Luminous Landscape Forum

Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: cdmacko on March 14, 2007, 05:14:54 pm

Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: cdmacko on March 14, 2007, 05:14:54 pm
I am new to the message board so first I want to say that I've been a fan of Michael Reichmann's site, photography and the video journal for a couple years now. But I am kind of puzzled why he would go all the way back to Antarctica again for a photography workshop.
The way I see it, it is a really hard place to get to and the reward isn't that great. I'm guessing that it is expensive and time consuming to get there. Then the visuals seem quite repetitive and run-of-the mill. One doesn't have to go all the way to Antacrtica to get most of those shots.
Anyway, I am a fan of the expeditions portfolios he's done such as China, Bangladesh, African Safari etc. but the first Antarctic expedition wasn't one of my favourites. Anyone know why he went back for more when there are so many other places to explore? Please excuse me if the answer has been spelled out somewhere already, I looked.
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: michael on March 14, 2007, 05:31:35 pm
Several reasons....

It's among the most enjoyable things I've ever done (standing up).

The photographic opportunities are amazing (regardless of what you may think).

I can make some money doing it.

Michael
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: wtlloyd on March 14, 2007, 06:04:27 pm
Party.

He goes to party.  
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on March 14, 2007, 06:09:13 pm
Apparently the rolling waves under the ship really relax him?  
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: Tim Gray on March 14, 2007, 06:14:44 pm
Where else would you get a penguin & sea "thing" shot?  
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: paulbk on March 14, 2007, 06:15:19 pm
Michael,
It is clear you are drawn to the more exotic places on the globe. But have you ever thought, “there’s no place like home.” I’d love to see more of eastern Canada through your eyes. Quebec road 132 along the south shore of the St. Lawrence. Anywhere in the Canadian Maritime’s: New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland Labrador, PEI... The interior of northern Quebec, Fort Mackenzie??

Or, since you live so close, have you been there, done that?

p

ps...... More, I’d love to see you shoot Ottawa (especially at Christmas). Your parliament building is, in my view, one of most handsome and stately buildings in the world. Truly a world class historic landmark.
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: wolfnowl on March 14, 2007, 08:15:48 pm
Quote
Quebec road 132 along the south shore of the St. Lawrence.

I love that road... from Montreal or so east, you follow the little two-lane blacktop along the river, around the Gaspé... there's that great rock outcrop at Percé, and then you cross into Campblellton, NB.  From the east side of town there's another road that follows the coastline around the north and eastern side of New Brunswick before crossing into Nova Scotia...  It's been a long time, but I have some great memories of that route.  I used to work out there, so I may be a little biased, but it's a beautiful stretch of earth.

Mike.
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: CatOne on March 14, 2007, 08:36:45 pm
When you say "The first Antarctica expedition wasn't one of my favorites" are you saying this as an attendee, or as someone who looked at the pictures Michael and others put up, which you may not have thought were all that impressive?

Because, I can assure you, while you can get some similar scenery in some places (the inside passage in Alaska is pretty impressive), you cannot replicate what there is to see in Antarctica.  The scale is huge, there is wildlife at every turn, and it is wild.  It's not always easy to capture on film (er, digitally), what it is like to pull in to the South Orkney islands and see thousands of icebergs in every direction -- many of them 100 feet high and a square mile in area (on occasion, there have been 'bergs of 100 square miles going through there -- er sorry for buying the Hummer H2 :-P).

You also cannot get the experience of cruising up to a beach with 50,000 breeding King Penguins any other place, like you can in South Georgia.  I took a pano, which can give a small idea:

LARGE IMAGE WARNING:

South Georgia Pano (http://blloyd.smugmug.com/photos/132159275-O.jpg)

I went on the trip, based on pictures I saw from the previous version of the trip.  It was everything I expected (and I had high expectations).  I for one am very thankful that Michael ran a second expedition -- be aware the trip isn't just for him and the instructors, but also to shepherd 45 paying photographers to have a photographic expedition that is one of the best of their life in terms of scenery.  Sure, it's not as convenient as the preserves in my back yard.  Travel time to/from our boat from my house was > 36 hours each way.  I don't care... I got to go to Antarctica.  It's not for everyone, but it sure as hell was for me.  In hindsight, if asked whether it was worth the money for me, and if I'd do it again in the same situation, I can answer with 100% certainty YES.

If you want to see some other images, many of which focus on overall landscape to get an idea, you can have a look here:

Antarctica Gallery (http://blloyd.smugmug.com/gallery/2514124)
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: Ray on March 14, 2007, 10:01:12 pm
Quote
You also cannot get the experience of cruising up to a beach with 50,000 breeding King Penguins any other place, like you can in South Georgia.  I took a pano, which can give a small idea:

LARGE IMAGE WARNING:

South Georgia Pano (http://blloyd.smugmug.com/photos/132159275-O.jpg)
Antarctica Gallery (http://blloyd.smugmug.com/gallery/2514124)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106685\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

CatOne,
Your 89MB image of the penguins in South Georgia is impressive. The content is interesting and I like the fact that there are a couple of seals fairly close-up on the right.

But your photoshop rendition is just awful. You've done a poor job processing this image.

I assume it's a stitched image. When taking images for stitching, it's common practice to use the same exposure for each frame, which means, in order to avoid overexposure, exposing for the brightest part of the pano and using that same exposure for less bright parts of the scene.

You don't appear to have done this. The top right portion of the image is excessively bright with blown sky highlights and the rest of the image is excessively dull.

I don't know if those highlights in the sky are beyond retrievability in ACR, or even if these are jpeg images. Assuming that the highlight detail is recoverable and that you did shoot RAW, I would suggest you do a RAW conversion with EC around minus 2, shadows and contrast zero.

In Photoshop processing, protect the highlights by CTRL left clicking on RGB channels, inverse the selection and then use the appropriate adjustment layers (levels. curves, whatever) at, say 80% opacity.
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: DaFu on March 14, 2007, 10:42:27 pm
Ray,

I don't think he posted that in the hopes of a blistering critique.

I, for one, am most envious of everyone who went on this expedtion. Images and stories told clearly show it was astonishing and beautiful and perhaps even the pictures weren't all that important.

Dave
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: CatOne on March 14, 2007, 10:58:47 pm
Quote
CatOne,
Your 89MB image of the penguins in South Georgia is impressive. The content is interesting and I like the fact that there are a couple of seals fairly close-up on the right.

But your photoshop rendition is just awful. You've done a poor job processing this image.

I assume it's a stitched image. When taking images for stitching, it's common practice to use the same exposure for each frame, which means, in order to avoid overexposure, exposing for the brightest part of the pano and using that same exposure for less bright parts of the scene.

You don't appear to have done this. The top right portion of the image is excessively bright with blown sky highlights and the rest of the image is excessively dull.

I don't know if those highlights in the sky are beyond retrievability in ACR, or even if these are jpeg images. Assuming that the highlight detail is recoverable and that you did shoot RAW, I would suggest you do a RAW conversion with EC around minus 2, shadows and contrast zero.

In Photoshop processing, protect the highlights by CTRL left clicking on RGB channels, inverse the selection and then use the appropriate adjustment layers (levels. curves, whatever) at, say 80% opacity.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106692\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Ray,

I used CS3 to stitch the image.  It was done on manual mode -- ISO was fixed, and the picture was done completely in manual mode -- aperture and shutter were fixed.  The reason it is very bright on the right side of the frame is that the sun above the right side of the frame.  It was just to the right of the shoreline (and to the left of our ship).  I was aware of this... but given the time we landed... I didn't really have time to wait for the sun to move.  Fact of the matter is... much of the shooting in Antarctica is driven by "you shoot when you are somewhere" -- the typical "magic light" conditions were typically shot from the ship, with no tripod possible, before breakfast or way, way after dinner (and subsequent time in the bar ;-)

Anyway, before taking the shot I panned the camera back and forth to check the exposure.  I set it so the portion where I shot in the sun was around +1.7ev.  I didn't want to blow out the sky, and that was my only real criteria.  Then I shot everything so the sky was quite "hot."  I could pull the whole image down.

