Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Why Antarctica Again?  (Read 29289 times)
cdmacko
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« on: March 14, 2007, 04:14:54 PM »
ReplyReply

I am new to the message board so first I want to say that I've been a fan of Michael Reichmann's site, photography and the video journal for a couple years now. But I am kind of puzzled why he would go all the way back to Antarctica again for a photography workshop.
The way I see it, it is a really hard place to get to and the reward isn't that great. I'm guessing that it is expensive and time consuming to get there. Then the visuals seem quite repetitive and run-of-the mill. One doesn't have to go all the way to Antacrtica to get most of those shots.
Anyway, I am a fan of the expeditions portfolios he's done such as China, Bangladesh, African Safari etc. but the first Antarctic expedition wasn't one of my favourites. Anyone know why he went back for more when there are so many other places to explore? Please excuse me if the answer has been spelled out somewhere already, I looked.
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4803



« Reply #1 on: March 14, 2007, 04:31:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Several reasons....

It's among the most enjoyable things I've ever done (standing up).

The photographic opportunities are amazing (regardless of what you may think).

I can make some money doing it.

Michael
Logged
wtlloyd
Full Member
***
Online Online

Posts: 125


« Reply #2 on: March 14, 2007, 05:04:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Party.

He goes to party.  
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #3 on: March 14, 2007, 05:09:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Apparently the rolling waves under the ship really relax him?  
Logged

Tim Gray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002



WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 14, 2007, 05:14:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Where else would you get a penguin & sea "thing" shot?  
Logged
paulbk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 463



« Reply #5 on: March 14, 2007, 05:15:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Michael,
It is clear you are drawn to the more exotic places on the globe. But have you ever thought, “there’s no place like home.” I’d love to see more of eastern Canada through your eyes. Quebec road 132 along the south shore of the St. Lawrence. Anywhere in the Canadian Maritime’s: New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland Labrador, PEI... The interior of northern Quebec, Fort Mackenzie??

Or, since you live so close, have you been there, done that?

p

ps...... More, I’d love to see you shoot Ottawa (especially at Christmas). Your parliament building is, in my view, one of most handsome and stately buildings in the world. Truly a world class historic landmark.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2007, 05:26:53 PM by paulbk » Logged

paul b. kramarchyk
Barkhamsted, Connecticut, USA
wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5727



WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 14, 2007, 07:15:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Quebec road 132 along the south shore of the St. Lawrence.

I love that road... from Montreal or so east, you follow the little two-lane blacktop along the river, around the Gaspé... there's that great rock outcrop at Percé, and then you cross into Campblellton, NB.  From the east side of town there's another road that follows the coastline around the north and eastern side of New Brunswick before crossing into Nova Scotia...  It's been a long time, but I have some great memories of that route.  I used to work out there, so I may be a little biased, but it's a beautiful stretch of earth.

Mike.
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
CatOne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 380


WWW
« Reply #7 on: March 14, 2007, 07:36:45 PM »
ReplyReply

When you say "The first Antarctica expedition wasn't one of my favorites" are you saying this as an attendee, or as someone who looked at the pictures Michael and others put up, which you may not have thought were all that impressive?

Because, I can assure you, while you can get some similar scenery in some places (the inside passage in Alaska is pretty impressive), you cannot replicate what there is to see in Antarctica.  The scale is huge, there is wildlife at every turn, and it is wild.  It's not always easy to capture on film (er, digitally), what it is like to pull in to the South Orkney islands and see thousands of icebergs in every direction -- many of them 100 feet high and a square mile in area (on occasion, there have been 'bergs of 100 square miles going through there -- er sorry for buying the Hummer H2 :-P).

You also cannot get the experience of cruising up to a beach with 50,000 breeding King Penguins any other place, like you can in South Georgia.  I took a pano, which can give a small idea:

LARGE IMAGE WARNING:

South Georgia Pano

I went on the trip, based on pictures I saw from the previous version of the trip.  It was everything I expected (and I had high expectations).  I for one am very thankful that Michael ran a second expedition -- be aware the trip isn't just for him and the instructors, but also to shepherd 45 paying photographers to have a photographic expedition that is one of the best of their life in terms of scenery.  Sure, it's not as convenient as the preserves in my back yard.  Travel time to/from our boat from my house was > 36 hours each way.  I don't care... I got to go to Antarctica.  It's not for everyone, but it sure as hell was for me.  In hindsight, if asked whether it was worth the money for me, and if I'd do it again in the same situation, I can answer with 100% certainty YES.

If you want to see some other images, many of which focus on overall landscape to get an idea, you can have a look here:

Antarctica Gallery
« Last Edit: March 14, 2007, 07:46:26 PM by CatOne » Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8877


« Reply #8 on: March 14, 2007, 09:01:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You also cannot get the experience of cruising up to a beach with 50,000 breeding King Penguins any other place, like you can in South Georgia.  I took a pano, which can give a small idea:

LARGE IMAGE WARNING:

South Georgia Pano
Antarctica Gallery
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106685\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

CatOne,
Your 89MB image of the penguins in South Georgia is impressive. The content is interesting and I like the fact that there are a couple of seals fairly close-up on the right.

