10-10-2012 8:51 PM - edited 10-10-2012 9:10 PM
I'm truly impressed with your images S.J. Yep....that Canon is doing a great job for you.
I thought Craters of the Moon was one of the most fascinating parks I've ever visited. Lots of wildlife there also. Our kids had lots of fun feeding tidbits to the little ground squirrels that roamed the rocks and boulders around the campsites.
I'm just itching to take another trip out west to the mountain areas....if my lungs will support me in the rarified air. I've got both my Canon XSi DSLR and my new Panasonic Lumix pocket camera with the Leica super zoom lens. We had plans this past summer but the drought and heat kept us at home. In 2013 we're going...come heck or high water. I want to get back to Utah also. Arches National Park is a photographers paradise.
The 35mm camera I was using back in 1967 was a Voightlander Vito III. It was a compact rangefinder camera with a bellows and fold-up front. Voightlander lenses were top of the line and the Vito III used one of their newest of the time...an f:2 50mm Ultron. Very sharp lens. It wasn't until 1972 that I moved over to my new Konica T-3 SLR with the Konica f1.4 -50mm lens or my f2.8 zoom lens that I purchased in the Virgin Islands.
My biggest regret about the Lumix pocket camera is that it doesn't allow shooting in RAW format. I've become so accustom to the control it gives me with my images that I feel kind of helpless without it. I'm sure that I'll continue using the Canon DSLR for most of my photography.
In 1959 ...as a college graduation present....my wife and I traveled to the Rockies and spent quite a big of time out in Colorado. It was that year the the big earthquake hit in Yellowstone. Some campgrounds were quickly flooded and it was a fairly big disaster. A new lake was formed on the west side of the park and the plumbing of some of the geysers was affected enough to change their eruption timing. Even Old Faithful was interrupted....but I don't remember how much. There were other changes too. Some smaller geysers ceased activity completely and Yellowstone lake's bottom rose. That huge magma chamber underneath the Yellowstone volcano is still active. It's a monster. The volcano's crater is nearly as large as the park. Next time it goes up.....life in the U.S. will be changed.....and probably a good share of the rest of the planet too.
We were in Yellowstone with our children in summer of 1972. I did not have a wide angle lens so my picture of the pool is tightly cropped. This was on 35mm Kodachrome 64 film.
Let's see if it looks any different from what you saw, S.J. Your photo is MUCH better.
10-10-2012 10:07 PM
10-11-2012 9:51 AM - last edited on 10-11-2012 10:49 AM by Phil-101
Interesting discussion on photography and Somejoe's trip to the Intermountain West. Do y'all remember Ektar print film, from Kodak? The red's really popped with that particular film.
[edited to reflect thread 257 status change]
10-11-2012 11:18 AM
I do remember Ektar, although I think I rarely used it. Kodachrome 64 was always my film of choice, it captured color like no other.
Even today though, there are some 35mm films still made that have their own reputation. Fujichrome Velvia 100 is well-known by nature photographers for its ability to capture highly saturated colors under daylight conditions, especially purples. I didn't shoot this one, but here's an example:
Sunset over the St. Lawrence River (shot on 6cm x 6cm Fujichrome Velvia 100)
10-11-2012 11:35 AM - edited 10-11-2012 11:37 AM
Well...Dave...no I don't remember an Ektar film from Kodak. But I could be just forgetful. They did have a color negative film for making prints that was named Ektacolor. When I hear the "Ektar" name I think of Kodak lenses because that was one of their brands. I used to have a 2 1/4" X 3 1/4 " Graflex camera that I had a Kodak Ektar lens for. The lens was pretty much standard "normal" photo length. Around 80mm I think and was moderately fast with maximum of f4.5.