Oh, and I could clone out that goober that repeats say 11 times across the top of the frame.  The fact that it's there should serve as SOME indication that it was a real "quick and dirty" effort  

I applied minimal post-processing to that image.  I don't consider it to be anything that is anywhere near "exhbition quality."  That wasn't the intent -- I really did it for a couple reasons:

1)  I wanted to test my new RRS panorama equipment to see if the parallax problems I had prior to using equipment which pivoted around the "nodal" point would be better -- mission accomplished.
2)  It was a very "big" scene -- one that my 1D mark II has no hope of capturing in a single shot, given that I have only 8 megapixels of resolution.

I am aware there are many things I could do in post to improve the image.  I could hit shadows and highlights some more, I could do a lot more work with curves (though I do not make a living by selling my images and Photoshop has a *steep* learning curve so I am limited to being only a novice and really only being adequate with S&H, levels, curves, and HSL controls.

At any rate, thanks for the critique -- though I would agree the image could use a lot more work.  Whether I care enough to do the work I don't know -- I doubt I'll go through the pain of re-adapting my R800 to roll paper and I'm not going to sell it or really use it for anything more than documentary pictures anyway.

Also, that still doesn't change the fact that THERE WERE 50,000 PENGUINS THERE!  And this is one of the things that you truly, truly have to smell to believe  

We also were unable to make a landing at a spot on South Georgia where they had upwards of 120,000 penguins.  The bay was not well protected and with the Katabatic winds, we simply couldn't get onto the Zodiacs.
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: CatOne on March 14, 2007, 11:06:21 pm
Quote
Ray,

I don't think he posted that in the hopes of a blistering critique.

I, for one, am most envious of everyone who went on this expedtion. Images and stories told clearly show it was astonishing and beautiful and perhaps even the pictures weren't all that important.

Dave
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106700\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If I'd really tried, I'd care  

But it was really to illustrate a point.  "Why Antarctica again?" is something that should be obvious -- if Michael were to run an Antarctica expedition once a year, he could fill the 50 slots year after year after year, I'm certain of that (pictures from people on previous trips could help sell it... I know Schewe's images were what sold me).  The only reason this might not happen is because Michael and the instructors would want to go other places while they still have the time to do so.

It's also important to note that this year's expedition was fairly different to last year's.  They shared about 4 days worth of itinerary (the part on the Antarctic peninsula).  This years also went to the Falkland Islands and South Georgia, as well as the South Orkney islands -- this was about 8 days of shooting which was completely different to the 2005 trip.  So that's, like, 66.666667% different or something :-)

Oh, and the reason I talk about 12 shooting days for a ~19 day trip is that these things are hundreds of nautical miles apart, and it takes time to truck across those distances at ship speed of ~12 knots.  That open sea time is rough.  Michael can attest to that  
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: DaFu on March 14, 2007, 11:24:32 pm
Quote
these things are hundreds of nautical miles apart, and it takes time to truck across those distances at ship speed of ~12 knots. That open sea time is rough. Michael can attest to that

Hee, hee!

It's interesting isn't it? How attentive were all of you because you'd just spent so much tempestuous and long-day shipboard-boring time getting there?

Regards

Dave
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: CatOne on March 14, 2007, 11:39:01 pm
Quote
Hee, hee!

It's interesting isn't it? How attentive were all of you because you'd just spent so much tempestuous and long-day shipboard-boring time getting there?

Regards

Dave
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106713\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, the open sea time went pretty quickly, actually.  When we were near land, it was often 3 landings or zodiac cruises per day.  At 2-4 hours apiece, that meant a LOT of activity, and a LOT of shooting.  Plus when Michael called on the intercom at 4:30 AM before breakfast and we got up... it made for LONG days with LOTS and LOTS of shooting.

So the at-sea days were actually a blessing.  The gave a little down-time for catching up on sleep, for culling images to a manageable level (With about 7000 shots in the 3 weeks, I'll admit 100% were not keepers ;-) and of course for talking smack in the bar, after imbibing too many of Juan's special mystery drinks.  I think maybe those drinks were a mix of whatever he had an excess of in the bar.  They were tasty and got you good and bombed, though  
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on March 14, 2007, 11:57:56 pm
You guys are real beasts, I feel that I would have a hard time producing decent images in those hit and run conditions.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: Ray on March 15, 2007, 12:42:55 am
Quote
Ray,
I don't think he posted that in the hopes of a blistering critique.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106700\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Just trying to be helpful   . You'll notice I quite liked the image. I hope those penguins are individually identifiable on a large print   .
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: Stephen Starkman on March 15, 2007, 10:32:55 am
Antarctica is a truly amazing place - not only for photography. I was along with Michael for his 2005 expedition. I hope to travel there again some day. The landscape is unique, and like any good journey, you come back with more than interesting photos.

- Stephen

Antarctica 2005 - small gallery (http://slsman.smugmug.com/gallery/1587277#76922389)
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: katemann on March 16, 2007, 10:25:26 am
I'm sick with envy. Go to Antarctica twice? hell, I'd go to New Jersey twice if I had the opportunity.

It appears to have been a terrific time, a great party, with fabulous company and an incredible landscape.

That said, I would agree that a lot of Michael's shots are excellent regardless of venue.
That said, I would give five years of my life to have the opportunity to travel around the globe with my camera.

I agree about the closer to home - Michael, the Bruce Peninsula may not be so exotic as everywhere you go, but it is only about 4 hours from your place in the Muskokas and certainly worth a look. I would love to see what you do.
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: Rob C on March 16, 2007, 10:54:41 am
Quote
I wonder how much of a discount CatOne is getting on his next workshop for talking the trip up so much.  Personally you could not pay me to go down there.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106998\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No, it's not my idea of heaven either. Frankly, reading about all the work to be done after shooting, the time spent with laptops after dinner, etc. I think folks have forgotten totally about the charms of film: you went on location, shot your brains out at the right time of day, had a shower and then retired to the fleshpots for the evening, taking your models with you if you happened to be in that line of work. I was; I'd hate to have missed it all wedded to a bloody laptop! Think of the indigestion...

Okay, those bums at the X-Ray could ruin it all for you perhaps, but they couldn't steal the memories.

Ciao - Rob C
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: DarkPenguin on March 16, 2007, 11:36:59 am
It looks so cool (sorry) I'd absolutely love to go there.

I had just assumed that after his last trip someone must have told Michael that he had missed his opportunity to be the first Canadian to club a baby seal in the southern hemisphere.  Hence the second trip.  (There are seals on the godless underbelly of the planet, right?  They aren't just a northern hemisphere thing, right?)
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: CatOne on March 16, 2007, 12:04:32 pm
Quote
I wonder how much of a discount CatOne is getting on his next workshop for talking the trip up so much.  Personally you could not pay me to go down there.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106998\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You're serious?  Wow.  Different strokes I guess.  We're free to both have been math/physics majors in college, and yet have vastly different preferences on how and what to shoot.

Or maybe it's because you can't readily shoot with a 4x5 down there  
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: Petrjay on March 16, 2007, 02:21:49 pm
Quote
It looks so cool (sorry) I'd absolutely love to go there.

I had just assumed that after his last trip someone must have told Michael that he had missed his opportunity to be the first Canadian to club a baby seal in the southern hemisphere.  Hence the second trip.  (There are seals on the godless underbelly of the planet, right?  They aren't just a northern hemisphere thing, right?)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107012\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

From what I understand, there are always a few leopard seals hanging around the penguin colonies, and that anyone dumb enough to try to club one stands an excellent chance of coming home as table scraps in a plastic bag.
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: cmburns on March 17, 2007, 04:42:36 pm
Forget 2nd trip I hope there's a 3rd. I think the main thing that kept me from doing the 2nd one was pics and descriptions of the Drake Passage crossing on the first trip. Lying in bed with a barf bag for a day means the photography would have to be pretty amazing. From what i've seen at various sites, this time was pretty amazing and then some. That one iceberg that had the arch and what looked like columns to it, it just bothers me that I didn't get to see that and won't get to see that, probably already melted away.
     The other factor for me is cost. I foolishly showed the pictures of this latest trip to the girlffriend and now she wants to go as well, so the cost just doubled. Even the pics of the ship layed over at 30% degrees didn't dissuade her. So here's hoping there's a 3rd expedition. Besides with global warming(mans fault or not it's happening) and the ice sheets breaking up, every trip is going to show you something new. It's not like going to Yellowstone the same week every year. Ok the penguins are the same but who cares, they're so damn cute who wouldn't want to shoot them every year or two.
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on March 17, 2007, 11:56:53 pm
My understanding is that such trips are organized on a regular basis by the operators down there.

I am not sure how photography friendly the regular trips are though.

I do personnaly not love the idea of being on a beach shooting the same subject with another 49 guys. For me it is kind of a variant of the Japanese tourist bus around the Eiffel Tower in the 80s.  

I would therefore probably prefer a regular trip even if there were a little bit fewer opportunties, but that is just me.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: michael on March 18, 2007, 09:10:04 am
There are regular tourist trips to go on, and they can be fine for photographers. The advantage of the trips that are oriented toward photography, such as the ones that I do, is that we control to some extent where the ship is and when, so that we can be at the best places for the best light. On regular cruise ships people want to sleep late, be back for afternoon tea, and such.

As for being on a beach with 40+ other photographers, that's an image based on misconception. Yes, you get off the zodiacs at one point, but then there are vast areas to explore. Other than the sensible safety rule of always being with at least one other person, which (can be fun), it is possible to completely avoid being with anyone else for long stretches of time while shooting.

And on the zodiac cruises (one of the best times for shooting) on a regular trip you'd be fighting with tourists who don't understand the needs of photographers. On my trips everyone understands how to get low on the shooting side so that others behind you can work. Also, the zodiac drivers are told how to position the boats, something that doesn't happen on a regular trip.

Finally, a trip like the ones that I organize have several photographic instructors onboard who provide lectures, print review sessions, etc, on a daily basis. These are people whose courses normally cost hundreds of dollars a day, IF they happen to come to your city.

As for crossing the Drake passage, there's no way to avoid it. It lies between South America and Antarctica and takes some 36 hours to cross. I simply regard it as the cost of admission. I've now crossed the Drake 4 times, each time I was in my bunk for most of the crossing. Not actually sick, but happier to be lying down that standing up. Some people are unaffected.

I haven't finalized the details yet, but I am talking with Quark about chartering one of their ships for January '09. This would be an extended Antarctic penninsula trip lasting about 13 days. I hope to have more details in a couple of months. It will also likely be the last Antarctic trip that I do.

Anyone wanting to be on the waitlist should drop me a line  ().

Michael
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on March 18, 2007, 09:50:33 am
Quote
As for being on a beach with 40+ other photographers, that's an image based on misconception. Yes, you get off the zodiacs at one point, but then there are vast areas to explore. Other than the sensible safety rule of always being with at least one other person, which (can be fun), it is possible to completely avoid being with anyone else for long stretches of time while shooting.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107263\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for the answer Michael.

Regards,
Bernard
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: ndevlin on March 18, 2007, 04:22:57 pm
Quote
It's just that I am very suspicious of anyone who goes by a pseudonym expecially one like CatOne.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107242\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I applaud the accuity with which you have captured the American zeitgeist.  I just hope you're kidding.

Not wanting to endure the journey there is one thing (and for the record, flying Aerolineas Argentinas is much worse than sailing the Drake), but not wanting to experience natural majesty and beauty unsurpassed on earth.....????  

- N.

ps. for the record, "CatOne" is a heck of a nice guy and a good photographer.
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: katemann on March 18, 2007, 05:06:38 pm
ddolde, perhaps you would prefer to criticize CatOne personally in private.
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: Workflow_Craig on March 18, 2007, 10:05:53 pm
Quote
It looks so cool (sorry) I'd absolutely love to go there.

I had just assumed that after his last trip someone must have told Michael that he had missed his opportunity to be the first Canadian to club a baby seal in the southern hemisphere.  Hence the second trip.  (There are seals on the godless underbelly of the planet, right?  They aren't just a northern hemisphere thing, right?)
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=107012\")

A couple of things.
Yes there are seals down there, they eat all kinds of Penguins even DarkPenguins.  

I would love to go there aswell as I could say I have then been to all the continents.

Cheers

     Craig

[a href=\"http://www.webandflo.com]www.webandflo.com[/url]
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: Rob C on March 19, 2007, 07:37:18 am
Quote
A couple of things.
Yes there are seals down there, they eat all kinds of Penguins even DarkPenguins.  

I would love to go there aswell as I could say I have then been to all the continents.

Cheers

     Craig

www.webandflo.com (http://www.webandflo.com)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107381\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Craig, why would you particularly want to be able to say that?

Rob C
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: bjanes on March 19, 2007, 09:02:33 am
Quote
Several reasons....

It's among the most enjoyable things I've ever done (standing up).

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106656\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Oh, yes, to quote Bill Buckley: "Once on the honeymoon night is not enough"  

Bill
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: Petrjay on March 19, 2007, 10:36:57 am
Quote
Craig, why would you particularly want to be able to say that?

Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107443\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Rob, he probably just wants to be able to tell all his friends that he's been incontinent lately.
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: Jay Kaplan on March 20, 2007, 10:23:22 pm
Quote
I am new to the message board so first I want to say that I've been a fan of Michael Reichmann's site, photography and the video journal for a couple years now. But I am kind of puzzled why he would go all the way back to Antarctica again for a photography workshop.
.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106651\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Simple, they must be crazy. Why would anyone in their right mind want to be in an aluminium tube for 17 hours at 30,000 feet?  

Thank you but I will pass on that. Yeah, I know, different strokes for different folks but still, 17 hours in an aluminium tube?
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: Mort54 on March 20, 2007, 11:12:12 pm
Methinks there's just a little envy from a few of the posters on this thread. Count me among those who would give his left &*% to go on one of these trips.

Hans.
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: Ray on March 20, 2007, 11:41:36 pm
My main objection to an Antartic trip would be the additional expenses of flying halfway across the world to join the 'team', (Australia has a more direct route to the Antartic), plus the very significant fact that I simply don't like cold weather. I'm used to the tropics. I don't like wearing gloves.

However, I have to say that I sorely miss the opportunity to put all those experts straight, who have been sharing their experience and knowledge on those expeditions. (Just kidding   ).
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on March 21, 2007, 12:44:16 am
Quote
However, I have to say that I sorely miss the opportunity to put all those experts straight, who have been sharing their experience and knowledge on those expeditions. (Just kidding   ).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107805\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think the next Antarctic expedition should include you and Howie giving a joint presentation on chemical disposal techniques for the Antarctic.  
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: Herkko on March 21, 2007, 05:35:39 am
Quote
No, it's not my idea of heaven either. Frankly, reading about all the work to be done after shooting, the time spent with laptops after dinner, etc. I think folks have forgotten totally about the charms of film: you went on location, shot your brains out at the right time of day, had a shower and then retired to the fleshpots for the evening, taking your models with you if you happened to be in that line of work. I was; I'd hate to have missed it all wedded to a bloody laptop!

I cannot agree more, fortunately memory cards are nowadays logistically superb 'film'. With those prices (4 to 8GB for price of a decent dinner) I can have them with 1000's of pictures from one trip. I have by experience guts to cull out the worst reject pictures right from camera. If 10,000 exposures per trip is not enough for me then I'm propably shooting too much.

Last time, and I mean last time in my life for photography trips, I carried laptop to China in April 2005. Doing pictures at hotel room in some exotic place is the least favorite pasttime I can invent to myself. If I will find myself searching for my web-mail in India or China, no worries, I'm just having a bad nightmare..

