jwallphoto

<p>Thanks for the great responses. Such a tough call. I kind of forget about the ongoing expense of film, processing and especially digitizing. I was also hoping I could carry both systems on shorter hikes where I'm really just wandering around some given area. I was just in Yosemite and found that after I spotted some great light, ran back to the Jeep to get the camera, ran back to the scene and set up the shot, the light had changed quite a bit.</p>

<p>The borrowed monorail weighs 27 lbs. including carry case, but I'm thinking about getting something like a Shen-Hao and one lens, a 135mm or 150mm, and carrying maybe just two film holders, plus dark cloth and loupe, then somehow carry that with my tripod and 35mm gear backpack. I can see the creative deadlock problem coming up, but in my mind I think I'd default to 4x5 for landscapes unless it really looked like a job for the 16-35mm lens.</p>

<p>I didn't think it would be quite so easy to make mistakes, either, but there are so many ways to mess up. Maybe that'll make the successful shots that much sweeter. I've only taken the 4x5 out to shoot twice and haven't sent anything in for processing yet. Maybe a good chrome or two will fire me up enough to tip the scales.</p>

<p>If so, I'd like to hear your take on it. If you tried it and went back to just one format, I'd be interested in hearing about that too. I've been hemming and hawing about adding 4x5 for a long time and am reluctant to just spend the money and give it a go. I just got the opportunity to borrow a monorail 4x5 which I can already tell is too heavy to carry very far beyond wherever I've parked the car, much less carry *with* my 35mm gear. But I'm looking forward to seeing some big transparencies pretty soon, nevertheless.</p>

<p>Hi, David. A friend just loaned me a monorail 4x5 and 210mm lens, and a box of Velvia 100F just arrived in the mail today. I'm going up to Yosemite on Friday to take it for a spin. Haven't shot 4x5 since the early '80s, and even then not for long, but I look forward to taking a crack at it and comparing with my D800E just for fun. It obviously won't be as nimble, but I think it's going to be fun composing on the ground glass and seeing those big chromes come back from the lab.</p>

<p>Have you tried manual exposure mode? Get a reading off your subject (like one of the faces) and set your exposure accordingly. If the faces are still blown out, dial in some exposure compensation until you get what you want.</p>

<p>I'd be interested to find out what the difference has been between the estimated and actual costs. I decided to leave a lens broken (just the filter ring on a Nikon 12-24mm) after seeing the repair estimate.</p>

<p>The smear you experienced is interesting, and I wonder if it has something to do with 12mm being focused at infinity. When I shoot at 12mm I'm usually very close to my foreground and often stopped down to f/22. I haven't noticed that smearing. Maybe it's happening out in the distance where it's not so noticeable.</p>

<p>THE FULL FRAME:<br>

<img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-K7kSXPepKjY/UVDzJ1MdumI/AAAAAAAAHeA/Xakro2r9T0Y/s1600/PhotoNet1A.jpg" alt="" width="465" height="700" /></p>

<p>THE CROPPED LOWER LEFT CORNER:<br>

<img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Ja20wHYU8Lk/UVDzJMEIPQI/AAAAAAAAHd8/nyIrOfDIaC8/s1600/PhotoNet1B.jpg" alt="" width="467" height="700" /></p>

<p>Many thanks, everyone. So much food for thought: night and day improvement, will be blown away, the physics, the Iceland option, FF weight issue (+ carrying both DX & FX).... Shun, I look forward to seeing the 12-24mm image on a higher resolution APS-C sensor. I'm partly weighing the whole D800 issue against an eventual(?) D400. Love to have it all, of course....</p>

<p>I shoot a D300s and Nikon 12-24mm for many of my nature landscape shots and have been thinking about getting a D800 and 16-35mm. I'd just do it, but I'm intimidated by the cost. When I check the DxOMark lens test scores on various lenses, there really isn't a wide angle DX lens that scores even half-way up the scale toward Excellent. They are much closer to the Poor end of the scale. Never having shot with a full-frame camera and higher-rated lens, I wonder if I am really missing something. On the one hand, I expect people who've used both to say, "Of course it's better!" But I'm not dissatisfied with my current gear. I even have 24x36 prints on my wall that I made with it, and one stitch job that's twice as big. I'd love the details to be sharper, but they are fine at a normal viewing distance. So, for those of you who've made the switch, I'd appreciate your thoughts. Is it truly noticeable to you that the 14-24, 16-35, 24-70 on a full-frame blow away the 12-24 on a DX?</p>

<p>Your plan sounds like a great trip as is. While at Lava Beds, be sure to check out the adjacent Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuges. I would keep Death Valley on the list, as well as the Eastern Sierra in general and Alabama Hills and Mono Lake in particular. If you're lucky, Tioga Pass will be open by the time you're ready to finish up in Yosemite.</p>

