 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Medium format / August 2006Still using medium format
I just came back from a trip to Alaska. I decided not to bring my 35mm camera and to use my Hasselblad 553ELX. It was heavier than heavy, but I figured I wanted to use what I have and get the quality I want. My traveling companion used a tiny Canon P/S digital camera with a capacity of 2000 shots (wow!). She would complain about how big and heavy my camera bag was and how tiny her camera was and the fact that she could put it in her purse and not carry some huge bag around. One of the kids that was with us decided that he wanted to take pictures with the digital camera every single day of the trip. So the day before he got the digital camera and proceeded to shoot 300 shots in a span of 20 minutes. He's 6 years old, mind you, so he shot everything under the sun, including his shoes and a bunch of other insignificant things. In fact, he was using the camera in ways that's normally fit for movie or video cameras. I took some shots, very careful not to use up all my film. The day after the boy takes more pictures. My traveling companion bought the digital camera, large SD card, and extra battery for this particular boat trip. We took a boat on a 9 hour tour to the glaciers and on our way we saw the sea animals that inhabit the place. I had a limited amount of film (very, very poor planning on my part) with 8 rolls of b/w (3 400-speed and 5 100-speed) and 4 rolls of 100-speed slide film. So what happens? It rains (dark skies demanded fast film or slow shutter speeds with 100 speed film). I ended up wanting maximum quality so I used 100 speed film as much as I could. The shutter speeds were very slow, especially with my f/4 lenses with a 2x teleconverter (yes, f/8!). Needless to say a few of my shots I was hoping to get were blurry when I finally developed the film (sigh). So, we start getting close to our main destination with the glaciers. My traveling companion with at least 1500 shots left in her camera gets her camera, holds it up and suddenly...beep, nothing. Battery dead. She left the spare in the hotel room and she's left with nothing to take pictures with. I, on the other hand, was still shooting. My ELX battery still winding away. If my batteries had died I would have reached in my bag and pulled out my spare 500C/M and continued on. On the boat I heard repeated whispers from one passenger to the another when we finally got the glaciers "...I can't. My batteries are dead" or "I'm out of room on my camera." Thunk...whirrrr....went my camera. So, I got the shots that mattered whereas they didn't (poor planning on their part). Unfortunately there was a shot I wanted and should have had if I had bothered to wait 2 minutes, but I moved away so others could take pictures. When I saw what was unfolding before me I was too late to get in position. That one untaken picture, unfortunately, is the one I keep going back to in my mind. I got home and developed all 12 rolls of film. Some pictures I expected to be blurry were, but the ones that did come out the way I wanted were nothing short of spectacular. I also love the fact that if I wanted to enlarge them to 30"x30" I'd have no problems doing so, whereas a 6 or 7MP camera might. So, overall I'm really, really glad I lugged my 15 pound camera bag around. My traveling companion has over 1000 pictures taken by her little movie camera-like son. She's happy with her pictures and that's all that count. So, I'm sure I'll continue to use my ancient Hasselblad since it brings me satisfaction when I get the slides and negatives developed. I don't need instant gratification and I know that I like the fact that I already own my equipment. I don't need to shell out $8000 and up for a new 16MP camera that will give results "superior" to medium format when in reality their cameras will be "obsolete" and "inferior" to other cameras just 2 or 3 years from now. They may be "better" than medium format but I don't care. I get the tonal range and sharpness that I need with what I have. As long as there's film available I'll continue to use my medium format camera. Glad to see that I'm not the only one carrying around MF gear. Just got back from Martha's Vineyard with my Pentax 6x7 outfit. It weighs 16 kg in its spiffy new Porter Case rolling pack, *not* including the tripod! The results - some wonderful Provia and Velvia slides, which I'll print at 24"x30". Peace, -chasfs http://chasfs.com Oh yes, the tripod. I have a Gitzo 224 with a really heavy Bogan 3528 (or whatever that 3D head is designated). It literally put me over the luggage weight limit. Needless to say that my companion wasn't too thrilled putting it into her luggage without saying "why do you need this tripod? Can't you take a smaller one?" I said "nope, not for this camera." Overall, she wasn't happy with my camera selection at all. I heard "next time..." and I just said, "no matter what camera I have, this one or a spiffy new digital, I'm still carrying this camera bag and the tripod. Besides, I'm the one carrying it and you don't hear me complaining." I'm happy to hear that others are still using their medium format cameras and not relegating them to the closet or Ebay. > Glad to see that I'm not the only one carrying around MF gear. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > -chasfs > http://chasfs.com I use digital mostly now. I've a mark one 1ds and also Olympus e1 BUT I still use film. I find 35mm print has the same res as 1ds, but with grain. I also scan MF and often take my Mamiya 6 kit on my cycletours. This gives fantastic results and a very high hit rate. I find MF colour better than digital as well. > I just came back from a trip to Alaska. I decided not to bring my 35mm > camera and to use my Hasselblad 553ELX. It was heavier than heavy, but > I figured I wanted to use what I have and get the quality I want... I have travelled with my Pentax 67 in its Pelican case and have taken wonderful pictures with it. My Crown Graphic is lighter and a lot easier to use handheld, but is a little awkward for taking lots and lots of pictures. My digital camera is no slouch (a Digital Rebel), but for pictures that look like *photography*, big film wins, hands down. Laura Halliday VE7LDH "Que les nuages soient notre Grid: CN89mg pied a terre..." ICBM: 49 16.05 N 122 56.92 W - Hospital/Shafte > close to our main destination with the glaciers. My traveling companion > with at least 1500 shots left in her camera gets her camera, holds it > up and suddenly...beep, nothing. Battery dead. She left the spare in > the hotel room and she's left with nothing to take pictures with. I, on > the other hand, was still shooting. My ELX battery still winding away. This is not a film v digital issue, rather a poor planning issue. Pete  Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk > minutes, but I moved away so others could take pictures. When I saw > what was unfolding before me I was too late to get in position. That > one untaken picture, unfortunately, is the one I keep going back to in > my mind. Don't dwell on it for too long. Missed shots are everywhere, for everyone. God to see I'm not alone in carrying a backpack full of gear that works. In my case it's a rb67. But I'm mad!... :-) (and yes: when the shots comeback, I just fill my eyes with the joy of those glorious, HUGE frames!) > So, I'm sure I'll continue to use my ancient Hasselblad since it brings > me satisfaction when I get the slides and negatives developed. I don't [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > need with what I have. As long as there's film available I'll continue > to use my medium format camera. After reading a great post I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents. I've used 35mm all my life and all of my cameras have been the fully automatic type - from my first Canon AE-1 to a Rebel Eos I recently sold on e-bay. In fact, I sold all of my 35mm gear so I could buy a new Canon S2IS digital camera - another fully automatic camera. I love the idea of digital - being able to take hundreds of pictures and not having to worry about processing and then discarding most of them. Then something special happened. My wife's grandfather died way back in 1980, but it wasn't till last month that we inherited his camera gear from her grandmother. There was a ton of old polaroids, Bell & Howell 8mm movie gear, an Agfa 35mm from about 1958 and a Yashica-Mat LM. The Yashica caught my attention last but held on to it the longest. I've spent the last two weeks reading online articles about how to use such a beast and I just finished my first roll of film. Tomorrow I'll take it to the processor and see what medium format prints look like. I love this thing! There's nothing automatic about it. The light meter still seems to work. I get to figure out (finally) how to set an aperature and shutter speed combination. I get to look down into a huge finder and wonder how to get my brain to work backwards - since everything seems to be reversed in the focusing screen. I live near the mountains of North Carolina and look forward to hauling this old camera and a tri-pod up to the Blue Ridge Parkway to see what kind of photos I can capture. I'm brand spanking new to medium format and can't wait to learn more about it! > aperature and shutter speed combination. I get to look down into a huge > finder and wonder how to get my brain to work backwards - since > everything seems to be reversed in the focusing screen. A word from the wise, whatever you do, don't go flying in a small plane and try to take pictures from the waist level finder. Believe me, the motion of you going forward, while the image in the viewfinder going backwards will make your sense of