But your photoshop rendition is just awful. You've done a poor job processing this image.

I assume it's a stitched image. When taking images for stitching, it's common practice to use the same exposure for each frame, which means, in order to avoid overexposure, exposing for the brightest part of the pano and using that same exposure for less bright parts of the scene.

You don't appear to have done this. The top right portion of the image is excessively bright with blown sky highlights and the rest of the image is excessively dull.

I don't know if those highlights in the sky are beyond retrievability in ACR, or even if these are jpeg images. Assuming that the highlight detail is recoverable and that you did shoot RAW, I would suggest you do a RAW conversion with EC around minus 2, shadows and contrast zero.

In Photoshop processing, protect the highlights by CTRL left clicking on RGB channels, inverse the selection and then use the appropriate adjustment layers (levels. curves, whatever) at, say 80% opacity.
Logged
DaFu
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 14, 2007, 09:42:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Ray,

I don't think he posted that in the hopes of a blistering critique.

I, for one, am most envious of everyone who went on this expedtion. Images and stories told clearly show it was astonishing and beautiful and perhaps even the pictures weren't all that important.

Dave
Logged
CatOne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 380


WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 14, 2007, 09:58:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
CatOne,
Your 89MB image of the penguins in South Georgia is impressive. The content is interesting and I like the fact that there are a couple of seals fairly close-up on the right.

But your photoshop rendition is just awful. You've done a poor job processing this image.

I assume it's a stitched image. When taking images for stitching, it's common practice to use the same exposure for each frame, which means, in order to avoid overexposure, exposing for the brightest part of the pano and using that same exposure for less bright parts of the scene.

You don't appear to have done this. The top right portion of the image is excessively bright with blown sky highlights and the rest of the image is excessively dull.

I don't know if those highlights in the sky are beyond retrievability in ACR, or even if these are jpeg images. Assuming that the highlight detail is recoverable and that you did shoot RAW, I would suggest you do a RAW conversion with EC around minus 2, shadows and contrast zero.

In Photoshop processing, protect the highlights by CTRL left clicking on RGB channels, inverse the selection and then use the appropriate adjustment layers (levels. curves, whatever) at, say 80% opacity.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106692\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Ray,

I used CS3 to stitch the image.  It was done on manual mode -- ISO was fixed, and the picture was done completely in manual mode -- aperture and shutter were fixed.  The reason it is very bright on the right side of the frame is that the sun above the right side of the frame.  It was just to the right of the shoreline (and to the left of our ship).  I was aware of this... but given the time we landed... I didn't really have time to wait for the sun to move.  Fact of the matter is... much of the shooting in Antarctica is driven by "you shoot when you are somewhere" -- the typical "magic light" conditions were typically shot from the ship, with no tripod possible, before breakfast or way, way after dinner (and subsequent time in the bar ;-)

Anyway, before taking the shot I panned the camera back and forth to check the exposure.  I set it so the portion where I shot in the sun was around +1.7ev.  I didn't want to blow out the sky, and that was my only real criteria.  Then I shot everything so the sky was quite "hot."  I could pull the whole image down.

Oh, and I could clone out that goober that repeats say 11 times across the top of the frame.  The fact that it's there should serve as SOME indication that it was a real "quick and dirty" effort  

I applied minimal post-processing to that image.  I don't consider it to be anything that is anywhere near "exhbition quality."  That wasn't the intent -- I really did it for a couple reasons:

1)  I wanted to test my new RRS panorama equipment to see if the parallax problems I had prior to using equipment which pivoted around the "nodal" point would be better -- mission accomplished.
2)  It was a very "big" scene -- one that my 1D mark II has no hope of capturing in a single shot, given that I have only 8 megapixels of resolution.

I am aware there are many things I could do in post to improve the image.  I could hit shadows and highlights some more, I could do a lot more work with curves (though I do not make a living by selling my images and Photoshop has a *steep* learning curve so I am limited to being only a novice and really only being adequate with S&H, levels, curves, and HSL controls.

At any rate, thanks for the critique -- though I would agree the image could use a lot more work.  Whether I care enough to do the work I don't know -- I doubt I'll go through the pain of re-adapting my R800 to roll paper and I'm not going to sell it or really use it for anything more than documentary pictures anyway.

Also, that still doesn't change the fact that THERE WERE 50,000 PENGUINS THERE!  And this is one of the things that you truly, truly have to smell to believe  

We also were unable to make a landing at a spot on South Georgia where they had upwards of 120,000 penguins.  The bay was not well protected and with the Katabatic winds, we simply couldn't get onto the Zodiacs.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2007, 10:01:22 PM by CatOne » Logged

CatOne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 380


WWW
« Reply #11 on: March 14, 2007, 10:06:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ray,

I don't think he posted that in the hopes of a blistering critique.

I, for one, am most envious of everyone who went on this expedtion. Images and stories told clearly show it was astonishing and beautiful and perhaps even the pictures weren't all that important.

