A Short Jaunt to Antarctica

[Marko]

There are a few things I fail to understand:

1. What does someone's gear choice has to do with his organizational or professional qualities?

2. Why do self-declared film-only people show such a morbid interest in a digital-first photographer? Don't their interests diverge so much that there should be no intersection and therefore no interest at all?

3. What does it all have to do with LF discussion board?

[Baxter Bradford]

Hello Gordon

Yes, sorry, I missed that point in your post. Another way of looking is $1250 per print with a bit of free tuition thrown in - it still doesn't sound like great value does it?

That many frames must almost constitute a movie! Certainly a misnomer of the buzz-word 'capture' - 92/7024 means 99% get away...

[Vaughn]

I can't imagine going all that way and spending all that money without taking my 8x10. But then, I can't image using the 8x10 on a Kodiak zooming around icebergs or in the wind and rain. I might make a fixed focus, hand-usuable 8x10 (Hobo-style, maybe with a 210 lens) just for the trip, though.

Vaughn

[roteague]

I can't imagine going all that way and spending all that money without taking my 8x10.

I'd be tempted to take the 4x5, but I probably would have taken the 35mm instead - the conditions are too extreme for LF.

[David Karp]

I'd be tempted to take the 4x5, but I probably would have taken the 35mm instead - the conditions are too extreme for LF.

Frank Hurley got some pretty good LF glass plate shots down there!

http://main.wgbh.org/imax/shackleton/sirernest-two.html

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/features/endurance

I think if I had the chance I would give it a try, but I certainly would lug my 35mm and MF stuff too.

[QT Luong]

Antarctica isn't cheap. I think the digital instruction came for "free", which actually makes it a pretty good option for a photographer.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/wo...uest-pre.shtml
"You can figure on between $11,500 and $16,000 per person depending on the type of accommodation. This is an all-inclusive cost"

Here is the tour operator's individual rate. Check Aboard Professor Multanovskiy, Februrary. http://www.quarkexpeditions.com/anta...aa08_2_3.shtml

About "keepers", it is difficult to draw any conclusion, since someone's keeper is another person's reject.

[Jim collum]

Hello Gordon

Yes, sorry, I missed that point in your post. Another way of looking is $1250 per print with a bit of free tuition thrown in - it still doesn't sound like great value does it?

That many frames must almost constitute a movie! Certainly a misnomer of the buzz-word 'capture' - 92/7024 means 99% get away...

that depends... if you can make tens of thousands of $ from that image, then $1250 is pretty cheap. Most of his limited edition portfolio's have sold out, so he is able to make money with his shots

[Gordon Moat]

I guess it depends upon what kind of Antarctic trip you wanted. There are 25 day expeditions for around $8500, and those include biologists and scientists who can tell you what you are seeing. These trips often have photography experts, sometimes people who have been published in National Geographic. Linblad Expeditions is one company with National Geographic connections, though there are many choices of other companies and trip packages. Anyone considering going should shop carefully.

I think there is a difference between people running a trip like this making money off their images, and some random enthusiast who coughs up the money to tag along. Surprisingly there are so many pictures in stock libraries already of artic and antarctic regions that I don't think the simple act of tagging along and pointing your camera is any guarantee of future sales. MR and the others running the show should be making money from this, but how many other of the 50 photographers present made a profit from their images?

There is a long history of photography in Antarctica, much of it large format in the earliest years. There are definitely issues with wind, cold, and lack of humidity. A handheld camera would be easier, if for no other reason than minimizing time in an environment. I think it would be fun to take a 4x5, though maybe a Fotoman, Gaoersi, or something like a Crown Graphic. Of course, I think I might also take a Nikon FM and a few lenses.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

[r.e.]

I've spent some time in the Arctic. As such, and realizing that this took place in the Falklands and Ushuaia and the Antarctic in their summer, I'd be interested in any comments that Tim Atherton might have.

Personally, if I had a chance to go to Cape Horn and the Falklands and Antarctica, I would not have photography uppermost in my mind. It would be well down the list of things that I would be spending time on. But I would take at least one camera, first and foremost a medium format rangefinder, after that maybe a 4x5. And if the trip was about wildlife, I suppose that I might chuck the other cameras in favour of a 35mm with a long lens.

As Mr. Luong suggests, maybe these people spent their time living on a comfy ship and just did daily, summer excursions to shore. In that case, it would be like hanging out in a hotel in Yellowknife or Alaska in summer, the only question being whether Antarctica, like the north, has swarms of tiny little flies known non-scientifically as noseeums

Curious to know what Mr. Atherton would take to a place like Grise Fiord (realizing, of course, that there is a pretty good chance that he has been there).

[C. D. Keth]

I'm disappointed nobody took a motion picture film camera. It would be a rare opportunity. If I went to antarctica, I would be taking my 4x5 and an SR3 mp film camera. I don't do things halfway.

I find it hard to believe he could take 7 THOUSAND frames and come out with under a hundred keepers. Personally, unless I'm doing quick street photography where I'm not always looking and conposing, I don't take a picture unless I know it will be at least a very, very likely keeper. I guess that's what large format and cinematography have done to me.