orientation bonkers. That was enough to make my plane trip stop being fun. > kind of photos I can capture. I'm brand spanking new to medium format > and can't wait to learn more about it! Welcome to medium format. You'll love it, especially when you start shooting slides and b/w film. Slides are just incredible to see on the lightbox. Nathan >Welcome to medium format. You'll love it, especially when you start >shooting slides and b/w film. Slides are just incredible to see on the >lightbox. Indeed they are. Pity MF projectors are so expensive. Until you see a projected 6x6cm image, you ain't seen nothing, provided all elements of good photography are in the image, especially when taken with a Zeiss lens in a Rolleiflex or Hasselblad. It relegates a projected 35mm to its rightful place. I've owned a Prinz Trumpf Halogen 6x6 manual projector for at least 30 years; I'll never sell it. My audiences care nothing about fade-ins, fade-outs, Ken Burns Effects, etc. A slideshow in 6x6 is like an IMAX movie. Affordable Prinz Trumpf projectors may be out there on eBay; if not, put in a Favorites search for that or any other brand you're familiar with. You owe it to yourself, your family, & friends. > Pity MF projectors are so expensive. >Until you see a projected 6x6cm image, you ain't seen nothing, provided >all elements of good photography are in the image, especially when >taken with a Zeiss lens in a Rolleiflex or Hasselblad. Someone else here (regretfully I cannot remember his name) once said that a projected 35mm slide was, well, just like a slide, whereas a 6x6 was like looking at the scene through a window. Finding an (affordable) projector was one of the reasons why I finally didn't buy a Mamiya 6x7 format rangefinder. > >Until you see a projected 6x6cm image, you ain't seen nothing, provided > >all elements of good photography are in the image, especially when [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Finding an (affordable) projector was one of the reasons why I finally > didn't buy a Mamiya 6x7 format rangefinder. A 6x7 projector, even if one exists, would be a rare bird (& very expensive). If you want to project MF slides, I think 6x6 is the only affordable way to go, so you ought to shop for a 6x6 camera. Again, eBay has good deals on MF cameras (I bought a Hasselblad 500cm in great condition for about $1k.) A lot of estate items are sold on eBay & a good Prinz Trumpf 6x6 projector could very well turn up if you establish a Favorites Search so you'll know when one comes on the market. I think that's what will happen to mine, when the time comes. (: (( But, don't hold your breath. [snip...] >A 6x7 projector, even if one exists, would be a rare bird (& very expensive). For the record, I have one such with a Linhof medallion, made by Leitz. Even used, it was fairly expensive. But oh -- it's like watching Cinerama. Strictly manual in operation; no automatic anything. - ----------------------------------------------------------- les clark / edgewater, nj / usa ----------------------------------------------------------- > > >Until you see a projected 6x6cm image, you ain't seen nothing, provided > > >all elements of good photography are in the image, especially when [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > A 6x7 projector, even if one exists, would be a rare bird (& very > expensive). Why are they so expensive? I know they are, I'm just wondering. Years ago, working in the jungle with someone who had a few slides but no way to show them, a couple of us knocked up a home-made 35mm slide projector that worked 'adequately' - so I know the technology and the tolerances are not that hard to deal with. For MF slides everything needs to be bigger, the light brighter, and the lens to have the coverage. OK, that pushes the price up, but if I was making a homemade one I'd look at a studio light (a Redhead would probably do as a starting point) for the light source, and an enlarger to get a nice big condensor lens. Then a bit of sheet metal working for the slide gate and changer. The projector lens would probably be an enlarger lens or process lens - enlarger lens would be faster, so brighter, and using one from a larger format than the slide would give a more suitable FL (and the coverage to do some keystone correction.) Now, if all that is 'reasonable' - why is it so expensive to do it commercially? Is it just the limited demand, or have I overlooked something vital? Peter > ......A 6x7 projector, even if one exists, would be a rare bird (& very > expensive). ....... et> "Even if one exists??" Of course one exists. The Cabin. But very expensive. But also available. Michael | "He's dead, Jim.".. A Cabin projector is now on eBay. Current bid: $0.99. > > ......A 6x7 projector, even if one exists, would be a rare bird (& very > > expensive). ....... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Michael | "He's dead, Jim.".. > A Cabin projector is now on eBay. Current bid: $0.99. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >> Michael | "He's dead, Jim.".. At B&H: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=1 2151&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation It is about $1300 with the lens. the item on ebay does not look like a 6x7 and might not even be Medium Format. SignatureMichael | "He's dead, Jim." Cabin made/makes [?] projecters in all formats. With a 75mm lens, this one is not medium format. It might even be half-frame 35mm format. Anyone truly in the market, Pro Photo Supply in Portland, Oregon, last week had a 6x7 Cabin projector, used but in nice shape, listed for about $1,000. I expect that the price is flexible. They are on the web. >> A Cabin projector is now on eBay. Current bid: $0.99. >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > is about $1300 with the lens. the item on ebay does not look like a 6x7 > and might not even be Medium Format. > A word from the wise, whatever you do, don't go flying in a small plane > and try to take pictures from the waist level finder. Believe me, the > motion of you going forward, while the image in the viewfinder going > backwards will make your sense of orientation bonkers. That was enough > to make my plane trip stop being fun. Easier & Better than that try a swing set sometime feet on the swing look down...puke city :) SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 18:32:12 -0400, "Greg \"_\"" <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote: >try a swing set sometime feet on the swing >look down...puke city :) August 9, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick, But I remember as a kid standing on the swing, holding the chains up high, and pumping away until I was too scared to continue. No going over the top for me! But I never puked on a swing! (After I fell off the monkey-bars flat onto my back, now that was pretty memorable ...) But that was childhood. Recently Natalie's grand children spun me around for a while on their truck-tire swing (tire held by three chains so it's a horizontal seat). The spinning seems tolerable until one tries to get up and walk. THEN it's puke city! Also rubber legs city and time to go take a rest in the dark. regards, --le ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. website: www.heylloyd.com telephone: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com ________________________________ -- "Lloyd Erlick" <Lloyd at @the-wire. dot com> wrote in message > grand children spun me around for a while on > their truck-tire swing (tire held by three > chains so it's a horizontal seat). The > spinning seems tolerable until one tries to > get up and walk. THEN it's puke city! Also > rubber legs city and time to go take a rest > in the dark. doesn't old age suck? >"Lloyd Erlick" <Lloyd at @the-wire. dot com> wrote in message > grand >children spun me around for a while on [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >doesn't old age suck? August 9, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick, and they weren't even my grand childen! --le > "Lloyd Erlick" <Lloyd at @the-wire. dot com> wrote in message > grand > children spun me around for a while on [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > doesn't old age suck? Beats the alternative. >doesn't old age suck? Of course, but considering the alternative, it isn't all that bad ... > "Lloyd Erlick" <Lloyd at @the-wire. dot com> wrote in message > grand > children spun me around for a while on [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > doesn't old age suck? Not half as bad as being struck by a large truck moving the opposite direction. SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com "Greg "_"" <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote in message news:grey_egg- >> doesn't old age suck? > > Not half as bad as being struck by a large truck moving the > opposite direction. Ouch. I remember when I was in London and I looked the wrong way and zoom, a car went by the other way. Man, those people in that country must have a law that pedestrians DON'T have the right of way. I need to learn the local laws before stepping off the curb. > On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 18:32:12 -0400, "Greg > \"_\"" <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > email: portrait@heylloyd.com > ________________________________ Sorry that was to be look down into the viewfinder.....then PUKE. SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com > A word from the wise, whatever you do, don't go flying in a small plane > and try to take pictures from the waist level finder. Believe me, the > motion of you going forward, while the image in the viewfinder going > backwards will make your sense of orientation bonkers. That was enough > to make my