james_harrison

I have what State Farm calls a "Personal Articles Policy." It costs something like $100 for $10,000 of equipment, no deductible, and covers theft and accidents. I have made two separate claims. The first was when a lens took a nose dive into a rock ($300?) and the second was for another lens which needed some sand removed ($175). State Farm had no trouble paying for either claim. In fact, the guy that handled the second one was ready to buy me a brand new lens until I told him the lens could be cleaned. (I'm still trying to convince myself I did the right thing:)

 

<p>

 

I have, however, since received a letter from State Farm essentially telling me that two claims in one year is not a good idea and suggested I talk to my agent to make sure I had the right coverage. I am going to do that, even though I feel I am extremely careful and I consider the two claims of the "tough luck" variety. I use my equipment everyday, but I think I was sold a policy based on the average Joe-homeowner who owns an SLR for use when the family gets together. So, my advice is to get coverage based on how much you use your equipment, pro or not.

 

<p>

 

Anyway, the short answer is to check with State Farm.

Steve,

 

<p>

 

I really appreciate your suggestions and I�ll check them out for myself, but if you don�t mind a few follow-up questions...

Know where I can find these? (the states or CR)

I think I�ve seen the Stiles and Skutch guide. Its huge, isn�t it? and fairly expensive ($80?)

 

<p>

 

I was looking for a field guide, but I think I�ll have to reconsider (especially if the books you mention cover the majority of the native species.) The flip chart sounds promising though...

 

<p>

 

James

Can anyone recommend a field guide on Costa Rica's wildlife? I've looked both in the states and in San Jose, no luck. (I've done a search too, with no results. Thank you for your reply in advance.

"Do we, photogs, editors ... have a negative effect by using films that superexaggerate what is seen?"

That depends. Is the main goal of the photograph to dazzle and impress with rich, vibrant colors? Your answer is no, we don't. Or is the goal to help people identify a rock, tree, animal, etc., where "accurate" colors should be the main concern? Then the answer is yes, to a degree we are handing out misinformation and that, to me anyway, is a negative effect. While some might argue (and rightfully so) that NO film can reproduce colors with 100% accuracy, there are certainly many out there that are closer to "reality" than Velvia. Then again, under certain conditions I've had Velvia come closer to what I saw than another film.

 

<p>

 

"Does the magazine reader...come away disappointed as a result of reality not looking like our Disneychrome images show him it should be?"

I think the magazine reader would be more disappointed with the magazine than with the place. Think about the first time you saw something like the Grand Canyon. It might have been in that rich, sweet light we all desire, but I'll bet for most it wasn't. Were you disappointed? I doubt most people are going to compare their magazine photos with the real thing. I doubt most people would like their magazines with less-than-impressive pictures.

 

<p>

 

"In our quest for more POP and Intensity, are we liars on film?" Not me. If someone asks me what film I used, I tell them the truth! :)

I agree with Rose-Marie on the B-1 and since the season is upon us, why not add more to this thread? This is not a commercial...

 

<p>

 

REI's Jungle Juice PLUS (not the same as Jungle Juice, the 95% Deet mentioned above, which is great for non-synthetic clothes) works very well against just about anything you can think of that bites. It is a lotion-based mix (less than 20% Deet) that SHOULD be safe to put on your skin. Unlike Deet, it doesn't soak into your skin so it doesn't have to be reapplied as often. You can put it on exposed skin and wash your hands before going out to shoot. The down-side? It costs about $4 for a small tube.

 

<p>

 

(A NOTE: If you are using a bonding type sun-block with a repellent, put the sunblock on before the repellent. The sun-block works under the top layer of skin, lotion-type repellents work on top of the skin.)

 

<p>

 

One more thing, eating or drinking anything containing mostly sugar (i.e., as much as this hurts, Coca-Cola) will definitely make you the blood-source d'jour.

See, I told you I could be missing out. Makes the 80-200 even more useful if the step-down ring works,

I couldn't agree more with Stanley on the usefulness of the 80-200, but not for macro work. Unless I am missing out on something (entirely possible), the 5T close up lens fits 62mm filter threads. The 80-200 f2.8 has 77mm filter threads.