Dave
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106700\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If I'd really tried, I'd care  

But it was really to illustrate a point.  "Why Antarctica again?" is something that should be obvious -- if Michael were to run an Antarctica expedition once a year, he could fill the 50 slots year after year after year, I'm certain of that (pictures from people on previous trips could help sell it... I know Schewe's images were what sold me).  The only reason this might not happen is because Michael and the instructors would want to go other places while they still have the time to do so.

It's also important to note that this year's expedition was fairly different to last year's.  They shared about 4 days worth of itinerary (the part on the Antarctic peninsula).  This years also went to the Falkland Islands and South Georgia, as well as the South Orkney islands -- this was about 8 days of shooting which was completely different to the 2005 trip.  So that's, like, 66.666667% different or something :-)

Oh, and the reason I talk about 12 shooting days for a ~19 day trip is that these things are hundreds of nautical miles apart, and it takes time to truck across those distances at ship speed of ~12 knots.  That open sea time is rough.  Michael can attest to that  
Logged

DaFu
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


WWW
« Reply #12 on: March 14, 2007, 10:24:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
these things are hundreds of nautical miles apart, and it takes time to truck across those distances at ship speed of ~12 knots. That open sea time is rough. Michael can attest to that

Hee, hee!

It's interesting isn't it? How attentive were all of you because you'd just spent so much tempestuous and long-day shipboard-boring time getting there?

Regards

Dave
Logged
CatOne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 380


WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 14, 2007, 10:39:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hee, hee!

It's interesting isn't it? How attentive were all of you because you'd just spent so much tempestuous and long-day shipboard-boring time getting there?

Regards

Dave
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106713\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, the open sea time went pretty quickly, actually.  When we were near land, it was often 3 landings or zodiac cruises per day.  At 2-4 hours apiece, that meant a LOT of activity, and a LOT of shooting.  Plus when Michael called on the intercom at 4:30 AM before breakfast and we got up... it made for LONG days with LOTS and LOTS of shooting.

So the at-sea days were actually a blessing.  The gave a little down-time for catching up on sleep, for culling images to a manageable level (With about 7000 shots in the 3 weeks, I'll admit 100% were not keepers ;-) and of course for talking smack in the bar, after imbibing too many of Juan's special mystery drinks.  I think maybe those drinks were a mix of whatever he had an excess of in the bar.  They were tasty and got you good and bombed, though  
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7877



WWW
« Reply #14 on: March 14, 2007, 10:57:56 PM »
ReplyReply

You guys are real beasts, I feel that I would have a hard time producing decent images in those hit and run conditions.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8877


« Reply #15 on: March 14, 2007, 11:42:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ray,
I don't think he posted that in the hopes of a blistering critique.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106700\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Just trying to be helpful   . You'll notice I quite liked the image. I hope those penguins are individually identifiable on a large print   .
« Last Edit: March 14, 2007, 11:52:05 PM by Ray » Logged
Stephen L Starkman
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 63



WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 15, 2007, 09:32:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Antarctica is a truly amazing place - not only for photography. I was along with Michael for his 2005 expedition. I hope to travel there again some day. The landscape is unique, and like any good journey, you come back with more than interesting photos.

- Stephen

Antarctica 2005 - small gallery
« Last Edit: March 15, 2007, 09:34:00 AM by Stephen Starkman » Logged
katemann
Guest
« Reply #17 on: March 16, 2007, 09:25:26 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm sick with envy. Go to Antarctica twice? hell, I'd go to New Jersey twice if I had the opportunity.

It appears to have been a terrific time, a great party, with fabulous company and an incredible landscape.

That said, I would agree that a lot of Michael's shots are excellent regardless of venue.
That said, I would give five years of my life to have the opportunity to travel around the globe with my camera.

I agree about the closer to home - Michael, the Bruce Peninsula may not be so exotic as everywhere you go, but it is only about 4 hours from your place in the Muskokas and certainly worth a look. I would love to see what you do.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #18 on: March 16, 2007, 09:54:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I wonder how much of a discount CatOne is getting on his next workshop for talking the trip up so much.  Personally you could not pay me to go down there.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106998\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No, it's not my idea of heaven either. Frankly, reading about all the work to be done after shooting, the time spent with laptops after dinner, etc. I think folks have forgotten totally about the charms of film: you went on location, shot your brains out at the right time of day, had a shower and then retired to the fleshpots for the evening, taking your models with you if you happened to be in that line of work. I was; I'd hate to have missed it all wedded to a bloody laptop! Think of the indigestion...

Okay, those bums at the X-Ray could ruin it all for you perhaps, but they couldn't steal the memories.

Ciao - Rob C
Logged

DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #19 on: March 16, 2007, 10:36:59 AM »
ReplyReply

It looks so cool (sorry) I'd absolutely love to go there.

I had just assumed that after his last trip someone must have told Michael that he had missed his opportunity to be the first Canadian to club a baby seal in the southern hemisphere.  Hence the second trip.  (There are seals on the godless underbelly of the planet, right?  They aren't just a northern hemisphere thing, right?)
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad