bruce_m._herman1

Martin,

 

I have used both Lee and Singh-Ray split ND filters for 4x5. I can't detect any difference. The Singh-Ray company will make custom filters which may be a plus if you can afford them. I can't.

 

Bruce

I haven't used the Schneider lens. But on more than one occasion I've used my Nikkor 75 mm with an aperture smaller than f32. The issue isn't so much the vertical relief of distant objects as it is the vertical relief of near objects when using tilt. If you would like to have the full vertical height of a nearby rock or flower appear to be sharp as well as distant objects, then you will need to stop down your lens.

 

I have to admit that I don't understand the weight controversy. The Nikkor 75 mm f4.5 is a rather small lens when compared with my 360 APO-Artar and Fuji 600 mm telephoto. I guess it's a matter of what you're used to using.

 

Best wishes.

Thank you, Tuan. Your impact on large format photography through this web site is probably as great as any other contemporary teacher or photographer.

 

Best wishes,

Bruce

Oops, typo - I meant to say that I would be remiss if I didn't mention the issue of bears. Log on to www.adn.com and check out Sunday's (6/8/03) paper. There's an article about a bear attack at Peter's Creek being thwarted by pepper spray.

 

Here's a photo from the spring before this last one made at Portage Lake.

 

Bruce<div></div>

Randy,

 

I haven't heard of Alaska bears breaking into cars. Homes and cabins, yes, but not cars. Very few of the bears outside of the municipality are used to human food, and so aren't inclined to turn a car inside out. The goal is to keep it that way by eliminating easy access. I've never even had an encounter with a bear beyond the time when I did wildlife photography. But a couple of people are injured each year, so I would feel remiss if I did pass along the warning.

 

Bruce

Randy,

 

You didn't say how long you planned to spend at your destination, but I'll assume that it's no more than a week. Because of that, you'll probably car camp or stay at hotels in and around Anchorage. Here are some thoughts.

 

1. A road trip down Turnagain Arm to Portage Glacier and then Seward. Spend a day photographing along the arm and then evening photography at Portage. Formal camp sites at Portage will be at a premium over the 4th, but camping outside of the campground itself has never been forbidden. You'll figure it out. The next day, work your way down the Seward Highway toward the Exit Glacier, which is just outside of Seward. I would avoid Seward itself as it is quite the madhouse over the 4th. Return via same route, visiting spots at different times of the day (e.g., morning photography in Portage, evening along Turnagain Arm). Total miles: a bit over 200. Total time: 4 days to a lifetime.

 

2. Head north to Hatcher Pass in the Talkeetna Mountains and then continue up the Glen Highway to the Matanuska Glacier. Side trips en-route to Hatcher Pass include the boardwalk at the Eagle River entrance to Chugach Park, Thunderbird Falls (these two aren't obvioius while you're driving), and then anything else you see. Camp in the Talkeetna Mountains after doing sunset near Summit Lake at Hatcher Pass. Proceed to the Matanuska Glacier the next day, and then reverse. I don't recall how many miles of driving this trip involves, but it's probably close to 300. Total time - 4 days to a lifetime.

 

3. You can also stay in Anchorage and just do day trips to everything that I've mentioned, although I would be disinclined to to so many out and back trips. I would concentrate on staying between Hatcher Pass and Portage.

 

Try to find a copy of The Milepost in a Seattle bookstore. It has road maps, accommodations, and suggestions of things to see and do. Topo maps are obviously helpful (www.topozone.com for on-line mapping). Be aware that the glaciers have receeded a mile or more from where they are shown in even the "updated" topo maps.

 

Three other notes: the fire danger is relatively high this summer. Try not to use a camp fire. Bears are for real up here, even around Anchorage itself. Don't leave food outside of your car. And like everywhere else, the 4th can be a time of drunken revelry. Be reasonably cautious.

 

Hope that you have a good time.

 

Bruce

I think there are two important issues that need to be raised. First, the new status means that no additional wilderness areas will be designated. What we already have will continue to exist. The contention of the current administration that the relative amount of wilderness in the Federal public lands is about right.

