nes_suno

<P>Kauai is better than either one. The Napali Coast is pretty spectacular. The Waimea Canyon, the various falls, a couple of rivers, and some decent snorkeling. If you can get yourself on a boat that will let you dive off Niihau, you will probably be in heaven.

 

<P>Oahu is way overpopulated. It's a bit like going to Santa Monica (California). Maui's west side is a bunch of overpriced resorts and golf courses. The east side toward Hana is much better.

 

<P>As a matter of fact, Kauai is so photogenic, Hollywood directors have been using it for exotic "tropics" location shots for decades (most notably, the crew of <I>Jurassic Park</I> got in the way of a leetle teeny storm known as Hurricane Iniki). One should note that Kauai gets more rain than the other islands and its nickname "The Garden Isle" is not meaningless.

 

<P>Tom, feel free to send a personal e-mail message my way if you're interested in Kauai. I have been there three times myself and am planning on going again in early June. (I like the North Shore myself.)

<P>The only reason to buy the B2-Pro clamp from RRS is to have quick release. If you are able to work with your tripod without it then it is a waste of money (and adds weight to boot).

<P>The Really Right Stuff people suggest the following: Gitzo G1564, Bogen 3232 swivel head, and the RRS B2-Pro clamp. I posted this in the regular Q&A forum: http://db.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0001BO. You will find additional suggestions by searching for "monopod".

 

<P>If you're already using the Arca-Swiss style release plates, this is pretty much a no-brainer.

<P>Recent NOAA models indicate that El Niqo will continue through spring and possibly early summer which means a lot more rain (and snow in the higher elevations). Make certain you check road conditions before you head out on the road (the aforementioned January 1997 flood closed off valley floor access for a time).

 

<P>The NPS insists that motorists carry tire chains when inside of Yosemite.

 

<P>If it is raining when you set out, you can expect spend the full day driving. Getting in and out of the Bay Area will be a chore during rush hour.

 

<P>If for one reason or another you decide not to go to Yosemite, I suggest the Marin Headlands (a nice, quick reverse commute out of San Francisco), Golden Gate National Recreation Area, and Muir Woods (to the north).

 

<P>As I mentioned in a previous thread, California has approximately 200 state park properties, 150 national forests, 13 national parks and monuments and a handful of unclassified major recreational areas (the aforementioned GGNRA is one of them). Pick up a guide book to have them all explained to you. Search the nature photography Q&A forum for "Yosemite" or "California" for alternate destinations.

 

<P>Don't forget a tripod. It will be difficult to take a decent photograph if camera shake is induced by cold hands in freezing rain or snow.

<P>Slight clarification. You don't meter with the #87 mounted on the lens (no visible light transmission). You could either meter with an external light meter, take off the filter, or just take a hopefully intelligent guess.

<P>I know what you mean about travelling light. I don't own a car, so I carry everything on me.

 

<P>There are prime lenses and zooms that will touch that 300mm figure you mentioned. Since I don't know what your price/weight/size restrictions are, I suggest that you get a photography magazine and look at the advertisements to compare prices. Nikon has a web site that has specifications (weight, size) of its product line. You can write to them as well for product literature, or visit your local pro shop and try out the lenses yourself.

 

<P>Zoom lenses, although convenient, tend to be bigger, slower, and heavier. One thing I really enjoy about nice prime lenses is the relatively light weight compared to pro-quality zooms.

 

<P>While you're at the pro shop, you can try out the various lightweight tripods that have been extensively discussed in other Q&A threads (search for "lightweight tripod"). Of course, both Bogen/Manfrotto and Gitzo have web sites that provide specifications and marketing departments who would love to send you color brochures.

<P>James,

 

<P>Yeah, when there's enough sun where I start thinking about putting on SPF 45 sunblock, that's when I start thinking about HIE. Northern California is still pretty green in late spring (May), but there's a ton of sun. That's perfect for IR.

 

<P>I don't own a #87 filter and have never tried. I'd probably start by exposing 2 stops over what I would do with the #25 and bracket heavily on the first roll. The latter filter is adequate for optimal IR conditions.

 

<P>I once shot a tree-shaded cemetary with HIE (yeah, going for that moody artsy-fartsy cliche) and I would probably be able to express the sort of disappointment (i.e., "it's not differentiated enough") that Steve says.

 

<P>Hmmm, maybe I should experiment with my flash unit the next time I muck with HIE.

<P>Sorry, Steve, just globally replace all my "UVs" with "IRs" and you'll get my drift (it seems you already have). My point with the really bright days is that you'll get higher contrast when the plant material reflects more IR relative to the sky.

 

<P>The aforementioned Laurie White book has a set of examples between the #25 and #87 filters, and the latter is closer to the effect you want (a pain in the rear, perhaps).

 

<P>Smoggy, hazy locales aren't really photogenic for any filmstock. There's not much one can do about clouds or particulate matter in the air. Just hang on until the sun shines.

<P>For that big contrast you mention, you want a day with a truly deep blue sky and a <EM>lot</EM> of foliage. In my neck of the woods (SF Bay Area), that's around May (grass is still healthy from winter/spring rains (our wet season), but the sun is beating down (around noon). Avoid shadowy scenes.

 

<P>Lots of stuff doesn't look particularly different in UV (uh, I think some that stuff is in your image), so you really want to avoid images that include those items.

 

<P>If you are thinking a particular scene is too sunny, you're actually getting closer to the light requirements for the kind of scene you're trying to capture. B&W UV is great for times when every other film fails miserably due to noontime sun.

 

<P>You can always try the No. 87 filter (no visible transmission), but I personally don't think you need any more equipment to get the results you want. (However, read the Laurie White book if you haven't already).

<P>Now while I don't have a mid-range zoom, I do have three prime lenses in the 28 to 135mm range. Despite the fact that I don't mind changing lenses, the 28mm prime is the one that I use the most frequently, simply because I like the wide perspective for landscape. This lens takes over 90% of my landscape photos. It's also almost as small and light as my 50/1.4.

 

<P>I do have an 80-200mm zoom which I occasionally use either at 80mm or at 200mm, usually to isolate something in a landscape. This lens takes maybe 5% of my landscape photos. It sounds like you got this range covered with the 75-300mm.

 

<P>The few remaining percent are with the 135mm prime, almost exclusively for sunsets. I'm actually doing less of this now (not because of the El Nino-driven rains!), but simply because I'd rather have the warm sunset light interact with the landscape itself.

 

<P>My guess is if I had a length of focal ranges between 24 and 300mm at my disposal, once again, 90% of my landscape images would be taken at the widest focal length.

 

<P>I'm obviously biased to lightweight primes (well, if I had a 600/4, maybe I'd be biased to the heavyweight ones, too ;-) ), but go for the zoom if you want.

<P>Speaking as a hobbyist, no. I just do this for fun. Occasionally I give away my photos to friends and family as gifts, but mostly I do this for my personal enjoyment.

 

<P>Although I don't have a shoulder-killing 600/4, over a period of 6-7 months I did spend a fair percentage of my disposable income toward photographic equipment and photo finishing. That's all I ever thought it was: disposable. In my Quicken account, "photography" is set up as a subcategory of Entertainment.

 

<P>I haven't made any significant purchase for eleven months; I have enough fun with the gear I already have. I occasionally dabble with the idea of a used LF camera, but I haven't figured out how to free up enough time to go out and use it. My problem is that I spend too much time working (well, at least that's what my last girlfriend told me ;-) ).

<P>David makes some important points that I would like to expound on.

 

<P>Hats are great protection against UV because they're opaque. Just wear one. You're in the desert and you aren't accumulating style points. (N.B., I wear real hats - fedoras, etc. - all year long and they save my hide and prevent flare from my high index prescription eyeglass lenses.)

 

<P>Sunblock: SPF 50 or higher, reapplied frequently and generously. Heck, I put SPF 15 on my face every day, even in the dead of winter.

 

<P>Decent sunglasses. Cheap sunglasses don't protect well against UV. Since they're just dark, your pupils dilate, letting in more sunlight and UV, but they aren't protecting your eyes. Retinal sunburn is also known as snowblindness. Wearing crappy sunglasses is often worse than wearing nothing at all.

 

<P>Water: in addition to preventing death, drinking large quantities reduces workload on kidneys, improves skin condition, and reduces dandruff.

 

<P>One point about my previous post. I mentioned elevation levels since the temperature at altitude is often considerably different than that at sea level, even in a desert (the latter gets pretty cool at night); dress appropriately.

<P>Bob, you are looking for San Simeon.

 

<P>Some guy named Philip Greenspun once wrote that he was afraid of being squash by 1-ton animal like the bug that he was. He even took pictures of the beasts.

 

<P>http://www.photo.net/philg/california/central-coast.html

<P>Death Valley National Park is about 100 miles from Las Vegas if you enter through Salsberry Pass (El. 3315) and maybe 130 miles if you enter through Daylight Pass (El. 4315).

 

<P>Mojave National Preserve is about 54 miles from Las Vegas entering through Mountain Pass (El. 4731); since Interstate 15 takes you there, it's probably a pretty quick getaway.

 

<P>My California road map shows that Toiyabe National Forest and Lake Mead National Recreation Area are really close by.

<P>Use of 3x5" cards with ball-point pen or pencil will alleviate some of the aforementioned problems (one would be insane to make notes with a pen featuring water-soluble ink).

 

<P>Paper, of course, can be dried, but most voice recorders are not waterproof. Sticking 3x5" cards in a ziplock bag is always a good barrier against moisture, but in any case, a nature photographer should keep a variety of disposable waterproof bags handy (even if it is not raining, since such bags are useful against smoke, sleet, snow, humidity, sand, dirt, etc. and helpful in transporting garbage from humans from places that don't need such pollution).

<P>There is just such a form on page 65 of Ansel Adams's <I>The Negative</I> that he gives permission for one to photocopy. You may not need all of the fields that presented in Ted Orland's document, but I'm certain you could muster up some changes to tailor the form to your liking.

<P>I've never been to Hooper Mtn., I just saw it on a map.

 

<P>Wildlife info off the web: "Area is a traditional feeding site for the endangered California condor. Condors used the area frequently from October through May. A variety of other birds occur during migration and year round."

 

<P>"Habitat: 1,871 acres of rugged mountains, rock out-croppings, chaparral, hardwood groves, stands of Big-cone Douglas fir and open grasslands."

 

<P>"Recreation and Education: Public use is severely limited because of the sensitive situation of the California condor. The U. S. Forest Service maintains two observation points in the Los Padres National Forest."

 

<P>Contact info: <ADDRESS>U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 3817, Ventura, California 93006, Tel. (805) 644-1766.</ADDRESS>

 

<P>According to this info, this might be the right time of year to go. I'd definitely call first. If they say you aren't going to get great pictures, I'd tool around Los Padres National Forest. With 2,000,000 acres (second largest National Forest in California), I suppose you're bound to find something photogenic.

<P>The new, smaller K-14 minilabs have been running for about a year or so. In my neck of the woods, I can get turnaround in a couple of days from the new plant in Hayward, CA (I think that's where it is) and no doubt Kodak is planning on more installations in the future.

 

<P>I'm just a hobbyist so I have free rein; if I like it, I shoot it. However, if you are trying to go pro, I would give your client what he/she wants (whether it's K64, RVP, RAP, E100S, etc., etc.). I was watching a television program about Walter Iooss, Jr. (the professional sports photographer) and I'm pretty certain than when he's on assignment for Sports Illustrated, he's shooting film that they want him to shoot (he made it damn clear that he shoots the subjects that SI wants him to shoot).

 

<P>Not being a pro, I don't know how much being a pro nature photographer differs from being a pro sports photographer, but basic business sense dictates: "Give the customer what he wants."

 

<P>Concerning price ranges, just look at the latest B&H ad. I don't really follow film pricing but what I've noticed the prices are pretty similar (i.e., competitive) between the various reputable dealers.

<P>Maybe Hooper Mountain National Wildlife Refuge to the northeast. Not being a birder, I don't know if there's any photogenic activity at the nearby Sespe Condor Sanctuary this time of year but maybe there's some info on the web (try your favorite search engine).

 

<P>If you can't get an authoritative answer one way or another, I'd stick pretty close to the beach (i.e., Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area).

<P>Some of the previous threads about National Geographic photographers might be helpful. Shoot hundreds of rolls, pick out 10-20 images of the very best quality. If you're as good as one of them, this might be difficult, but do-able. If you're not as good, you might pick out one image out of three rolls.

 

<P>Personally, I don't think processed film emulsions react the same way as does USDA prime grade beef and certain red wine varietals over time. There is certainly some chemical changes, but none that really enhance a photograph's quality (I'm thinking 'chromes).

 

<P>If one does not have enough aesthetic judgment to recognize a great work taken at any given time, but learns to appreciate the object at a later date, the thing that has changed is <EM>you,</EM> not the image. Young Japanese monks shave bald spots on their heads to appear older and wiser.

 

<P>If one keeps images and eventually learns from his/her mistakes, there is indeed nothing wrong with that.

<P>Usually one can bring in items over the customs limit if a nominal fee is paid. I suggest you ask your travel agent about customs fees, etc.

<P>Broadcast quality video is pretty expensive. I suppose you might be able to get by with D1 Betacam deck and an appropriate camera for about $100,000. There are certainly A/V companies that rent this gear (just check your local Yellow Pages).

 

<P>As Martin mentions, 16mm motion picture photography is probably a really good alternative. Arriis a pretty good brand name and their Arriflex 16SR 3 camera will take 54mm PL-mount Zeiss primes. I've seen the 16SR 3 advertised around $350/day (rental) on the Internet.

 

<P>Try a nice Nagra for your audio.

<P>Go check out any book on astronomy. You'll see that the moon's orbit is pretty close to circular. There is no way an average camera can capture the differences in image size due to the slightly elliptical orbit that the moon takes. Scientists measured such distance changes using lasers pointed at mirrors that Apollo astronauts set up over twenty years ago on the lunar surface.

<P>Oh, yes! Sometimes, I am the lucky beneficiary of wind blurred pictures. I get quite a few images of landscapes, trees, immovable objects combined with leaves, flowers, etc. Shooting Velvia around sunset or in overcast conditions helps.

 

<P>Including subject matter that is farther away helps since often it is fairly sharp, but nearby stuff is blurred. Maybe slow rear-curtain flash sync would be an interesting effect.

 

<P>In one instance, I've gotten some really pleasing sunset pictures on the beach (blurry waves, medium sharp waves, sharp sun). I really enjoy taking pictures where not everything is tack sharp.

<P>Philip touchs on this briefly in his New England foliage article (http://webtravel.org/photo/travel/foliage.html):

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>In Maine, they've got the ocean. In New Hampshire, they've got high mountains covered in pine trees. Pine trees do not change color in the winter time. It took me awhile to figure this out, but I'm pretty sure that it is true. In Vermont, they've got lower mountains covered in deciduous trees. Deciduous trees change color in the winter time.</BLOCKQUOTE>

 

<P>The type of species seems to be pretty important. Out here in California, there's a lot of evergreen trees like redwoods, oaks, eucalyptus and pines. No fall color change. The only trees that seem to turn color are the randomly planted liquid amber trees.

 

<P>As far as liquid amber is concerning, it looks like trees that get a lot of sunlight tend to turn red much more than thoses heavily shaded. I could be wrong though.