randywilson

I guess I need to clarify. You may find a rangefinder with 2.5 feet as its minimum measurable distance on a scale that also has marks for, for example, 3 feet, 3.5 feet, 4, 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 feet, and then infinity. Or you may find a rangefinder with a minimum distance of 3 feet, together with other measurable distances up to 40 feet, and then infinity.

 

What I meant to say in the earlier message is that a photographic rangefinder, in order to be useful, must be able to measure the distance to objects as close as 2.5 or 3 feet. An archery rangefinder that, for example, could find the range to objects no closer than 10 yards would be useless for most photographic applications, at least in my experience.

 

You are right that a rangefinder that skips from 3 feet to infinity is of no use, but the rangefinders I am referring to, and the rangefinders that I own, were actually used for practical photography for decades, and therefore are indeed capable of useful measurements.

At the risk of drifting away from the original question, I'll mention that there's a cheap and simple solution to the problem of measuring the distance to objects. Back in the days before rangefinder cameras had integrated parallax focusing systems, apparently the way you focused the camera was to use an optical rangefinder to determine distance to subject, and then dial the camera's focusing ring to the same distance. So there are all these compact and often quite beautiful and completely functional optical rangefinders out there coming up for sale on eBay all the time. I've got a couple, and I use one frequently. It's not a fast solution, but it is easy and effective.

 

That said, you'll run into a lot of hunting, golf, and archery rangefinders that really aren't suitable for use with cameras due to bulkiness or a minimum focusing distance in the range of 10 yards or so instead of the 2.5 to 3 feet minimum distance you'll need for photography.

 

A general solution to your problem is of course to use hyperfocal distance to get everything in focus front to back. Zooms complicate the process, but using a hyperfocal table showing the hyperfocal distance for different focal lengths and apertures is a practical method for surmounting that. The basic approach is to determine the distance to the nearest object that you want to be in focus, double that and focus at that distance, and then choose an aperture for which the hyperfocal distance is less than or equal to the distance you focused on.

Gloria,

thanks, and yes, the dogs were my pets.

 

That brings to mind another difficulty with this type of writing, which is that it can be self-revelatory to a potentially embarrassing extent. After all, what if the guys at the office find out that not only do you write poems, for crying out loud, but you write poems about your dogs?

 

Do you find that to be the case for you as well?

I've written no articles per se; so I'm not the best person to respond, but perhaps the experience of a hobbyist will be pertinent to your request. I have a home page where I exhibit a sampling of my work, and I've always considered it vital to accompany each picture with text, if nothing else to provide a context for the image. Over time, the text has become a more and more important part of what I want to do with my Web site, even to the point that now I sometimes select an image for display based on something I want to say rather than choosing my best images and then coming up with something to say about them.

<P>

For me, the most difficult part of writing is having the courage to face an empty page, and often I manage to find ways to evade or postpone getting started. Once past that initial hump, however, the process of writing itself is usually enjoyable and fulfilling, and even cathartic sometimes.

<P>

Of course the reason I went to the trouble of putting up a Web page is so people could see it; so feel free to

<a href="http://comp.uark.edu/~jrwilson/">have a look around.</a>

I know more about the Ozarks region than the area around Hot Springs, but you're looking at a three-hour drive to get up here from there.

 

Of the places closer to Hot Springs that I am personally familiar with, I'd say my favorite is Petit Jean State Park. There's a fine waterfall there on Ceder Creek, several overlooks that you can drive to, and if you're up for a hike, the Seven Hollows trail has a lot to offer, although there are parts of it that suffered heavy fire damage a year or two ago.

 

You might also want to check out Little Missouri Falls over in the Ouachita National Forest as well as the Caney Creek wilderness area, once again if you're a hiker.

I purchased one from newegg.com (which has a sterling reputation) a few weeks ago. Total delivered cost was $635.

<P>

You can also go to google.com and enter "epson 2200" as your search term and follow any one of a number of shopping links that appear among the search results.

My previous answer directly contradicts the other answer you've received; so maybe I should mention that I live in Fayetteville, Arkansas, in the heart of the Ozarks, and I'm an amateur nature shooter; so I pay attention to these things. You might also want to visit <a href= "http://www.cloudland.net/home.html" > a weblog </a> kept by a local nature pro. Check out the October and November pages for the last few years, and I think you'll get a pretty good idea of the peak, and past peak, times if you do a search for words like "peak", "color", and "fall".

The rule of thumb for peak color in the Ozarks, and my experience is that it's not that much different in the Ouachitas, is mid to late October. Either of your November dates may be too late, but early November will certainly be a better bet than mid-November.

At the risk of belaboring what may not be worth belaboring, I'll

resubmit my answer correctly formatted. My apologies.

<P>

<pre>

 

 

Heart of the Hill

 

Rock and bone collapse to dust, an age

to lie, an age to crumble, an age to wash away,

as saplings rise to trees and fall

then rise to trees again, and waters run away

and fall to run again, like rushing blood

in the veins of the earth, but from its

ruined breast and toppled ribs, beauty beats

like an ageless heart, an age in every beat.

</pre>

Heart of the Hill

 

<p>

 

Rock and bone collapse to dust, an age

to lie, an age to crumble, an age to wash away,

as saplings rise to trees and fall

then rise to trees again, and waters run away

and fall to run again, like rushing blood

in the veins of the earth, but from its

ruined breast and toppled ribs, beauty beats

like an ageless heart, an age in every beat.

Well, I'm starting to think that maybe I'm the one who's crazy, since

a typical photo day for me means getting up at 3, driving for 2 or 3

hours, hiking in the dark for an hour or so, shooting from 30 minutes

before sunrise to maybe 2 hours after, hiking some more for the hell

of it, maybe driving somewhere to scout out new locations and hike

some more, and getting home sometime in the evening dead tired after

hiking 5-10 miles and driving for hours.

 

<p>

 

You mean I don't have to pay for nature photography with bleary eyes

and aching joints and muscles?

One respondent mentioned having a close encounter with skunks in the daylight. The first thing I think of when I see a skunk in daylight is rabies, since skunks are normally nocturnal; I think it is also wise to take precautions even if the encounter is at night. In fact you might do well to treat a skunk with as much respect as you would a rattlesnake with four legs. The following are quotations from a web document published by the University of Nebraska at http://www.ianr.unl.edu/pubs/wildlife/g641.HTM.

 

<p>

 

"Of all wild animals submitted to the Nebraska Department of

Health in recent years to be tested for rabies, over 90 percent of the infected ones have been skunks."

 

<p>

 

"In the final stages of the disease, skunks may seem tame or listless and may wander about in the daytime, exhibiting little fear of people. They can also appear unusually aggressive or nervous and may

salivate."

Water can be fun, especially if you can find something in proximity to it or in it to give you a nice composition, like trees or rocks or boulders, together with interesting patterns of ripples. Water will suck up color like a vacuum. Late afternoon light bouncing off trees or coming off a blue sky and picked up by water takes on wonderful gold and blue overtones. As a for instance, you might want to take a look at <A HREF="http://mistered.uark.edu/~randy/longwatr.jpg"> this image</A>. And the next time you see a nice sunrise or sunset lighting up the sky red or gold, try ignoring the sky and taking a look at what water is doing.