 

One reason for this is that many people who live near and use public lands feel that they have no control over how those lands are managed. Sometimes, local control has lead to abuses: over-grazing on many of the BLM controlled rangelands is but one example. And yet I can still understand the wrath many repsonsible users feel when their chosen mode of recreation is precluded by wilderness designation. In Alaska, ANILCA requires that traditinoal access methods be preserved. It hasn't worked perfectly, but it helps. That has not been the case in the Lower 48. Personally, I can understand how middle-aged folks feel when they loose access to lands because they do not have the physical ability to hike the distances required. From their perspective, how much more inaccessible land is required?

 

Our problem is one of balance. How much for each user? I think as the baby boomer population reaches middle age and beyond, we should expect a growing sentiment to increase access to public lands by a variety of means - cars, horse, snow machine etc. Rather than being marginalized by shrill crys to block such action, and thereby alienate what may now be a majority of our society, we should also consider what can be done to make lands more accessible, and yet preserve the ecosystem. Limited road access, which is not possible in a wilderness, does not necessarily destroy an area.

 

Mineral exploration is another issue. But many people in the west who oppose extractive mineral devopment on public lands also oppose additional wilderness. By working with these people, we can provide a high level of protection to the ecosystems on the public lands that will remain without wilderness designation.

Bob,

 

In your response you said that a CF doesn't work well at apertures smaller than f22/32. Would you explain what you mean by it not working well, please?

 

Thanks,

I have used both. I personally find the E100S to be a bit cool for landscape photography. Not only are both E100SW and E100S being replaced by new emulsions, the replacement for E100SW will not be available in sheet film.

 

Some people prefer Provia over the Kodak E100S or E100SW films. My personal experience is that Provia a bit blue in the highlights compared to E100SW. On the positive side (no pun intended), it's mid-tones appear to me to be better rendered. Overall, I prefer the E100SW.

 

Because of the availability in Readyloads/Quickloads, I find that I am now using E100VS and Velvia.

 

I recommend that you purchase 10 sheet boxes of each of the films that you would like to try and do some experimenting. None of them will give you unusable results. But my eyes may see quite differently than yours, and you may abhore my taste in color balance.

Some explanation is given in an interview (should all be on one line with no spaces):

http://www.eyestorm.com/feature/ED2n_article.asp?article_id=135&artist_id=13

Ralph,

 

Check out the NPS site for Death Valley. I believe that it says that they are doing major road and parking area construction at Bad Water. You may not be able to photograph there. That leaves a lot of other nice areas in Death Valley, though.

I regularly use my LF camera and lenses in temperatures approaching -20 F and have not experienced any problems with shutter speeds being noticably off. I do fire the shutter 3 or 4 times before exposing the film just to make sure that nothing is sticking.

 

Best way to know for your particluar lens collection is to do some test exposures.

 

Keep warm!

Scott,

 

I see two potential drawbacks, at least based on the way that I work. The first is that the holder may only accept one filter at a time. I occasionally use two filters. I also have begun using a 4x4" polarizer, which of course means that the holder has to rotate. Now that I think of it, I also have rotated my slit neutral density filters to be more parallel to the distant horizon.

 

As I said, it depnds on how you work in the field.

 

Bruce

Bob,

 

I have used several Gitzo tripods over the years. I currently have a 1348, which is a carbon fiber model. I use it with a Gitzo 1370 head and a Linhof Technikardan 45. These carbon fiber tripods are good on solid ground, but don't work as well in tundra or tussocky ground because they aren't heavy enough to sit down into the vegetation. They need to be weighted down a bit, and doing that takes extra time. I bought mine knowing that, but with the goal of saving my back (perhaps mostly by lightening my wallet).

 

I have used their 510 tripod extensively and found it worked well on all types of ground, but it is heavy. The 410 may be the best compromise. The 300 series seemed a bit light to me for 4x5 work, but once again, can be weighted when needed. I thought that it had adequate rigidity.

