pete_dickson1

I�ve been shooting into the sun for about 5 years (not continuously). You�re most likely to get the effect you want by using a wide-angle, single focal length lens, set to a small aperture (large number like 16,22,32). Undesirable flare or artifacts like ghost reflections of the diaphragm are certainly possible - you have to do the experiments to figure out how to avoid or minimize these undesirable effects. There is an excellent article on shooting into the sun at http://sunrise.scu.edu/photo/digest/Apr-1998.html Good luck and be careful!

Sounds like playing around with that Gitzo convinced you that your Bogen is just fine! Of course, both makes are imperfect. The two just happen to have different imperfections. They both help you take better photographs by providing a stable platform for your camera. The question is, "Which one maximizes the probability that you'll get the shot you want?" If you hate it so much you leave it in the car, you lose. If it breaks, you lose. If it's not stable enough for the equipment you're using or the conditions in which you're working, you lose. If it takes you so long to set up that bigfoot runs into the forest before you get the shot, you lose. Find a tripod you can live with and love the results it helps you get. Incidently, I use Gitzos for serious (amateur) photography and a Bogen 3021S when I smuggle camera equipment along on business travel. Pete

What is it about the profession of nature photography that makes so many amateurs aspire to, or at least dream of "turning pro?" Is it just a matter of the huge number of amateur photographers there are? Maybe it is just that simple - a certain percentage of any hobbyist group will want to make a living at it - and photography has a huge hobbyist population. But, somehow, I still think there�s something special about nature photography. What is that something?

 

<p>

 

Pete

I have one of the Kirk devices you asked about. It does add stability. It also slows you down. If you're using the long lens to follow wildlife, you'll find the Kirk support cumbersome. It's also one more thing to carry. In the right circumstances it's worth the trouble. For me, the right circumstances are rare. But I haven't sold it yet!

It seems to me, if everything (camera,lens,film,exposure,etc.) are the same it must be a flare problem. Are you using a lens shade? If not, get one. It can make a dramatic difference in some circumstances with some lenses. I'll e-mail this to you to because your thread is probably going to be nuked, like all of mine are! Pete

I lived in Switzerland for a year. Alas, it was before I was serious about photography. There are many beautiful places there. Since the aforementioned thread doesn�t specifically mention the area�..If I had a week I�d spend it in the Berner Oberland (off-season would be best). Interlaken is the jumping-off-point, but you want to be in one of the villages that�s near the beautiful Lauterbrunnen Valley and the famous Eiger, Monch and Jungfrau peaks. I was there in June. The tourists were scarce, the valley was in bloom, the many waterfalls were full, and the snow caps were still deep. I think if I went back today with some wide angle lenses and a bunch of Velvia (and a bunch of SFr. it�s an expensive place) I�d be able to make some nice photographs. At the time I thought I�d created some masterpieces with a Minolta p&s and Ektachrome 200! Ignorance is bliss. Alles Gutes!

Someone said, "The camera points both ways." When the light�s not right for landscape photography, have the wisdom, skill, vision, and tools to photograph more suitable subjects. I haven�t been to Utah yet (leaving next week), but I know there�s a million nature stories to be told in the smaller subjects there. Somehow I always find something to photograph in the field. I�m never dissatisfied with the experience. Sometimes the photographs fail to record the emotion of being there, but that�s my fault. I�ll do better next time. There is no end to the learning curve. Well, there is death, but I�m not worried about that right now. The answer to the question is, "No." I�m never disappointed because conditions or light aren�t what I�d hope.

 

<p>

 

Regarding the filters=fraud discussion: If you want reality, go there. Photography is only a two dimensional representation. How can it ever accurately depict nature?

