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.

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

Party.

He goes to party.

Apparently the rolling waves under the ship really relax him?

Where else would you get a penguin & sea "thing" shot?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

Just trying to be helpful . You'll notice I quite liked the image. I hope those penguins are individually identifiable on a large print .

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

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.

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

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?)

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

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.

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.

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

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 mreichmann@rogers.com.

Michael

Thanks for the answer Michael.

Regards,
Bernard

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.

ddolde, perhaps you would prefer to criticize CatOne personally in private.

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

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

Rob C

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

Bill

Rob, he probably just wants to be able to tell all his friends that he's been incontinent lately.

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?

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.

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 ).

I think the next Antarctic expedition should include you and Howie giving a joint presentation on chemical disposal techniques for the Antarctic.

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

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

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

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

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/

is my take from '07.

Great job.

Rusty

Rusty,

Thanks for posting the link! The pictures are wonderful!


Dave

Indeed!!!

I freely admit to being jealous of such a trip

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.