gene_anderson1

<p>Besides Carol Leigh's CalPhoto web site <A HREF="http://www.calphoto.com">http://www.calphoto.com</A>, she also runs a CalPhoto egroup at <A HREF="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/calphoto/">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/calphoto/</A>. Both are great resources for photographing nature in California.</p>

<p>Re: poppies, some spots like Antelope Valley and some hillsides near Jackson in the foothills (the current cover photo from my <A HREF="<A HREF="http://www.designsinlight.com/">web site</A> is posted below, and was taken in March 2001) are usually good year to year. I don't know of locations in the coastal mountains that are consistently good, though others may. And of course when the peak is depends on the moisture and temperature conditions year to year.</p>

<p>If you're going to visit Yosemite, especially for the first time, I <b>highly</b> recommend Michael Frye's book, <i>Photographer's Guide to Yosemite</i>, available through <A HREF="http://www.anseladams.com/taag/showdetl.cfm?&DID=8&Product_ID=468&CATID=36">the Ansel Adams Gallery</A>, <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1930238002/designsinlight/002-6495431-4765666">Amazon.com</a>, or in various locations in Yosemite itself. Michael is also a member of the CalPhoto egroup, and has very up to date info on conditions in Yosemite as he lives there.</p>

<p>Last I heard, there's no snow in the valley. It's been sunny, warm and beautiful here in the SF Bay Area, and it's warming up in the Sierra Nevada as well. The waterfalls are going strong, though slightly lower levels than some past years at this time. Horsetail Falls (of 'natural firefall' fame) off El Capitan was going, though at low levels.</p>

<p>My wife and I are going up to Yosemite with some friends this weekend. Either my friend or I will likely post an update on the CalPhoto egroup with current conditions early next week.</p><div></div>

According to Michael Frye, Horsetail Falls relies on snow melt from a very small area up on El Capitan, probably less than a square mile. While the storm that's moving through California now may help, at last check it wasn't very promising -- the area that feeds it was completely dry. The level of the falls in general was high as it is normally this time of year, but a bit lower than usual.

<p>Indeed! Your message prompted me to search for it (thank you, Google). There's a press release here:<br>

<A HREF="http://www.contaxcameras.com/nseries_press/index_nd.html">http://www.contaxcameras.com/nseries_press/index_nd.html</A><br>

It includes full stats on the camera, and indicates that it is similar in function to the Contax N1.</p>

<p>The press release doesn't mention a price that I saw, but a review here:<br> <A HREF="http://www.dpreview.com/news/0111/01111501contaxn1digital.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/news/0111/01111501contaxn1digital.asp</A>

<br>indicated it would be about 800,000 yen ~= US$ 6,550.</p>

<p><i>I'm holding out for more megapixels, but am not sure the reasoning behind this delay is sound.</i></p>

<p>There are a number of reasons to not go digital:

<ul>

<li><b>not enough resolution</b> - you can make pretty large prints from a 6 megapixel image, 8"x10" and more easily. Unless you're routinely making huge prints, this may not be a problem for you.

<li><b>cost</b> - no arguments here. For something with interchangeable lenses and the other features we're accustomed to in SLRs, digital cameras (plus memory cards, etc.) aren't cheap. Of course, neither is film and processing, but digital represents a big up front investment.

<li><b>1.5X multiplier</b> - if you shoot wide angle, this is a problem with no good work-around that I know of. If you shoot wildlife with a telelphoto, this can be an advantage, arguments about it being the same as a crop or not (it's still 6 megapixels).

<li><b>miss the grain</b> - there is a certain quality about images on film, that might be attributable to film grain / dye clouds or whatever, that digital doesn't have (but can probably be simulated in Photoshop). I don't have a problem with it, but some people do. I don't have a problem with music on CDs vs. LPs, either ;-)

</ul>

<p>I'm not trying to sell you on digital, just to point out that we each have our individual reasons for going digital or not. Your decision needs to be based on your reasons, not ours.</p>

<p>P.S. Beautiful image, Michael!</p>

Some various nice images! Overall I like the site design. My one suggestion is to make the thumbnails on the front page and the pages for the regions be links as well, to match the larger thumbnails in the galleries which are links to the full-size images.

