|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
Photo by Camilla Mortensen
|
Almost all of the images on this site were made on public lands in the American West, including national forests, Bureau of Land Management districts, national parks and national wildlife refuges. I keep a periodic blog some of my travels to national forests here. I have traveled extensively in the West; a complete list of public lands that I've visited can be found here.
Brett Cole did the basic design for this site. Brett is a great photographer and a real whiz with any sort of web or graphic design task. Everything that looks clumsy or amateurish isn't his fault, it's because I messed with it. Brett is also the most devoted photographer I know—he is constantly traveling and making images in support of conservation efforts around the globe. Check out his work here.
I like larger format film cameras and I'm a fanatic when it comes to color fidelity and sharpness. The orginal transparencies of all these images are very sharp with brilliant colors. Unfortunately most of these images have not received the attention they need when it comes to scanning and correction (I am only occasionally able to convince Brett to drop his conservation efforts in South Africa, Peru, British Columbia, etc., etc. to help me correct my images). Even with proper correction the web is an extremely poor medium for viewing the large color transparencies I make. The difference between the images you see here and a large print is substantial.
Most of the landscape photography on this site was done with a Mamiya 7II 6x7cm camera and the 65mm f/4, 80mm f/4 and 150mm f/4.5 lenses. Most of the portrait and telephoto work was done with a 35mm Canon EOS-3, with the 24-70 f/2.8L, 70-200 f/4L, 100mm macro, and 400mm f/5.6L lenses. I review all of this equipment below. I am most interested in landscape photography, I only occasionally take pictures of people.
None of these images are digitally manipulated to alter the color, exposure, or composition of the original transparencies. If anything, the original transparencies have far more brilliant colors and tones.
I am not convinced that use of computers to manipulate images has actually expanded the creative possibilities of photography. Instead, digitally manipulated images look the same to me—gaudy, unrealistic colors and predictable compositions. Almost all landscape photographers these days do a lot of digital manipulation of their images. Those that disclose this usually explain the computer manipulation they employ as an effort to convey to the viewer the depth of their feelings for nature and wilderness. My methods are distinguishable in that I show viewers how natural light interacts with film at the moment of exposure and I leave it at that. I like to be outdoors and don't care to deal with any part of the process of creating images except the being outdoors part.
My technique is limited by a reliance on dramatic natural light and by the narrow exposure lattitude of the slow speed Fujichrome that I use most of the time. Although both my cameras have built in meters, I usually control exposure manually using a Sekonic L-588 in its spot metering mode. A typical situation has me placing selected subject matter on Zone IV, V or VI, and letting other subjects in the scene fall somewhere between Zone I and VII. With low speed films like Velvia, subjects falling on Zone I and II will be rendered as pitch black. Zone III will show minimal texture. Zone VII is usually quite overexposed and Zone VIII and above is always unnaceptably overexposed.
The dramatic tones and colors in these images are usually the result of exposing film in the aftermath of violent weather events. I occasionally use a Heliopan polarizing filter and/or a B&W two-stop neutral density-graduated filter. The graduated filter is a screw-in type with the graduated shading split down the middle so it can't be adjusted up or down, but every once in a while it’s useful for lowering the value of bright skies in certain compositions. Low speed Fujochrome gives more than enough color saturation for any subject, and I use the polarizer primarily to reduce glare from water and occasionally the glare from vegetation like the plasticy and highly reflective sword fern.
I have done relatively little photography in the last two years. I am contemplating a photography project in the Klamath Siskiyous that may make me much busier.
I am attracted to color slide film photography in large part because I don't have to do anything but compose and expose and send the film away. But I have been experimenting with black and white film, mostly Fuji Acros 100 and Ilford Delta 100. I am a slow learner. It took me about six years to be able to visualize the interaction of light with Fujichrome precisely. I believe there is far more nuance to master in the much greater range of exposure values possible with the Acros and Ilford negatives.
I use a variety of color films, including Velvia 100, Provia 100, Astia 100 and Ektachrome E100S. Velvia 100 provides somewhat similar color saturation and sharpness as Velvia 50 with an extra stop of speed. It also performs well pushed a stop. Velvia 100 is a different film than Velvia 100F. I can't figure out what Velvia 100F is good for.
Overview: I like the Mam 7 because it is portable, almost as portable as a 35mm camera. It’s the only bigger-than-35mm system I know of you can stick in a backback and haul 50 miles along with tent, sleeping bag, food, tripod, etc. The lenses are incredible. They are well made and take exceptionally sharp images. There are a limited number of lenses (43mm, 50mm, 65mm, 80mm, 150mm and 210mm) made for this body. It's an ideal system for landscape photographers who want to move fast and use wide angle lenses.
