marc_fraioli

The Arizona-Sonoran Desert Museum has been mentioned several times in this thread already, but I thought I'd point out a few additional things about it:

<p>

It has a web page, <A HREF=http://www.desert.net/museum/index.htmlx>http://www.desert.net/museum/index.htmlx</A>.

<p>

It's great even if you're not after birds. There is a lot of plant life, as well as a small zoo's worth of animal exhibits. You can even take some interesting landscapes from within the museum.

<p>

Which brings me to my last point, which you have probably already figured out from the responses so far, but I might as well make it explicit: The 'museum' is not some dark, dusty building full of moldy old stuff. It's mostly outdoors, with a few small indoor exhibits.

<p>

Finally, it's great! Go there!

There is some information on the Net about the P67 too:

<p>

<a href=http://users.vnet.net/btw/pentax67.htm>http://users.vnet.net/btw/pentax67.htm</a>

<p>

<a href=http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~jrf/pentax67.html>http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~jrf/pentax67.html</a>

<p>

<a href=http://web.mit.edu/dennis/www/pentax67/lens-info.html>http://web.mit.edu/dennis/www/pentax67/lens-info.html</a>

<p>

Plus there's the <a href=http://www.pentax.com/>Pentax Home Page</a>, which I believe contains some information on this camera and its system accessories.

It may be worth noting that John Shaw uses one on occasion. You can see some pictures he took with it in his book <U>Focus on Nature</U>. He does say he still prefers the convenience of 35mm, which he uses most of the time, but when he needs those movements, he pulls out the Horseman. It sure sounds like a good compromise system to me.

<p>

And to John Lehman, who said you have to be willing to dedicate 15 minutes to a single exposure-- I frequently take that long when shooting 35mm! :-)

Tim-

<p>

The new B&H catalog reports that all accessories are compatible with the old version.

Did anyone catch Ken Burns' <U>Lewis and Clark</U> documentary on PBS this week? He was constrained in what he could show by the fact that their expedition was launched in 1804, before the invention of photography, so he couldn't use his usual "pan the camera across some old photos" technique. Instead, he used modern, color landscapes of the area in question, and they were quite stunning. I was struck by how they are quite similar to the landscapes still photographers take in many ways, but that there were some differences that really stood out too. Such as, there were some shots with flowers or grasses in the foreground that were really blowing in the wind. For us still photographers, that would have been a real pain in the rear, and might even have sent us home to try again another day. But with video, it was just fine.

<p>

Also, there were a number of shots where the camera slowly panned across a scene, and somehow, they maintained a pleasing composition at all times. That strikes me as really hard to do!

<p>

Anyway, if you're into natural landscapes (they were pretty much devoid of human influence, which is why I posted this in the nature forum), this documentary has close to four hours worth of truly magnificent ones. It's worth checking out. I'm sure they'll show it again if you missed it.

Ok, I plead guilty in advance to contributing to divergence from the stated topic. So sue me.

<p>

Glen-- I am a bit surprised to hear that you disagreed with Philip's position on the editing of your article. On the issue of what film Maria Zorn uses, I would much rather read your honest appraisal of what she said and showed at the workshop than something that was contrived to appease her film sponsor. If Philip were to allow that sort of change, photo.net would be no better than Pop Photo, n'est-ce pas? From the number of threads on photo.net deriding the mainstream photo mags for their reluctance to offend advertisers, I would not expect Philip's position to be anything other than what it is.

<p>

Please note that it is not at all my intent to accuse you (or Maria Zorn, for that matter) of being a shill for Fuji or Agfa, or whoever her film sponsor is. I just think that photo.net is a valuable resource precisely because here we can learn that Maria Zorn shoots a lot of both Agfa and Fuji film, although only one of these (you don't say which) is, presumably, her film sponsor. If the article emphasized one of these over the other to please the sponsor, but thereby did not reflect reality, I think it would do its readers a disservice. I'm curious as to how you feel about this.

Anthony,

<p>

I am very impressed with people who take successful scenics in thick forest. Whenever I have tried shooting in this situation, I end up with a random-looking mishmash of branches, sticks, and other ugly stuff. I positively swooned when I first saw <A HREF="http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/samantha/final-photos/cedars.jpg">Phil's cedars</A>. In fact, I have spent quite a bit of time staring at this particular photo, trying to understand what makes it work so well. Clearly the color is evocative, and is a large part of the image's success. The fallen log adds nice foreground interest. The trees themselves are dark enough that they fade into the background and don't distract. But even understanding that, I have yet to be able to create anything which is even close to it's equal. :)