 

And I think you need to spend some more time in Everglades NP, as that looks like it got the short end of the deal :-)

Interesting article about the new Foveon chip. One thing I didn't see there or on their site is how big it is. The main thing (besides cost) that keeps me from switching is the size of the CCD -- the 1.5X multiplier effect may be great for wildlife, but it isn't so good for scenery. 24mm becomes 36mm, which isn't very wide any more. 16mm (X 1.5 = 24mm) is starting to get into the wierd optical effects range of things. But I would dearly love something like the Nikon D1 if it had a full frame CCD.

<p>I attended a workshop with John Shaw last fall in Yellowstone, put on by the Yellowstone Association. (A very enjoyable workshop, BTW, though John is more 'hands on' directive than I'm used to in workshops.)</p>

<p>Not only were the staff in the park very supportive of the workshop, but at least one ranger was an attendee (Hi, Dennis!). I think there would be interest from park staff in an informal meeting and slide show. I'd start by contacting the Yellowstone Association (<A HREF="http://www.yellowstoneassociation.org">http://www.yellowstoneassociation.org</A>). They can likely arrange a meeting / slide show location, and put you in touch with park staff.</p>

<p>I'd be interested in the meeting, as it's a beautiful time of year to be there, but planning that far in advance is difficult for me.</p>

As well as the aforementioned deer and coyotes, my wife and I saw a bobcat mousing in one of the meadows in the valley last winter. A 300mm wasn't nearly enough other than to show it in frame, though; a 500mm would help, but would still have included a lot of environment.

I've never had a problem shooting in a national park. My most recent experience in a national park was on a photo workshop with John Shaw, through the Yellowstone Association this fall. We were a largish group (18+John+1 YA staff) and weren't 'harrassed' by rangers at all.

 

What we saw of note was: random visitors approaching wildlife too closely, L.L. Rue handing out catalogs in Grand Tetons NP (doing business; a no-no, but the off-duty ranger who was in the workshop didn't hassle him about it), a "two-ranger moose-jam" and other backups where people simply stopped in the road to view wildlife, oblivious to the traffic around them, and several crowds that gathered where we stopped to photograph, *sure* that there must be wildlife since there were a dozen plus cameras and tripods.

 

My suggestion for those of you who feel you've been treated poorly by a ranger or other park staff when you're not doing anything wrong: (1) realize that being asked questions by a ranger isn't 'hassling' you (2) if you have been treated poorly, make a note of their name and complain to the park superintendent via a letter, describing the incident in detail.

 

The rangers and other staff are there to protect the resources of the park, keep visitors safe, and to try to help visitors have an enjoyable visit. It's a balancing act, but the resources of the park and your safety are paramount.

 

P.S. The workshop was great, as were Yellowstone and Grand Tetons in the fall.

Wow. A lot of emotion on this topic, and a lot of good ideas.

 

There is some value to the numeric rating system. It's a form of comment, albeit less meaningful than an explanation of what made the image good or bad in the commenter's eyes. It does take a lot less time and thought, though.

 

In the past, photo.net has had one of the better photo critique systems (disclaimer: I've viewed it, but I haven't posted images to it myself). Photocritique.net was good for a long while, but it had degenerated into a "feel-good", 11/10 (if they had numeric ratings) board for a while. (It seems to be slowly recovering.) Many photo sites seem to go through a "feel-good" phase, and some never go anywhere else ;-)

 

For me, the main point of photo posting sites is critiques: what worked well in this shot, or what can I do better next time? A numerical rating doesn't tell me that, other than in a coarse sense of "this worked well" or it didn't. A little ego-stroke every now and then doesn't hurt, but comments can do that just as well as numbers, unless you're in to the competition, my number's bigger than your number, etc.

 

So where are my ramblings leading? Let's see:

 

- keep the rating system

 

- take steps to reduce abuse; there are lots of good ideas above: i.e., verified email address, must have photo posted before you can rate another, no self-rating, no multiple ratings, i.e., enforce that you can only rate a photo once

 

- make the rating system "opt-in", and if your photos aren't rateable, you can't rate others' photos.

 

- don't fudge the stats. Dine.com has restaurant ratings, but they aren't a straight average. While it apparently helps combat abuse, it also makes the average less useful. What I do find useful there is an Amazon.com-like system of "if you like this, here are some other things you might like".

 

- reset the current counts and start over with the new system. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water, but do get rid of the poisoned well...

Note that the opening page uses Java (not Javascript). Not all browsers support Java and many have it turned off. I sent him email about it a while ago, but the Java requirement is still there.</P>

 

To get past the Java, go to <A HREF="http://www.johnshawphoto.com/frame_page.htm">http://www.johnshawphoto.com/frame_page.htm</A>.

Depending on where in Zimbabwe your travels take you, some other possibilities are:

<ul>

<li>The Great Zimbabwe, near Bulawayo. An amazing set of ruins of what was once a thriving city and center of trade.</li>

<li>Balancing Rocks, just outside Harare. These oddities are featured on Zimbabwean currency. Watch for muggers, though.</li>

<li>Chimanimani NP, in the Eastern Highlands. Rugged mountains make for a nice backdrop. This is sort of out of the way, though.</li>

</ul>

 

<P>Re: Hwange, it used to be possible to take a walking safari with a ranger early in the morning. A nice way to see things rather than from a bus or a rover. Check at the main ranger station to see if they still have these and to sign up.</P>

 

<P>Re: Mosi-oa-Tunya, consider going over to the Zambia side for some different views of the falls.</p>

 

<P>Have fun -- it's a beautiful part of the world.</P>

 

gene

I haven't used Reala so I can't comment on it. I think you'd be happy with Velvia or Provia 100F. If you need faster film but want the extra colors, consider Kodak 100VS. It's not as sharp as Velvia or Provia, but is an option.</p>

 

Re: Lassen, in general the geothermal features there are smaller and less colorful than those at Yellowstone. Bumpass Hell also suffers from being blocked by hills from early morning or late evening sun, meaning you need to shoot in less flattering light.<p>

 

The image of <a href="http://www.designsinlight.com/cgi-bin/photo_search.cgi?setup_file=photo1.setup.cgi&submit_search=yes&image=CA00-060-31.jpg&display=yes">geothermal features at Lassen</a> that I'm happiest with involved getting low on the boardwalk and relatively close to one of the mudpots, and using a wide angle to show both the mudpot and the general area. I then burned a number of frames to catch the mudpot in action.</p><div></div>

The book they're referring to is Michael Frye's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1930238002/designsinlight/">The Photographer's Guide to Yosemite</a>, $7.95. It's available in the grocery/gift store in Yosemite Village and doubtless other places in Yosemite. A great reference to maximize your time there -- I highly recommend it.</p>

 

One of my favorite spots for the time approaching sunset is Valley View/Gates of the Valley, which is along the Merced River looking back up the valley towards El Capitan, et al. <a href="http://www.designsinlight.com/cgi-bin/photo_search.cgi?setup_file=photo1.setup.cgi&submit_search=yes&image=CA01-001-12.jpg&display=yes">Here</a> is one of my shots from there. Yes, it's been "done", but I still love the locale. Glacier Point is also very nice, with views out over the valley. Check out <a href="http://www.designsinlight.com/cgi-bin/photo_search.cgi?setup_file=photo1.setup.cgi&submit_search=yes&category=sierranevada">my other Yosemite images</a> for some ideas of what to see; if you have questions about where any of them were taken just send me email.</p>

 

You might also consider checking out the <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/calphoto">CalPhoto eGroup</a> and asking there for other ideas. Michael Frye is a member so you may get some additional ideas for what's best this time of year (the waterfalls will be running full blast, for example).</p>

 

Point Reyes is also beautiful. You should see lots of wildflowers, some birds, and possibly elk. And wonderful cliffs falling away down to the sea. I'm not sure what the elk will be up to this time of year. Sunset, well...anywhere along the coast is nice :-) I haven't been at Pt. Reyes at sunrise, but looking east across Tomales Bay should be nice.<div></div>

