Hey Folks,

I hope you enjoy this. Be sure to turn up your sound.

Sorry if you an’t view this on an iPad, but Flash was the only way to make this happen.

cheers

Carl

"Denali", officially known as Mt. McKinley, the highest peak in North America, stands above the Alaska Range, a small kettle pond returning a perfect reflection. Denali National Park, Alaska.

Hey Folks,

They call this mountain “The Great One”. If you think it’s Great, hit the “Plus 1″ button underneath here.

Cheers

Carl

A bull moose standing on the fall tundra in Denali National Park and Preserve, Alaska. Vegetation includes Dwarf Birch and Alaska Willow. Please click on the image to view a larger version of the photo.

Hey Folks

Recently I saw a tweet the other day from photographer Richard Bernabe: “Just had a photo editor demand raw files to process as they see fit. I turned the deal down.”

I saw and enjoyed at least some of the following conversation. We discussed the merit of sending out a RAW file to a photo editor instead of some other file format, such as a tiff or a jpeg.

For myself, I can’t see any reason to not send a RAW file if an editor or graphic artist requests it, unless there was some very highly unusual and extenuating circumstance; the only one that springs to mind is if the final image was a manual blend of multiple exposures, and/or a panoramic stitch that I’d put together. Even in those circumstances, I suspect I’d most likely explain to the person I was dealing with about the amount of time involved in finishing the product from camera to computer screen, and suggest they simply use the finished 8-bit tif or jpeg file, but if they felt they really wanted the RAW files, I can’t see why not; it’d mean they have to do (in some cases) a whole lot of work I’d already done, but if that’s what they wanted, I can’t see a good reason to refuse.

If someone paid me to mow their lawn, then said they were going to mow it again, I’d have no issue with that. And while it’s true something like mowing a lawn isn’t a valid comparison to the artful process, the exact same kind of thing happens in art all the time.

Some of the world’s greatest musicians get called in (and highly paid) to record a track for an album. Let’s say a drummer named Steve Gap is hired to play drums for a studio album. Steve comes in, plays the track and then finds out the producer is going to hire another drummer to redo the hihat track? Happens all the time. Or the producer is going to use Pro Tools (a musician’s version of photoshop) and completely alter the snare track. Or the kick drum? Happens all the time.

Let’s say a photo editor calls and wants the moose photo above (happened the same week I saw the above tweet). I’m not going to have an issue if they choose to crop both sides in to the moose’s body, though that would drastically alter the mood of the image. That also happens all the time. or they crop it to a vertical composition. Or they pump up the saturation somewhat? Happens all the time. In fact, if the editor is going to do all this work, I’d probably see MORE sense in giving them the RAW file, as that contains more data to work with, more information for them to adjust and tweak the image for their usage than a tif or jpeg would.

Similarly, the argument of “giving up creative control” is somewhat dishonest. An editor is free to make all kinds of adjustments to any image you send them, and I doubt many photographers in today’s photo stock market are going to demand the printed image be cleared with them before final publication. In other words, whatever creative control you might be giving up with RAW files can be similarly lost with any other format; with the potential of the final image only rendering even worse, because we gave them a limited data set to work with.

A lot of folks call the RAW file the digital negative; and it was perfectly common in the days before digital capture to send out slides, be they originals or copies, for photo editors. That’s HOW we sold our photos. So I simply don’t see how it’s any different now – unless, of course, folks are so intensely photoshopping and adjusting their RAW images that they don’t want editors (or anyone else) to see the original RAW file (and I’m not suggesting this is the case with Rich, above, at all, and don’t mean to imply otherwise).

If it were me as photo editor, I’d need to have some particular reason to request a RAW file, simply because I’d rather let the photographer do the work of the conversion process. But, if for some reason it worked better for me to get a RAW file, I’d do it. I just can’t see a single reason for a photographer to refuse to send out a RAW file for a stock photo sale. If the editor wishes to deal with a RAW file rather than a tif, or jpeg, more power to them, I say.

