Category Archives: Ideas

Commentary, Equipment, Ideas

An Itinerant Photographer and His iPad: A First Report

10 Comments

I returned last night from a week-long visit to New York City. While this wasn’t just a photography visit, enough photography was part of the plan that I had to carry a reasonable amount of equipment. Typically I would bring along my Macbook, but this time I decided to leave the laptop at home and see if I could get by with just an iPad instead.

I knew that this would necessitate some compromises in the way I usually operate on the road. For example, serious photography applications like Photoshop and Lightroom simply don’t run on the iPad, so there would be no possibility of doing real post-processing work on the road. The iPad doesn’t have a “real” keyboard, instead providing an on-screen “virtual keyboard” – more on that below. On the positive side, the iPad is positively tiny compared to any real laptop. It makes my 13″ Macbook seem terribly bulky by comparison. The iPad slips easily into the external pocket of my Crumpler Eight Million Dollar Home camera bag, and doesn’t add enough weight to the package to be worthy of note. The battery life is tremendous and the charger is very small.

What follows is an early report on certain aspects of iPad use by the traveling photographer – or at least this mobile photographer. Continue reading An Itinerant Photographer and His iPad: A First Report →

Commentary, Ideas, News

Thinking More About the Need for Discretion

10 Comments

Earlier today I posted (elsewhere) a photograph of an interesting, unusual, and perhaps somewhat fragile natural bridge located in a part of California that I frequently visit. Although I did not give directions to the feature or even narrow down its location within less than perhaps a 25 mile radius, shortly after posting the image a person replied… and included a photograph of someone standing on top of the bridge.

Sheesh.

I’m astonished at the self-centered behavior of some visitors to the wild world. They apparently don’t realize that their momentary thrill risks the very ability of later visitors to experience the thing that drew them there. Why in the world a person would go to all the trouble to find and visit these sometimes remote sites and then show little respect for them is beyond me.

I was brought immediately back to a conversation I had with my friend Mike earlier this summer. Mike is a retired national park ranger who has a deep love for wild places. He had expressed concern and reservations about the clarity with which I sometimes described the locations of my photographs. Mike’s concerns were several, but among them was the worry that too much information shared with too many people who have too little invested in the protection of these places might endanger them. At first I wondered how my little web site could have any significant impact, but after checking into some internet statistics I began to see that a fair number of people might be reading my descriptions.

The particular feature that I’m thinking of today is a delicate and rare natural arch in a place where such features are not common. Although it seems like a sturdy thing, being made of rock, it is actually quite fragile in the geological sense. There are cracks in the arch at both ends, and any time a person adds his/her weight to the structure stresses are created that can only hasten its eventual collapse.

But people do such things. I’m more inclined than ever to refrain from offering specifics about many of these locations, especially those that are potentially subject to visits by too many people and/or that are by their nature fragile.

Commentary, Equipment, Ideas

Why Can’t Digital Cameras Be Like Film Cameras?

13 Comments

I was in San Francisco today with my family and my sons wanted to visit a Salvation Army store to check out old camera equipment. Both of them are intrigued by the older 35mm film cameras. In the display case we saw a couple Canon AE-1 cameras, a Canon AE-1 Program (?), and an Olympus OM-1. These are, if I’m not mistaken, cameras from the 1970s. “Back in the day” I shot with a couple of small Pentax bodies from the same ear, the ME and the MX. (Each son has one of those bodies now.)

At this point, I’m a confirmed digital photographer – I have virtually no interest at all in shooting film again. I can sort of understand the retro appeal of film, and I don’t resent those who like to use it. (Though I’ll admit that I can get a bit annoyed when some folks become self-righteous about it… :-)

That said, the better cameras from the era are beautiful little mechanical/optical marvels. At one point I pulled out my excellent Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 lens – a great performer and a lens I rely on a lot – and held it next to the 50mm f/1.8 lens from the OM-1. My Canon lens simply looks like a big plastic toy next to the efficient and well-crafted little metal Olympus lens. And the body of the camera is solid and tight, and barely larger than the biggest point and shoot style digital cameras today. The control systems are simple and direct – the OM-1 aperture and shutter speed controls are both on the lens barrel, a simple switch turns the meter on and off, there is a MLU switch, and the viewfinder with its match-needle meter is big and bright. These are cameras that don’t give the appearance of trying to look like space ships and that don’t shout “my camera is bigger and more expensive than your camera!”

If a current manufacturer came out with a DSLR body like these, I’d be an immediate customer.

By the way, early happy birthday to Jameson – and enjoy your new OM-1!

(Update: After a comment from Jim Goldstein, I clarified a few things about this idea in a follow-up comment.)

Commentary, Ideas

Disclosing Photo Locations: How Much Information is Too Much?

44 Comments

(NOTE: This post originally included only the first section, based on the story that begins the article. The longer second part added in 2014 addresses some important related issues. A third section added in early 2017 recognizes a new and dangerous political factor. Additional editing is done from time to time.)

In the summer of 2010 I had the good fortune to join friends and fellow photographers (Charlie Cramer, Mike Osborne, and Karl Kroeber) for a few days of photography in the Tuolumne Meadows/Tioga Pass area of Yosemite National Park. Spending time with photographers who have so much experience and knowledge of Yosemite is always inspiring, and I was grateful to join them.

Pond with Boulders and Trees
Pond with Boulders and Trees

While sitting around during the “boring light” midday hours — before early dinner and travel to an evening location for the good light — Mike mentioned that they were going to a place that was best not publicized, and he joked (at least if think he was joking) that he “might have to blindfold Dan” if I came along.

Mike was a Yosemite ranger for decades, and he loves and cares for the place deeply. He was concerned about posts on my website in which I had named locations and given more information than necessary about them. He has seen first-hand the damage caused by too much publicity about fragile locations. He suggested that it is often better to share or acquire information about these places the old fashioned way — by word of mouth from an acquaintance or through on-the-ground exploration. He also noted that many of my photographs are not so much about the specific place as they are about some thing I saw there that is not location-specific — so specific location titles aren’t important and may even be a distraction from the real value of the photographs.

Mike’s comments caused me to think quite a bit about this issue. First, a few words of self-defense, but then some changes that I made at my website, on social media, and in other places where I share my photographs.

As we sat around the motel room talking about this, my first thought was, more or less, “How can my little photography blog have any serious effect!?”

Continue reading Disclosing Photo Locations: How Much Information is Too Much? →