Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Antarctica Expedition cost?  (Read 10535 times)
neal1740
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


« Reply #20 on: February 12, 2009, 08:05:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Dear Ed, Love what you wrote.  We were there at the same time.  My wife and I agree with everything you said.  The night before the Lemaire passage without cameras, just enjoying the scenery and the day of the passage were visions that we will never forget.  Now we see why people keep going back.  I would recommend this trip to anyone capable of doing it.  neal1740
Logged
Philmar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 341


WWW
« Reply #21 on: February 12, 2009, 03:28:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michael
I've been to the Canadian arctic a couple of times and don't find that it is that productive for photography, though fascinating in its own right.

I am thinking of Greenland though as a possible future destination, probably a small boat cruise.

Michael

Couple it with Iceland's volcanos and geysers -  and I'm there. Plus, I hear Iceland is rather cheap these days due to the financial meltdown. And it'd be good get there before the imminent environmental meltdown.


For 'other world' scenery you should look in to a trip to San Pedro de Atacama with an excursion through the Andean altiplano fo Bolivia to Uyuni, Bolivia. Within in that short distance you'll see incredible desert scenery, geysers, immense salt flats, red, green, blue and white lagoons teeming with flamingos. Throw in bizarre rock formations, cacti, obsure colourful lichen, wild vicuna and guanacos, rare condor sightings and volcanic peaks and you have an equally awe inspiring trip...

Logged

An office drone pension administrator by day and a photo-enthusiast by night, week-end and on vacation who carries his camera when traveling the world:
Please have a chew on my photos:
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/phil_marion/sets
wtlloyd
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 118


« Reply #22 on: February 12, 2009, 06:12:48 PM »
ReplyReply

A steady diet of peaches, however lush and fragrant, would be monotonous.

Sometimes you just really want a banana.



Quote from: inissila
While the images from Antarctica can be spectacular, evocative etc. so can pictures from any of a number of local sites near to you, when properly photographed in good light. I think Antarctica has already been excessively covered by photographers and there is nothing new that is being produced. It's just repetitions of the same theme. Pretty, yes, but just more of the same. I wonder if the environmental
impact of touristy trips to faraway regions can somehow be justified by the value of the photography itself, or is it a case of "I want to do that too" and not caring about the impact. To me, I try to do my photography within a small radius of my home, and if I travel abroad for work, I'll combine the trip that is necessary for my work by adding a photography part of my own to it and returning a bit later. I do occasionally travel abroad just for myself but more and more I've come to conclude that the best work is usually done close to home, where you know the places and are familiar with the light and best time to photograph things. By traveling for photos, one usually ends up doing an inferior replica of work that has already been done many times.

My question is, why do you want to go to Antarctica (or the orbit, if you have the money for that), as opposed to a nice landscape near your home at a much lower cost?
Logged
Plekto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 551


« Reply #23 on: February 12, 2009, 09:26:06 PM »
ReplyReply

IMO, the best place to get nearly the same experience(seeing new, cool stuff you never knew existed) for a lot less cost is New Zealand.  Especially down south.  Loads safer as well(generally speaking) compared to many extreme locations.

Iceland is also nice so I hear.  Quick flight from the U.S. as well.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2009, 09:26:54 PM by Plekto » Logged
MichaelAlanBielat
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 78



WWW
« Reply #24 on: April 23, 2009, 10:36:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: inissila
My question is, why do you want to go to Antarctica (or the orbit, if you have the money for that), as opposed to a nice landscape near your home at a much lower cost?

Quite honestly, photo excursions are the best way to get revitalized and to help get that inspiration flowing through your veins. I have about 5 acres in my backyard and have the Niagara Falls just 25 miles. I am basically 30 minutes away from complete rural landscapes, the city of Buffalo, beaches (that get used for maybe 3 months here in Buffalo) and am right in suburbs so there is plenty to shoot but it does get "old" IMHO.

Absolutely nothing beats going out to a new location where everything is fresh to your eyes and where everything inspires you again... It could be the same stinking tree that is in your backyard but man oh man does it look so much better. Catch my drift?

At the very least, start your travels around your local state and national parks...

By the way Michael, your gallery is only maybe two hours from my home and I will have to take a trip down there one of these days in the Summer to admire your work...
« Last Edit: April 23, 2009, 10:36:31 AM by MichaelAlanBielat » Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad