FWIW, there is a nice arboretum south of Asheville.
Gregg
From: Mike Swaim
> I'm back from a week in what I consider to be one of the most
> photographable and scenic of SE US cities; Asheville, NC. Though this trip
> was nominally work related training during the day, I still managed to
> shoot 12 of the 24 rolls of film that I had along. Photo-wise this trip
> served as both a test of a recently CLA'd med. format camera, the first
> trial of a new Sekonic L-508 light meter, and more importantly a sort of
> shake-down trip for the OM equip. that I've aquired over the past 5
months.
> One of my goals is to get the amount of camera gear that I take on trips
> down to a useful, but not absolute minimum. My gear isn't fancy, fast or
> expensive and the reason that I went with the OM system in the first place
> is that it seemed to represent the most bang for the buck. What follows
> are some rudimentary notes:
>
> Gear: OM-4, OM-1n w/6 lenses: 19mm Viv. fisheye, 28/2.8,50/1.8, 50mm
Macro,
> 135/3.5, 75-150/4. Left at home was the OM-2000 and Yashica P&S. (This
> would prove to be a mistake on both counts; more later.)
>
> Carry systems: As much as anything else, this trip was a test of several
> low cost camera carry systems including a multi-pocket vest (meant for
> cycling/hiking), a waist case (meant for fishing), a pair of small
shoulder
> bags, (one of them is actually a soft side cooler), and a non-camera
> specific Mountainsmith lumbar pack. While I came to no conclusion about
> which serves me best, the vest worked very well until the temperature got
> over 85F. At that point the small shoulder bag pretty much seemed to be
the
> best choice for me. The waist case is a great idea, unless you routinely
> carry non-camera gear in a lumbar pack, (as I do), which renders that
space
> occupied. There's a lot to be said for having a small shoulder bag that
can
> fit inside one's lumber pack or other back pack. There's also much to be
> said for having a non-padded multi-pocket vest that can be wadded into
> other carry systems when not in use. I mention all this because for the
> cost of one dedicated brand name bag, one could easily have several
> different carry options available, and if my experience of the past few
> months is any kind of guide, sooner or later having the flexibility of
> multiple carry systems becomes quite useful. Also, prior to this excursion
> I swapped out the wide neoprene camera carry straps for narrower nylon and
> leather used Contax straps because I was concerned that the plastic bits
on
> the more trendy "wonderbrick" straps might not hold up and because I
didn't
> like the way that the neoprene staps caused the cameras to bungee jump
> against my Buddha-belly. This had the added advantage of allowing easier
> vest pocketing of the camera/lens/strap when not in use. Considering that
> compactness is one of the great OM system virtues, it makes little sense
to
> add bulk where it's not necessary.
>
> Tripods: I'm still using a old beat up Tiltall that I got used for a small
> bit of change. While I like the light weight, I still find myself leaving
> it in the car more often than I should. I wish I'd read Ken Norton's ideas
> about using the detachable center column prior to this trip. Two other
> things I noted were that monopods are useless for timed shots, (duh!), and
> that the shirt pocket sized plastic Ultrapod II, while quite useful for
> point and shoots, is completely over tasked by an OM SLR body/lens. Still
> the idea of a small pocket pod is too useful to ignore. Unfortunately I
> left a clamp style mount at home, and either it or a beanbag would've
> proved handy many times.
>
> Film: I really hope that this marks the very last time that I attempt to
> use films under ISO 100.
> For the duration of this trip, the OM-1n was rendered virtually useless by
> way of being loaded with Ektachrome Elite II ISO 50. The intent was to
take
> arborteum and botanical shots with the macro lens and slow slide film, but
> the film was so slow as to make capturing gently blowing flowers almost
> impossible, and was worthless for any other work. Really, I should've
taken
> this stuff out of the camera well prior to finishing the roll. It may
> strike some on this list as sacriledge, but I think I'll standardize on
> Fuji Sensia 400 (slide) and Fuji Superia 400 (print) for the bulk of my
> color work, and for B&W I really like Ilford HP5+ 400. That speed may seem
> a bit fast, but I really like being able to handhold in varying forest
> light conditions, and also like the ability to pretty much leave a
circular
> polarizer on at most daylight times. For my use, I see more improvement
> with the polarizer than I do with slower film, and considering that I
> almost never have enlargements done over 8x10, the grain issue really
isn't
> that important to me.
>
> Also, taken but not used was some new Kodak Portra 800.
>
> Other items taken but not used: 19mm fisheye, 135mm/3.5, set of 3 ext.
> rings, closeup diopters, and Sunpak 383 flash, assorted B&W filters. While
> I thought I'd need the flash for fill work, the only time I was even
> tempted to drag it out was in a small gallery where I wasn't sure whether
> it'd be frowned upon. I'm very tempted to leave all this stuff out of my
> 'normal carry' kit from now on. (Except for the B&W filters, that is.
> Normally, I use them all the time, just not this trip.)
>
> I'd hoped to capture somewhat of the marvelous bohemian ambiance of the
> evening sidewalk cafes with the Porta 800 and the 135mm. However, I'm
> uncomfortable pointing a lens at total strangers, and the Fuji 400 proved
> useful handheld outdoors up til at least 8:30pm and I like the cropping
> abilities of the 75-150. However, there were numerous times when 75 wasn't
> wide enough and 150 wasn't anywhere near tight enough for both city and
> forest work. I'm not really sure how to solve for that within the OM
system
> without either going to great expense or winding up with far more lenses
> than I plan to realistically carry.
>
> Lens system gap: More times than I can count I wished for something
between
> the 28mm and the 50's. I wished for the 35mm on the Yashica P&S most of
> all. As soon as practical, I think I'll get either a 35mm/2.8 or a 28-48/4
> zoom. Having said that, I'm not at all pleased with the results from the
> too soft 28/2.8 so perhaps for the next one I should spring for some
better
> glass.
>
> Processing: For the third or forth time in as many cities, I noted that
the
> local pro lab charges less and does better work than the ubiquitous Ritz
> (or Wolfe) labs. Why the overpriced teenager run mall shops even survive
is
> a total mystery to me.
>
> Bonehead mistake: After inwardly smirking at the tales of others who'd
> mis-loaded film in a past thread, I got to frame 28 (of 24) before
> realizing that all the beautiful mountain laurel, rhododendron, trillium
> and waterfalls weren't being captured on film due to my own misloading
> adventure. This particularly irked me because I'd just finished going
> through the area of Chimney Rock where some of the scenes from "Last of
the
> Mohicans" was filmed. Oh well, guess I'll have to go back. ;-)
>
> I realize this long post is quite a departure from the usual in-depth
> discussions of lpm tests and other such far more advanced postings, but
> perhaps it'll drag other newer lurkers out of the void.
>
> Mike Swaim
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|