View Full Version : Tripod Holes
Here is a thread on repeat photography of natural (i.e., non-urban) landscapes. There may be another or others like this; if so, then this could be joined with it. Others can post their photos as well, of course.
My background is in vegetation ecology, so I re-take images with that purpose in mind, for people that are interested in the particular scenes, or more commonly, the overall landscape and on-going processes that the scenes represent.
But this is a photography site the last time I checked, so to make it more interesting for photographers, I will post my re-take first, people can critique it anyway they want, then after a while I will post the original scene. I would be happy to explain anything I can about the scene to those interested, but generally I will just say where it is and when it was taken, and what I used. The originals could be from several photographers, dating back to the 1870's. Some of the original photographers were professional photographers, some were not. I will try and pick out the more scenic, aesthetic ones, but could stray from that if it seems worthwhile.
What we can learn from this is how different photographers viewed the landscape, their style, what their relative skill-level was, and how well (or not) I captured the re-take.
So here is the first one:
Unamed lake and ridge along the Buffalo Plateau, near Marston Pass, in the Teton Wilderness in NW Wyoming. September 4, 2018.
196748
On 4 by 5 Ilford Ortho Plus, with a 135-mm Kodak WF Ektar, 1/65 s at F16. The image is cropped a little to match the original, which had a 44-degree horizontal field of view. Scanned from a print on Ilford MG IV Deluxe glossy RC paper, #2 filter.
Nice image, should be an.interesting thread.
Would like to see more. I've been doing some similar stuff in South Dakota. I use period correct lenses and am shooting both wet plate and dry plate. My three favorite photographers are FJ Haynes, WR Cross, and Stanley Morrow.
Kent in SD
DHodson
21-Oct-2019, 10:07
Interesting thread - looking forward to the original
Here is the original. See post #1 for the re-take from 2018.
196777
Thomas A. Jaggar 117. US Geological Survey, September 4, 1893
Jaggar used dry glass plates in a whole plate camera for this image, one of several in the NE part of what is now the Teton Wilderness, designated in 1964 (I have re-taken 15 of them). Except for occasional horses and mules, most of the Teton W., including this area, has never been grazed by livestock -- a rarity in the western USA.
High clouds prevailed during Jaggar's photography.
The timing for both images were within 45 minutes (mine was earlier, due to logistics)
The changes over the last 125 years are subtle. In 2018, ice patches are smaller, there are a few more trees, and the formerly barren foreground has more vegetation (mostly Parry's rush and woodrush sedge). The terrain is all Wiggins Formation, (Eocene), which is mostly an andesite breccia. Two separate, huge icecaps moved over this terrain during the late Pleistocene glaciations. The 1893 image reflects the end of the Little Ice Age (ca. 1300 to 1870).
T. A. Jaggar was a geologist with Arnold Hague's survey. Hague was an eminent geologist, best known for his work in and near Yellowstone National Park. In 1912, Jaggar went on to start and manage the Hawawiian Volcanoe Observatory.
Would like to see more. I've been doing some similar stuff in South Dakota. I use period correct lenses and am shooting both wet plate and dry plate. My three favorite photographers are FJ Haynes, WR Cross, and Stanley Morrow.
Kent in SD
F. J. Haynes is one of my favorites too.
Could you post some of your repeat images here as well?
Very interesting, please continue!
I've always enjoyed "then and now" photographs. I assume the original dry plate is blue sensitive since the sky is blown out?
Very interesting, please continue!
I've always enjoyed "then and now" photographs. I assume the original dry plate is blue sensitive since the sky is blown out?
Yes, the original dry plate is blue-sensitive, but puffy clouds can show up on the glass plates that Jaggar used, but the skoes typically look "blown-out". The lack of strong shadows indicates stratus clouds, and pictures later in the month, after about a 10-day break, show fresh snow.
Here is another one -- this time, and from now on, I will post the original and my re-take together.
Rockfall northwest of Dorwin Peak, Gros Ventre Mountains, Wyoming
196810
Eliot Blackwelder 156, August 17, 1911. Eliot Blackwelder Collection, American Heritage Center. University of Wyoming
196811
August 17, 2017
On 4 by 5 Ilford Ortho Plus, with a 121-mm f8 Schneider Kreuznach Super Angulon, 1/7 s at F22. It was very windy during photography, and my friend Thomas Allison kept the kit from blowing away down the cliff. The image is cropped to match the original, which had a 48.5-degree horizontal field of view. Scanned from a print on Ilford MG IV Deluxe glossy RC paper, #1 1/2 filter.