plane trip stop being fun. No problem there, I have enough trouble flying in a big plane, although I'd love to give a big, slow balloon trip a try! [SNIP] > I live near the mountains of North Carolina and look forward to hauling > this old camera and a tri-pod up to the Blue Ridge Parkway to see what > kind of photos I can capture. I'm brand spanking new to medium format > and can't wait to learn more about it! Have fun,and remember, "if at first you don't succeed..." TLRs are nice solid cameras, not much to go wrong and as I'm sure you've read, the lens on that 'mat is no slouch. You should find the square format is interesting too: if you haven't been cropping to square previously it may seem very different, but it has its own charms and there are some subjects it suits very well indeed. Getting a roll of slides film back and plonking the sheet down on the light-box for the first time is a continuing source of joy - like being a child coming downstairs on Christmas day to the pile of presents under the tree. Except it doesn't only happen once a year. Peter > Getting a roll of slides film back and plonking the sheet down on the > light-box for the first time is a continuing source of joy - like being a > child coming downstairs on Christmas day to the pile of presents under the > tree. Except it doesn't only happen once a year. How right you are about that. In fact, I've looked over my slides taken in Alaska over and over again. I just seem to find more things in the slide I missed each time I look at them with the 8x loupe, especially when looking at the glaciers. In fact, I still get a kick out of looking at slides I created years and years ago. I may print them out, but I'm going to bypass Ilfochrome for the first time ever and try to print them out on a Lightjet. I heard good things about Calypso Imaging so I may try them. From what I heard, since I've never done it before, is that slides print out much, much better when scanned and printed. When printing Ilfochrome without a contrast mask the final print's details looked pretty much like a projected image...with the lights on. In other words if details are barely discernable with the lights on that's basically what you'll get on the printed image. Mind you, the blacks will be jet black and everything will be sharper than sharp because it's a direct to print method, but the minute shadow details could be lost. Printing from a scanned image supposedly brings out those details. So I'm looking forward to trying that out. I may end up reprinting all my slides. > Getting a roll of slides film back and plonking the sheet down on the > light-box for the first time is a continuing source of joy - like being a > child coming downstairs on Christmas day to the pile of presents under the > tree. Except it doesn't only happen once a year. One of my problems at the moment is finding film and a place to process it. I live in Charlotte and stopped by a local Wolf Camera. I bought their only two rolls of 120 - both rolls were B&W film, one ISO 100 and the other 400. It appears they were on the shelf for a year or two. I used the 400 first just to figure out how to load the camera and see what works and then dropped it off at QC Gallery Works [http://qcgalleryworks.com/] for processing. That's where I learned that getting this film developed is an a la cart method - one price for processing, another for proof prints and a third for scan services! The lowest cost method seemed to be processing ($6/roll) and low res scanning. ($5/roll). They suggested proof prints and offered 4x6, 4x5 or 5x5 sizes. I had no idea what size I need so we just went for the scanning for now. "sr3" <scottr3@gmail.com> wrote in message > [http://qcgalleryworks.com/] for processing. That's where I learned > that getting this film developed is an a la cart method - one price for > processing, another for proof prints and a third for scan services! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > or 5x5 sizes. I had no idea what size I need so we just went for the > scanning for now. Those prices seemed about right. I normally pay about $18 for 1 roll of color negative film processed with 5x5 proof prints made. For B/W film I just do it myself. For slides I get them processed at a local colorlab. Unfortunately for me I now need to go a little further than I did previously because my favorite lab went out of business. That old lab used to be open from 9am - 10pm daily, then they cut the days and hours and finally they were closed. Sign of the times. >One of my problems at the moment is finding film and a place to process >it. I live in Charlotte and stopped by a local Wolf Camera. I bought >their only two rolls of 120 - both rolls were B&W film, one ISO 100 and >the other 400. It appears they were on the shelf for a year or two. This is not a flip answer - I suggest you learn to process it yourself. B&W