<p>If you want responses, offer to pay a fee.</p>

<p>"...spend hours trying to find the perfect balance of diminishing the saturation..."<br>

Sarah, this is an exposure problem, not a saturation problem, so if you were playing with saturation tools to get something more like what Cesar came up with, you were simply using the wrong tools. </p>

<p>Interesting questions. I wonder if, after things have picked up again in your outlook, you will have the same reaction to your own photos that you do in a more stressful time. I was just talking with a friend about defining one's photographic vision, and it's not something I considered in the light of my own emotional state (which usually seems too fleeting to enter into the equation). It would be interesting to have others view a sample of your images and find out what mood they believe is being conveyed. In any case, it seems like an excellent project to mine your work for meaning. If you believe the images reflect melancholy or stress, you could then ask what kind of changes you'd have to make to create joyful or serene images. Not that you would want to make the changes, but it could be enlightening to sort it all out.</p>

<p>I would think agitation would be more responsible for uneven processing.</p>

<p>I use a Nikon D300s (DX) for all my nature photography needs, from macro to landscape to wildlife. I'm not a professional, but I have produced photos with this equipment that have been sold as framed prints and used in magazines. If I were loaded with $$ and time, I would like to have an 8x10 view camera. Maybe someday. In the near term I am thinking about getting a D800 and the next (hopefully) D400. I would use the D400 with its reach and hopefully better frame rate for birds/wildlife and its smaller file sizes for focus-stacking macro images. I'd use the D800 for landscapes and straight macro. But really, the D300s has been and continues to be an excellent camera for my needs. (I do like to snag the occasional video clip.)</p>

<p>I would say it's by design because they are really trying to give you the best chance of producing an image w/o loss of sharpness due to camera-shake. I almost always keep my P7000 on P mode so I can just point-n-shoot, though occasionally I'll dial in some + or - exposure values.</p>

<p>Seems like your best bet would be to arrive first thing in the morning while the water was glassy, then mount a tripod on the kayak, then be still as a meditating monk and hold your breath during a 4-sec. exposure. Make several attempts, and maybe you get a good one. Probably futile, but worth a try.</p>

<p>Thanks, Bill. MPIX has a frame-size limit of 20x30, and my job (24x28) exceeds it.</p>

<p>Thanks, Peter. That looks okay, except that I'd like to find an outfit that doesn't require me to download their ordering software.</p>

<p>I'm looking for an online service where I can upload a photo and have it printed, framed and shipped. It needs to ship in the frame so it's ready to hang when it arrives at the customer's doorstep. </p>

<p>I really like the Kirk: <a href="http://www.kirkphoto.com/Focusing-Rail-Macro.html">http://www.kirkphoto.com/Focusing-Rail-Macro.html</a></p>

<p>This site can help you to the extent you know something about your subject: <a href="http://calphotos.berkeley.edu/">http://calphotos.berkeley.edu/</a>. A nice feature is being able to search by location. Even if you have no idea how to narrow down your search (by common name, by plant genus or family), you can at least scroll through a bunch of pictures from a given locale.</p>

<p>Maybe these guys: <a href="http://camerarepair-sf.com/">http://camerarepair-sf.com/</a></p>

<p>Sometimes the traditional tourist spots are prime photo ops. You won't want to pass up Bumpass Hell at Lassen. The lakes might have nice wildflowers around them. If you're up for a semi-adventure (mostly flat terrain, but sandy soil), check out the Painted Dunes and climb the Cinder Cone.</p>

<p>Tough call. I have the Nikon and know it's a fine lens, but I would really rather have the AF-S version, except that it's so expensive. The Tamron has the same limitation as the AF-D lens, meaning you have to move a switch to go from AF to MF. If you're in AF mode and the lens misses the target and spins out to focus on nothing, you have to flip a switch to get control of the lens again. With AF-S, you simply turn the focus ring. No switch necessary, so you don't even have to take your eye away from the viewfinder. If you plan to use AF a lot, I would recommend you save up for the Nikon AF-S version. The cheapest way to get into macro, though, is to get extension tubes for one of your current lenses.</p>

<p>"Given what magazines are paying for non-commissioned photos these days"? Zero is not a payment. A two-page spread should have earned him $200-400. No, it's not a king's ransom, but some poor wretch trying to make a living in editorial photography is groaning and chugging a bottle of Pepto-Bismol. The monetary value of yet another photo has been determined in the marketplace to be zero. </p>

<p>Photos for editorial use should not be given away for free, and Bill has illustrated another excellent reason why. Look how jazzed he is to see his picture printed in a magazine. Having your picture printed in a magazine is special. It *would* give you bragging rights -- <em>if</em> you didn't let on that you gave it away for free.</p>

<p>On the bright side, a photo buyer at the Southwest Airlines magazine is earning her wings. </p>