and they were definitely still available and being manufactured at that time.

Hope this helps,

Scott

Jay,

In followup, you asked:

"It was mentioned (by Scott Jorgenson) that the 67 transparencies look better on a lightboard...yet this does not translate into better looking photos? This seems counter-intuitive to me, but I am a novice when it comes to film issues."

All I meant was, the 67 transparencies are bigger (obviously) than the 645 transparencies. I'm a small-timer who mostly shares and sells among family, friends, and friends of family/friends, so its often feasible for me to simply show them the originals on a light panel. When I do, the bigger ones typically have more impact.

That's all; its a minor point if your audience will never see the originals, and unless you're like me, they probably won't. They'll see your prints -- eg if you're selling/showing prints; and/or they'll see your files -- eg if you're selling/showing on the Web, or selling to photo editors, stock buyers, etc (except for those who still want film submissions). But otherwise who will see your originals anymore these days?

Scott

Hi Jay,

I have had both cameras for 8-10 years, have used both for landscapes, and continue to do so consistently. I have had prints made at the 8x10 size, as well as 14 inch, 20 inch, and 24 inch prints. They are digitally-enlarged photographic prints (drum-scanned via Tango or similar, cleaned-up and adjusted in Photoshop, output to Lightjet or Chromira on Fuji Crystal Archive paper). At the 8x10 print size you are talking about, they are indistinguishable and pin-sharp. I do not notice a difference between them, in fact, until I get to around the 24-inch print range, at which point the difference is only slight.

If I had to have just one of the systems, it would be the 645. It is slightly more compact, lighter-weight, faster to operate (power-winder, no need to use mirror lockup, more frames per roll), and gives me an extra 1-stop of depth-of-field (all other things being equal, including enlargement factors) due to the smaller frame size. I keep the 67 simply because the resulting transparencies can go above the 24-inch range while IMO the 645 should not; and also because they look more impressive on the light table (not really important, especially in this day of digital files).

Scott

Do you need cardboard for any particular reason? Gepe and Wess glassless plastic mounts are available for 6x7. I like the Wess mounts: they are sturdy and hinged and available in black or neutral (gray), IIRC. I seem to remember they sell in boxes of 20 for about $10 a box. I order them directly from the manufacturer, BCA Manufacturing in New York state - see http://www.wessmounts.net

Scott

Gary,

You didn't mention whether you are familiar with California's climate and landscape, so I'll mention this caveat:

Our rainy season runs into mid-spring and then shuts down. Summer thunderstorms are not uncommon in the high mountains and parts of the desert; but otherwise California generally sees no rain whatsoever from late spring through sometime in the fall.

Consequently the California landscape - wherever dominated by grasslands, which is most everywhere outside of the high mountain and coastal forests, and the deserts - turns brown by late spring. The grasslands start out as golden brown, the color of straw, but by this time of year - early fall - they are mostly just, well, brown. By now, even the chaparral - widespread dense scrub brush, probably the second most dominant feature in California - is browned-out.

All the places away from the immediate coast which you and others have mentioned are at least 30-50% grassland and 30-50% chapparal. Everything but scattered groves of trees will be plain brown, the color of dead vegetation.

I mention this just as a warning. Many people find, aesthetically, that this fact-of-life in California takes, well, some getting used to. I've lived here all my life, and accept and love it. Your opinion may vary, though, especially if you're from greener climes :-)

Scott

Zion Canyon: the fall color peak is during the 1st or 2nd week of November, give or take a week. All other locations are higher and turn earlier. But if you haven't done autumn in Zion National Park before, Zion Canyon is the main show, what with all the maples, box elders, and cottonwoods.

What makes this especially convenient for a photographer, is that the shuttle system is shutdown after October 31, so you have more freedom to scout around, cover territory, respond to changes in light and weather, etc.

Zion Canyon on a weekend at this time (early- to mid-November) will feel busy, especially at the Temple of Sinawava, the Emerald Pools, and Weeping Rock. Outside of Zion Canyon, it will be very quiet. Weekdays will be noticeably quieter all around than weekends.

Expect to see a ton of photographers. 10% or more of the visitor population at this time are photographers - I'm not kidding. I live in California and have experience with Yosemite, Big Sur, Death Valley in El Nino years, etc. I have never seen so many serious photographers in one place, as peak color time in Zion Canyon. Each time I have been there, it has been that way. Expect a hundred of them (us) or more.