In dominoe-like fashion, a block of Bighorn dolomite has fractured and fallen away from its source cliff at left. The primary jointing of the rock is parallel to the view direction, towards Steamboat Mountain at right-center view. A walk through the rockfall revealed only bedrock, water, and ice. Trees (subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce) have increased on the plateau at left -- likely due to post-fire recovery.
Eliot Blackwelder was a prodigious exploration geologist, typically working in remote country on his own or with a few young assistants. In NW Wyoming, he worked-out the glacial stages and described and named many of the prominent geologic formations. He was also the first to discover intact stromatolites (fossilized Cambrian algal heads). For many years he was the head of the geology department at Stanford University.
Blackwelder's camera is somewhat of a mystery. I have seen the original prints, and they are about postcard sized (3.25 by 5.5 inches), but his notes refer to a 4 by 5 camera and a "small Kodak". In 1911, he probably used a Kodak 3A folding pocket camera, in postcard format (3.25 by 5.5). This camera accepted glass plates, but his field notes indicate roll film, and an exposure of 1/100 s at f5. Given the field of view in the print, the taking lens was close to 150 mm, but the Kodak catalog for the 3A has a 6.5-inch focal length lens (165-mm).
Your own Reohotographic Survey project. Some others have done this type of work as well.
Mark Klett is probably the best known with a few books out showing his efforts.
https://arthistoryunstuffed.com/rephotographic-survey-re-seeing-the-west/
Your own Reohotographic Survey project. Some others have done this type of work as well.
Mark Klett is probably the best known with a few books out showing his efforts.
https://arthistoryunstuffed.com/rephotographic-survey-re-seeing-the-west/
Well, I guess it can be called "my own rephotographic survey project", although US Forest Service and National Park Service employees asked me to do it, and I would not have done it otherwise. It's a very fun an interesting job, and nice to be paid for it, but it is still a job.
I am familiar with some of Klett's work. There is a vast literature on repeat photography, going back to 1888 in Europe, and I have read several of these publications, and know some of the practitioners. I have published repeat photography as part of broader scientific works since 1993.
As I mentioned in the first post, and it should go without saying, others can post their own images here too -- this is not just for me.
A third set --
South Bitch Creek valley from its divide with Moose Basin, northern Teton Range, NW Wyoming
196854
mid-September 1897. Frank J. Haynes H-3710. Courtesy of Frank J. Haynes Collection, Montana Historical Society. Helena, MT
196853
September 13, 2019
On 4 by 5 Ilford Ortho Plus, with a 90-mm f8 Schneider Kreuznach Super Angulon, 1/34 s at F16. A period of heavy clouds precluded a more exact match to the original's timing. Scanned from a print on Ilford MG IV Deluxe glossy RC paper, #2 1/2 filter.
A limestone ridge dominates the scene. The small scattered plants in the foreground are mountain parsley. The large meadow in the valley below is Hidden Corral Basin. The camera station was on the Grand Teton National Park - Targhee National Forest boundary, and the scene is within the Jedediah Smith Wilderness. The three riders are easily identifiable on the original photo -- here is a crop from the original (the LFPF allowed resolution does not capture all of the detail on the original).
196855
Richard (Beaver Dick) Leigh is on the left, William Seward Webb is on the right. I have not figured out who the middle person is yet. Webb organized a large hunting expedition to the northern Tetons in 1896 and 1897, supported by the US Army; Webb was married to one of William Vanderbilt's daughters. He hired Frank Haynes to photograph the expedition. Haynes used glass plates in an 8 by 10 camera.
Haynes is a well-known early photographer. He had the photography concession in Yellowstone National Park for many years, followed by his son Jack E. Haynes. Frank was the official photographer on President Chester Arthur's trip to Yellowstone National Park and nearby areas in 1883.
The Haynes prints at the Montana Historical Society are the most consistently beautiful, from a tone and resolution perspective at least, and also aesthetically for many, I have seen in any early collection so far.
Anyone else have some repeats? I can keep posting, but it would be more fun to have more variety.
Alan Klein
14-Nov-2019, 20:39
I visited Arches National Park nearby to Moab, Utah, last year. Skyline Arch apparently had a major change back in the 1940's as you can see from the sign I shot nearby. The second picture was the "live" shot I took while I was there composed for aesthetic interest, not ecological study. But you still can see the big difference from 80 years ago. The new opening is 77' x 33.5'. The rockfall spit out a boulder doubling the original opening.
Alan Klein
14-Nov-2019, 20:40
I just noticed that the boulder must have been removed for safety reasons. Or rolled out of the way on it's own.
My repeats tend to be taken when I am wandering by a familiar scene with a different format camera than before. Bound to happen photographing along the same creek for 40 years...
