tim_klein1

Well, I doubly hosed that one up!

<p>

(screwed up the HTML AND I used the wrong link)

<p>

Try this:

<p>

<a

href="http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/home/article/0,1299,DRMN_1_110

1726,00.html">Rockies eyed as plan to drill oil-rich refuge heads to

defeat </a>

The fact of the matter is that the ANWR debate in Washington is

simply a political game that's being played by each party to earn

points for their side. I don't believe for a second that either party

really gives a rats a** about ANWR or its oil; they're just looking

to mollify their constituents.

<p>

Politics aside, the unfortunate aspect that's being ignored is that

defeating drilling in ANWR simply shifts the focus to other areas.

Here's one of the headlines from my local rag yesterday:

<p>

<a href="Rockies eyed as plan to drill oil-rich refuge heads to

defeat ">http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/business/article/0,1299,DRM

N_4_1097366,00.html</a>

<p>

Again, I doubt anyone in Washington really cares about the outcome.

You can bet they'll act like they do at their conventions though.

That you can't make images that are worth a darn shooting in mid-day

light.

Interesting thread, especially Carl's response! I thought I was the

only one who had a time limit rule for printing my images (3 months

in my case).

<p>

I usually do a quick edit of my negs and transparencies right away,

but I only get rid of the blatantly obvious losers. I wait at least a

month before performing a true edit of a session. While I might print

an inkjet proof of a promising image (I have to live with some images

for a while to clarify my vision of what the final print should look

like. I dry mount it and hang it, then make notes and comments right

on the proof and mount), I almost never print a final image until

my "3 month rule" is met.

<p>

I've made exceptions only a couple of times for images that captured

a "moment". In each case, I returned to those images after the 3

months were up and reprinted them. The reprinted images are both

technically and aesthetically superior in every case.

Pete,

<p>

I didn't see that you mentioned which paper you were using (sorry if

I missed it somewhere in the thread).

<p>

If it's something other than Epson's papers for the printer, you

might want to look very closely and see if it's really banding you're

experiencing and not the dreaded "pizza wheel" problem that often

occurs with some brands of paper. You can do a google search with the

words "Epson pizza wheel" to get a description of the problem and

potential solutions.

I can't say that they've been "spot on" with their estimates, but they've never underestimated the charge. This probably has more to do with UPS than with R.W. though.

In one case, I wasn't charged anything despite the fact that there was a UPS form on the box that stated a duty fee was due. The final charge on any of my deliveries has never been exactly the same percentage as any other package.

Have R.W. give you a quote. You can be relatively certain that the price they give you is the absolute worst case. Even with the duty charge and UPS express delivery rates, your wallet will likely come out ahead!

Actually David, I'd be very careful about this combination. I tried

it out and was very dissatisfied.

<p>

Without the center column on the Gitzo, the knobs are very

restricted. Even with the center column, the tilt knob hits the

mounting plate (the mounting plate on top of the center column is

larger on the Gitzo than the Bogen). It's certainly usable this way,

but it bothered me that I didn't have the full range of motion with

the head.

<p>

What I eventually did was remove the mounting plate from the center

column and mounted the 3275 directly to the column. It always seemed

a bit wishy-washy though, and I finally switched to an Arca ball-head

instead.

<p>

I considered the spacer idea myself, but I just decided it wasn't

worth the cost and hassle. I'm sure it would work fine though.

Josh,

<p>

If you're moving from a 3021, you'll be amazed at the difference in

the 1325/48. I used the 3011 (same legs as the 3021, different locks)

prior to getting my Gitzo, and I can tell you that the stability is

absolutely superior.

<p>

As for the height question that Kerry presented, I think the use of

the Arca Swiss head might have something to do with the differences

in user experiences. The Arca adds quite a bit of height on its own,

and some heads might not add nearly as much. Keep the height of the

head you'll use in mind Josh; It, along with your height, will

probably make a good bit of difference in whether or not the 1325 is

tall enough for you.

Paul,

I use the 50mm lens far more than the 43mm on my Mamiya 7 for precisely the reason others here have mentioned. The full viewfinder image of the M7 (outside the 65mm lines) matches the 50mm coverage very nicely!

The only time you'll run into a problem is when you're shooting something pretty close. There's no room for you to shift down and to the right to adjust for parallax correction. I've had no problems with normal shooting, and rarely bother with the external finder anymore.

I'd have to disagree with the statements about stability being

greatly enhanced by under-extending leg sections.

<p>

On cheap tripods with small clasps that hold the leg sections,

leaving some of the leg section nested inside the other probably adds

stability. On higher quality tripods though, you're dealing with much

larger gripping surfaces that are holding large diamter rigid tubing.

If these mechanisms aren't holding the section tight, then you'd feel

some wobble in the leg section if you wiggled it. This doesn't happen

at all with the hefty Gitzo tripods I've used, and I've never heard

any complaints about the 1325 being "maxed out" even fully extended.

<p>

Also, keep in mind that a 4 section tripod is going to use smaller

diameter tubing in the bottom section than a 3 section tripod. Any

added stability from leaving sections nested would probably be

outweighed by the smaller diameter of the lowest leg sections (that's

why, if you're going to leave a section unextended, you always do it

at the bottom).

<p>

Both tripods are rated for exactly the same weight, so I wouldn't

worry too much about stability differences.

I doubt there's any significant difference in either stability or

capacity between the 3 and 4 section Gitzo's. The main differences I

found between 3 and 4 sections are the added height you can get out

of the 4 section (about 7 inches more), the reduced folded length of

a 4 section leg (only about 2 inches), and the reduced weight of the

3 section tripod (a little less than half a pound).

<p>

I finally chose the 1325 and have been very satisfied. I'm 6ft tall

and I mount my Canham DLC on an ArcaSwiss B1. I also use a Mamiya 7II

on the same ArcaSwiss head and I find the tripod to have plenty of

height for these setups (in fact, I've marked my legs because, on

level ground, the setup is too high if I fully extend the legs).

<p>

I usually carry my equipment in a backpack, so the weight savings was

nice (though not really critical, since I could find a lighter head

if it was that important). I probably would have gone with the 4 leg

sections if the folded height difference between the two was more

substantial (maybe in the neighborhood of 5 inches would have swayed

me towards the 1348).

Personally, I prefer the 50/80 combination though I'd really suggest that you look carefully at which lenses you find give you the most satisfying results in your current travel kit.

While the 43mm is a stunning lens, it's just a little too wide for my tastes. It tends to get used in specialized situations, though I do use it more often when I'm shooting MF landscapes. One benefit to choosing the 50mm over the 43mm is that it's pretty easy to get used to using the 50mm without the auxiliary finder. Despite the M7's portability, I'd probably choose to own both of these lenses before I'd add a second body.

FWIW - I also tend to skip over the 150mm unless it's specifically called for by a situation. I find focus to be a bit too finicky to use for grab shots (though it provides absolutely tack sharp images when the focus is on).

Most of my shots (probably 80%) are made with either the 50mm or 80mm. I ALWAYS carry these two lenses, but often leave the 43mm, the 150mm or both at home. If I had to rank their usefulness (for my style and taste; YMMV) I'd say 50mm, 80mm, 150mm, 43mm. (I've never used the 65mm).

Good luck with your choice.

Aftermarket cartridges for the 870/1270 are available from several sources including Inkjetart and MIS Supply.

Quadtones and pigmented inks are available in bulk for the 870/1270 and can be used with continuous inking systems available from MIS and nomorecarts.com. In the very near future, these inks will be available prefilled in cartridges too.

The ink choices for users of "chipped cartridge" Epson printers is growing daily thanks to the recent availability of "chipped" empties. Soon, you'll have the ability to use just about any inkset available.

Mark - If you ever get a chance to throw some photos of this setup

onto the web, I'd love to take a peek. Feel free to e-mail some if

that would be easier.

Richard's suggestions are good ones, especially the drive north

through Blackhawk. This is known as the peak to peak highway and it

offers very nice views of the continental divide. It ultimately winds

up at the entrance to Rocky Mountain National Park, where you'll find

plenty to shoot.

<p>

You're a bit early for prime Aspen viewing, but you'll probably see

pockets of color change at higher altitudes. The peak to peak is one

of the more popular Aspen viewing routes in the front range area.

<p>

One other quick trip I'd suggest is a drive over Guanella Pass. The

road takes off from Interstate 70 at Georgetown. The route offers

some stunning scenery. Take a look at the following link for more

information:

<p>

<a href="http://www.georgetowncolorado.com/guanella.htm">

http://www.georgetowncolorado.com/guanella.htm </a>

Sorry, those two sites looked like they were on a separate line. Let

me try to make these usable links:

<p>

<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/discus/index.html">

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/discus/index.html </a>

<p>

<a href="http://www.creativepro.com">

http://www.creativepro.com </a>

<p>

<a href="http://www.carlvolk.com/photoshoptips.asp">

http://www.carlvolk.com/photoshoptips.asp </a>

<p>

(apologies in advance if I screwed that up!)

