george_rhodes

Steve,

 

Where would you recommend to stay on Aitutaki? Paradise Cove and The Aitutaki Lagoon Resort & Spa look pretty nice. I suppose anything there would be very expensive, but those two places appear to be especially nice and rather scenic in themselves. Thanks for sharing Aitutaki with us.

John Kirby,

 

Are you sure your web site address for the 7D test is correct? I'm unable to find the site.

Digital is simply another shooting modality - another option. Medium format film will be available for a very long time. Some pros who jumped head long into digital, are now buying back into medium format film cameras, for certain purposes. I'm a professional fine art photographer, shooting primarily large color scenics in 6X7 format. Among my fine art photographer peers, there is an interest in where digital is going and some experimentation, but almost every one of us prefers film to digital for scenic work. Digital is displacing film to a large extent in the general amateur arena, for the press and for many commercial applications, but I

expect there will also be a continued market for medium format cameras and film for a very long time to come. Personally, the more I see of digital, the more I appreciate what I can achieve with 6X7 film.

I don't have a 7D, but from what I've read about the camera, the AS should work on ANY lens you put on the camera. I read a short review somewhere (possibly Popular Photography?) months ago on a pre-production D7, where they tried the AS by using the Maxxumn 500mm f8 mirror and they said it worked great.

I use the Pentax 67 system and love it. The shutter and mirror slap issues are quite simple to overcome and have never posed any problems for me, at ANY shutter speed. The lenses, including both zooms, are extremely sharp. Using this system, I consistantly produce tack sharp 24" X 30" prints.

For my Pentax 67, I use four lenses - the 45mm f4, 75mm f4.5, 90-180mm f5.6 zoom and the 300mm f4 ED(IF). I also have the 1.4X TC, to extend the 300mm to 420mm. These lenses are all exceptionally sharp. The zoom at 180mm would be good for head shots. It focuses closer than the standard 200mm and is at least as sharp, but its f5.6 it is one stop slower than the 200mm f4. The 300mm Ed(IF)would also be good for head shots. It also focuses very close - about 6 feet. The newer 200mm f4 is reputed to be sharper than the older version and I believe it also focuses closer than the older design.

I recently read an article "Pixels and Wildlife, The Perfect Match"

in Nature Photographer magazine, by one of the assistant editors,

Weldon Lee. He shoots with the 5.47 magapixel Nikon D1x. In the

article, he claims that he recently made 20" X 30" prints that "were

sharper than similar images produced from 35mm transparencies: and,

were made from a JPG Fine file". Although I do not shoot digital, I

have been looking hard at the work of those who do shoot digital and

have compared their results with what I have been achieving by

scanning Kodachrome 25 and 64 and Fuji provia 100F transparencies.

The 20" X 30" prints I've seen, shot with 6 megapixel cameras, do

not equal the resolution of 20" X 30" prints I have made, shot with

the finest grain 35mm films and then scanned with an Imacon and

printed with a Lightjet. What am I missing? Is there anyone out

there who shoots with a pro level, roughly 6 megapixel, digital

camera, such as the Nikon D1x, who has compared their finest results

with what they used to get with fine grain film, in a print of

roughly 20" X 30"? If so, what have you found to be the case?

Using the highest quality scanner and printing with a Lightjet in

both cases, is a high quality, 6 megapixel, pro level camera capable

of producing the same resolution, tonal range, etc. or better, in a

20" X 30" print, than the finest grain transparency film. This

question assumes excellent technique from an experienced, pro level

photographer in both cases. Please, I'm only interested in the

opinions of those with DIRECT experience in this matter - not

speculation from what anyone has heard, etc. Thanks in advance to

anyone who takes the time to respond.

I'm a professional fine art photographer who primarily shoots color. I've been in this field a long time and know most well established photographers who exhibit in art festivals east of the Rockies. Virtually every other photographer I know who shoots color, prefers film to digital, especially those who shoot medium or large format and produce large prints. I know of only a few exceptions. While some still shoot negatives and print with am enlarger, the trend seems to be to shoot transparencies, scan them and print with either an inkjet or lightjet. I expect this may change soon, because most of us are at least doing a bit of experimentation with digital shooting, but I'm not sure. Personally, the more I've investigated digital, the more I like film. I also know quite a number of commercial photographers. The trend there seems to be the opposite of the fine art group. Almost without exception, they have embraced digital, at least to some extent. Since the commercial people shoot a lot of film, digital helps to keep their costs down. They also like the fast turnaround that digital provides. I see digital merely as another tool, definately reducing the amount of film used by the professional community, but certainly not killing film. Nikon has enough confidence in the continued use of film by the professional community to recently introduce the F6. I'm not surprised that there was an initial big surge in the newest trend of "going digital" and that now some who may have jumped into it too fast might be missing certain attributes of film and turning back to film for at least some applications.

What about the newer Pentax 300mm f4 ED lens? It is more expensive, but is considered superior to the older Pentax Takumar 300mm f4 lens.

As others here have already done, I also recommend Myakka River State Park, south of Tampa, in Sarasota. There you'll find wading birds, alligators and deer. Areas of Tampa Bay, often by large bridges where fishermen are usually present, are very good for sea birds, such as Brown Pelicans, various seagulls, Cormorants, Anhingas, Royal Terns and various wading birds, etc. Tha Sunshine Skyway Bridge, in nearby St. Patersburg, is great for such birds. The old Skyway Bridge remains standing next to the new one and currently serves as a huge fishing pier.

Gary,

 

Everyone who ever lived in Tampa, as I once did, knows about Mons Venus. I'm not sure if that's the kind of wildlife Arnab is referring to, but it certainly did get a chuckle out of me and it certainly is located on Dale Mabry. Yes, it is a great country.

Randy,

 

I miss my old black chrome XD-11. I also particularly like your shot that contrasts the vertical repetition of the buildings with the horizontal repetition of the train cars. Very nice photograph.

I believe the Pentax 67 fits all of your criteria. It is an SLR, can be used hand held, but is usually used on a tripod and there are several Pentax macro lenses available for it. Pentax makes a huge series of excellent lenses for this camera and used Pentax 67 equipment is available all over the place, including KEH in Atlanta and on Ebay, at very reasonable prices.

I can tell you from personal experience that the 1.4X TC does not couple to the 45mm f4, 75mm f4.5, 90mm f2.8, or 90-180mm f5.6. It does couple to the 200mm f4 and both 300mm f4s.

I'm a former painter, turned full time fine art photographer. I consider both painting and photography to be equally legitimate fine art mediums. I personally prefer photography over painting. While some painters have a strong appreciation of photography, other painters have very little understanding of that medium and therefore consider painting to be more legitimate than photography. This prejudiced attitude and lack of appreciation for another medium is due primarily to a lack of knowledge. I strongly feel that if a painter uses a photographer's work as a basis for their painting, the photographer should expect some kind of compensation.

I use the Singh Ray neautral density filters with the Lee filter holder for my Pentax 67 system. I need the bigger size filters for the Pentax lenses, which have up to 95mm threading. I use two graduated filters, the 2 stop gradual filter and the 3 stop hard edge. The 2 stop gradual filter is by far the one I use most often, but that 3 stop hard edge comes in handy at times.

It is apparent that among us nature and wildlife photographers, there are various reasons that we do what we do. Some hope to inform and enlighten others on their subject, while the primary goal of others is primarily or even purely aesthetic. I think all of the purposes are equally noble ones. Personally, I see myself as both an artist and one who is passionate about nature and wildlife. When I attended college, I started out as a biology major and then changed my major to art. I got certified in education and taught art in the public school system. I also aquired a degree in radiologic technology and worked as X-ray technologist. All this time I was painting and shooting photographs. In my wildlife photographs, I tried to capture some kind of defining behavioral aspect of the subject, but also produce an image of exceptional aesthetic merit. I think you can combine these two aspects and produce a work of art that will also be informative. Today, I am a full time fine art photographer. I shoot subjects that are close to my heart, while also attempting to create a work of art. Sometimes I have an agenda, such as helping to save an endangered species. Other times, my only reason to shoot an image, might be to produce a well balanced abstract composition of complimentary pastel colors, for example. I believe that one reason is as valid as the next. When I exhibit my work, I often include an information label, sometimes telling facts about the subject and sometimes explaining my aesthetic intent. In that way, I'm able to educate on both the biological side and the aesthetic side. At the shows, the vast majority of people who purchase my large prints, acquire them primarily for their aesthetic content.

Good luck getting the part from Pentax. I got one of the first 90-180mms that came into the U.S., several years ago. It came with the wrong hood, the solid black hood for the shorter Pentax zoom. They're both threaded 95mm, so the hood is certainly usable. It is the same as the 90-180 hood, except that it is missing the word Pentax and the little slot for rotating the polarizing filter with the hood on. As soon as I received the lens, I called Pentax and told them it came with the wrong hood. They have been promising to get me the correct hood ever since, but I'm still waiting. They are apparently unable to get the extra hoods from Japan. I wish you better success than I've had. I'd appreciate it if you would let me know if you are able to get the part.

You apparently want a square image. Why not just crop the edges of the 6X7 image? Otherwise, what about getting a 6X6 camera? The idea of modifying a 6X7 camera to shoot 6X6 doesn't seem like a practical idea to me.

I use a Pentax 67 medium format system for my color fine art landscape photographs. When I use the finest grain print or transparency films, you would be hard pressed to see a quality difference between one of my 24" X 30" prints and a print made from 4X5 format film. Using expert technique, an image made from 6X7 format can be that good. When you go larger than a 30" print, the 4X5 format begins to give you an obvious advantage. I guess it depends on how large you plan to print your images. Personally, I think 6X7 medium format gives you the best of both worlds. You have a film area about 30% larger than 645 format. The cameras, no matter which brand, are faster and easier to use than 4X5, although cameras like the Speed Graphic come close. I have never personally missed the tilts and shifts in my landscape and limited architectural photography, although the tilts and shifts of a 4X5 format camera would be the way to go for most architectural photographers. When I want great depth of field, I will generally use an extremely wide angle lens and stop down to about f22. I rarely tilt the lens up or down. I guess it depends on how you shoot. By the way, there are a few medium format shift lenses available. 120 and 220 roll film is cheaper and easier to shoot and process than 4X5. With 6X7 you get 10 shots on a roll of 120 and 20 shots on a roll of 220. I personally think 6X7 would be far superior to 4X5 for portraits, but again, I guess it all depends on how you shoot. You certainly don't need tilts and shifts for portrait work.

I second the suggestion of a prime lens, instead of a zoom. In fact, what I like best and what I recommend, is two primes, instead of a zoom. I prefer a 24mm and 35mm. Perhaps you would prefer the 20mm instead, as it is a bit wider. You could start with one wide lens and could probably find a used one on ebay for less than the zooms you are considering. Later, when you can afford to do so, you could add the second lens. I have found that when shooting wide angle, I can usually move front or back, in order to compose the best shot and don't really need a zoom for those focal lengths. I do frequently use a 70-210mm for the short telephoto range, however.

Hi Raven,

 

I also live near Wakodahatchee Wetlands and recommend it to you. I agree with Gloria's assessment, that it's a great place to photograph birds. While its purpose is to purify discharged water, I'd hardly refer to it as a sewer. Birds of all kinds visit there, feed there and nest there. The beautiful vegatation makes for great backgrounds, with no hint of humanity, unless you purposely include man-made objects, which you could probably do almost anywhere, if you try hard enough. I can't tell you how many photographers I know who rave about Wakodahatchee. I guess we all have our own particular ways of shooting and what works for one, may not work as well for the next person. I also recommend renting a long lens for your trip. For your macro work, you can add extension tubes or a multi-element diopter to your 80-200mm f2.8 Nikkor, with excellent results.

I've been shooting on the Outer Banks of North Carolina several times every summer for the past five or six years. The place is infested with those darn Deer Ticks. Although I try hard to avoid the little critters, I have pulled many of them off of myself, after the day's shooting. Fortunately, I have never had a problem. They have to be on you long enough to cause a problem. They lodge themselves in groins, etc. and are not easily noticeable. Examine yourself, or with soemone elses help, if you suspect you have been in a tick infested area. They are not always easily seen. The males and females are very different in appearance and size. One is bigger and redish and the other is very small and black. If I remember correctly, I think it's the little, black male that causes the problem. WARNING: If you find one on yourself, take it off immediately. DON'T squeeze it's body when you pull it off. That will push the tick's bodily contents into your blood system. Use a tweezer and grasp the tick with the tweezer by its head, then pull it gently off by its head. If it hasn't been on you for about 24 hours or longer, you probably will not develop a problem, even if it is one of the 10% that are Lyme Disease carriers. I'd either have the tick identified as a deer tick, or keep it in a little 35mm film can, just in case I developed symptoms later. Those nasty little things scare the heck out of me.

The vast majority of artists in all mediums who do the shows use standard size or extended size vans. The little Chevy Astro van size vehicle is considered too small for most artists these days. Box trucks are becoming increasingly popular, because of their increased carrying capacity. Some artists drive pick-up style trucks or SUVs and pull trailers. Some artists with vans pull trailers, as they need more room than their van alone provides. As booth displays have become increasingly high end and artsist have been bringing increasingly larger inventories with them to the shows, they have been needing increasingly larger carrying capacities. I started doing the shows with a Volkswagen van, then quickly went to a Chevy Astro van. When the Astro van became too small, I went to a standard Ford Econoline 250 van, which I've used for the past seven years. The Ford is now showing its age, so I'll move up to either an extended van or a box truck within the next six months or so. I personally would not like pulling a trailer, because I feel the trailer would be difficult for me to maneauver at set up and tear down. However, many trailers will be seen at the shows.

Hi Bill,

 

To answer your last question, I've actually shot some of my best images on trips to various shows. I shoot primarily marine oriented scenics and also some marine wildlife, such as underwater work of dolphins and manatees, sea-going birds, wild ponies on the beach, etc. I prefer shows up and down the east coast, near the ocean, as my work sells well in these locations. I generally set aside days to shoot at rustic locations, or where marine wildlife may be found. Of course, I also travel to the Bahamas strictly to shoot dolphins, to the Dry Tortugas for driftwood scenics and aerials, etc. I'd say about half of the work I exhibit in my booth at any given show, was shot at locations near where I do shows. A photographer friend who also does the shows full time and is one of the high end sellers I mentioned earlier, specializes in huge color scenics, primarily of streams, mountains, etc. He does shows throughout the mountainous regions of the east coast and mid west and shoots almost all of his work during his trips to and from the shows. He's there anyway for the show, so it doesn't cost much more to stay a few extra days to shoot new work. For example, if he does a show in Asheville, North Carolina, he"ll stay a few extra days and shoot in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Of course, we both travel to places specifically to shoot, but much of our work is shot on the show circuit. Many of the shows are located in very nice, quaint locations, that I would never have known about, had I not done a show there.