I just noticed that the boulder must have been removed for safety reasons. Or rolled out of the way on it's own.
Do you mean the big boulder in the arch? Is that a person standing in the arch in the scene with the boulder? It's hard to tell from the images. The fate of the boulder is intriguing. If I am ever in Arches NP again, I will try and remember to look for the boulder.
My repeats tend to be taken when I am wandering by a familiar scene with a different format camera than before. Bound to happen photographing along the same creek for 40 years...
You probably know this, but the differing format does not matter that much, and makes no difference as long as the same stand-point is used, the images are centered, and the field of view of the original is captured (easier with a slightly wider lens). This all assumes cropping during enlargement. The originals scenes I am retaking include a wide range of formats. I use a 4 by 5 for all of them, except one that was from a tiny pinnacle in the Tetons, where I knew I would not be able to set up a tripod, as I had been there 35 years ago. Here, I used a 6 by 9 Voigtlander Bessa II and a Nikon F as a back-up. I think the original, taken in 1936, was with a Leica or some other small camera.
Alan Klein
16-Nov-2019, 18:56
Do you mean the big boulder in the arch? Is that a person standing in the arch in the scene with the boulder? It's hard to tell from the images. The fate of the boulder is intriguing. If I am ever in Arches NP again, I will try and remember to look for the boulder.
Yes, the big boulder in the arch. That is a person standing in the hole which is now 77 feet across about double what was there before. So that was a big boulder that fell out. Did it roll down the hill subsequently? Or moved by the park rangers? You might ask them if you're there and let us know what you found out. I'm curious. Thanks.
You probably know this, but the differing format does not matter that much, and makes no difference as long as the same stand-point is used, the images are centered, and the field of view of the original is captured (easier with a slightly wider lens). This all assumes cropping during enlargement. ...
It ends up mattering a great deal to me. I contact only, no cropping, so one reason to retake it in a larger format is to have a bigger print of a scene and its light. Since I often include the film's rebate as part of the image, my personal working assumptions are much different than yours. Moving from a 4x5 to an 8x10 when 'retaking' an image requires a longer lens in order to maintain similar perspective (spacial relationship between near and far) and framing (edges and corners that define the center) of the original image.
But rarely can I improve upon the original seeing. It is difficult enough to be in the same place in the same part of the season, at the right time of day with the same wind and light conditions. So I tend to treat each use of a different format from the same spot as a different image. The closer the retake is to the original, the more I am usually dissatisfied with it. After two or four decades, one would hope I have learned a thing or two about a thing or two, and see some improvement or hint of maturity in my images.
Photographing along Prairie Creek for the last 40 years has been long enough to appreciate the many changes it has gone through in such a short time. A fallen giant and an opening to the sky created...the trunk of the fallen slowly becoming an elevated forest of berries and conifers. A scrawny 100 year old redwood in direct sunlight for the first time starts to stretch upwards. A bench of gravel left by the floods of Dec. 1964 slowly fills in with ferns, grasses, berries, then alders. The 250 year old maples standing proudly on the back of this bench against the backdrop of redwoods, have been collapsing one by one as they near their three century age limit. Each one was a vertical forest of lichen, moss and ferns, from the bottom of the trunk to the end of each branch, and weighing more than its leaves. Young maples are standing near-by.
That is the sort of thing I am trying to say using the light falling through centuries of redwoods.
It ends up mattering a great deal to me. I contact only, no cropping, so one reason to retake it in a larger format is to have a bigger print of a scene and its light. Since I often include the film's rebate as part of the image, my personal working assumptions are much different than yours. Moving from a 4x5 to an 8x10 when 'retaking' an image requires a longer lens in order to maintain similar perspective (spacial relationship between near and far) and framing (edges and corners that define the center) of the original image.
But rarely can I improve upon the original seeing. It is difficult enough to be in the same place in the same part of the season, at the right time of day with the same wind and light conditions. So I tend to treat each use of a different format from the same spot as a different image. The closer the retake is to the original, the more I am usually dissatisfied with it. After two or four decades, one would hope I have learned a thing or two about a thing or two, and see some improvement or hint of maturity in my images.
Photographing along Prairie Creek for the last 40 years has been long enough to appreciate the many changes it has gone through in such a short time. A fallen giant and an opening to the sky created...the trunk of the fallen slowly becoming an elevated forest of berries and conifers. A scrawny 100 year old redwood in direct sunlight for the first time starts to stretch upwards. A bench of gravel left by the floods of Dec. 1964 slowly fills in with ferns, grasses, berries, then alders. The 250 year old maples standing proudly on the back of this bench against the backdrop of redwoods, have been collapsing one by one as they near their three century age limit. Each one was a vertical forest of lichen, moss and ferns, from the bottom of the trunk to the end of each branch, and weighing more than its leaves. Young maples are standing near-by.