is not hard. You just have to be conscientious about your measurements, times, and temperatures. You can do it in your kitchen with light-safe tanks and a changing bag. C-41 color is not hard at all, especially if you use the Tetenal Rapid system. All you need is a plastic tub you can temper your chemicals and tanks in (keep them at a constant temp). E-6 is a little complicated, especially if you're using the full 6-bath process. For E-6, I definitely recommend a small rotary processor. My chemical costs are less than 75 cents a roll for B&W using primarily Ilford chemistry (Ilfotec DD-X mostly, along with Ilfostop, Rapid Fix, and Kodak Photoflo rinse aid). C-41 and E-6 are less than $2 per roll. If you can lay your hands on a Jobo processor in good condition, for a good price on eBay, it'll pay for itself - and quickly if you shoot a fair amount. B&H is my primary film supplier. I'm in Baltimore, and within a one-day shipping zone for UPS ground. SignatureRob on the Web - Trouble In Paradise http://rob.rnovak.net > This is not a flip answer - I suggest you learn to process it > yourself. > > B&W is not hard. You just have to be conscientious about your > measurements, times, and temperatures. You can do it in your kitchen > with light-safe tanks and a changing bag. Not a bad idea. I used to process B&W 35mm film about three decades ago. I bet it's like riding a bike... Scott > This is not a flip answer - I suggest you learn to process it > yourself. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 6-bath process. For E-6, I definitely recommend a small rotary > processor. I agree with all the above. I used to have just basic canisters and a home made tempering tub that was well insulated. My very first try with E-6 went without a hitch and every role was perfect. I would suggest picking up a very accurate thermometer though. And if you have trouble keeping the water temperature from fluctuating...try processing in a small enclosure where you can keep the ambient room temperature closer to the temperature of the chemicals. You may have to strip down a bit to keep comfortable. Now that I picked up a 50mm MF lens I'm going to start shooting more film, then scan. > One of my problems at the moment is finding film and a place to process > it. I live in Charlotte and stopped by a local Wolf Camera. I bought > their only two rolls of 120 - both rolls were B&W film, one ISO 100 and > the other 400. It appears they were on the shelf for a year or two. Charlotte Camera 5341 Ballantyne Commons Pkwy Suite 300 Charlotte, NC 28277 They stock 120 film for B&W (C41 & traditional), color print & slide > I used the 400 first just to figure out how to load the camera and see > what works and then dropped it off at QC Gallery Works [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > or 5x5 sizes. I had no idea what size I need so we just went for the > scanning for now. Charlotte Camera may be able to recommend a lab with better service as well if you don't want to do your own processing. As for B&W proofing, ask for a contact sheet. > finder and wonder how to get my brain to work backwards - since > everything seems to be reversed in the focusing screen. Once you get it like that you don't want it any other which way. > I live near the mountains of North Carolina and look forward to hauling > this old camera and a tri-pod up to the Blue Ridge Parkway to see what > kind of photos I can capture. I'm brand spanking new to medium format > and can't wait to learn more about it! You really need a LF camera, the surroundings really demand it- I envy your location. One of my favorite stories is setting up the 4x5 Toyo E on a slippery boulder in light rain at Nantahala NP at WW Falls the drop was a cool 555 plus drop off the front side where I was set up. My brother can attest it was plain nutzo to drag the 30 pound plywood box out of the car and hustle it past the signage warning of the potentially dangerous fall. Hey even though the light sucked I set the camera and got the shot. Here's a good look. http://www.cs.unca.edu/nfsnc/recreation/wncwaterfalls/whitewaterfalls.htm SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 18:30:25 -0400, "Greg \"_\"" <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote: >Here's a good look. > >http://www.cs.unca.edu/nfsnc/recreation/wncwaterfalls/whitewaterfalls.htm Huh. The web page calls it "the highest waterfall east of the Rockies" at 411 feet. But here's Amicalola falls in Georgia (essentially the southern end of the Appalachian Trail) claiming the same thing, ("the tallest cascading waterfall east of the Mississippi River") and its height is given as 729 feet. <http://www.gastateparks.org/info/amicalola/> rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 18:30:25 -0400, "Greg \"_\"" > <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > rafe b > www.terrapinphoto.com I think the 