I've used a Foba for several years. I did have to return one to Sinar Bron after I had owned it about a year. I included a letter explaining the reason for returning it and they sent me a brand new one within two weeks. While the initial defect was annoying, overall I've had nothing but a good experience with the Foba and think its an exceptional piece of equipment. Mine is just another opinion though...

Along the same lines as Bob Atkin's recent request for fresh comments relating hands-on experience with the 1227 (different thread)....Did anyone find a permanant fix to the "cold weather dismemberment" problem? Is it even a problem with the newer models? Thanks in advance.

If you own an N90s or F90x and you use AA batteries, using the Energizer Lithiums should give you GREAT performance in any weather. The Liths are unaffected by cold weather (whereas alkalines need to be kept warm.) They have a ten year shelf life vs two for alkaline; they aren't "used up" as fast; they are lighter; and they produce a more consistent voltage throughout they're life. Some drawbacks? They are more expensive (by maybe a buck or two at Home Depot) and when they die, they die quickly (no "I wonder if my batteries are going dead." You'll know.) Use them in your flashlight too. If you don't have a flashlight that takes AA, buy one! The lithiums are that good.

I am going to Phoenix, AZ in mid-February. I'll have about 5 1/2 days for photographing and plan on spending some time in the Grand Canyon area. Can anyone recommend from personal experience a pilot or aerial tour company for shooting aerials of the Canyon? Also, while I'm at it...any other locations near Phoenix (or on the way to the Canyon) recommended? Thank you in advance.

This is an interesting discussion. I�ve always had concerns about mounting something to the window of my vehicle as I never thought it would be very stable. If the situation necessitates that I stay in the vehicle, I use a pillow (Don - I agree, many uses). Otherwise, I get out and use a tripod. I am a firm believer in doing what works best for myself, but improving my methods interests me as well. The questions I have are many, but I�ll try to limit myself to a few (David - I hope these help you out as well): Do the Kirk and Rue mounts both attach directly to the window (meaning glass portion) of your vehicle? Should there be concern that the window glass will break and then THE glass will break immediately thereafter? Is it common practice among those of you who use either the Kirk or Rue to drive around with camera and lens mounted to the window while at a location? Finally, is it agreed that both mount in all three positions (window, roof, and ground?) Just trying to get a better idea of what has been said here about the mounts themselves. Thanks.

I have shot from a canoe extensively and have some techniques (or arrangements) you may wish to consider. Using a buckled strap, I secure my tripod (its legs contracted, but spread as wide as the hull will allow) to the yoke (thwart if that is what is in your canoe) in front of me. I won�t use a shutter-speed slower than if I were hand-holding the camera, but I find that the tripod still helps with framing or as a "third hand." Framing and positioning the canoe can get a bit tricky if you are going solo. If tandem, your partner can help hold your position. (I�m actually lucky enough to have a wife who will paddle me wherever I ask while I am sitting on a cooler towards the center of the canoe, shooting away off the front. Now that�s a great way to photograph!) If the water I�m in is shallow enough, I�ll extend the tripod�s legs and plant it over the side or I�ll get out with my equipment and set up. Of course, I am extremely cautious when doing either of these things and I never let go of the camera/tripod.

 

<p>

 

If you do ever find yourself in fast water, everything should be well secured to the boat. I keep all equipment that is allergic to water in a Pelican case under my seat. I�ll risk bringing it out if I can get (and can hold) a good position in an eddy, but otherwise I choose to be on solid ground.

 

<p>

 

Also, I use the new Kodak E100S or E100SW pushed a stop for low light situations. This will also help you get closer to the DOF you desire. I hand-hold the camera if I need to pan with the subject (i.e. birds flying over the water). If its raining or misty, I use a dry bag large enough roll a towel around the camera and lens that I wish to keep accessible. A photo-vest can also be really handy in a canoe sometimes.

 

<p>

 

This might be more of an answer than you were looking for and it is a couple of months since you asked your question, but if it helps you get the shot...