todd_caudle

Rich, you're too funny.

I know where that trail is, although I've never been up it. Simply put, with the amount of moisture the CB area has gotten this winter/spring (and it's still falling), this should be a very good year for wildflowers in the CB area, and farther SW in the San Juans. Forget about specific mountains, valleys or drainages. You'll be able to find flowers almost anywhere you care to go. Drive over Scofield Pass and park at the Frigid Air Pass trail, which, last two times I was up there, the hillsides are carpeted with wildflowers, chest-high in some places. The road up Washington Gulch, the Gothic area and Paradise Divide will all be awash with blooms. To a lesser degree (due to its lower elevation), Kebler Pass should have some good blooms, as should the Beckwith Mountains. You won't go wrong striking out in any point on the compass.

Can anyone suggest a good online tutorial for the blending process? Preferably for PS7.

Your link didn't work for me, but I'm almost positive they'd be the same, since the scanners are. I will say that I bought the Microtek version and find it to be very unwieldy to use. It's also very hard to have it clean enough that it doesn't leave a whole galaxy of little defects to be fixed in the scan once it's done. Maybe it's me, maybe others have had more ppositive results, but I usually go out of my way to find a reason not to use it.

According to that site, these look more like nacreous clouds. Cool site!

I just figured out how I'm going to have my problem photos fixed. I'll just post them here and ask, "Hey, how do you fix this?"

I'm working on a book project that will have a section of historic

photos. The pages will be laid out to look sorta like a scrap book.

My question is, what would be the best method of scanning the

original photos on my flatbed? A high dpi to extract the most detail

possible, and then resample to the final size and dpi? Scan at

350dpi, which the color photos will be for 175 line screen? I'll

probably scan a piece of paper, like a parchment paper, to use as

the backdrop to give the pages that scrap book look, so ultimately

the pages will be printed in color, but the photos will remain black

& white. Should I scan the photos as b&w, or scan them in color and

convert to b&w. Any advice is appreciated.

Somebody on the CNP forum said it's still mostly green on Dallas Divide.

It might matter depending on which scanner. If you scan with an Epson 3200 with the emulsion side facing down (some have tried this so the film doesn't touch the glass), your scan will be blurry due to the texture of the emulsion causing the light to bounce around and reflect off of stuff it shouldn't. I assume other scanners have similar issues.

I'm still looking for the Photoshop book you want, but for photography books, anything by John Shaw will help in a BIG way. He's a great photographer, and an absolutely brilliant teacher.

If you can look beyond the fact that this photo sucks, here's a demonstration of color cast in my 3-stop hard step Hitech filter. All I did was adjust levels and sharpen slightly, no color alteration at all. See the reddish cast in the top portion?<div></div>

Two things: First, you're likely to get some vignetting when at 19mm, but I have heard of a technique whereby the front slots of the standard P-series holder are cut away, solving the problem. Sounds like Cokin now has an "official" version of this technique.

 

Secondly, and much more importantly, I own a Sing-ray 2-stop soft step filter, and wanted to add a 2- and a 3-stop hard step filter to my bag. Wanting to save some scratch, I opted for the Hitech. I now regret it, as I've found that they have a definite color cast. My Sing-ray is absolutely neutral in color, but the 3-stop has a fairly strong reddish cast, and although the 2-stop Hitech isn't as bad as the 3-stop, it also has a slight greenish cast. I almost never use them, since I don't like surprises when I get my film back.

 

My 2-stop soft step Sing-ray is the most versatile filter I've ever owned. Don't try to buy filters on the cheap. (I have no affiliation with the company, but I am a big fan.)

The Slideprinter has always been a good alternative for the budget-minded photographer, but there are better labs and you get what you pay for. (in Denver, Reed Photo, Qube Visual, or Photocraft in Boulder) I second the notion of getting a good scanner and printer and doing your own prints. What I'm getting out of my in-house scans and $200 Epson printer are far superior than any prints I've gotten from a lab, pro or otherwise. Once I can afford/justify it, I'll get the new-ish 17" Epson 4000 printer and be able to print 16x20s, 17" wide panoramas up to 50' in length (if I so desire), etc., and do it all better and cheaper than outsourcing would allow.

I swear by my Tiffen 812 in cloudy conditions, or when the primary light source is blue sky lighting open shade. It seems to be the perfect counterbalance in those situations. It's also nice as a slight warmer-upper for early/late light.

I tend to agree with Guy's position in that, when I decide whether or not to renew my subscription, I ask myself, "Do I get a buck and a half's worth of enjoyment out of it?" The answer is invariably "yes," so I send the check. They do recycle a lot of material over the course of a few years (watch for a David Muench feature about every 2-2.5 years, but the more D. Muench, the better!), but there's usually enough new material to sustain $1.50's worth of interest. I also like them dabbling into digital tech.

Oops! You're right, Wasatch, not Uintas.

Uinta Mtns. in Utah...

Don't have experience with the Nikon, but my 120tf is a fantastic scanner. Using Silverfast software, a 6x7cm trans scans in about 8 minutes at 4000dpi, from the time I feed the carrier into the scanner until the completed scan displays on my monitor. Lower rez scans take significantly less time, but if it's an initial archive scan at full rez, that's what you're looking at. I know some newer scanners have Digital Ice and so on, so that might be worth checking into, since it's not on the 120tf.

I see nothing wrong with POLITELY asking someone to briefly step aside (and if they refuse, oh well...), but I, too, get irritated by photographers who think it's their mission to get a shot, at the expense of anyone else's enjoyment of the area. Besides, this guy wasn't exactly shooting anything that hasn't been done a million times before. Heck, half a million times it's been ME up on that rock shooting Turret Arch! Shoulda pushed him off his perch.

SFO? You're such a pilothead!

New Mexico???

Check out Roxborough State Park, home to lots of fantastically tilted red sandstone rock formations. It's likely that things are starting to green up about now (they are here in Pueblo, 100 miles south), and should give some nice springtime opportunities. The park is just off of Hwy 285 on the SW side of the metro area.

Beautiful images, Ross. I also published a number of panoramic posters (mostly of the Pikes Peak region), but haven't bothered with distribution outside of my area. One thing I've found is that poster shop owners aren't known for bravery in their ordering. I've had so many say, "Wow, these are great, I could sell A LOT! Give me two."

 

Best of luck. Your work certainly warrants many sales!

Motion sensor + flash = kingfisher just entering the water on a dive.

On the contrary, you ought to HOPE the rock formations are snow-covered, thereby providing you with a unique photo op. Lots of people have Canyon Country shots in the blazing summer sun. But storm light? Snow? A more rare beast indeed! I've shot at Arches once in snowy conditions, Christmas day many years ago. It was magical. You can do the slots in Feb. I was at Antelope last January, and got some good light.