Cheers

Carl

Aurora borealis lights up the winter night sky over Mt McKinley, highest mountain in North America, also called Denali. Viewpoint from Denali State Park, Alaska. Click on the image above to view a larger version of this photo.

Hey Folks,

One topic I’ve often heard discussed relating to nature and outdoor photography pertains to the value of the experience itself. Does photography “get in the way”, and limit the photographers’ realization of the experience itself, or does it add to it?

I have friends, for example, that don’t like to bring a camera on a backpacking trip because they feel it hinders how they are able to soak up the actual experience. They’d rather sit and watch that glorious sunrise than fiddle with the camera and try to get a good composition. They’d rather sit back and stare in awe at the Aurora borealis do its thing over Denali than take their gloves off and tweak camera settings.

Fair enough. I can appreciate that viewpoint, but I also think it misses the mark, on a number of points. As often as not, while scrounging around trying to find a balanced composition, or a strong foreground, or another angle, I’ve stumbled on to some scene or feature that only added to the experience; a patch of wildflowers or a small waterfall, or some other interesting tidbit. Similarly, in wandering around simply looking for compositions, I’ve learned to look more closely, to see more, to see more deeply, and come closer to my surroundings.

I’ve also learned an awful lot more about the ecology of a place; I can identify more species, more relationships between species, more geologic features, etc, than I used to be able to, largely through my interest in photographing them. Even more so because the follow up for a photographer involves keywording those photos; identifying subjects, learning the scientific name for them, the taxonomy, the natural history of a a subject, etc is simply part of photo editing for me. I’m far from as well versed in this area as I would like to be, but I’m improving, and much of the reason for that relates directly to my photographic pursuits.

But the main way I think I can say photography adds to the experience, rather than hinders it, is simply in how many hours I it gets me “out there”. I love to hike, ski, snowshoe, camp, etc, and I do quite a bit of that whether I’m photographing or not. But I’ve spent simply countless hours watching grizzly bears ramble up salmon streams, bald eagles soar blue skies, bull elk posture and bugle in the rut, snow-capped mountains light up and glow as if their belly’s on fire that I never would’ve were I not a photographer. Last week I just spent the better part of 2 cold nights in central Alaska, standing around or driving deserted roads, watching the faintest of northern lights, hoping they’d brighten and offer me some photographic moment.

At one overlook, for example, at about 2:00am I was joined by 2 other folks who showed up to enjoy the Aurora borealis. Both were photographers. Non-photographers? Home in bed. On backpacking trips, I might arise early and head out from camp to catch some dawn light show. Often, the only folks to join me, if any, are those going out to photograph.

I might count on one hand the times my photography has perhaps restricted my enjoyment of “the moment”, and could do so if I lost 3 of my fingers. Conversely, I can’t even begin to add up the number of times photography has led me to witness and experience some of the most amazing phenomena; wolf packs howling at the aurora, a grizzly bear family feeding on a wolf-killed caribou carcass, been approached to within a foot by a full curl Dall Sheep ram, etc, etc.

Photography doesn’t detract from how I experience the natural world, it inestimably adds to it.

Cheers

Carl

Early morning photo of Denali, Or Mt. McKinley, and reflection in a small tundra pond, Denali National Park, Alaska. Click on the thumbnail for a larger image.

Hey Folks,

A few years ago I spent a glorious week in Denali National Park and Preserve, camped out in the backcountry at one of my favorite spots to hang – a high ridge to the north of Denali, or Mt. McKinley as it’s officially known (see this post for a discussion concerning the name of the mountain). After too many years and way too many footsteps across the tundra, I finally happened to be in the right place at the right time. Previous trips had me wet, cold, hungry, and wondering where this infamous mountain actually was (hidden, veiled behind the infernal clouds). This one was gloriously different.

So just how much do I like this little spot? Well, in 2007 I took my mum and dad to Denali National Park and Preserve on their trip to Alaska and force-marched them up over the hills and across the tundra to this pond one afternoon. It’s a pretty spot to sit on the tundra, have some lunch, look for wildlife (we saw caribou) and soak up the mountain’s grandeur. They had a grand time.