<i>1) Which areas are more interesting than the others at that time? In which order would you recommend to visit them from the point of view of season/rain/water/etc.?</i></P>

 

March is the end of the rainy season, so be prepared. The only time the rain was really a problem when I was there 5 years ago was when we were in the eastern highlands near Chimanimani NP. It did make for some flat grey skies upon occasion, but we had plenty of nice days, too.</P>

At Hwange NP it used to be possible to go out on an early morning walk with a ranger. A great way to see the wildlife, instead of from a rover or a bus. Check at the main ranger station.</P>

Victoria Falls / Mosi-oa-Tunya is definitely worth the trip. We also enjoyed the Great Zimbabwe, near Bulawayo, but that's a bit further south than it sounds like you're planning on going.</P>

 

<i>2) Does the current situation in the country influence the access to places or routes? Is there fuel at national park filling stations?</i></P>

 

I don't know, but I would be careful, and fuel up when you can. I would guess fuel is still in short supply, since the situation and economy in Zimbabwe is still not settled.</P>

 

<i>4) Is there a right place in Harare to process slide (E-6) and negative film or is it better to transport the film unprocessed to Europe?</i></P>

 

As noted elsewhere, I would take it back to Europe for processing. E-6 processing requires proper water temperatures, monitoring of chemical freshness, etc., so I would take it to a lab you know and trust. And take plenty of film -- finding E6 film can be a challenge.

You mentioned in a follow-up the Southwest and Arizona. If you haven't been, the area around Sedona is spectacular -- lots of amazing red rock. Oak Creek Canyon up from Sedona is amazing, too, though I don't know how much water it has running this time of year.

 

Relatively nearby (e.g., north of Flagstaff, east of Flagstaff, south of Sedona, west towards Prescott) are a number of interesting National Monuments; I think Walnut Canyon NM, where there are some pueblos built into steep cliff sides might be nice, especially if there's some snow. See http://www.nps.gov/waca/

 

Near Flagstaff, there's the San Francisco Mountains, which get a fair amount of snow and have nice pine forests. North of Flagstaff a ways further is the Grand Canyon, which has long been on my list of places to visit in winter.

 

Other thoughts: in desert California are Death Valley NP and Joshua Tree NP. Lots to see and photograph in both locations.

 

Anyway, some ideas...have fun where ever you end up shooting.

A California-oriented one is the calphoto eGroup: http://www.egroups.com/group/calphoto

 

There are also some hotsheets on CalPhoto's web site that aren't so much question & answer, but are great resources for timing and location of wild flowers, wildlife, fall colors, etc.: http://www.calphoto.com/

 

gene

The areas around Phoenix and Sedona also had a lot rain in late October this year (but the fall colors in Oak Creek Canyon were great nonetheless). In fact, west of Phoenix some areas had some severe flooding.

 

gene<div></div>

A friend just pointed to me to a web site with some nice images from the Sacramento Wildlife Refuge, at <a href="http://www.sonic.net/~aglazier/SacWildlifeRefuge.htm">http://www.sonic.net/~aglazier/SacWildlifeRefuge.htm</a>. Includes a nice shot of a cloud of snow geese in flight.

North of Sacramento is the Sacramento National Wildlife Reserve <a href="http://www.r1.fws.gov/sacnwrc/">http://www.r1.fws.gov/sacnwrc/</a>, a complex of 5 or 6 different refuges. Different birds are there different times of the year, but the web site describes the best viewing months as...November and December. Huge numbers of snow geese and other birds fly through the refuge during the fall and winter months. In many cases the birds are a fair ways from the road and viewing platform, but there are a couple of blinds that you can reserve and schlep out to (in before sunrise; once you leave you can't re-enter) that are reported to get you closer to the birds. Let me know if you do the latter and how it is...it's been on my to-do list for a while.

