steve_kaufman

I don't like to look at any bad transparencies more than once. I shoot stock photos for a living, and after a long trip, I'll get back a few huge boxes of slides. Usually, I get depressed when I first edit the material, as there are always some shots I counted on which didn't quite work. I throw away everything but the shots I would want to have published. A few years ago, a friend sold a photo for a cover of a national magazine, but the image he sent to them was a bit soft. They published the photo, and my friend was embarassed when he saw the results. If you don't want someone to see a photo of which you aren't proud, throw it away immediately....don't keep something that's not perfect, or rather, is not up to your own personal standards.

Capture Related Wildlife Mortalities in Denali National Park

 

<p>

 

The sedation and capture of wild animals is a standard practice of biologists engaged in research these days. Recently, I received a newsletter from a small non-profit group of whom I�m a member, the �Denali Citizens Council� which has a chart detailing research related mortalities in Denali since 1980. Here�s the statistics as printed:

 

<p>

 

wolves: 242 captures, 5 mortalities, 2% death rate

caribou: 1,101 captures, 26 mortalities, 2% death rate

Bull Caribou: (also included in total caribou count) 55 captures, 12 mortalities, 22% death rate

Brown Bears: 27 captures, 2 mortalities, 7% death rate

 

<p>

 

The report goes on to state that in any animal population in the park, capture-related deaths account for less than 1% of the total population of any species. Also, after the exceedingly high death rate of bull caribou (which occurred in 1991) further capture of bulls was suspended.

 

<p>

 

The chief of research and resource preservation, Gordon Olson, says that each mortality is considered significant, and that the Superintendent requires each death be thoroughly investigated.

 

<p>

 

I contend that there should be no invasive research of animals in our national parks, particularily ones like Denali which are large enough to contain a complete ecosystem. I don�t believe that the information gathered by such research benefits the animals involved in those studies (and certainly not the dead ones! ) In my humble opinion, it appears to be research simply for the benefit of the researchers.

 

<p>

 

For those wishing to express their opinions to the park, please write Superintendent Steve Martin, P.O. Box 9, Denali Park, AK 99755.

Anthony:

I just re-read one of your latter postings. If you take the Marine Hwy to Skagway, why would you fly back to Juneau? You should just get off in Juneau when you go by there. Cultural things? Totem poles (Saxson Park in Ketchikan) or Sitka (if your ferry goes that way). In South Central, there's not alot to see, though the village at Eklutna now allows visitors to come and see their area (it's near Anchorage). They have an interesting graveyard with little houses on the graves, each with a small wooden fence around it. Otherwise, there isn't much too see as far as native culture around the road system. There are a few picturesque towns: there's an old Russian Orthodox church at Ninilchik (Kenai Peninsula), and the towns of Seldovia and Halibut cove (a short boat ride from Homer) are pretty nice. Otherwise, everything you will see will be very modern. The state's population has more than doubled since the pipeline construction, 20 years ago.

Hans mentioned Kantishna Roadhouse & Roberta. Roberta sold Kantishna a few years ago to the Doyon Native Corporation, who now operates the lodge. Prices have continued to go up; cheaper wall tents are no longer available. Figure $450/night/person out there now or somewhere in that vicinity. Other lodges in Kantishna are also available: Camp Denali is very nice (slightly cheaper than Kantishna Roadhouse, but a three day stay is the minimum), The Denali Backcountry Lodge is also bit cheaper. Valerie Mundt is operating a place across from Kantishna Roadhouse called the McKinley Gold Camp....I don't have any idea of it's costs or accomodations. I also disagree with Hans, and throughly enjoy the Alaska Highway, while I find the ferry ride rather boring (I'm not overly fond of SE Alaska myself...I prefer open tundra to SE rainforest). The trip from Whitier to Valdez is very nice, as is the road over Thompson Pass. If you go that way, I'd recommend going into Kennicott (Wrangell-St.Elias N.P.)

 

<p>

 

The Denali Hwy from Paxson to Cantwell is highly recommended....except in hunting season (starts late August).

 

<p>

 

Trips into Kenai Fiords from Seward usually encounter lots of marine wildlife, and cliff-nesting birds (puffins, murres, kittiwakes). A short boat ride out of Homer to "Gull Island" will also allow good observation & photography of cliff-nesting sea birds. A charter flight over the Kenai Fiords from either Homer or Seward can be well worth the money if you really want to see rugged scenery & glacial terrain.

 

<p>

 

My favorite, by far, is Denali National Park. Try for a camping space within the park (by car, the only one would be Teklanika, by Bus, I'd try to go to Igloo). Reservations may be made in advance for some camping spaces in the park (50% of the camping spaces are available for advance reservation, the rest are first come/first served for people who arrive without reservations).

 

<p>

 

But, most important, take that 600! You'd be kicking yourself forever if you leave it behind!

Anthony: Why do you say that you have to leave the 600 at home just because it will be a family vacation? I think you should reconsider! In Alaska we have lots of places to go, largely limited by the amount of money you wish to spend, and how you plan to travel. And though it is a large area as Don mentioned, many areas are only accessible by boat or plane. If you are planning to drive, consider buying a copy of the "MilePost", which gives a fairly comprehensive mile by mile guide to the main roads both leading to Alaska, and within the state. Another consideration: many of the most popular places are quite full with tourists for the entire summer (Denali, Katmai, etc). For some areas, it is necessary to make reservations well in advance!