The trip I took this particular photo on was one of the most productive I’ve had. In the past I’d spent countless hours trekking around the park, though never managed to really catch great light on the mountain. Previously I’d always been in completely the wrong place; like the time I was leaving the park, stopped towards the entrance and turned near the Savage River overlook to see the mountain appearing as though it were lit from inside, seemingly aglow with a fiery light that held me spellbound. But from that distance, photos weren’t really an option. I just stood and enjoyed the scene unfolding in front of me, wondering why I hadn’t planned for a 15 day hike instead of a 14 day trip – one night earlier I had been camped right by the small kettle pond you see in this photo, with a fog so thick I couldn’t even see the other side of the pond. C’est la life.

I always consider a view of Denali a treat, even from a distance. Just a few days ago here in Anchorage the weather was clear enough that the mountain was out and I got excited. I still wonder if that’s something that I’ll ever become blasé about. I certainly hope not.

I posted this image today because I’m working on some older files, photo editing, cleaning up hard drives and so forth, and figured this photo could use a little touch up in processing. It’s always been a favorite of mine, but I was never happy with the processing I’d done on it before; so a few minor adjustments were in order.

So here it is, my new favorite image (of mine) of Denali, the Mountain, Mt. McKinley (I still cringe when I refer to Denali as Mt. McKinley; yet another thing I hope I never view with nonchalance). I’ll be out in the mountains for a few days, but will reply as I’m able.

Cheers

Carl

PS – I’ll be out for a few days, so won’t have any new posts until I get back. Be good.

A dall sheep ram approaches while it grazes on the high alpine tundra, Denali National Park and Preserve, Alaska.

Hey Folks,

Here’s a Dall sheep ram I photographed a few years back, when I was doing a hike in Denali National Park and Preserve. It’s been a couple of years now since I spent any time in Denali National Park (the last time I was beyond Savage River was on a trip with my parents, in 07). As much as I enjoy my project in Wrangell – St. Elias National Park and Preserve, I do miss photographing in Denali. Hopefully this next year my schedule will work out such that I can squeeze in some time in Denali – and find this Dall sheep ram again.

It’s quite an experience having a full curl ram approach within inches of your eyeball. I remember I was lying down (as I wrote about here in an earlier post), and this ram got up from his slumber, and gradually came closer and closer. I didn’t move as he kept moving towards me. Photographing with a 28-70mm lens, I was only able to keep the entire sheep in the frame by zooming all the way out to the lens’ widest setting. Eventually he was within the minimum focusing distance of the lens, and all I could do was enjoy the moment. Having a set of horns like this within a foot of your face, whilst laying prone on the ground, is putting some trust in wildlife.

It’s interesting too how big the body of these guys is; something you don’t really realize until you’re up so close and personal. They’re bigger than you think they might be.

Lastly, a note about wildlife photography and approaching animals, harassing animals and rules and regulations. The Regulations in Denali National Park and Preserve state that people must maintain a minimum distance of 75 feet from ungulates, such as sheep, caribou and moose. Approaching within this distance is a breach of those rules. Similarly, allowing an animal to approach yourself within that distance and not making a “reasonable” effort to maintain that distance breaches those rules. I was certainly outside those rules, and a ranger would’ve likely cited me, or at least yelled at and scolded me for being too close. In my defense, I’ll point out, as I did in the above linked post, that the small band of rams had lain down to sleep. I did the same thing, and was safe and sound a good 30 yards away – it’s unfair to call it harassment if the animal lies down and goes to sleep. Further, it’s pretty hard to claim any harassment if the animals were sleeping. Next, this particular ram got up and made his way towards me, grazing; for all his worldly cares I didn’t exist. If I had made an effort to get up and back away, it would almost certainly have been more distracting and disturbing to the Dall sheep than if I lay still on the ground, and let him see I posed no threat.

