ian_camp

<p><!--StartFragment--><br>

Truthfully, most of my work winds up (literally) in white boxes, waiting to be scanned a year or more later. I had a show this spring that was well-attended by friends, family and acquaintances, at which I sold a few prints to offset the expense of food and wine at the show, and film for the summer. That’s a success for me. I’m happy. I’m teach 7^th grade at in a low-income, high-crime neighborhood, and I understand the beauty and rigors of trying to make a change with limited resources. (My students are awesome, by the way.) To this end, I’ve thought about donating my images to non-profit organizations that fight the good fight. I’m busy, so I haven’t pursued it. But, yes, I’d do it if I knew how. Thanks for the post, Justin.</p>

<!--EndFragment-->

Rob, I can see how my first comment reads a bit snotty. My apologies. I do believe that public lands belong to everyone

(or, perhaps, no one at all). But I also believe that fragile areas deserve protection. I suspect that posting GPS coordinates

of a spectacular image will lead to increased traffic.

Rob, even in our most-used national parks, there are places the NPS won't advertise or even mention. This isn't elitism, but

rather, conservation.

I think posting GPS coordinates of a fragile area attracts the very people I'd prefer didn't visit. I don't care about the photographic vantage

so much as the land itself. Those who "earn" their way to a location, I think, have an appreciation that begets stewardship. I'd prefer that

GPS users keep their coordinates to themselves for personal use.

 

In many ways, this issue is akin to online climbing guides. I've been an avid climber for the last 20 years, and the wear-and-tear from

Internet publicity is easy to see at popular crags. Surely, Justin has seen this around Bishop. Is this where we want photography to go? I

hope not.

Does anyone have firsthand experience using a sawed-off Cokin P filter and one grad with the Pentax 645 33-55 zoom? Does it vignette?

And if so, is it just a tiny dab in the corners (as on the FA 35mm), or is it substantial? Thanks in advance.

One more addition: I have mixed feelings about the 150 A. It's an okay lens, but it doesn't seem as sharp as my 85mm Nikon prime. Still, I hardly use teles, so I'm keeping it. A bargain at $125. And it has a nice built-in shade. Excellent craftsmanship.

Hi Glen:

 

I've been shooting landscapes with the Pentax 645nii for three years. The first year, I shot with the 35mm, 55mm and 150mm manuals. The 55mm is super sharp in the f8 to f16 range--incredible, really. The manual 35mm was a total dog. Then I got a 45-85 zoom, which I've used with great success the last two years. The only problem is that I don't like using zooms because they're dark (especially with a polarizer), don't offer DOF scales and, frankly, don't fit my style. I sorely missed something wider than 45mm, so I just purchased an FA 35mm. My new setup will consist of a 35mm FA, 55mm A and a 75mm FA (which I hope to acquire soon). I much prefer shooting with primes--they're bright, offer DOF scales and help me frame more creatively (I think).

Hi Steve. I shoot 645, having shot 35mm for years. I typically drum scan my best chromes and make prints with Photoshop and a Chromira printer.

 

Assuming the image is sharp, the content will dictate the size. For 35mm, an eagle might go to 16x20 with ease, while a wildflower meadow might fall apart beyond 8x10. In detailed landscape shots, 645 allows me to go one or two paper sizes larger than 35mm.

 

I'd recommend borrowing a 645 before buying. I've found that my 35mm primes are noticeably sharper than my 645 primes. What's more, for my style of shooting, 645 is punishing in the depth-of-field department. For instance, with a 45mm lens in 645 (about a 28mm in 35mm), I get about five feet to infinity in sharp focus at f22. In 645, I often have to let my backgrounds go a bit soft to achieve crisp foregrounds. Sometimes this looks great. Other times it doesn't. To achieve sharpness throughout, I've had to change the way I compose. Because depth of field is so critical on many landscape shots, I can understand why many photographers shoot 35mm and large format exclusively.

 

Ian