Lastly, about the Subway (Left Fork of North Creek): its spectacular, serene and one-of-a-kind. But for the average photographer, its a grueling hike. Lots of boulder scrambling, log stepping, branch ducking, some wading, and it goes on that way for several miles. And yes, I'm just talking about the approach from below. If you're in good shape and traveling light, that's one thing. If you're in average American shape and carrying 25-35 pounds of gear, that's something else. The day after I did it, all I could do was stick to the level trails of the Zion Canyon floor. I ached for days afterward. I guess I'm not 25 anymore :-)

Scott

A helpful rule-of-thumb is: if you're satisfied with a print which is X inches long, made from a piece of film that was Y inches long, and you're wondering how big you could go with a piece of film that is Z inches long, the answer is X*Z/Y.

So. You indicated you're satisfied with a 20-inch-long print from 35mm film. A 645 frame is 56mm long whereas a 35mm frame is 36mm long. Thus you will be able to print 645 up to 20*56/36 = 31.1 inches long and maintain comparable image quality when viewed at the same viewing distance. Let's round that to 30 inches long, since this is just a rule-of-thumb calculation.

This, of course, assumes comparable shooting techique (proper focusing, tripod, etc), comparable optical quality of the lenses, comparable film stocks, comparable scanner and printer resolutions (assuming digital printing), etc. Given approximate equivalence in all those factors, it really does come down to as simple a calculation as this.

Scott

I've used both the Pentax 67II and the Pentax 645 (ie the old manual-focus one) for 6 years. My observations:

- Although it lacks mirror lockup, the Pentax 645 has no mirror or shutter vibration problems, at any shutter speed, at magnifications of up to 300mm at least (this is as far as I've gone), and used with tripod/head combinations down to about 8 pounds aluminum and 6 pounds carbon fiber (this is as light as I've tried). Note the Pentax 645Nii (2 generations removed from the 645) incorporates mirror lockup, so with that body I would expect these results to extend even further.

- Although it includes mirror lockup, the Pentax 67II suffers from severe shutter vibration between 1/30 and 1 second or so, unless buffered/buttressed significantly - even when you use the mirror lockup properly. The on-film blur gets less noticeable at lower focal lengths (eg under 100mm), and more noticeable at greater focal lengths (eg 200mm and above); similarly, it kicks-in at 1/30 (seems not to be present at 1/60+), peaks at 1/15 or 1/8, and then drops off slowly toward 1 sec or a little longer. For example, with the 200mm lens at 1/8, I'm talking about the sort of blur that is noticeable under a 4X loupe and blindingly obvious under an 8X loupe - the sort of blur that makes an image unusable. In short, shutter vibration is the achilles heel of this otherwise wonderful camera.

If you're going to use the Pentax 67II with anything besides wide-angle lenses, within the 1/30-1 sec range, then you need to plan on providing substantial support. This means a very heavy, sturdy aluminum tripod/head combo (12+ pounds), a moderately heavy and sturdy carbon-fiber combo (9+ pounds), or - if using a lighter combo - enough added weight to double the difference, piled or suspended over the pentaprism, as another contributor related. This may be dead weight you find on the scene (eg rocks) or bring with you (eg sandbags); or you might use your camera bag; or even the pressure of your own, leaning, body.

FYI, I found these sorts of gymnastics impractical and unreliable in the field - eg sometimes with a light or medium-weight tripod/head combo, and my piled-on sandbags, I would still get shutter vibration. So I ended up going the carbon fiber route with the heaviest CF tripod Gitzo offered (1548). I now have no problems at any shutter speed, up to 200mm (my longest lens), and just as importantly, can breathe easy (except when hiking long distances with that tripod :-)

If you are not prepared for a possibly-trial-and-error, possibly-expensive (eg Gitzo 1548) search for adequate support for the 67II, and yet you will be using the problematic focal lengths and shutter speeds: then by all means - go with the 645.

Hope this helps,

Scott

What is the "best" time of day for the interior of the Subway slot

canyon in Zion National Park in October/November? In terms of the

directionality and quality of light, assuming a sunny rather than

overcast day. I'm thinking of indirect (reflected) light, of course.

Many thanks,

Scott

I own both Pentax 645 (old MF version) and Pentax 67II, and use both for landscapes.

The Pentax 645 produces a 56mm x 41.5mm frame, the 67II produces a 69.5mm x 55mm frame. Doing the math correctly, the Pentax 645 thus presents a 169% geometrical improvement (ie, in terms of image area) over 35mm, while the 67II presents a 64% geometrical improvement over the 645. If we prefer to talk in terms of linear enlargement factors, the 645 presents a 56% improvement over 35mm in the long dimension, while the 67II presents a 24% improvement over 645 in the long dimension. In any case, mathemtically, whichever way you look at it, the move from 35mm to 645 is somewhere around 2.5 times (give or take) more significant than the move from 645 to 67II.

This bears itself out in my experience. I find that when I obtain 3200+ DPI drum scans from 645 and 67II transparencies (Velvia), and print (LightJet) at up to 20 inches long (ie 16x20 for 67II and 15x20 for 645), there is no consistent, discernible difference in printed image quality between the two different formats/cameras. I'm not sure how large I'd have to print to see a difference, though just going off it mathematically, I'd imagine a difference to set in somewhere in the mid-20's (inches long).

Hope this helps,

Scott

I presume the "Pfeiffer" in your question indicates the general location is in Central California (Big Sur). However there is no such thing there technically as "Pfeiffer State Beach". There is Pfeiffer Beach, in the Los Padres National Forest, featuring several rock arches. There is Julia Pfeiffer-Burns State Park, featuring McWay Creek falls. And there is Pfeiffer-Big Sur State Park, but that actually contains no coastline so is probably not what you're referring to. All of these locations are within 30 minutes of one another, in Central California's Big Sur region.

If you're talking about Julia Pfeiffer-Burns State Park, what you're talking about should work both for sunrise or sunset, because there is ungated roadside parking along State Highway 1. From there you can access views of the cove and falls, as well as trails that take you through the walk-in campground to closer views. It is the park entrance road which is gated, but that is irrelevant as all the good stuff is along the coastline traversed by Highway 1.

Note: Summer is the long dry season in California, if you didn't know that (you didn't mention whether you're a resident or on vacation). McWay Creek is a perennial stream, but its a pretty small one and I don't know how much water you can expect to find going over the falls at this time of year.

If you're talking about Pfeiffer Beach in the Los Padres National Forest, that I can't comment on. I've accessed during the winter at both sunrise and sunset, and never had a problem with gated roads or parking. If there were posted hours at the parking lot, I didn't notice them and I suppose they may have covered the time I was there anyway. Since I had no problem with the parking lot, I didn't notice what parking or access opportunities might have existed beyond/before that. So I just couldn't say.

Hope this helps,

Scott

Oh, I forgot to mention: for the same reason, XPan is too small for you too. You'll get only a 65mm long image, slightly shorter than 6x7, so it won't cut it at the sizes you're talking about, either.

Scott

I disagree with some of the other suggestions you've been given. If 645 will be unacceptably soft to you and your audience at sizes like 16x47 and 22x68 (and I agree - 645 will be too soft at those long dimensions - I assume those are in inches), then you will not find that 6x7 gives you enough boost to fight that.

6x7 only gives you 25% more long dimension than 645 (70 mm versus 56 mm). I find 645 too soft to my taste when the long dimension falls somewhere around 24-28 inches. That means, using 6x7, I could go 25% beyond that - ie somewhere around 30-35 inches. Not big enough for you.

I think you need 6x17, or cropped large-format.

Scott

There are two outfits providing boat access to Channel Islands National Park. I've been out to Anacapa and Santa Cruz Islands and have used Island Packers each time: http://www.islandpackers.com But Truth Aquatics also provides access: http://www.truthaquatics.com

Island Packers provides pretty regular, no-frills access to all 5 of the islands of Channel Islands National Park. You can choose from day trips or overnight or multiple-night camping trips (you would then need a camping permit from the National Park Service too - see http://www.nps.gov/chis). Their fares are reasonable and their service is good and really their only downside from your point of view is their location: all boats depart from harbors in Ventura, which are about 30-45 minutes east of Santa Barbara by car.

I've never used Truth Aquatics. They leave from Santa Barbara, a plus for you. But I believe their focus is more toward dive trips around the Channel Islands, not that much toward island access. Also they seem to be more oriented toward groups than individuals. Their island landing schedules seem much more infrequent than Island Packers and their fares are higher since they provide a higher level of service, like meals and on-board bunks for overnight trips. I'd take the drive to Ventura and go with Island Packers if all you're really looking for is transportation to the islands.

Scott

I have used the Pentax 67II with the Bogen 3021 tripod and 3030 head. Without additional dampening (ie, hand pressure, sandbags, suspended deadweight, or similar), I would not recommend that particular tripod/head configuration with any P67 lens longer than 135mm. At 135mm the troublesome middle range of shutter speed (1/8 or 1/15) begins to record a soft image when seen under a 7X or 8X loupe. As focal length increases, eg to 200mm, the problem just gets worse: image softness grows, and the range of susceptible shutter speeds also stretches, to about 1/4 - 1/30 inclusive. Strangely, all this softness only occurs when the camera is mounted in a horizontal orientation; swing it to vertical and the softness goes away. And below 135mm (eg, with the 55-100mm zoom), I never noticed a problem at those lower magnifications.

Applying extra dampening helps the problem somewhat, but I got tired of the gymnastics involved in weighting-down the camera. I switched to a sturdy carbon-fiber tripod with similar pan-tilt head and have not had any problems since.

Hope this helps,

Scott

I have hiked this exact route, in the summer of 1997. If you're at least an average backpacker, or have money to spend on a horse packer, it is quite doable. If not, it is tough - ie this is not a good trip for beginning backpackers, simply due to the mileage involved. Let me know if you'd like any particulars.

Scott

<p>What is the typical timing of peak color among the Chinle Wash

cottonwoods in Canyon de Chelly, Arizona - late October? early

November?</p>

<p>I searched here on photo.net and saw Bill Proud's thread from a

couple of years back (<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-

fetch-msg?msg_id=003yYH">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-

msg?msg_id=003yYH</a> - very nice photograph Bill) which seems to

suggest the last week of October and first week of November, at

least that year (2002), but I don't know if this is typical. I also

found this: <a href="http://www.apogeephoto.com/mag1-3/mag1-

3rh.shtml">http://www.apogeephoto.com/mag1-3/mag1-3rh.shtml</a> from

1996, which suggests the same timing. But I thought I'd check with

other photographers here who might know the area pretty well.</p>

<p>BTW I phoned the visitor center for Canyon de Chelly National

Monument today and asked the same question. I was told: "end of

September into early October". I can't believe that - I know from

personal experience that is when the aspens on the North Rim of

Grand Canyon peak, about 3000 feet higher in elevation than Canyon

de Chelly! But if the people in the Canyon do Chelly visitor center

live there and pay attention to the seasons (I know, that's a

big 'if' for many non-photography types :-) then they should

know.</p>

<p>Hoping you can help clear up the confusion,</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Scott</p>

Fear not. The name "Wess Plastic, Inc" no longer exists, but it seems the same people are still in the same business making the same stuff even at the same place.

Specifically, "BCA Manufacturing, Ltd" has "...assumed the production and distribution of the Wess product line of slide mounts..." (quote from a letter from BCA dated July 15, 2002, which - as a previous Wess customer on their mailing lists - I received at that time). Whether Wess merged with BCA, was bought by BCA, simply changed names, or whatever, I don't know.

The letter also said (quoting again): "We are currently evaluating the line of products and will be contacting you shortly with a new updated list of stock and custom products that will be available. Our intention is to keep the Wess Mount name and support you with all the products you have been accustomed to receiving in the past." Since just this morning they called me to tell me a backorder I had with them was going through (for classic Wess "DGX-002" glassless 645 mounts and "IGX-067" glassless 67 mounts), apparently they are keeping their word in this regard, at least for those 2 products.

To contact BCA, you must phone, fax, or use the post office - they apparently are not Internet'ed at all (which seems really anachronistic these days, doesn't it). You can call them in the USA at (631) 300-0000 (that's right, 3 million), or fax them at (631) 300-0118, or write them at:

BCA Manufacturing Ltd.

70 Commerce Drive

Hauppauge, NY 11788

(which I think was also the Wess street address)

Hope this helps,

Scott

PS. I like the Wess 645 and 67 mounts much better than the Gepe ones, or any others I've found, so I'm glad the Wess products seem to still be around!