Rules and regulations about approaching wildlife are sometimes made, in my opinion, with the best of intentions toward the wildlife, and I fully support that. But I also realize that rules involving wildlife must be contextual. I don’t think I did the wrong thing, or that I upset the balance of Gaia or disturbed the Dall sheep ram, but my position is somewhat biased here. I know of a couple of rangers in Denali National Park who definitely would argue against me, given the opportunity, and write up a ticket. I’m glad the Dall sheep ram doesn’t see the world the way they do.

Cheers

Carl

Hey Folks,

So here’s the reason why the bus that I thought would take me to the park entrance (see this post). I got on the bus and heard the driver talking about ‘wonder if the wolves would still be there’. Immediately perked up, leaned forward, and eavesdropped my a** off. Turns out a pack of wolves had killed a caribou bull not far off the road, and the whole pack had been feeding all morning whilst I was walking around the backcountry chasing some stupid moose. I finally start to get this story, thru the bits and pieces I could overhear, as the bus pulls into Eielson visitor Center for a scheduled stop. Now, I know the bus drivers have a schedule to keep, but if there’s a wolf pack feeding on a caribou carcass down the road, IMO schedules ought be abandoned. Apparently the bus driver didn’t think my opinion counted for much, and we had to sit in the Visitors Center for 45 minutes, in order that we departed at the ‘correct’ time. Then we had to stop again at the Toklat rest stop for another 20 minutes, and 15 more at Polychrome. So, sure enough, by the time we arrived, the wolves had vacated the carcass, and a grizzly bear sow and her 2 cubs were now in charge.

In what was possibly the luckiest moment of my life (after meeting Eric Clapton, years earlier, of course), I convinced the bus driver to let me off the bus so I could stay and photograph. Normally bus drivers in Denali Park won’t let anyone off the bus within a half mile of a wildlife sighting, and a mile of a bear sighting. A bear on a kill, no chance, right? Ask, and thou shall (sometimes ) receive. I think it was my trusting good looks, delectable personality, delightful’ smile and downright charmin’ aussie accent that won her over. So I get to spend nearly 3 hours watching and shooting these bears on the carcass. I only left because I had to catch the last bus out of the park and then drive to Anchorage, pack and leave on a trip the next morning. Well, that and it was dark and snowing.

It was an awesome opportunity, and a thrilling experience to see the bears here. The wolves were howling from across the river, in the brush, but the bears paid them little heed. It was interesting to me how different it was, for me, to watch the bears feed on a caribou carcass than it was for me to watch bears feed on salmon carcasses, at places like Katmai National Park. The process of life is really the same whether the ‘prey’ is a fish or a mammal, right? Wrong! Not if you’re at all human, in my opinion. For whatever reason, it sure feels different to me (and probably for the caribou, too ).

So, I got to Anchorage late that night, but got packed and left on time in the morning. And you know where I was leaving for? Brooks Lake, to photograph grizzly bears! I do love me some bears!

So with the previously posted moose photos, and then this experience, I would definitely rate this as one of my all-time favorite photography days.

Here is a link to all my Grizzly Bear Photos online.

Cheers

Carl

Hey Folks,

So, I’m back to the ‘photos from the past’ section. I’ll post a few more from my recent stay in the park, but wanted to post this, a favorite of mine, from Denali National Park a few years. This was probably one of the greatest days I ever had photographing. I hiked my tail off all morning after this bull moose – I was just finishing breakfast on what was to the be the last day of a 2 day stay in Denali Park, and I really wanted to get something worthwhile. The weather was pretty gnarly, but it was my last day, and I hadn’t much to show for 12 days of staying hunkered down in my little 1 person tent in wind, rain, sleet, snow and cold. So I sat drinking coffee glassing the surrounding tundra with my binoculars, hoping for some wildlife; any wildlife. At last I see this bull moose wandering over a ridge, WAAAAYYYYYY off in the distance. I mean, far, far away. But what the heck, I hadn’t anything else to do other than pack up my gear and head out of the park, right? So I grab my camera and start walking. It took me nearly an hour of solid hiking, and I mean S-O-L-I-D hiking, through entangled dwarf birch, greedy willows and nefarious alders. But eventually I caught up with this fellow. He was moving around, as he could smell the cow in the area, I suppose, but hadn’t found her. Finally he caught up with her, and I followed the 2 of them around for another couple of hours. I wasn’t getting a lot of great photos, as the area was pretty brushy, and they weren’t really cooperating with me. And the light TOTALLY sucked. Eventually they came together, and nuzzled a little, and I took a few frames, of which this is my favorite. It’s one of my moose photos so far. So I was pretty stoked to catch it.