The camera body is made primarily out of plastic. I wish it were made of sterner stuff, but the good news is that it is light. I subjected the body I own to very rough use and it held together fine for almost five years, at which point I shelled out $300 for a complete overhaul of the internal components. The lenses are better built and have held together fine without the slightest malfunction. The only exception was when I dropped my 150mm lens in a mud bog in Banff National Park. The shutter stopped working and I had to spend almost $400 repairing it.
The body has electronics. All the electronics do is work the meter and fire the shutter. Everything else—winding, focusing, etc.—is manual. But it cannot take a picture without a battery.
The front lens cap Mamiya provides with these lenses really ticks me off. It is an extremely cheap little piece of plastic that doesn't stay on very well and that I do not trust to protect the front of the lens. I use the excellent Canon lens cap replacements (about $5 each). It's unbelievable to me that you could pay thousands of dollars for a lens and not be provided a good lens cap.
Depth of field and other issues: This system, like all larger formats that don’t have tilt and shift, can be frustrating for photographers who are used to creating depth and impact by placing foreground subjects close to the lens. The minimum focus distances range from 3-7 feet, depending on the lens. If you intend for the entire scene to be in focus, you must be even further away from the foreground subject matter than the minimum focal distance. With the 150mm lens, for example, hyperfocal depth can be achieved for subjcts between 30 feet and infinity. With any subjects closer than 30 feet either the foreground or the background will be at least somewhat out of focus.
When you are working with a small selection of fixed focal lengths, limited depth of field, and limited minimum focus distance you have to make a lot of compromises. Many images that are easily visualized and executed with a 35mm system are difficult to achieve with this camera.
The depth of field marks on the lenses are too generous. I use the aperture mark two stops below the one indicated, i.e., I use the f/11 depth of field marker when using f/22 to make images sharp enough for oversized enlargements. Of course, this method only exacerbates the depth of field problems.
How do you focus, change lenses and stuff? This camera is a rangefinder. For three of the lenses, a green frame corresponding to the angle of view of the lens that's mounted appears in a built-in viewfinder. With the 43mm and 50mm lenses mounted, you focus with the built-in viewfinder, but compose the photograph with a detachable viewfinder that mounts on the hot shoe. This design concession is undoubtedly unavoidable, but kind of a pain in the butt. For one thing, when you’re composing with the viewfinder, your breath is fogging up the viewing prism that you focus with.
The 210mm, which I've never handled, also takes a detachable viewfinder. I've never seen the 50mm lens up close, either. I used to own the 43mm. It made fantastically sharp super wide angle images, but I did not use it very often and ended up selling it. My collection consists of the 65mm, 80mm and 150mm lenses.
The 43mm lens is the equivalent of a 21mm 35mm lens. 65mm = 31mm, 80mm = 39mm, 150 = 71mm, 210mm = 105mm.
I’ve heard people complain that it's hard to focus with the 150mm. Focusing has never given me the slightest problem, but the frame that appears in the viewfinder when the 150mm is mounted is small. The focus ring on my 150mm is quite stiff, but I don't mind.
When focused on infinity, focus to the left of the infinity mark whcn looking down on the lens barrel from above and behind the camera body, don’t just rack the lens focus ring all the way over, because the lens may focus past infinity for some reason (Mamiya says it’s because the focus ring expands or contracts in different climates).
I don't focus with the built-in rangefinder. Instead, I use a Fotoman Auxliary Rangefinder. Robert White sells it and has a nice picture of it here. Unfortunately for my friends at RW, I have to report that a US company, Badger Graphics, sells this little gizmo for less.
With Fotoman unit and the Sekonic spot meter in hand, I typically manuever the camera body to find the right composition, lock it in place on the tripod, then set the exposure and focal settings using my hand held gear. For me, this is a far faster and more efficient workflow than composing, then using the viewfinder to hunt around in the scene for the right focal setting and exposure.
Switching lenses on this camera is easy. There’s a winder thingy (which I have broken off twice now) on the bottom of the camera that closes a curtain over the film plane. The camera won’t let you change lenses without closing the curtain (although it will let you take as many pictures as you want with the lens cap still on the lens). When your lens is mounted, push a button on the bottom of the body to open the curtain.
You cannot change film with most quick release tripod mounting plates attached, because most plates block the film spool stud that sticks out of the bottom of the camera body when you change rolls. See here for a discussion about getting the right quick release plate for this camera. I use a Kirk BL-711 L bracket mount designed specifically for the Mam 7. It lets you change film and use a cable release without removing the plate. You can order it here. It's the best purchase I've ever made for this camera.
|
 |
|
Top left: The front of the Mamiya 7II with 150mm lens mounted. The red light below "Mamiya 7II" is the timer light. To the right of that is the timer button, to the right of that is the focusing prism, to the right of that, the meter, to the right of that, the viewfinder. Note the Kirk L bracket on the right side of the camera. Right: The top of the Mamiya 7II, showing (from bottom) the hotshoe, three-in one control dial, film advance lever and on/off switch. Bottom left: The curtain winder and curtain release switch that lets you change lenses without exposing the film. Note the Kirk L bracket mounted. Photos by Brett Cole.
|
The Mam 7 has a built-in meter housed next to the view finder. It is basically an oversized spot meter that takes a reading of the center, oh, about 8% or so of the viewing screen (depending on the lens mounted). This camera does not provide the fancy weighted or "matrix" metering you find in modern 35mm SLRs. You can set exposure manually, or set the camera to an aperture priority setting. In the aperture priority setting, you set the aperture and the camera selects the correct shutter speed (which is displayed in the viewfinder). It also has a aperture priority auto exposure (AE) mode in which you can meter an area, hold the shutter down half-way to lock in that exposure reading, recompose and shoot. This is a nice feature for hand held work, but you can't use it with a timer or cable release, so it has little utility for landscapes. Yes, this camera takes very sharp images at relatively slow speeds handheld. However, the resolving power of these lenses are so great the difference between hand held images and images made with the camera secured on a tripod will be apparent when transparencies are viewed with a powerful loupe.
Aperture is set with a dial on the lens. The camera fires the shutter, but the shutter mechanism and aperture diaphrams are built into the lens. This camera is just a box that holds the film.
This is a rangefinder camera—it does not meter through the lens. So you have to dial in exposure compensation manually when using filters that require compensation. Setting exposure manually, selecting film speed, and exposure compensation (+/- two stops in 1/3 increments) are all accomplished via a cheap, plasticy three-in-one knob/dial thingy on the top of the camera. Manual exposure compensation has become second nature for me and has improved my ability to visualize exposure.
Mamiya makes a polarizing filter especially for this camera. To use it you tension the polarizer housing in place over the barrel of the lens, which can be a pain in the butt (I was always nervous about scratching the front glass). Then the glass polarizing element can be flipped up and in-line with the built in meter, allowing you to meter through the polarizer in the AE mode. Then you flip the glass element back down in place over the lens for the photograph. This sounds like a cumbersome operation and it kind of is. The utility of this device is also limited by the fact that, as noted, you can't use the timer or cable release in AE mode. So you can meter directly through the polarizer, but you have to depress the shutter manually to take a photograph. I always ended up compensating for exposure manually. I mean, the exposure compensation for this filter is always +2, so why not just dial that in when the polarizer is mounted? A final issue: You can't fit the polarizer over another filter.
The upside of this polarizer is that it's a truly exceptional piece of glass purpose made for the lenses that produces great images. Nevertheless, I haven't really missed mine since it fell out my pocket into 800 feet of water in Prince William Sound. I do miss the $150 I paid for the thing.
The camera has a built in ten-second timer. Ten seconds, no more, no less. A switch that blocks the travel of the film when you work the film advance lever allows you to take multiple exposures on one frame of film.
Top: The Kirk bracket designed for the Mamiya 7II allows the film spool stud to pop out of the bottom of the camera. Bottom left: The Mamiya 7II with the 150mm lens mounted on the Markins ballhead and Gitzo 1325 tripod. Bottom right: The Sekonic L-588. Photos by Brett Cole. |
How much does it cost? The Mam 7 body retails for $1,500 (Adorama), which is kind of ridiculous if you ask me. A Nikon F100 is built like a tank, has 500 computers and 500 million different functions and gadgets and will only cost you $750. You are not paying for the body when you buy this system, you’re paying for the lenses. The cheapest lens is the 80mm "standard view" that usually costs about two-thirds to half what the body costs. The 43mm and 50mm are the expensive ones—more than double the cost of the body.
I got all my gear for far, far less than the prices quoted above by buying through Robert White in the UK. I bought the equipment back when the US dollar was worth a lot more than it is now, so don't think the screaming deal I got is still available. If the price is right, I cannot recommend Robert White highly enough. They are simply the friendliest and most professional business I have ever dealt with.
I assume that the used price of this camera and lenses will continue to come down as digital cameras expand into the market previously occupied exclusively by medium format and as professional photographers and wealthy amatuers unload their Mam 7s for the latest umpteen million megapixel digital camera. I wouldn't hesitate to buy used Mamiya lenses from a reputable dealer or trusted private seller. The lenses are very well made and if there's not obvious defects you can be assured they will work fine for years.
I mostly use Canon gear these days if I’m going to be shooting 35mm. I think the glass is just as good and slightly cheaper than the Nikon line of lenses. Canon seems to me to offer a larger variety of lenses and the zoom ranges of "L" lenses seem better thought out to me than the comparable offerings from Nikon.
The other reason I like Canon may seem dumb, but here goes. You have to spend $5,000 or so on an F5 to get a Nikon camera with a mirror lock up feature, which is a feature I use most of the time and most Canon bodies have. I wish you could lock up the mirror on the N90s, F100 or N80. If Nikon made a lenses like the Canon 400 f/5.6L, offered ranges like the 24-70mm, 70-200mm combination, and had a mirror lock-up feature in a reasonably priced body, then Nikon would be more attractive to me. I do think they are better built.
Nikons also have a far, far, far better viewfinder. Looking through my old N90s viewfinder was like looking through a window. Looking through my EOS-3 is like squinting through a keyhole. The Rebels are even worse. Why can’t Canon make a camera body for less than $1,000 that you can look through???
If you are sensitive to the ethics of large multinational corporations, you should know that Canon spends a lot of money advertising itself as a globally responsible corporation committed to conserving endangered species and their habitat. Nikon, on the other hand, is owned by Mitsubishi, one of the most irresponsible businesses around. Among other things, they are rapacious liquidators of tropical rainforests. (I don't know anything about Mamiya, except that they are constantly rumored to be going broke, so they can't be all bad.)
I use the EOS-3 body. It does everything the EOS-1 does. Someone will no doubt correct me, but I think the only difference is that the EOS-1 has a few more matrix metering segmens, and a few extra customs. Plus I think it is somewhat more ruggedly constructed. The EOS-3 has literally hundreds of custom functions and settings. I have mastered exactly two of them: The mirror lock up and the battery test function. This camera is supposed to be "weatherproof" when used with my “L” lenses. I use it in light rains and it hasn’t quit yet. I’m not as impressed by the construction as I am with my old Nikon N90s or the F100. It’s more plasticy. It has this cheap-looking side compartment, the door to which I am positive I will break off someday.
I may have to let go of these prejudices, though. I bought my EOS-3 used seven years ago and have subjected it to extremely rough use and the thing hasn't let me down once. Plus, it’s quite light.
I use the 24-70mm f/2.8L, 70-200mm f/4L, 100mm f/2.8 macro, and the 400mm f/5.6L lenses.
I actually only own the 100mm, but my friends Jasmine Minbashian and Brett Cole let me use their excellent collection of lenses when we’re photographing together. I never even thought about it until now, but I own a camera body that only works when I'm with friends...
The 24-70mm is a fantastic lens. It is rather bulky, but makes phenomenal images. I am not totally sold on the 70-200 because I think some of the slides I made with it should have been sharper, but I haven’t used it enough to form a definite opinion and operator error could have been the problem. It is certainly a very light and versatile lens.
The 400 f/5.6 is very sharp, even wide open. It is lightweight, for a telephoto. It is relatively cheap ($1,000 new). The only real disadvantage is it’s not an f/2.8 or f/4. If it was, it would be at least twice as heavy and four times as expensive. It is not an IS lens (I have never actually handled an IS lens).
The 100mm macro is an amazing bargain. I use it for landscapes as much as macro work. It makes outstanding portraits of people, too. It is not an “L” lens, but it is as sharp as any of the lenses above, as far as I can tell. At around $350 it is very cheap for the image quality. You'll need the $30 lens hood, sold separately. The front glass of this lens is not recessed at all and is alarmingly exposed without a filter. The only downside of this lens, like every macro I’ve ever handled, is that the autofocus is slow and hunts around a lot. It is not a lens for capturing decisive moments on the fly. Because it is not an "L" lens, I don't use it in the wet, and try not to drop it as often.
I use a Gitzo 1325 carbon fiber tripod and a Markins ballhead. I am convinced that the key to good photography isn't expensive camera gear. The key is expensive tripods, ballheads and mounting plates.
I mentioned the Sekonic L-558 earlier. The thing is basically a camera that doesn't take a picture. It does any kind of metering that's ever been invented. I have only used it for spot metering. All I can really say about it is that it gives very accurate readings as far as I can tell. Sekonic says it's "weatherproof." The LCD display in mine started to blink out after about six months of weathering. The repair was covered under warranty with no questions asked, returned to me within a week and has worked flawlessly for three years now.
I do not receive any compensation to recommend products. By all means contact me if you'd like me to endorse something—my opinons are for sale at rock bottom prices.
I've had a lot of help over the years from Brett Cole, Camilla Mortensen, John and Lynda Johnston, and Jasmine Minbashian. Dave Werntz, Rhoda Mortensen, Zella Johnston, Tim and Sue Coleman, Tim Lewis, Gabe Scott, Elice Raymond, Ben Heizer, Rick Miller and RNG 662, Jerry Franklin, Norm Johnson and the Gang of Thirty, Josh Laughlin, Ross Bond, Craig Romano, the FSEEE and CWP staffs, and Lacey Phillabaum all helped make certain of these images possible.
Back to top
|