411 drop is for the upper part of the falls there are two sections- but I didn't measure or for that matter make the claim :) SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com >>On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 18:30:25 -0400, "Greg \"_\"" >><grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I think the 411 drop is for the upper part of the falls there are two > sections- but I didn't measure or for that matter make the claim :) Amicalola is a cascade, meaning it tumbles down over a rock face instead of having a clear drop. Whitewater doesn't really have a clear drop, but it's a lot more vertical than Amicalola. There's a whole lot of waterfalls in the area around Whitewater falls. Right up NC 281 from Whitewater, is Gorges State Park. The Horsepasture river is on the southern boundary of the park and there are at least 3 good waterfalls along it between NC 281 and the SC state line. And if you go into the Duke Power visitors parking just south of Whitewater falls, you can access lower falls via a dirt road & trail that leads to another viewing platform, although it's a long walk with heavy camera loads. > > I think the 411 drop is for the upper part of the falls there are two > > sections- but I didn't measure or for that matter make the claim :) > Amicalola is a cascade, meaning it tumbles down over a rock face instead > of having a clear drop. Whitewater doesn't really have a clear drop, but [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > that leads to another viewing platform, although it's a long walk with > heavy camera loads. Good to know, there's someone with a semblance of knowledge- Thanks! I've been to Bridal Veil, Dry Falls, and Linville....and of course WW. SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com > I live near the mountains of North Carolina and look forward to hauling > this old camera and a tri-pod up to the Blue Ridge Parkway to see what > kind of photos I can capture. I'm brand spanking new to medium format > and can't wait to learn more about it! Scott, you might check out Carolinas Nature Photographers Association. http://www.cnpa.org/ They have a strong chapter in Asheville NC, and another in Charlotte, NC. They host frequent fieldtrips into the NC mountains and will share lots of information about some of the hidden goodies. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895871106/002-8265416-0790433?v=glance&n=283155 Kevin Adams is one of our members. > Scott, you might check out Carolinas Nature Photographers Association. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Kevin Adams is one of our members. Thanks! I'm all over it! All this talk reminds me of an article in the Charlotte Observer, May 18 1997, titled Peak Performance. They described the 13 most interesting mountain peaks around the Charlotte area. The article covered places in four different states from Black Rock Mtn in GA all the way up to Stone Mountain near West Jefferson, North Carolina. The trip was about 1200 miles and we did it in two days. I'd love to do it again in slow motion, perhaps taking a week and dozens of rolls of film. The hard part though is we now have three small kids and they (or is it me) don't have the patience for a road trip of that length. Stone Mountain was the most surprising peak of the whole trip and still one of our favorites... http://ils.unc.edu/parkproject/visit/stmo/home.html Scott >>Scott, you might check out Carolinas Nature Photographers Association. >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Scott From Stone Mountain State Park, take US 21 N to the Blue Ridge Parkway. Take the Parkway south & at the first overlook looking east, on a clear day, you'll be able to see both Stone Mountain, AND Pilot Mountain north of Winston Salem. http://ils.unc.edu/parkproject/visit/pimo/home.html I took y'all up on some of the suggestions here... > >>Scott, you might check out Carolinas Nature Photographers Association. > >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >>NC. They host frequent fieldtrips into the NC mountains and will share > >>lots of information about some of the hidden goodies. Joined the CNPA and have been downloading and reading the newsletter archives.... > >>Kevin Adams is one of our members. I bought his book "North Carolina Waterfalls" and took the family on a hike around Stone Mountain's Loop Trail... > From Stone Mountain State Park, take US 21 N to the Blue Ridge Parkway. > Take the Parkway south & at the first overlook looking east, on a clear > day, you'll be able to see both Stone Mountain, AND Pilot Mountain north > of Winston Salem. I stopped at this overlook and the day wasn't anywhere close to clear. Anything beyond Stone Mountain was covered in haze but, that's typical weather. Clear weather would have been unusual! Still loved the views though. This gave me the bright idea of driving