Don�t run out and buy a 20mm lens. I think you�d be frustrated. Very wide lenses do, indeed, take it all in. As a result, they�re difficult to use well. Simplicity is a hallmark of good composition. There can be so many elements in the 94+0 angle of view offered by a 20mm that it can be impossible to tame them. You can end up with cluttered images that look like snapshots. I included 24mm in my kit after doing all I could at 28mm. After 3 years, and lots of photographs, I am comfortable using the 24mm. Maybe 3 years from now I�ll feel the same about the 20mm I bought last year. If you get serious about wideangle work you�ll probably want a fixed focal length 24mm because it will be sharper and faster. So, for now, buy the 28-X zoom. Use the money you save buying the cheaper zoom lens to buy a decent tripod, use the tripod for every landscape shot you do, and shoot a lot of film! Pete

I�m planning a trip to Utah in the middle of March. I�m more interested in photography than driving (although I have fewer accidents driving than photographing). I�ll spend my time in ONE of the national parks doing landscapes with a 35mm camera. I�m currently leaning toward making my home base Torrey, UT. I�d spend my time in Capital Reef, despite Mr.Greenspun�s comment, "I've never figured out what is so great about Capitol Reef National Park�" I like to get off the beaten path, but generally stay within 5 miles of the car. This will be my first time in this area. What non-photographic things do I need to know about doing photography in this country? (Besides sunglasses, hat, sunscreen and water.) Also, what do you think about my choice of location? Pete

Last time I heard John Shaw was shooting Velvia for landscapes and E100SW for animals. But who cares? I have a feeling John Shaw could shoot outdated Scotchchrome 1000 and get better images than most of us do! Pete

I shoot mostly horizontals because I'm lazy. 35 mm cameras are designed to be picked up and held horizontally. Noone has trouble identifying the bottom of the camera. Right? So we hold them the way they were designed to be held. If someone aspires to publishing their nature photography they're probably shooting on a tripod. That makes the situation even worse! Now the camera is bolted into a horizontal position. Sure, the tripod head let's you rotate the camera, but you always loose something in the process ... your composition, a little stability, some freedom of movement, your sense of what's level (I have many old crooked verticals!). It's just not as easy because it wasn't designed to be easy. I've been working with angle brackets on my cameras for the past two years. It's a good step toward making verticals more convenient to shoot, but the camera is still designed to be used horizontally. We should have an APS-like system that offers the ability to mask to vertical without turning the camera.

I sure making good counterfeit money also requires great skill and artistry, but the Government discourages this type of artwork because it would diminish the value of Uncle Sam's own artwork. This is the sort of diminishment that I fear all nature photography will suffer as digital compositions become more and more prevalent. Pandora's box has been opened and we will forever question the authenticity of every great photograph except our own, whose authenticity will be questioned by others. I'm not trying to start a debate on the ethics of digital or other manipulations. I'm just heaving a deep sigh as I trudge off to become an eccentric purist. Peace.

There�s an article you might want to read in a recent U.S.News & World Report (Jan 12, 1998, p. 48). "Antarctica and the Polar Bear. In wildlife photography, it can be hard to tell the real from the fake." I know the article grossly oversimplifies the process: "� new computer software now makes it possible for the clumsiest amateur shutterbug to create photographic images top pros might spend a lifetime trying to capture." Art Wolfe is depicted as a visual mercenary - - - sneering as he gets rich constructing and peddling impossible, but visually attractive images, such as the infamous polar bear reclining in Antarctica. Brandenburg is cast in the role of the conscience of nature photography. I disagree with both portrayals, but there�s a undercurrent of a disturbing truth in the article. I have to wonder what will become of nature photography. It is with some sadness that I anticipate that it will become an anachronism practiced by a handful of eccentric purists who insist on doing things the hard way. Why wait for the wolf to howl in the morning light when you can catch him where you can and put him where you want? (I�m referring to the latest issue of Pop Photography.) There are valid arguments that photography never was a true representation, but in my heart I believe there�s now too many shades of gray. With computers, the ability to interpolate and extrapolate is making "nature" photography an art of construction rather than an art of distillation.

 

<p>

 

The U.S.News & WR article made me pause for introspection. I photograph nature to remind myself and others of the incredible beauty that�s JUST THERE. I don�t create the beauty. I clarify it. I don�t do it to make money. I couldn�t. I will forever remain an amateur. I do it for the joy of it. It is, perhaps, becoming a more private joy because only I will know how well or how poorly my images reflect the actual moment. Sadly, my ability to stir passion for the real beauty of the natural world is forever diminished by the ability of artists armed with technology. Regards, Pete Dickson