|
Photography
I took my entire camera kit with me on this trip. Since this was basically a once in a lifetime adventure, I wanted to make sure that I got something on film to remember it by. My camera kit consisted of the following:
Margot thought I was nearly insane, but I think that after you look at some of the pictures, you may not come to the same conclusion. I know I was quite concerned about the amount of gear that I took, and whether or not it was worth the effort. After seeing the results, I know it was definitely worth the time, money, and effort. Margot mostly just complained about having to carry my film (100 rolls).
I carried all of this in a Tamrac 787 backpack, save the tripod and monopod, while on the plane and motor coach. It’s airline legal carry-on size (barely) and it actually fits in the overhead bins - at least on A-340(?), B-737 and B-757. The 787 was a joy to use. It’s quite adjustable and extremely comfortable, and with all of the gear listed above (save the supports) it weighed about 30 lbs. I never tired from wearing this pack.
While on shore excursions I used the Tamrac MAS belt system. I had the small lens case, the large lense case, the film pouch, the filter pouch, the medium utility pouch, the water bottle pouch and the cellphone pouch, although not all attached at the same time. This, too, was very pleasant to use. The large belt distributed the weight evenly and I felt that I could wear it all day without tiring. The film pouch held an immense amount of film and the only complaint that I have with it is that I wish it had a more rigid form, and using the zippers was somewhat difficult. It required two hand to use the zippers, so I ultimately ended up just leaving them unzipped "enough" and "closing" the pouch with the Velcro rain flap. This seemed to work just fine. I never lost any film and I was always able to get to my fresh film and deposit my exposed film quickly and easily. I used the belt system on the seaplane excursion, but I was uncomfortable in the cabin of the aircraft. The belt just made me too wide. It was difficult to get in and out of the airplane (6 passenger, plus pilot – so a small plane). I may have been better off with a photographer's vest, but I doubt it.
The Bogen Monopod worked quite nicely and was immensely more convenient that a tripod would have been. I’ve never used a monopod before, but I found it to be unobtrusive and easy to use. Certainly on several of the shore excursions that I went on, I never would have been able to take a tripod with me, but the monopod what really no bigger than a walking stick or cane.
For several days, I wondered why I had brought my tripod, but when we stopped at the Hubbard Glacier, I was glad that I had. I was able to set up on the highest rooftop of the ship and shoot away. I had been so concerned with shutter speed, especially using the 100-400 lens. I felt quite relieved and comfortable – photographically speaking, when I was able to mount my camera to the Bogen. I was, once again, Zen-like with my camera gear. I never new how much I missed using a tripod, but it instills a level of confidence in me, especially knowing that my pictures won’t be blurry from camera shake.
For the most part I used either the 28-105 or the 100-400. In fact, this is all that I carried with me on my excursions. With all of the impressive scenery, I never once felt as if I was limited by the 28mm. I never was wanting the 17-35mm zoom. In fact, most of the scenery that I shot, I used a focal length around 100mm. The 70-200 zoom I used once, but I would have been better off with the 100-400. I never used the macro lense, nor did I ever use my light meter. I used the 17-35 once, along with the flash, and that was only to photograph "Le Grand Buffet" in the dining hall. So, my intuition was good on the choice of lenses. Two lenses covered 28-400mm. If I had to choose one lense, then it would have been the 100-400 lense, as I really didn’t use the wide focal length that much. There were times however, that I wished for more focal length than 400. I had a 2x converter with me, but never used it. On the days that I could have used it, the light reduction penalty would have been too great. Even a 1.4x teleconverter would have been too costly. Keep in mind that I was shoot 50 speed and 100 speed Fuji (Velvia and Provia F respectively). If I had been shooting 400 speed film, then a 1.4x would have been acceptable.
I shot Fuji Velvia (ISO 50 ) and Fuji Provia F (ISO 100) for everything, except a couple of rolls during a whale watching excursion. I snitched some of my wife’s Fuji Superia ISO 400 print film. The 400 speed gave a welcome influx of shutter speed on that dreary day. Otherwise the 50 and 100 speed films were fine, even on the slow 100-400 zoom lense. Since the weather we had was just so amazingly wonderful, the 50 & 100 were fine. But, if the dreary day weather we had is more typical of Alaska, then I’d heartily recommend shooting a 400 speed film. Alas, one cannot get 400 speed Velvia, but one can get 400 speed Provia.
I took a Sharpee with me and labeled my film after each excursion. Since the excursions where rather short in nature, I felt I didn’t have time to log each shot or roll for that matter. In fact on many excursions, did I rarely take the camera away from my face. It’s odd to think that I saw Alaska through a viewfinder, but I would have to say that at least 25% of the time we were off the ship, I was looking through the viewfinder. At any rate, I just labeled the film with a number that corresponded to each day of our trip. I then wrote notes about each day when I returned to our cabin on the cruise ship. This seemed to work out well, as Margot wanted to go play cards and talk to her family about her adventure, while I wanted some quiet time to reflect on the beauty & majesty that I was blessed with seeing.
[email protected]
Unless otherwise indicated, all text and photos copyright1995-2000 John Engle