 

Best wishes.

Duggal used to, but I haven't checked recently. I was surprized by how expensive it was. I've never used it, nor have I seen their product.

 

See www.duggal.com

 

Best of luck.

Although this might work if you work with B&W film, I would have low expectations for color transparency film. But it's inexpensive to test. I'm be interested to see how well it goes.

One other thing that you should factor into your decision is the amount of money you would charge for this usage. A small run advertsing postcard with your photo on the front may be worth about $800-$1000. If your image is registered, you could sue for 3x that value, but you would almost certainly lose any future business with this client.

 

I agree with Ellis that you should register your imags, but you need to tread lightly here. If you offend the client and then your employer loses a client, too, your employer may seek redress from you. You have a legal right to payment, but you also have engaged in your personal business on company time. The individual issues are simple, the linkages make me cringe.

 

I would begin by explaining the situation to your employer. Discuss your alternatives, and ask for your employer's thoughts and concerns. This is too little money to risk your day job and another legal battle.

If your employer doesn't mind you approaching your "client", take some vacation time and do everything else on what is clearly your own time, with your own telephone, etc.

 

Your client isn't someone that you know well from what you've said. I would not be inclined to bill him. Perhaps you could start by telling him that he should not have published your photograph without your permission. Do this first verbally, and follow it up in written form. Let him know that no future publications can be made without written permission and compensation. He may offer compensation for this card, but I doubt it. Even with 3x damages, no lawyer will work on this. It may not be worth your time in small claims court. If a second infraction occurs after your written communication, sufficient money will be involved to make it interesting. But remember, only go here with your employer's consent.

 

Lesson for the future - keep your commercial photography away from your day job.

For those who think the search on ebay is a panacea to their problems, please note that it does not always pick up all of the items that it should. For example, I've seen items when perusing their site, and then have done a search to find like items, only to find that the item that piqued my interest was not captured in the search.

 

In addition to this problem, I learned the hard way while selling an item this past weekend that the "ending today" option does not always gather all of the items ending today.

 

So I would add to your collective complaints one additional - their data base is either poorly designed or poorly implemented. Perhaps the subdivion of categories is contributing to this problem.

 

We should forward this entire thread to their customer service group.

 

Bruce

For what it's worth, I have a TK45, and just received my new tele/macro bracket. Lo and behold, it does not fit my camera! The rail beneath the front standard strikes the mounting point on the bracket about 1 mm too high and a slight bit to the left. Linhof had told Robert White that the current bracket would fit both the TK45 and the newer TK45S. Didn't work for me.

 

Taking my cue from some of you who have been dealing with this problem for some time, I think I will simply request that my money be refunded.

 

Bruce

Two neurons finally fired in sequence at State Farm Insurance and they

decided to ask what kind of photography I do. I reminded them that

when I first took out my policy, I wrote that I do freelance field

photography, specializing in landscape and (at that time, 1989)

wildlife. "Oh, well, er, ahem..." I sensed impending doom. Yes,

indeed, even though I've paid them many times more than I have

received in my two claims, they decided that I was not a good risk.

The company has elected to stop writing insurance for any commercial

photographers who work outside of a studio with the possible exception

of wedding photographers. But landscape! Why you might fall off a

trail on a mountain, or...

 

So I find myself in the market for a company that will insure my

equipment. I'm mainly concerned about theft or a catastrophic loss of

everything in a fire. In other words, I'd accept a moderate

deductable and self-insure for the equipment that I damage.

 

By the way, I'm not in ASMP and don't have a desire to join at this

time, so their group insurance is not an option.If the company that

writes that policy also writes policies for individuals, then that

would work.

 

Thanks for your suggestions,

Bruce

Brian,

 

<p>

 

I got through with 703-903-0254. I haven't used their email support

recently.

 

<p>

 

Bruce

I'll be in New Mexico next month to photograph Ship Rock among other things. The topographic maps show a number of dirt roads in the vicinity of the peak. I'm particularly interested in the one that goes west around the east-west dike, and the one that heads roughly north on the east side of the mountain.