down the Blue Ridge Parkway expecting to find an overlook on the western side of the mountains in hopes of getting a nice sunset photo. We drove from the Stone Mountain overlook to the Black Mountains overlook 20 miles north of Asheville (a five hour drive including a dinner stop on the side of the road) and learned something interesting - almost every single overlook on that section of the parkway looks EAST! The sun set before we could find anything facing west. Oh well - the family had a lot of fun on our twelve hour trek and I used up my first five rolls of 120 film in my grandfather's old camera. Now the Yashica-Mat LM is in a UPS box on it's way to see Mr. Mark Hama for some tendor loving care. http://markhama.com/ > I took y'all up on some of the suggestions here... >> From Stone Mountain State Park, take US 21 N to the Blue Ridge Parkway. >>Take the Parkway south & at the first overlook looking east, on a clear [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > weather. Clear weather would have been unusual! > Still loved the views though. Used to get a lot more clear days up there. Most of that haze is industrial smog blowing out of the midwest across Kentucky & western Virginia and into the Blue Ridge. At that, it had been getting better under the EPA, until the last few years. > This gave me the bright idea of driving down the Blue Ridge Parkway > expecting to find an overlook on the western side of the mountains in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > section of the parkway looks EAST! The sun set before we could find > anything facing west. Probably the best place in the area for that is right after you cross over US 421 between Wilksboro and Boone. Somewhere about the second overlook (which looks east of course - north of mile 280) there's a trail on the other side of the road that goes up to the top of a nice high hill with a wide meadow at the top. I've done sunsets from the top of that hill. On top of Mt Mitchell is also a good place for photographing sunsets, although I think they've removed the old tower now. The existing 30' tower is to be replaced by one that's half as tall, but much wider. I don't know when the new observation platform is scheduled to open, but it's supposed to be completely ADA compliant. NC State Parks had this image accompanying the press release. http://ils.unc.edu/parkproject//parknews/releases/photo/mtmitchell_platform2.jpg Another good one is to jump off the Parkway at Asheville & go west on I-40; south on US 19-23 (??) to Waynesville. Stay on US 23 and get back on the Parkway headed west. Waterrock Knob and Soco Gap should both give good western views for sunset. Waterrock Knob is about 10 miles from US 23. Soco Gap gives about 220 degrees of southerly view from ENE to WNW. Or if you stay on the Parkway continue south of Asheville to about Mile 425 to Devil's Courthouse. Climb all the way up to the overlook (about 1500' elevation change IIRC) and you'll have nearly a 360 degree panorama. South of the Parkway once you've passed Asheville is real NC Waterfall country. Check out Dupont State Park. SignatureThese are my views. If you've got a problem with it, you can blame it on me, but this is what I think. I am not the official spokes-person for any Government, Commercial or Educational institution. John Thanks for a great post, John. I'm tucking it into my Gazetteer for the next road trip! Scott > I just came back from a trip to Alaska. I decided not to bring my 35mm > camera and to use my Hasselblad 553ELX. It was heavier than heavy, but > I figured I wanted to use what I have and get the quality I want. My > traveling companion used a tiny Canon P/S digital camera with a > capacity of 2000 shots (wow!). ... Dead batteries with no spares shows poor planning, and 2000 shots on a digital P&S probably comes at the cost of terrible quality. Like you, I shoot MF for the big negative quality. The weight is not that much more (and is sometimes less!) than 35mm. Most of my MF cameras are strictly mechanical, but the batteries on my Pentax 645 seem to last for about 80 rolls of 220 (2400 shots - a lot). I seldom use more than 2 ProPacks (160 - 300 shots, depending on format) on a shoot. No big problem. Recently I got a Nikon D200 to replace my 35mm gear. Digital now gives better quality than 35mm film, shooting RAW at 10.2mp. The special battery is a potential problem, but it seems reliable. I get about 100 shots on a 2Gb card, and the battery lasts for more than 2 cards before I have to recharge. I carry a spare, just in case, and I make sure both batteries are fully charged before the shoot. About the same rationale goes for the 8mp P&S I usually have in my pocket. Such simple precautions make digital work pretty reliable, although I'm not sure I'll be able to read the pictures from their DVDs in 30 years. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.