I sauntered back to my camp, packed up, and hiked off to the road to pick up a ride on the shuttle bus that would take me to the entrance of the park, where I’d throw my gear in my car and drive back to Anchorage, whereupon I’d have a well-earned and much needed shower. However, what I THOUGHT was to the bus that would take me out of the park turned out NOT to be such a bus. It took me about halfway, just shy of the East Fork River, in fact. And I couldn’t have been happier to get off the bus, in the driving snow and sleet, for a few hours. But you’ll have to wait for me to explain why.

Cheers

Carl

hey Folks,

Here’s an old image I dug up last night .. going through some old files for editing. I shot it a couple of years ago, returning from a trip to Denali National Park one fall. The sky began to clear up late in the afternoon, and I was driving back towards Anchorage. A week or so in the park with clouds and rain and on my way home, a sunset! I pulled over to the side of the road, wandered off into the woods, got completely SOAKED in this marshy area, and set up my gear near this Dward Birch (Betula pumila or Betula borealis), glowing orange in late autumn colors, and the clouds began to catch the last of the day’s rays. Then i walked back to my truck, and got my feet even more wet.

Cheers

Carl

Hey Folks,

Well, it seems those pesky wolves are in the news up here yet again. This time it’s not the F&WS and their infinite wisdom declaring a population to be ‘experimental’, or a bunch of anti-wolf people shooting wolves from airplanes. This time, the news is about the National Park Service tracking down a wolf in Denali National Park, anesthetizing the animal, and removing a snare from its neck. You can read more about the story (the pictures are pretty gross, don’t visit these links if you might be upset by some nasty wounds on a wolf) here and the update here. Basically, 2 wolves had been trapped this past winter, and escaped, but with the snares on their necks. The snares dug in deep, and caused some ugly wounds. The park service, getting ready for the opening of the park and influx on countless visitors, has no interest in having a bunch of tourists see wolves in this condition, so they’ve been hunting high and low for these 2 wolves, to try to remove the snares. They’ve so far found one, a large grey male, and removed the snare, given him shots to protect him from further infection, and let him go again, hoping for the best. No sight of the 2nd wolf, a black one, so far.

Now, on one hand, this is great news, that they managed to remove the snare. On the other hand, it’s ugly to see images of wolves running around with snares on their necks, and to know that wolves are being trapped this way. But the point of this post is to look at Govt bureaucracy and a system that has the State-run Fish and Game Board spending countless dollars flying around Alaska shooting wolves to keep their population down while the National Park Service biologists working overtime and spend countless dollars running around the woods, flying in helicopters, etc, looking for 2 wolves in order that they might be treated for their human-inflicted wounds and live longer.

I know, I know, some people will argue ‘one agency is a function of the State Govt and the other is the federal govt’. So what? If this isn’t craziness, I don’t know what is. It’s a great example of how our ‘management ability’ isn’t always quite on par with what we’d like to think it is.

Lastly, a short comment on the radio collar you see in this image. Biologists apparently fear that wolves, with their enormous home range territories of up to 800 sq miles, might get lost, so they place these radio transmitter collars on the wolves. I wonder if the future will bring little shock collars, like people use on domestic dogs, to shock the wolves once they leave their designated territory?

Cheers

Carl