Michael Reichmann's Luminous Landscape site has a forum area with a

Digital Imaging category. The conversation tends to be more equipment

oriented, though Photoshop questions come up quite frequently:

<p>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/discus/index.html

<p>

Michael's site gets enough visitors that you should be able to get

answers to questions relatively quickly. As for general tips &

tricks, I use the following two sites:

<p>

http://www.creativepro.com

http://www.carlvolk.com/photoshoptips.asp

<p>

Beyond that, I use Martin Evening's "Adobe Photoshop 6.0 for

Photographers" (the same book is also still available for version

5.5). It's a pretty heavy duty book, but you won't find a more

complete reference for information that's specific to the needs of

photographers.

Peter,

<p>

I moved from Manfrotto to a Gitzo CF early this year and I couldn't

be happier. The Gitzo is definitely more stable than the Manfrotto,

though I can't really say whether or not the leg locks have anything

to do with it. I went with the 1329, though I don't use the center

column (which effectively turns it into a 1325). Even without the

center column, I can set the tripod up at a much more comfortable

shooting height than I could my Manfrotto 3011 and 3021. I don't like

to extend the center column and reduce stability, so I was always

slightly hunched over with the Manfrotto. It's not something I even

realized until I got the Gitzo.

<p>

Mechanically, the Gitzo leg locks have been trouble free, though I

still occasionally fumble around with the Gitzo "spinning leg"

problem (if one leg lock isn't tightened down well enough, trying to

operate the next leg lock results in the section just spinning inside

the other). This is operator error of course, and I have no

mechanical complaints about the Gitzo locks. I had a number of

problems with the Manfrotto lever-style leg locks, so I was never a

fan of them. Ultimately, I switched back to the wing-knob style locks

which were much more trouble free for me. I'd say the Gitzo leg locks

are easier to use than the Manfrotto wing-knobs, but not enough so to

make a difference.

<p>

As for the mini-geared head that Kerry mentions: The model 410 (or

3275) geared head is every bit the joy to use that Kerry says. The

gearing allows for very fine adjustment along each of the 3 axes, but

there is also a large spring loaded knob that disengages the gearing

to allow large movements quickly and easily. I originally bought one

of these for my CF, but the larger mounting plate on the Gitzo caused

restricted forward and backward movement (the knobs on the head bump

against the edge of the plate). It might not be a problem for you,

but it's something to be aware of. If you're using a Gitzo with a

center column, you can remove the top plate and mount the head

directly to the column (this seemed very sturdy to me, though it's

possible that there might be a slight affect on stability). I don't

usually use the center column and the restricted movement bugged me

enough that I ultimately (reluctantly) went with an Arca B1.

<p>

I have no complaints about the B1; it's strong, light, very well

designed and works as claimed (though I did have a problem with the

pan knob not clamping tightly. I had to disassemble, clean, and

adjust it right out of the box. Grease used on the panning mechanism

had slopped over onto the clamping surface). Like you, I was used to

3 way heads and wasn't really hot to change. I was pretty unsure of

how well a ballhead would work with large format. It definitely took

some getting used to, but I'm happy with it now and I'm not sure I'd

go back to 3 way in the field (unless I could get the Manfrotto 410

to work better with a columnless Gitzo).

Michael - Brainard Lake off the peak-to-peak highway in Roosevelt

National Forest and Jefferson Creek in Pike National Forest are two

sites that pop quickly to mind. A site in a National Forest in Utah

(sorry, can't remember the name) also charged me a "usage" fee

to "use" any of the pullouts along a roadway. I was told that I could

drive through for free (it was a state highway), but that I would be

fined if I was caught STOPPED anywhere along the route. This

$5.00 "usage" fee covered me for a week, but the Golden Eagle Pass

was useless.

<p>

I know that the Colorado areas are not part of the Fee Demonstration

Project (I honestly don't know about the Utah area), but since the

fees they charge are considered "usage fees", the Golden Eagle Pass

is not accepted. As your posted reference notes, usage fees are

TYPICALLY charged for things like camping and tours, but by simply

calling it a usage fee, they can get around having to accept your

pass. In each of the above cases, I simply stopped to see the area

and wander around (I'm ashamed to say it, but I didn't even have a

camera with me), I wasn't camping, touring, or anything else. I

suppose I was being charged to "use" the parking or the trails.

<p>

My point is simply that the Golden Eagle Pass is no guarantee that

you are covered for whatever fees an area decides to charge.

<p>

Interestingly, the areas I noted above are why I originally supported

the Fee Demo Program. Each of the areas is pretty highly (ab)used.

The fees imposed seem to have been used to improve the general

condition of the sites and, despite their heavy use, they were some

of the cleanest, best maintained public lands I've visited. I had

hopes that the Fee Demo Program would do the same for other areas.