Actually....a lot of professionals used to shoot Ektacolor Professional color negative film. It was the ideal film for them because gorgeous color prints and/or color transparencies could be made from images on the negative film. But...in my working days....I had some contacts with National Geographic Photographers and they pretty much used ONLY Kodachrome. Ektachrome was good too but a completely different type of film with totally different chemistry. It's biggest problem was with long term storage because it could suffer from fading.....even when stored in total darkness if climate conditions were not carefully controlled. So for archival purposes....Kodachrome was the film of choice for those N.G. boys & girls. Nat. Geographic would purchase entire production runs of Kodak film so....on an assignment....a photographer would be shooting everything on an identical emulsion number. And those emulsion runs were thoroughly tested for color balance, etc. before they turned it loose for use by their people.
S.J., I also use the 18-55mm kit lens with my Canon DSLR. I've been pretty impressed with it's sharpness. I also have the mate to that lens....the 55-250mm lens and I've had good results with it also. These are not expensive lenses but pretty darn good for the price. For when we are traveling I would like to have an excellent, general-purpose super zoom for my Canon. The one that has received much critical acclaim in reviews is the Tamron 18-270mm zoom. (about 27-405mm in 35mm camera terms) It is quite compact and....for a lens with so much range...amazingly low distortion. At B & H Photo it runs around $500 if there is a sale on. At my age and income I just haven't been able to bring myself to part with the bucks. But it sure would be nice to not have to be fumbling around changing lenses on-the-go. With my luck I'm gonna drop one of my lenses while I'm trying to switch them as I'm hanging over the railing on a boat or perched on a rock at the edge of a canyon. Know what I mean? An all-in-one would be very handy to have. Hey!....maybe I should just purchase another camera body and put the other lens on it and then I wouldn't have to worry about those risky lens switching tasks. Wonder if momma will swallow THAT excuse? Heck. It sounds plausible to me.
Well...anyway...those image you got on your trip were really super. Thanks so much for sharing.
10-11-2012 11:39 AM - edited 10-11-2012 11:43 AM
SJ: Nice! I also experienced popping colors like that with Fujichrome. I did alot with Fuji negative film, too. I liked it because the greens popped more for nature photos and It actually worked best for me in my racing photos. There were hardly any green cars (save for Teo Fabi @ Indy ), so I didn't have a problem with greens being oversaturated. The grain was a bit sharper than the normal Kodak print film. The normal Kodak negative film seemed to highlight yellows while Ektar overdid the reds. It was a bit disconcerting to give or sell photos when your eye is drawn to a part of a white car that is red, like the number, a decal or a window net. Ektar often took even the tiniest red object and made it look like it was glowing.
Phil: Here is a link to a Wiki article on Ektar. It morphed into Kodak Royal Gold. I used ASA 25, 100 and the ill fated 125 varieties. It came out right in the middle of my racing photography days. The wiki article also talks about Ektar lenses, too.
10-11-2012 12:04 PM
NASCAR Cup driver Dale Earnhardt to miss at least the next two "Chase" cup races due to a concussion from a tire test in August (!) and partially due to last weekend's huge pileup. WOW! Regan Smith will now drive the 88, Kurt Busch is already announced to be in Smith's old 78 ride and AJ Allmendinger will be in the Phoenix 51.
10-11-2012 5:55 PM
Thanks for the info. on Ektar film, Dave. OK....by that time I was shooting all Kodachrome. Then I shifted completely to digital in 1999. Very interesting stuff on the Ektar. There was also a regular, mass market negative print film well known as Kodacolor. The only time I ever used foreign produced films was in my B & W days. I was a fan of the Gevalux products. (hope I spelled the correctly) If I remember correctly it was a product of Belgium. But pls. don't hold me to that. Too many years have passed and my internal HDD is in pretty bad shape.
If you ever come to the Kansas City area to attend any races at the huge Kansas Raceway facility......drop me a PM and we'll arrange a meet. The Kansas facility is huge....and is part of a complex that includes big hotel and casino. All relatively new. I've never been to the big track north of Fort Worth but have driven by it many times. THAT is some installation also. When I was a teenager I used to enjoy going to the races at the Kansas State Fair....but as I got older....other priorities....like family and school and work seemed to take over.