 

<p>

 

Tell us more about what you want to see, where you are thinking of traveling, and I'm sure you will get lots of advice. By the way, the aurora last night was spectacular!

I guess I should clarify where I was coming from with my question. I recently had the experience of having another photographer, who shoots black and white tell me that he was an "artist" (and sells his work through galleries), while I was merely a "skilled technician" since I used color, and sell my work to magazines and books. Somehow, it angered me more than it should have...but, I have grown weary of the opinion that B & W is "ART" while color is just a photograph. I wanted to hear from some of you who shoot B & W, to get your opinions.....not that I ever intend to shoot a roll of B & W myself! I still think nature looks best as we see it, in color.

It seems I offended a few people, and that was not the intent of my question. I don't believe B & W is necessarily "the basics", as I and many others have learned to photograph in color. I've shot film for about 30 years now, and for the past 15, I've made my living shooting stock photos. I've literally shot thousands of rolls of film, but, I've never used a roll of B & W. I also have no desire to work in a darkroom (it might be fun to you, Bob, but I don't like being stuck in a small, dark space with smelly chemicals). Aside from the ease of home developing, I still don't understand most B & W NATURE shots (and I stress NATURE)...I contend it will work better in color (though maybe not easier....color films are definitely less forgiving!).

Why does anyone shoot black & white film for nature photography? Other than special situations, I can�t understand why some people persist in shooting monochrome, when there is such a wealth of color film available. I see in color. Nature is color. Our job as nature photographers is to record some scene, or portion there of, in intimate detail (to me, that means COLOR). Yes, there are times when it is difficult, and I sometimes wonder if that is when other people shoot B&W. At those difficult times, you may find me trying every kind of Fuji & Kodak transparency film on the market.......or, more likely, I will have put down the camera to wait for another day or opportunity with better light. I�m sure there will be those of you who will say, �what about the great masters�....Ansel and those well-worn tripod marks. Yes, he was a gifted photographer. When he started, B&W was easily available; color was not. Today, he�d probably be shooting a 35mm with Velvia. (Sorry for the blasphemy...) I know there are a few black & white shooters who frequent this forum. Without color, I can�t tell a yellow-bellied marmot from a hoary marmot (sorry Don). And that �racetrack� could be a chunk of frozen mud on my icy driveway (sorry Dan). Tell me, why do you like b&w?

Bill:

 

<p>

 

If you shoot in bright enough light, you can get good images with plenty of DOF if you use a wide angle lens, say a 20 or 24. I've had to shoot from small boats a number of times, and have even had some luck using the tripod within the boat (NO ENGINE ON, or it transmits vibration) to help hold a very long lens (600) with good results. The key is shooting enough film to guarantee some degree of success. If the image is important enough, it is worth while spending a bit more on film!

Anthony:

 

<p>

 

You can also get information on the aurora from the University of Alaska (Fairbanks) Geophysical Institute at http://www.gi.alaska.edu/home/of?GI.Aurora.Forecast

 

<p>

 

Good Luck!

 

<p>

 

Steve

There are a number of independent companies which take tours out into the rookeries. A number of years ago, we hired a guy named Ted Appel (I think from Rockport, his office was next to the "Sanddollar" restaurant & bar).

Fill flash is very good for adding needed light to floral photography, but it generally will not help overcome motion bluring problems created by wind. If you are doing macro photography, your depth of field is usually very small. Unless you are lucky to trip your shutter at the exact moment the flower happens to be in focus as it is blowing back and forth, you won't get a good photo. Best bet, is to be patient, and wait until the wind stops, or accept that arty blurred flower photo some people spend hours trying to get!

Anthony:

 

<p>

 

I shoot about 500 rolls of film a year. Captioning,cataloging, and filing are a big part of my life.

 

<p>

 

While there are many software programs available for captioning and cataloging, I have found it too burdensome to try to use any system which assigns individual numbers to each transparency.

 

<p>

 

I file mostly by subject and region. Slides are stored in file sheets, in filing cabinets. It is a big problem trying to cross reference files (i.e. waterfalls file, or is it Olympic NP). It becomes even more complicated if you have other people who do searches for photos in your files (I hire assistants to pull and refile submissions when I am away from the office for long periods of time).

 

<p>

 

If I had a request for waterfalls pictures, would they look in the Olympic NP files? Or, if the request was for Olympic, would they go to the waterfalls folder? I think the later choice is less likely.

 

<p>

 

The best thing for me, is to try to keep the system as simple as possible. I use Microsoft Word 6's templates to produce captions on Avery labels (#5267). Filemaker Pro also has the same templates, and will print consecutive numbers if you wish. One problem to consider with numbers: if you have in-camera duplicates of the same image, should they have unique numbers? What about if you have a duplicate made by a lab?

 

<p>

 

One last thing: do you really want to spend all of your time developing a cataloging system which can be cross-referenced or would you rather spend your time shooting more photos?

 

<p>

 

Steve Kaufman