 

<p>

 

What is the condition of these roads - is a 4x4 required or is a normal 2-wheel drive vehicle adequate? I realize that all bets may be off in the event of rain. I'm talking about normal, dry conditions.

 

<p>

 

This land is part of the Navajo reservation, and the mountain itself is sacred to the Navajo people. Is it legal and acceptable to the local people to approach the mountain on these roads, or is a Navajo guide required? I don't intend to climb on the mountain.

 

<p>

 

Is camping allowed in this area along these or other dirt roads?

 

<p>

 

Thanks for your help.

Andy,

 

<p>

 

Sorry to hear about your loss. You may wish to ask your insurance

agent if you can purchase an all loss (not sure if these are the

correct words) rider to cover your photographic gear. I have State

Farm home owners insurance and have such a rider. They have one rate

for people who do not use their gear commercially and another for

those who do. They have replaced cameras and lenses that I have

simply dropped and broken. I've never had any stolen. Keep in mind

that they have the option to repair or replace, and that if your

camera or lens is no longer in production, you may have to convince

them that item x is a more appropriate replacement than item y.

 

<p>

 

This isn't meant to be a State Farm advertisement, as I suspect that

other agencies have comparable policies. I would expect to pay 2-4%

per year. If you can't afford to replace all or a significant portion

of your gear in the event that it is stolen or lost, this is a small

price to pay.

 

<p>

 

By the way, do the trip, cameras or not. You never know when

something will make such a trip impossible for you.

 

<p>

 

Best of luck,

Brian,

 

<p>

 

I have the Linoscan Sapir Ultra 2, which is essentially the same

scanner that you have. I am running my scanner with Win98 SE. Are

you running a PC or Mac? If you're running a PC, I'd check a couple

of things.

1. Conflicts due to shared interupts - most PCI slots have shared

IRQ's. Look into your system information to see who all is sharing

the IRQ. Perhaps moving it to another slot will help. By the way, I

assume that you are using the recommended SCSI ID setting of 5.

2. Proper seating of the SCSI board - it's worth pulling the SCSI card

and re-seating it.

3. Does your system recognize the scanner (look at the device manager)?

4. Are you using the Linoscan driver or the MS driver? I use the

Linsoscan driver.

5. I presume that you allow the scanner to come up fully before

turning on your PC or Mac. Are all three green lights on when you

power up your system? If not, it would suggest a scanner problem.

 

<p>

 

Most of these things are pretty obvious and I suspect that the

Linoscan tech support people and you ahve addressed them, but they are

a starting point.

 

<p>

 

I have been very happy with the scanner and both Newcolor 4000 and the

later version Newcolor 5000. My only complaint with the latter is

that it does not support generating 14 bit scan files. The scans are

performed at 14 bits/channel, but only 8 bits/channel are made

available to the user. I have also been quite happy with the

technical support.

 

<p>

 

You can contact me off-line if you have detailed questions.

 

<p>

 

Bruce

Gavin,

 

<p>

 

No one seems to have said anything about metering for the Astia.

Here's what I do for transparency film:

 

<p>

 

Under sunny skies, I meter snow in the sun and open up 1 1/3 stops.

Under cloudy skies, I open up 1 2/3 - 2 stops. With eveing or morning

light on the snow, I open up 1 stop.

 

<p>

 

Keep in mind that I always make 2 or three identical exposures of

everything I photograph. I process only one of each, and then decide

whether I need to psuh or pull process the remaining versions of each

image.

The previous exposure suggestions assume that the snow is a dominant

component of your image. As other subject matter becomes more

important, like the temples, you need to meter them, too. It then

becomes a balancing act, because transparency film often can't handle

the exposure range within your composition (i.e., dark walls and

bright white snow). Working in the morning and evening reduces the

contrast. Otherwise, you should try compositions that emphasize one

component or the other (snow vs darker subjects). You can use flash

to balance the lighting, but that adds a lot of effort when you're

working with large format.

 

<p>

 

Good luck,