About Antarctica: I can have five trips to tropic arranged by myself in price of one package expedition into Antarctica. Because I've been living in cold country all my life I have decided to give a go for 100 trips to warmer climates before even thinking about A  
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: michael on March 21, 2007, 08:07:50 am
Don't lose sight of the fact that on this trip we had along some of the world's leading experts on digital imaging, Photoshop, coluor management, and photography in general. Having a laptop was essential to be able to spend 20 days picking these folks brains, listening to their lectures and preacticing what was learned.

And as for shooting film, well, as the French say – chauqe a son gout. It's hard for me though to image taking 200 rolls of film to Antarctica. Impossible as checked luggage and impossible as carry on. Also, why give up the superior quality of digital? Oh yes, and the several thousand cost of the film and processing would then have to tallied in as well.

Don't shoot so much? OK, if that's your want. I counted some 800 seperate shooting situations over the 20 days. You could restrict yourself to just a couple of frames per. On the other hand when a humpback whale is breaching in front of you, or a city size iceberb is flowing by the ship at sunrise, just shooting a few frames would be a bit limiting, I think.

Michael
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: Rob C on March 21, 2007, 09:32:32 am
Michael - I supose the point, really, is that these trips of yours are not 'shoots' in the pro assignment sense of the word and that the people along for the ride are taking something out of the digital process instruction, apart from just enjoying the opportunity of getting to somewhere not on the doorstep, as it were. In that sense, whether or not film relieves one of the need to spend non-shooting time in the company of a computer is neither here nor there.

You also have a point about the convenience or otherwise of film in today's travelling climate, where the terror threat has taken prime position. Even when I used to do trips there was still the problem of X-Ray and my way out was to approach the relevant consulates with my business documentation and ask them to write me a request, in their language, for my film to be hand-checked at control; this worked except for the US, where the Embasssy in London was less than helpful...

Oh well, them was the days them was!

Ciao - Rob C
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: jorgedelfino on March 22, 2007, 01:07:32 pm
Michael, if you ever come back to Antartica, do it from the Chilean side, that way not only I can join you, but also show places like; Chiloe and the "wooden churches" or the "torres del paine" national park.
Regard
jd
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: Rusty Jackson on March 24, 2007, 10:06:05 am
Michael et al,

It was an amazing trip... I would go again in a heartbeat.  Why anyone would discount the place without seeing it is equally dumbfounding.  Never in my life have I seen so many forces of nature in action at once.

http://terra360.com/antarctica/ (http://terra360.com/antarctica/)

is my take from '07.

Great job.

Rusty
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: DaFu on March 24, 2007, 10:30:41 am
Rusty,

Thanks for posting the link! The pictures are wonderful!


Dave
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: cgf on March 24, 2007, 10:38:38 am
Quote
The pictures are wonderful!
Dave

Indeed!!!

I freely admit to being jealous of such a trip
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: wolfnowl on March 24, 2007, 05:01:15 pm
Rusty:  Beautiful images... thanks for sharing!

BTW, a group of penguins is a colony, creche, huddle, parade, parcel or rookery, but not a gaggle!

Mike.
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: Mort54 on March 25, 2007, 11:21:52 pm
Quote
It was an amazing trip... I would go again in a heartbeat.

Rusty
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108423\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Rusty. Love your shots. Great storytelling. A quick question - how easy is it to get around in Buenos Aires and the other spots you visited in S. America if you only speak english? I'm visiting Patagonia next Feb and am trying to decide how much effort to put into learning Spanish.

Regards,
Hans.
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: Rusty Jackson on March 26, 2007, 09:10:35 am
Quote
Rusty. Love your shots. Great storytelling. A quick question - how easy is it to get around in Buenos Aires and the other spots you visited in S. America if you only speak english? I'm visiting Patagonia next Feb and am trying to decide how much effort to put into learning Spanish.

Regards,
Hans.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108676\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thank you Hans.  I speak English and fair French, the latter of which did me no good at all, save for a smile from the Aerolineas Argentinas stewardess in the airport lounge.  Otherwise I think I did just fine in Buenos Aires without speaking Spanish.  Had I not signed up for this trip on such short notice I think it would be wise to at a minimum learn the basics (where is... ?, what is...?, how do I... ?.. etc).  I didn't even know that and was fine.  Outside in the country it was another story.
cheers, Rusty
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: CatOne on March 26, 2007, 11:13:30 am
Quote
Rusty. Love your shots. Great storytelling. A quick question - how easy is it to get around in Buenos Aires and the other spots you visited in S. America if you only speak english? I'm visiting Patagonia next Feb and am trying to decide how much effort to put into learning Spanish.

Regards,
Hans.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108676\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hey Hans,

I have been to southern Chile (Torres del Paine) as well as to Buenos Aires and Ushuaia.  In most places, there are enough people that deal with travelers that they speak passable English.  Certainly it's helpful to know a few phrases (where's the bathroom, etc.) but if you have a good attitude and some patience you'll probably be able to get by.

Just avoid the "ugly American" syndrome of thinking that if you speak LOUDER they'll actually understand English
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: Mort54 on March 26, 2007, 06:58:08 pm
I actually started a Berlitz Spanish class in anticipation of my upcoming trip, but I ended up dropping it after a few weeks. I just don't think I'm capable of learning a language the Berlitz way (total immersion, nothing is spoken in the class but Spanish - sink or swim, in other words). Lets face it - I'm an old dog, and learning Spanish is a new trick :-) I still have all the workbooks and CDs, however, so I will probably continue to work thru those. I'll be visiting Buenos Aires, Torres del Paine, Los Glaciers, and Santiago - all places frequented by tourists. So I'm hoping my rudimentary Spanish will get me by.

Hans.
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: cgf on March 26, 2007, 07:20:12 pm
Quote
... So I'm hoping my rudimentary Spanish will get me by.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108881\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You could take a phrasebook with you... pocket sized book covering almost any situation. I used one for a trip through Paraguay & Bolivia, had no problems despite my limited spanish.

Cheers
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: soslund on March 27, 2007, 02:43:54 am
QUOTE(ddolde @ Mar 16 2007, 07:43 AM)
I wonder how much of a discount CatOne is getting on his next workshop for talking the trip up so much.  Personally you could not pay me to go down there.

Good, don't go.  Who needs you, anyway?  Although, I suppose if you went we could throw you overboard and have a good man overboard drill.  And given your attitude, who would care if the exercise was a success.  You, sir, should really keep your mouth shut.  As the proverb says, "Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and confirm it."  You obviously have a wonderful opinion of Michael as well (discounts?).  Go troll somewhere else.

I went on both trips, and would go on a third in a "heartbeat" (just a little inside humor I won't share with you).  I would simply state that Antarctica is one of the most spectacular places I have had the opportunity to visit.  As one person noted, "It's one of the few places on earth we haven't managed to  F-up....yet."

So please sir.  Don't go.  I wouldn't want this glorious place tainted by your presence.
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: tim wolcott on March 27, 2007, 10:46:01 pm
I have recently went on the trip with Michael. My images are not up yet. But if you cannot see the odvious sellable images that are there for you to shoot, then there is not much hope for you.  I make all living selling my prints in exhibitions in galleries throughout the world, let me tell you I barely got them up and they are selling like crazy. If you cannot see the potential of what there is in Antarctica to shoot then you need to spend a little more time opening your vision.  I will post these soon on galleryoftheamericanlandscape.com.  thanks Michael you know I'm in for 2009.  Thanks for a great trip, this time we'll have more diet soda aboard.  Tim Wolcott
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: Camboman on March 28, 2007, 10:52:48 am
Will someone please post the link to the sweepstakes I enter to win the all expense paid cabin suite on the next Antarctic expedition.

  Thanks!
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: CatOne on March 28, 2007, 11:37:43 am
Quote
...

Good, don't go.  Who needs you, anyway?  Although, I suppose if you went we could throw you overboard and have a good man overboard drill.  And given your attitude, who would care if the exercise was a success.  You, sir, should really keep your mouth shut.  As the proverb says, "Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and confirm it."  You obviously have a wonderful opinion of Michael as well (discounts?).  Go troll somewhere else.