That is the sort of thing I am trying to say using the light falling through centuries of redwoods.
I figured format would matter a lot or you, as you contact print. My reply was meant to be more generic. As for a retake being close to the original, I have noticed that many people find the similarity in old versus new uninteresting; they want to see change.
Focal length determines field of view, but does not affect perspective; whatever is common to both images will have the same spatial or geometric relationship, or perspective. But I think you know this too, even though you say otherwise above.
Many years ago I visited Prairie Creek, a beautiful and maybe challenging place to do repeat photography due to few stable landmarks visible through the forest. The small-scale changes you mention would be interesting.
The usual approach for repeat photography for scientific purposes is very monkey-see monkey-do, and there is no real incentive for "improvement", because this would confound interpretations. I did not think there would be much interest in it on LFPF because it is is so un-artistic.
I really appreciate the various perspectives on this topic, so thank you.
...Focal length determines field of view, but does not affect perspective; whatever is common to both images will have the same spatial or geometric relationship, or perspective. But I think you know this too, even though you say otherwise above....
Aye, but I see it as the image driving the process...the image determines field of view, perspective and all that stuff. If I want a certain image, then the focal length lens I pick will determine the perspective, because to photograph the image, I will have to place the camera closer or farther away from the scene to achieve the image. Changing camera position changes the perspective. A common example of this is a head and shoulder portrait. The shorter the focal length, the closer the camera has to be to the subject -- to the point of having perspective problems in the form of rather large-looking noses relative to the rest of the head.
Drew Wiley
17-Nov-2019, 19:00
Quite often the possibility of falling over a cliff or into a river, or having a tree in the way, or having to do drastic front rise to overcome too steep an angle of view pretty much limits the options of distance and focal length. Even in Kansas, where it's allegedly flat, there might be a bull in the pasture not allowing you to set up your tripod closer.
My quote, as posted in post #22, leaves out an important aspect that I figured was obvious, that is, in repeat photography with a purpose of rigorous comparison, the standpoint needs to be the same for all scenes. I mention this aspect in post #18. If, as Vaughn says, a certain image is preferred, and it results in a different standpoint, then a rigorous comparison of the scenes is not possible, no matter what focal length is used. The term standpoint (borrowed from W. H. Jackson), is not quite precise enough, as it implies a two-dimensional location, whereas the height of the lens matters too. Perhaps "camera station" for a 3-dimensional location, is a better term.
So, using a constant camera station, which determines perspective, field of view only needs to be as wide or wider than the original scene's (again, assuming cropping in the printing process).
As Drew Wiley alludes to, occupying the original standpoint may not be possible, or practical, due to an obstacle, but "distance', which I assume means moving around to capture the scene, is not very relevant or ideal for reasons stated above. Occasionally, I may move the camera slightly to see around a tree that grew up since the last scene was photographed (shift could work too in some situations). Some of the standpoints I have visited were inches from a cliff edge, and I had to be extra careful. Two original scenes (out of 192 so far) now have a dense stand of trees in front of the camera station, and the repeat image is just a "wall of trees" instead of a wide scenic view. But generally, the camera location process is quite straightforward. But exact placement is difficult, and I will post a scene demonstrating how being a few feet away from the original camera station can make a difference.
Most of the early photographers, whose images I am repeating, did not use cameras with movements, so I usually avoid using movements so that perspectives match better. Sometimes I use a little forward tilt so that the foreground vegetation is in focus, but have noticed no significant change in perspective due to this, but theoretically, there should be. This is largely due to vegetation that obscures sharp boundaries, thus masking the discrepancy. My camera's tilts and swings are on the lens axis, by the way.
reddesert
19-Nov-2019, 15:36
Yes, the big boulder in the arch. That is a person standing in the hole which is now 77 feet across about double what was there before. So that was a big boulder that fell out. Did it roll down the hill subsequently? Or moved by the park rangers? You might ask them if you're there and let us know what you found out. I'm curious. Thanks.
Sandstone is pretty fragile and friable. The boulder is probably in a lot of little pieces somewhere below the arch. Even granite typically breaks up during rockfall - that's where all the talus fields at the feet of those majestic rock walls in Yosemite come from.
Here's a neat then-and-now display of historic and current photos of rock formations in Arches National Park, although the tripod holes have mostly not been exactly matched: https://www.nps.gov/arch/learn/photosmultimedia/then-and-now.htm
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.