<p>

The above areas are contracted out to private companies though and

from what I've been able to gather, they are very tightly controlled

on what they can charge and how they can and can't use the money. The

Fee Demo Program doesn't seem to have that same level of oversight.

Despite the apparently poor management of the funds to date (as I

noted in my earlier post), the lack of oversight is my main complaint

about the program.

<p>

As opposed to National Parks and Recreation areas (which must go

through a Federal process to establish their rates), my understanding

is that the Fee Demo Program allows areas to establish their own

rates. The area is also in charge of fee collection, AND they get to

direct how the money gets spent. Pretty sweet deal! The potential for

abuse in this type of situation is too high (and there ARE reports

that abuse is occurring).

I'll let others cover the film and equipment suggestions (though I could kick myself for only bringing 35mm equipment when I made my only trip to Hawaii).

My favorite location was on Maui - the return road from Hana (the one that your car rental contract warns you NOT to drive!). The scenery was absolutely stunning, and quite different from what you'd normally expect to see in Hawaii. Check locally to make sure the road isn't washed out!

Also - It would be a shame to limit yourself to landscapes. There's plenty of local interest when you get out of the prime tourist centers and I'd hate to miss getting at least a few surfing/windsurfing shots. Like to snorkle? You won't find clearer conditions for underwater work anywhere....

(I think I've decided where I'm going on my next vacation!)

As an aside - I believe the assertion that the Golden Eagle Pass

covers these fees may not be entirely true. It was explained to me

(at Rocky Mountain National Park headquarters, late last year) that

the Golden Eagle Pass only covers ADMISSION type fees. Fees that are

specified as usage fees are not covered (except in the case of

several, specifically mentioned National Recreation Areas).

<p>

My understanding of the this program is that it can also include user

fees, and that the Golden Eagle Pass would not exclude you from owing

a fee of this type. Several government websites specifically mention

confusion surrounding who and when the fees are due as one of the

improvements that must be made.

<p>

Several highly used Colorado areas are actually under contract to

private companies to manage, maintain, and collect usage fees. My

Golden Eagle Pass has not consistently been accepted at these sites.

As a concept, I don't have a problem with "user" or "impact" fees. I

believe that MAINTENANCE of public lands is an appropriate use of our

tax dollars, but I believe that users of a resource should bear the

burden of repairing damage and making improvements. Many heavily used

public lands are suffering horribly from overuse, and I suspect that

most reasonable people would agree to a small fee if they knew that

the money would be recycled back into the area in the form of

restoration and improvement efforts. Unfortunately, as is often the

case with government solutions, this program doesn't work that way.

<p>

I've heard varying figures about how the money from this experiment

is distributed; The referenced article says that only 2% goes

towards "trail" improvement. The figures I have (US Forest Service

figures from 2000) claim between 6% and 9% goes towards improvement

of all "facilities" (including trails) and list only a miserable .5%

towards habitat improvement.

<p>

Best case, that's less than 10% for improvements. Repair figures tend

to get thrown in with the maintenance costs, but as near as I can

calculate, the repair costs can't total more than another 10% to 12%,

which means that less than 25 cents on the dollar goes to what I

would consider reasonable.

<p>

On the other hand, the referenced article states 30% goes towards fee

compliance and enforcement (the figures I have say it's closer to

20%). Government sources admit that fully 25% goes towards planning

and administration at this point, which puts basic overhead costs at

45% to 50% or more than twice the amount of repair and improvement!

<p>

I've already written both of my (Colorado) senators, and I'd

encourage everyone who disagrees with this program to do the same in

their own home state. Governmental inertia will probably still extend

this woefully inefficient program, but it can't hurt to make your

voice heard. Ultimately, the "people" will end up having to pay more

and more to visit the "people's" land.

<p>

See you all out in the wild during the magic hour....

<p>

(... but don't forget to bring your wallet!)

Jorge - My understanding was that George claimed Piezography was

equal to platinum, and superior to silver from a TONAL RANGE

standpoint. If George is making the outright claim that Piezography

is simply a superior process, then I agree with you. He would be

making the same type of statement that Michael made.

<p>

I have no problem with those who make comparisons between specific

aspects of various processes, especially when they are able to

provide something to back up their conclusion. For example, though I

think there are ways to combat the problem, I tend to agree with

those who say that quad ink prints often lack the deep blacks of most

wet processes. On the other hand, I do also happen to think that quad

prints exhibit a smoother and more pleasing tonal range than

traditional silver processes (though I don't agree that it beats

platinum in that respect). I also can't argue with those who point to

the lack of hard data regarding the archival expectations of quad

prints.

<p>

Blanket statements about a process being inferior (or superior) are

rarely worth much in my opinion.