...
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=108933\")

ROFL, Scott.  Unfortunately, I must remind you that as ship doctor, the Hippocratic oath prevents you from "volunteering" someone to run the "man overboard" drill in this manner  

I know we all did have a great time, even if it was somewhere Michael had seen before.

-Bill (THERE, no nickname... but if you wonder how I got such a "nefarious" nick it refers to my cycling category... a holdover from days way back when I raced and was reasonably fit [a href=\"http://www.usacycling.org/news/user/story.php?id=580)]http://www.usacycling.org/news/user/story.php?id=580)[/url]
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: KolinP on March 29, 2007, 12:12:38 am
Thank you Michael for your part in shrinking and educating our world.

And thank you Bill, Stephen and Rusty for your wonderful galleries. I've run out of superlatives and that includes loud vocalisations like "Oooohhh!" and "Aaaawwwww" that will get my neighbors wondering ...

I think these images should be compulsory viewing SOON, for every school-child in every nation ... (OK, excuse me while I adjust my reality gauge...).

But I'll repeat the cliche that Antarctica should be declared the Eighth Wonder of our fragile World, and these photos and anecdotes are opening our minds.

If we saw those Pleaneau Bay iceberg-columns(Stephen) or that dimpled ice(Rusty) on any geological feature in a NASA/ESA image from any other planet or moon, we'd be wondering if we'd found a message from ET at last  

My mind has been hugely broadened, thanks  

Colin

P.S. I get seasick on my scandanavian rocking chair but if I could afford it I'd happily suffer the short term travel discomforts for some long term memories from such a trip.
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: katemann on March 29, 2007, 08:43:12 am
Rusty - thanks for the candid shots. It looks like a fabulous party!

The galleries are all wonderful. I appreciate your links.
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: Rusty Jackson on April 01, 2007, 01:11:31 pm
Quote
Rusty - thanks for the candid shots. It looks like a fabulous party!

The galleries are all wonderful. I appreciate your links.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109343\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks Katemann

I added a few dozen more images in the past week or so, plus two or three more links.

We're leaving for the 3rd trip next week.  I'll be posting messages here from the ship LIVE.

Cheers
Rusty
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: Schewe on April 01, 2007, 02:20:26 pm
Quote
ROFL, Scott.  Unfortunately, I must remind you that as ship doctor, the Hippocratic oath prevents you from "volunteering" someone to run the "man overboard" drill in this manner   
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109132\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, Scott wouldn't actually have to do it...Seth and would be HAPPY to throw him overboard!. Then Scott can come in and save the poor fellow (or not).

:~)

Seriously, anybody who is stupid enough to not realize how special and rare a trip to photograph in Antarctica is (even if it's for second time), is either not telling the truth and therefore being a troll, or is a twisted Republican Bush lover from Texas who simply wants to pretend that Global Warming _IS'T_ wiping out some of the most beautiful and fragile landscape locations on Earth.

To be honest, going to the same place over an over-particularly when it's soooo photographable, is how you develop a complete body of work. While taking _ONE_ trip to Antarctica is a very special treat, going twice gave us all the chance to revisit places-obviously in a different context-and reshoot things we already had the chance to shoot but under different conditions. Not to mention going to completely new places...

How many time has Ansel Adams shot in Yosemite? You think he didn't see things in a "new light" every time he went?

I doubt that I'll every get to the point where I view Antarctica as commonplace, I should be so lucky....but I would love to keep going back (maybe not EVERY year) for the rest of my life. It really is that special. And anybody who doesn't agree is just a big p**py head!!!

:~)

[there, I edited out poopy head]
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: michael on April 01, 2007, 06:23:51 pm
Jeff – I'm afraid that poopy head is simply much too strong language for this family oriented site, no matter how valid a statement.

Michael
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on April 01, 2007, 06:44:01 pm
Quote
Jeff – I'm afraid that poopy head is simply much too strong language for this family oriented site, no matter how valid a statement.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110135\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Absolutely! Next time spell it "p**py head," Jeff.  
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: David Mantripp on April 02, 2007, 03:20:32 am
Quote
Seriously, anybody who is stupid enough to not realize how special and rare a trip to photograph in Antarctica is (even if it's for second time), is either not telling the truth and therefore being a troll, or is a twisted Republican Bush lover from Texas who simply wants to pretend that Global Warming _IS'T_ wiping out some of the most beautiful and fragile landscape locations on Earth.

Although I totally empathise with the sentiment, tourism in Antarctica is becoming a very serious issue. Apart from the obvious question about carbon tax offsets (I'm assuming this was covered), the fact is that sooner or later there is going to be a major, irrecoverable ecological disaster resulting from a shipping incident in the Antarctic Peninsula.

The ethics and politics of visiting Antarctica solely for personal pleasure are complex issues. I would say that it is better just to say you went because you wanted to, and could afford to, rather than heading out on the thin ice of justification on wider grounds.
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: Ray on April 02, 2007, 06:32:47 am
Quote
Although I totally empathise with the sentiment, tourism in Antarctica is becoming a very serious issue. Apart from the obvious question about carbon tax offsets (I'm assuming this was covered), the fact is that sooner or later there is going to be a major, irrecoverable ecological disaster resulting from a shipping incident in the Antarctic Peninsula.

The ethics and politics of visiting Antarctica solely for personal pleasure are complex issues. I would say that it is better just to say you went because you wanted to, and could afford to, rather than heading out on the thin ice of justification on wider grounds.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110176\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think the issue here, perhaps, is that photos of scenes in a familiar environment have the potential of being exceptionally good. I've visited Nepal 3 times, once about 43 years ago and more recently twice, in 2005 and 2006.

I'm not really satisfied with most of the shots. I feel I should visit the place again. The more often I visit the place, the greater the opportunity of getting truly memorable (artisitc, whatever) shots.

But it's also an arduous undertaking, just as visiting the antartic is an expensive undertaking.

I guess the bottom line is, we do what motivates us.
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: Ray on April 02, 2007, 08:17:58 am
I guess you know by now that I'm a master of digression. I've mentioned Nepal, so I guess it's inevitable that I'm going to inflict upon you another of my Nepalese images.

Here's an image of the upper crust in Nepal having a good time. Is this more interesting than a shot of penguins or not?

[attachment=2224:attachment]
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: Mort54 on April 02, 2007, 10:21:31 am
Quote
Seriously, anybody who is stupid enough to not realize how special and rare a trip to photograph in Antarctica is (even if it's for second time), is either not telling the truth and therefore being a troll, or is a twisted Republican Bush lover from Texas who simply wants to pretend that Global Warming _IS'T_ wiping out some of the most beautiful and fragile landscape locations on Earth.

Now we're talking  Go Jeff!!
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: michael on April 02, 2007, 10:26:46 am
Quote
the fact is that sooner or later there is going to be a major, irrecoverable ecological disaster resulting from a shipping incident in the Antarctic Peninsula.

This sounds to me to be a Casandra-like position based on emotion rather than any rigerous analysis of the facts.

There are no oil tankers in Antarctica. For the most past there are small expedition ships which are ice hardened for their task. The chances of an oil spill are extreemly small, and indeed my research shows none has ever happened. None of these small ships carry enough oil for "an irrecoverable ecological disater" so those are simply scare words based on an emotional appeal, rather than fact.

What the casual observer needs to understand is that Antarctica is a continent as big as the US, and that with the exception of a handful of scientific stations it's totally empty. The small amount of tourist visits are limited to a few small off-laying islands and the Antarctic Penninsula, and even then limits are imposed on landings to only a handful of ecologically insensative sites. Sites of "Special" Scientific Interest" are off-limits, and this is strictly enforced.

When tourists go ashore they wear rubber boots which are first bathed in an anticeptic bath on leaving the ship, and then again on return from shore, so as to ensure no contamination in either direction.

A recent international study has concluded that though it's growing, Antarctic tourism poses no appreciable threat to the Antarctic environment.

On a personal note, I would venture to say that the photography produces by groups like our does more to enhance ecological consciousness among the general population than any negative impact it might theoretically have.

There are far more scary ecological pitfalls and disasters waiting to happen in this words than a few small expedition ships puttering around in one small corner of the AA Penninsula.