I use both hard edge and soft edge ND grads (Singh-Ray). As an earlier post mentioned, the transition of a hard edge Singh-Ray is fairly abrupt -- it transitions from clear to 2 or 3 stops in about 1/4" or so. The hard edge is useful when there's a corresponding hard edge in the scene you're taking, e.g.: a lake reflecting trees or a mountain, or a meadow in low light and cliffs/mountain in full sun. If there's not a nice straight line, then I use the soft edge. It's hard to say which I use more often.

<i>Damage Done by Bears in Yosemite Down This Year</p>

 

The U.S. Department of the Interior reports that a program designed to combat damage done by bears in Yosemite has resulted in a 40 percent decrease in reported monetary damages. The program that was partly responsible for the decrease involved visitors to the park who would help park rangers pick up trash and other non-native food sources.</p>

 

Experts claim that a shift in bear activity is responsible for the decrease. The amount of activity by bears was about the same this year as last, but the activity was concentrated in camps instead of car break-ins.</p></i>

 

Seems quite possibly connected. Fewer bad bears in Yosemite because they've been dumping them elsewhere? Could be.

If I weren't going to Antarctica before then, I'd be interested. (alas, the budget won't allow for two big trips in one year).

 

I was in South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Namibia in 1996 for a six week trip. You're proposing to cover a lot of ground in three weeks, especially if you plan to spend much time in Namibia. There's a lot to see and photograph there -- Fish River Canyon, Namib Desert, Etosha NP, Skeleton Coast to name a few. I could easily spend three weeks in the Namib and another three in Etosha.

 

Victoria Falls (Mosi oa Tunya, the smoke that thunders) is beautiful, but it will add a fair amount of distance to your trip. I haven't checked the situation recently, but if you're in northern Nambia and want to go across to Vic Falls, be sure to check things in the Capri Strip before heading that way -- violence in Angola trickles down sometimes.

 

If I had three weeks in southern Africa, I might fly into Cape Town and then spend the three weeks getting from there to Etosha NP in northern Namibia. It sounds like you want the trip to be somewhat wildlife oriented (the Kruger part). I haven't been there, but you might weigh the distances + time required of going there vs. spending time in Etosha, Waterburg, and other national parks in Namibia known for wildlife. Some food for thought. In any event, having your own vehicle is a great way to go. Have fun -- I wish I could join you.

I've been in Everglades NP several times in January and early February, and once in June. When compared with the levels in June, January wasn't very bad at all. However, for someone not from a mosquito-y area (I live in the SF Bay Area in California), it may seem like a lot. The levels in January were definitely noticable to my wife and I.</p>

Of course more open trails have fewer mosquitos; shadier ones and those nearest water have more. And as sunset approaches and it cools slightly, the mosquitos become <b>much</b> more active. If you're looking for nice warm light, you'll probably be out during this period, and since you're interested in birds, you'll probably be near some water.</p>

 

<i>I know it smells bad and tastes even worse</i></p>

 

Since you are sensitive to them, be prepared, but be careful with the DEET -- it is a poison. Don't go around swallowing too much of it or getting it in your mucous membranes...</p>

 

So I wouldn't let it stop you from going, but definitely be prepared. You might consider getting one of those silly-looking but effective mosquito net hats to protect your face and neck, and have lightweight long pants and shirt to cover the rest of you.

Several immediately leap to my mind:</P>

 

(1) Glacier NP in summer - great flowers, mountains, water, clouds, wildlife...</P>

 

(2) Yosemite <i>not</i> in summer - summer has <b>big</b> crowds, and while you can escape them, as a first time visitor you'll want to go a lot of the places they go. Spring, Fall and Winter have better color, better water falls, and much smaller crowds. A couple of my favorite Yosemite images during late fall, <a href="http://www.designsinlight.com/cgi-bin/photo_search.cgi?setup_file=photo1.setup.cgi&submit_search=yes&image=CA99-090-10.jpg&display=yes">here</a> and <a href="http://www.designsinlight.com/cgi-bin/photo_search.cgi?setup_file=photo1.setup.cgi&submit_search=yes&image=CA99-092-03.jpg&display=yes">here</a>. None posted from winter yet, but Yosemite is very beautiful then, too. With a whole week there, you can spend some time in the high country of Yosemite (as long as you're not there in winter), too.