Michael
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: CatOne on April 02, 2007, 11:56:19 am
Quote
Although I totally empathise with the sentiment, tourism in Antarctica is becoming a very serious issue. Apart from the obvious question about carbon tax offsets (I'm assuming this was covered), the fact is that sooner or later there is going to be a major, irrecoverable ecological disaster resulting from a shipping incident in the Antarctic Peninsula.

The ethics and politics of visiting Antarctica solely for personal pleasure are complex issues. I would say that it is better just to say you went because you wanted to, and could afford to, rather than heading out on the thin ice of justification on wider grounds.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110176\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

They had figures posted on the boat for tourism numbers in Antarctica.  Yes, they are going up markedly.

However, this marked jump involved something like 35,000 visitors last year.  A jump from like 22,000 the year before.

So we're talking 35,000 visitors, many of whom sit on their fat cruise ships and never get within a mile of land (the big boats can't touch land).  No real big surprise, but the country with the most visitors was the US, and the country with the smallest percentage of "set foot on continent" was also the US at like 60% (I think 100% of Germans set foot on land... I didn't memorize the numbers).

As for a "major shipping accident," I'm not sure how that could relate to anything -- these are TOURIST boats not shipping boats.  Shipping goes through this thing called the Panama Canal, in case you haven't heard of it.  There's no oil drilling or the like down there... so I'm not sure what major disaster would be in the cards.

And I don't buy that the ships are adding colossal amount of pollutants to the air which would cause global warming... we're talking about 30-50 boats per year.  Ours had about 80 people on it total.

Antarctic trips are also quite carefully managed and scheduled... we saw 2 other ships the entire trip, and one of them was an intentional rendezvous (I think the other ship was out of TP... nearly an emergency ;-)  Even though most spots that we hit have a visitor every single day, everything is coordinated so you never see another boat, to preserve that "pristine, isolated" feel.  And I don't get the sense that it would be allowed to start having hordes of boats hitting places at the same time a la "Disneyland."  In fact, tourism to Antarctica is very carefully managed by all involved at this time.
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: David Mantripp on April 02, 2007, 12:49:43 pm
Quote
This sounds to me to be a Casandra-like position based on emotion rather than any rigerous analysis of the facts.


The facts are there if you want to look for them.  There has already been at least one very close call (http://main.uab.edu/antarctica/Templates/Article.aspx?pid=415). Tourist ships carry a lot of oil - they need too.

The waters around the Peninsula are not particularly well charted, and are quite dangerous. Even research ships run aground sometimes. Whilst well established operators such as Quark are extremely professional and responsible, others are less so.

CatOne, I don't really understand your comments.  The Titanic had a "shipping accident". It wasn't anywhere near (a) any other ship (arguably...) or indeed the Panama canal.  You don't need two ships to have an accident. One ship and a inconsiderate rock or iceberg is quite enough. Any incident to a tourist vessel would be a major incident in the Antarctic. The US Coastguard isn't exactly close by.

I sure hope it won't happen, but my point of view isn't a "Casandra-like position based on emotion".  A pity such topics always degenerate to mudslinging on this site.
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on April 02, 2007, 01:00:27 pm
Quote
I guess you know by now that I'm a master of digression. I've mentioned Nepal, so I guess it's inevitable that I'm going to inflict upon you another of my Nepalese images.

Here's an image of the upper crust in Nepal having a good time. Is this more interesting than a shot of penguins or not?

[attachment=2224:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110198\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nice picture. But could you maybe clone in a few penguins to fill that empty lower right corner?    
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: Schewe on April 02, 2007, 01:01:37 pm
Quote
(I think the other ship was out of TP... nearly an emergency ;-)  Even though most spots that we hit have a visitor every single day, everything is coordinated so you never see another boat, to preserve that "pristine, isolated" feel.  And I don't get the sense that it would be allowed to start having hordes of boats hitting places at the same time a la "Disneyland."  In fact, tourism to Antarctica is very carefully managed by all involved at this time.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=110243\")

Actually Bill, that was OUR ship that was out of TP...(and diet Coke I might add), the other ship needed an engine part.


While it's interesting to note that visitors to Antarctica have gone up in the last few years, the awareness of Antarctica and the ecological problems have also gone way up. I think there's a direct correlation. Look how many popular culture media stories as well as movies are going on. Planet Earth just had a show on Arctica/Antarctica lst nite on Discovery...March of the Penguins, Happy Feet and even a new film for this summer-surfing penguin have made Antarctica popular.

When we were down there, a real love and appreciation for the environment developed by all the participants-encouraged by the expedition crew. That plus the photos of the locations and wildlife will go a long way towards increasing people awareness of the issues-and that's what needs to get done.

Next week, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) it's second of four major papers on the impact of global warming...and it's a pretty dire situation-one scientist said we were on the road to extinction-if we don't work to avoid it.

[a href=\"http://www.ipcc.ch/]http://www.ipcc.ch/[/url]
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: Bobtrips on April 02, 2007, 02:13:31 pm
Quote
Tourist ships carry a lot of oil - they need too.

There's a fairly substantial difference in the amount of oil carried by a tourist vessel in it's engine fuel tanks and the amount carried by a fully loaded supertanker.

One might characterize the difference as "unfortunate, but localized problem" vs. "disaster".
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: howiesmith on April 02, 2007, 03:59:31 pm
Quote
There's a fairly substantial difference in the amount of oil carried by a tourist vessel in it's engine fuel tanks and the amount carried by a fully loaded supertanker.

One might characterize the difference as "unfortunate, but localized problem" vs. "disaster".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110274\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bob, I have very mixed feelings about this topic.  Could it be we have become a world of "I"?  What can I do that hurts Antarctica, or whereever,  "I don't have to follow those other people's rules because I am not the problem."

It seems likely to me that all that fuel oil on the tourist ship was once crude oil on a supertanker.  A few years ago, a Chilean navy ship with 400 tourist did run aground at Antarctica and sink.  The oil spill, while certainly less than a supertanker, was considered a disaster for the fragille Antarctic environment.  Who was responsoble.  Not me.  Certainly not you.  Surely not the tourists; they were just along for the ride.  Not the ship's captain; he was just following his charts.  Not the Chilean navy; they were just taking supplies to a research station.  Not the researchers; they were doing good and worthwhile work.  Nope, it just happened.
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: Schewe on April 02, 2007, 04:07:22 pm
Quote
Nope, it just happened.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110292\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Well, right there is the root of the problem...too many people fixate on specific events rather the millions of paper cuts kill the environment.

Yes, a fuel oil spill would be bad for Antarctica....but compare that to raising the Earht's temperature of just 1/2 degree and the comparisons would be silly.

We are _ALL_ contributing to the global warming but only a relative few ever visit Antarctic personally-which is the worse problem? Not the few people who go and fall in love with Antarctica but the billions who don't even think about the impact their daily lives have on Earth.

Get real...it ain't a few thousand wealthy visitor's who will destroy Antarctica...it's the billions of people who don't go (and don't care) that will.
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: howiesmith on April 02, 2007, 04:31:51 pm
Quote
Well, right there is the root of the problem...too many people fixate on specific events rather the millions of paper cuts kill the environment.

Yes, a fuel oil spill would be bad for Antarctica....but compare that to raising the Earht's temperature of just 1/2 degree and the comparisons would be silly.

We are _ALL_ contributing to the global warming but only a relative few ever visit Antarctic personally-which is the worse problem? Not the few people who go and fall in love with Antarctica but the billions who don't even think about the impact their daily lives have on Earth.

Get real...it ain't a few thousand wealthy visitor's who will destroy Antarctica...it's the billions of people who don't go (and don't care) that will.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110295\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Oh, I agree completely.  If I go to the South Pole, what harm could I do.  I am but one person on this big earth.

But aren't the few thousand Antartic visitors, there but a few days of fun per trip and they go back to work and home, then part of the billions of people at home heating the earth?  I have done no particualr research, but I would suppose that the wealthy few contribute more than their share to heating the earth.

Going to Antarctica to take a few photos does not in anyway make you a "better than anyone else" world citizen.  Nor does clucking your tongue about global warming.

I am also curious about global warming.  The greens don't want to drill for oil on the north slope of Alaska because that oil will heat the earth.  But the oil got there because the Arctic was a jungle.  Didn't global cooling wreck that jungle?
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: Mort54 on April 02, 2007, 05:31:48 pm
Quote
I am also curious about global warming.  The greens don't want to drill for oil on the north slope of Alaska because that oil will heat the earth.  But the oil got there because the Arctic was a jungle.  Didn't global cooling wreck that jungle?

Aside from the fact that this thread has taken a surreal turn, I offer my own totally off-topic reply (actually more like a rant)  

Global cooling did indeed wreck the jungle that used to exist on the north slope. And there have been countless climate changes thru time. None of these previous changes were man made. What's at issue here, however, in the current global warming crisis, is the pace of change. Global climate change occuring at geological time scales is not horribly disruptive. Given enough time, species can adapt, find new niches, etc. However, what people are calling global warming is a man made catastrophically fast shift in climate (fast in the grand scheme of things) that will change ecosystems faster than the native inhabitants can adjust. Combine that with the fact that most ecosystems are already severly stressed and damaged by 100+ years of intense industrialization and, more recently, urbanization, and you have a real problem on your hands.

We are already at the highest species extinction rate since the end of the dinosaurs, due to mankinds impact on the environment to date. Throw in global warming, and the current disaster becomes a catastrophe. How much longer will we have elephants and tigers and polar bears? The outlook for them and countless other species is looking pretty grim right now, and global warming just makes the whole situation that much worse.

While it's true that climate models disagree on how severe the rate of warming will be, and therefore how severe the impact will be, and while some politicians continue to live in their fantasy world and refuse to acknowledge that global warming is even caused by man (hmmmm, could they perhaps have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo of an oil-dependent economy), the science is now almost irrefutable. Global warming is real, and will have severe impacts on the worlds ecosystems, and on man as well. We just don't yet know how severe that impact will be.

OK, enough ranting. What does all this have to do with photographing antarctica?

Hans.
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: jani on April 02, 2007, 05:47:09 pm
Quote
But aren't the few thousand Antartic visitors, there but a few days of fun per trip and they go back to work and home, then part of the billions of people at home heating the earth?  I have done no particualr research, but I would suppose that the wealthy few contribute more than their share to heating the earth.
Well, let's see.

Let's fly from London Heathrow airport to Argentina Ushuaia and back again. For one person, that's 4.5 tonnes of CO2 equivalents.

Source: http://www.climatecare.org/calculators/flight/ (http://www.climatecare.org/calculators/flight/)

And according to timeforchange.org (http://timeforchange.org/CO2-emissions-by-country), the average yearly emissions for a UK citizen is double that.

A Canadian would add "only" 3.2 tonnes with a direct flight from Toronto.

In addition comes the not insubstantial amounts of CO2 equivalent emissions per person from a boat trip. If we assume that the efficiency of the Antarctic explorer ships are as good as that of passenger transport by ship in the EU, that's about 15 grams per tonne kilometer (http://themes.eea.europa.eu/Sectors_and_activities/transport/indicators/technology/TERM27%2C2003.09/Figure2.gif/view). Quark's Professor Multanovskiy is 1,753 tonnes (http://www.quarkexpeditions.com/fleet/multanovskiy.shtml), for 50 passengers. So per passenger kilometer, that's 526 grams. According to the itinerary of the workshop (http://luminous-landscape.com/workshops/antarctic-workshop-07.shtml), the Multanovskiy traveled from Ushuaia to the Falklands, South Georgia and the Antarctic Peninsula. A simple four-edged polygon travel route makes this about 4000 km. So that's another 2 tonnes of CO2 equivalent emissions per passenger. Add cars, buses, zodiacs etc.

It is estimated that in order not to increase the acceleration of climate change, the average total annual CO2 equivalent emissions per capita must not exceed about 2 tonnes.

So a conservative estimate is that by going to Antartica on this kind of trip, per passenger, the CO2 equivalent emissions are increased by about three times what the average for sustainable living on this planet.

To offset 20,000 tourists who do this every year, an equivalent of nearly a hundred thousand Canadians would have to cut their CO2 emissions by close to 10%.

Whether the increased climate change awareness from trips to the Antarctic will achieve this is anyone's guess. I'm not saying that it doesn't.
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: Bobtrips on April 02, 2007, 06:27:14 pm
Quote
Bob, I have very mixed feelings about this topic.  Could it be we have become a world of "I"?  What can I do that hurts Antarctica, or whereever,  "I don't have to follow those other people's rules because I am not the problem."

It seems likely to me that all that fuel oil on the tourist ship was once crude oil on a supertanker.  A few years ago, a Chilean navy ship with 400 tourist did run aground at Antarctica and sink.  The oil spill, while certainly less than a supertanker, was considered a disaster for the fragille Antarctic environment.  Who was responsoble.  Not me.  Certainly not you.  Surely not the tourists; they were just along for the ride.  Not the ship's captain; he was just following his charts.  Not the Chilean navy; they were just taking supplies to a research station.  Not the researchers; they were doing good and worthwhile work.  Nope, it just happened.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110292\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My post was an attempt to put things in a bit more realistic perspective.  

Certainly any damage is damage and all damage should be avoided if at all possible.

That said, here's some quick data - only an eight passenger Patagonian cruise ship, but you can scale it up.  Carries 250 gallons of diesel.

Exxon Valdez fuel spill.  11,000,000 gallons.
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: michael on April 02, 2007, 06:56:36 pm
Somehow I think that this thread has run its course.

Let's move on.

Michael
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: David Mantripp on April 04, 2007, 03:28:41 am
Quote
Somehow I think that this thread has run its course.

Let's move on.

Michael
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=110317\")


Pity. I think it has hardly started.

 Perhaps you could take a [a href=\"http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2007/03/point-of-procedure.html]leaf out of Mike Johnston's book[/url], and allow topics to develop in various directions.  Honestly Michael, if you really are interested in raising awareness of environmental issues in Antarctica - or indeed, even if you're not - I don't really see what harm a polite conversation can do to this forum.  My interest in the natural world does not stop at photographing it, and from what I can see on this topic's posts, I'm not the only regular, long standing member of this forum (popular with the management or otherwise) who agrees.

Is it really such a problem to let threads continue until they run out of steam, provided, of course, that they remain reasonably courteous ?
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: Boghb on April 04, 2007, 05:08:04 am
I understand why Michael would like this discussion to end.

There is an inherent contradiction in people hauling tons of equipment around the globe in search of a nice picture, and claiming that they want to save nature and natural things.

Obviously pointing out this hypocrisy puts a damper on Michael's efforts to promote his exotic workshops (the latest promotion touts total luxury in the middle of African wildlife: how's that for saving nature!).
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: David Mantripp on April 04, 2007, 06:42:37 am
Quote
I understand why Michael would like this discussion to end.

There is an inherent contradiction in people hauling tons of equipment around the globe in search of a nice picture, and claiming that they want to save nature and natural things.

Obviously pointing out this hypocrisy puts a damper on Michael's efforts to promote his exotic workshops (the latest promotion touts total luxury in the middle of African wildlife: how's that for saving nature!).
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=110539\")

I think that is a bit unfair, although I would say it is not an extreme point of view.

There has always been a contradiction between preserving the natural environment and publicising what needs to be saved. Even strong environmentalists such as Galen Rowell or indeed Ansell Adams have encountered it. There is always also the point that we are part of the natural environment, and that change happens, for good or worse. There would be little point in ring-fencing a couple of no-go pristine environments and laying our backyards to waste. The argument that expeditions to Antarctica open people's minds and eyes is also very valid, although I'm less convinced when it is applied to cruise ship carrying over 1000 passengers (they do exist. See [a href=\"http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/07/in_pictures_when_the_ship_comes_in/html/1.stm]here[/url] for example).

But I also do not think that you can treat photography as some hermetic, isolated activity. If you do, you're a extremely poor photographer, in my opinion. I am not implying that Michael, or anybody else contributing to this thread, is in that category.

However, I was also taken aback a bit by the description of the latest safari tour.  It does seem to verge on the irresponsible.
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: michael on April 04, 2007, 07:29:16 am
I am afraid that this thread is leading toward personal acusations and insults, that is the reason (and the only reason) why I would like to see it wind down. In fact Boghb's ad hominum comments are a clear indication of this.

Absolute bullshit of the first order. There – you see, I've done it to.

Also, please note that unlike Mike J, I did not (do not) edit or delete comments which I don't approve of. I have the ability to selectively delete or edit comments or threads, but with the exception of spam never do this (even when they are critical of me – as seen above). I simply point out that a discussion is heading in what I see as counterproductive direction.

Michael
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: Boghb on April 04, 2007, 09:42:00 am
I am grateful for the opportunity to express a view, and my post was not intended as a personal attack against Michael.
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: soslund on April 04, 2007, 04:55:59 pm
I said it once before, and I'll say it again: if you don't want to go, don't go.  If one finds it offensive to go (financially? "carbonally"? whatever?), then stay home, or go somewhere else.  However, please don't berate those of us who have gone, went again, and will likely go in the future.  And, please, don't try to reduce going or not going to a formula: "X" number of passengers x "Y" length of vessel x "Z" amount of fuel burned, etc.  This is simply ridiculous, and does border on, well, Michael said it best, Bull Sh*t.  

I prefer the engraving above the arch at the northern entrance of Yellowstone: "For the enjoyment of the people".

Tourism to Antarctica is closely monitored.  Let's enjoy this amazing planet.  Personally, I found the experience a "religious" one.  Camera or no camera.  Listen folks, it ain't just about taking photographs.  There were many times when I set the camera down, sat down, and just tried to take it all in.

Indeed, let's move on to something more productive.  Speaking of which, I think I still have another couple more thousand images to cull through in Lightroom.

Thanks Michael et al, I had a blast on both trips.
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: BlasR on April 04, 2007, 05:21:15 pm
I want to go,,can I?


BlasR
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: jorgedelfino on April 04, 2007, 07:11:09 pm
Quote
I understand why Michael would like this discussion to end.

There is an inherent contradiction in people hauling tons of equipment around the globe in search of a nice picture, and claiming that they want to save nature and natural things.

Obviously pointing out this hypocrisy puts a damper on Michael's efforts to promote his exotic workshops (the latest promotion touts total luxury in the middle of African wildlife: how's that for saving nature!).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110539\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree with Michael, that's bullshit! showing the beauty of nature can and help develop awarenes  about the protection of the planet! If can afford to do it in style so what! that first picture of the earth from space is an example.
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on April 04, 2007, 07:30:49 pm
Quote
I agree with Michael, that's bullshit! showing the beauty of nature can and help develop awarenes  about the protection of the planet! If can afford to do it in style so what! that first picture of the earth from space is an example.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110674\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree, too. Ansel Adams made a pretty positive impact when he took a bunch of his prints with him to show congress. Should he have stayed the H*** out of the wilderness?
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on April 04, 2007, 08:15:13 pm
Quote
I agree, too. Ansel Adams made a pretty positive impact when he took a bunch of his prints with him to show congress. Should he have stayed the H*** out of the wilderness?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110678\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yep, but that was before the days of Discovery Channel wasn't it?

I do personnally not believe that the trip led by Michael had any measurable negative impact on the environment in Antartica, and such trips will remain harmless as long as they stay controlled, which appears to be the case today.

Shell, Esso,... all use the environment to market their earth killing businesses, and I'd perssonnally rather scream at them than at Michael. The scale is millions of times higher.

However, the actual positive impact of such a trip on people's awarness of environment problems is IMHO just as small as the negative impact on environment. Let's face it, we at LL are basically all environmentalists already.

Anyway, our attendance at LL is leading us to overstate the importance of all this. This workshop is in the end just one business initiative among millions of others, and a very attractive one.

What's the problem really?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: John Camp on April 04, 2007, 09:52:51 pm
I would disagreee, Bernard. I think the more people we can getting spreading around decent pictures of of what we have, and what we're losing, and talking about it, the better off we are -- that's the way you build a popular consensus for something.

As for degrading the environment with these trips, that's the kind of inane claptrap for which I have no patience at all, and which freezes legitimate efforts to do something positive; it's the kind of sophomoric bs you only hear from the I'm-more-correct-than-you crowd, who only wear clothes made out of inorganic dirt. You want to know how much people care right now? We could make a large cut in CO2 simpy be passing a law that we drive 55. We could make a large cut by limiting automobile engine size to 2 liters. We could fast-track high-tech super-safe nuclear generation sites and eliminate hundreds of thousands of tons of CO2, to say nothing of acid rain. We could eliminate private jets. There are all kinds of things that *could* be done, that really wouldn't inconvenience people much, and that would actually have some effect. Eliminating photographic trips to Antarctica would have about as much effect on the environment as my buying and using Gas-X pills.

JC
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: Ray on April 04, 2007, 10:43:57 pm
Quote
I would disagreee, Bernard. I think the more people we can getting spreading around decent pictures of of what we have, and what we're losing, and talking about it, the better off we are -- that's the way you build a popular consensus for something.

As for degrading the environment with these trips, that's the kind of inane claptrap for which I have no patience at all, and which freezes legitimate efforts to do something positive; it's the kind of sophomoric bs you only hear from the I'm-more-correct-than-you crowd, who only wear clothes made out of inorganic dirt. You want to know how much people care right now? We could make a large cut in CO2 simpy be passing a law that we drive 55. We could make a large cut by limiting automobile engine size to 2 liters. We could fast-track high-tech super-safe nuclear generation sites and eliminate hundreds of thousands of tons of CO2, to say nothing of acid rain. We could eliminate private jets. There are all kinds of things that *could* be done, that really wouldn't inconvenience people much, and that would actually have some effect. Eliminating photographic trips to Antarctica would have about as much effect on the environment as my buying and using Gas-X pills.

JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110702\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There are serious dangers, John. Macquarie Island, about halfway between Tasmania and the Antartic is (was) an amazing, pristine environment with penguins, seals and breeding albatrosses. Unfortunately, the ecological balance is slowly being destroyed by rats and rabbits. The island is slowly becoming defoliated with consequent massive land slides. Tourism has been stopped. The damage already done might be irreparable.
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: CatOne on April 04, 2007, 10:45:29 pm
Quote
Eliminating photographic trips to Antarctica would have about as much effect on the environment as my buying and using Gas-X pills.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110702\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm freaking DYING here.            

Now I'm prolonging this after Michael told us all to shut up, but I'll state that this "carbon emissions" statement counting how many people flew down there is ridiculous.  There are tens of thousands of commercial flights worldwide daily; this was but one.  To say everyone would have stayed home and thus saved the emissions is a specious argument -- if I hadn't gone to Antarctica, I likely would have gone somewhere ELSE on vacation.

Besides, I'm not the one really espousing the whole "global warming" thing anyway.  I didn't go to "save the earth."  I went because I saw pictures from last year's trip, thought they looked amazing, and wanted to go myself.  But arguing about the fact that people are there and thus there's the chance of a shipwreck and an ecological disaster... c'mon where do you GET this stuff?  I guess the earth could get wiped out by a meteor tomorrow as well and we'd all be screwed.

BUT, at least I could say I went and saw Antarctica before I died  
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: Boghb on April 04, 2007, 11:02:05 pm
Gee, I'm really sorry I missed that Antarctica trip.  I must have been a real hoot being on a trip with all these mature, polite and articulate gentlemen.  Your sophisticated arguments have me thinking that concern about climate change is, as you put it, like cow dung -- thank you!
Title: Why Antarctica Again?
Post by: michael on April 04, 2007, 11:24:47 pm
OK. This looks about done, has little to do anymore with photography, and since some people can't play nice – topic closed.

Michael