Technical details about this site and its contents

Equipment

Cameras and lenses

My film format, 5x7, has an aspect ratio that I find ideally suitable for landscapes, while the area size of the original transparency is almost twice as large as the 4x5 used my most large format photographers, and about 24 times as large as 35mm film. I use a wooden camera hand-assembled by Keith Canham of Mesa, AZ. It is one of the most light (6 lbs) and compact 5x7 cameras that offers a complete range of adjustments and can accomodate a wide range of lenses. The lenses range from 90mm to 720mm, and include optics from each of the 4 major manufacturers (Nikkor 90/8, Schneider 110/5.6, Rodenstock 150/5.6, Schneider 210/5.6, Nikkor 300/9, Fuji 450/12.5, Nikkor 720T/16). For more details about Large Format, see Frequently asked questions about the National Parks project, and also inside QT Luong's general-purpose large format camera bag on lfphoto.info, which contains pictures of equipment. 5x7 film, once scanned, produces a digital file of higher resolution than any of the one-shot digital cameras available, including $30,000 medium format backs.

I sometimes take that kit to other continents (such as Europe or Australia) when travel is mostly by rental car. However, in general, I use large format mostly in North America, in conjonction with the National Parks project. Because 35mm is more suitable for a vast range of subjects and conditions, the vast majority of my images are done with the digital camera.

In the past, I have used systems from Minolta and Nikon. In 1999, I switched to the Canon EF system, because Canon had lenses not available in the Nikon line, mainly IS and TS. Below are the Canon lenses I have used at some point (some of them are not owned anymore). Note that a lens kit is like a wardrobe: in general, I'll carry no more than 6 lenses at a time. A standard assortment is the mid-range zoom (24-105), a super-wide zoom (12-24 or 17-40), a tele zoom (70-300, 100-400, rarely 70-200) and one to three specialty lenses (most often 24TSE and 45TSE).

• Sigma 12-24/4.5-5.6 extreme wide-angle zoom. The only third-party lens that I use. That's the widest rectilinear (ie non-fisheye) lens available in 35mm. The distortion correction is remarkable, however my copy (I have tested 4) is not quite as sharp as the Canon 17-40, and the lens cannot take filters. I use it mostly for architecture, and in particular tight spaces.
• 17-40/4 wide-angle zoom. This lens is slightly sharper than the 17-35/2.8 that it replaces. I almost always use it stopped down for good depth-of-field, so the f2.8 aperture was not very important for me. Overall performance is good, although the corners are not as sharp as the center, which is a perenial problem with Canon wide angle lenses.
• 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS mid-range zoom. The "IS" stands for "Image stabilization", an feature that let you hand-hold at a shutter speed four to eight times lower than you would normally be able to do without blurring, making it extremely useful for shots with people, or conditions when a tripod is not practical. This lens was my workhorse when using film, but after switching to digital, I found myself using it rarely, because I could just increase the ISO when I neededed more speed, while the 24-70/2.8 provided sharper images, especially in the corners.
• 24-70/2.8 fast mid-range zoom. The reduced focal range compared to the 28-135, the lack of IS, and the additional bulk and weight make it less practical for hand-held photography. However, optically, this lens is as good or better than many of the Canon primes in the same range, which makes it worth it. It has the most cleverly hood system of any zoom lens that I have used.
• 24-105/4 IS mid-range zoom. Sharper than the already excellent 24-70/2.8, with IS, a longer range, and slightly less bulk and weight. For my style of photography, it has proven to be vastly more useful than the 24-70/2.8, and is currently my bread-and-butter lens. Note however that it has much more vignetting and distortion. This hasn't been a problem for me as I just run the digital files through DxO.
• 70-200/2.8 IS IS tele-zoom. The optical quality is good, focussing ultra-fast, and the f2.8 aperture is useful for bluring distracting backgrouds, as well as for working in low light. However, I do not use this lens very often because of the limited zoom range and weight.
• 70-300/4-5.6 IS tele-zoom. Clearly much slower aperture and focussing and less well-built, but the sharpness is actually comparable or even better than my copy of the previous lens. The lower weight and longer focal range make it very practical.
• 100-400/4.5-5.6 IS tele-zoom. Extremely useful range that covers almost all telephoto needs in a single lens, with good quality. Not as good as the two previous lenses in the 100-135 range, but better than 70-200 with TC 1.4x or TC 2x.
• 24-85 mid-range zoom lens and 80-200 tele-zoom. Served only as back-up or for extremely lightweight backpacking trips with the EOS 300. Despite their price and reputation, when stopped down, those lenses are capable of producing fine images.
• 15/2.8 fisheye. I use this lens in a limited way only to create some fun pictures taking advantage of the considerable distortion and field of view.
• 24/3.5 TSE tilt and shift lens. I use it mostly for architectural subjects at close distance and indoors to minimize the convergence of vertical lines. A secondary use is to keep enough DOF using the tilt in extreme near-far compositions. It can also create very wide flat panoramas with twice the resolution. It works fine with the TC 1.4x. The main drawback of this lens is that it is not as sharp as my other lenses of the same focal (including zooms).
• 45/2.5 TSE tilt and shift lens. I use it mostly for architectural subjects when a more natural perspective than with the previous lens is desired. Another use is to keep enough DOF using the tilt in near-far compositions. It can also create very wide flat panoramas with twice the resolution. It is a very sharp lens and works fine with the TC 1.4x.
• 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 normal lenses. Both are fast, sharp lenses for low-light situations. The first is extremely low weight and inexpensive thanks to the all-plastic contruction (it is actually the lightest and cheapest lens made by Canon). The second is better built, provides manual focus override, a more pleasant bokeh (rendition of out-of-focus areas), and of course 1/2 stop of speed, but it costs and weights significantly more. When used at optimum apertures, the 1.4 is slighly sharper (the 1.8 is very good), however if both are used at f2, the 1.4 bests the 1.8 significantly.
• 65/2.8 MPE extreme macro lens. This lens can create up to 5x magnfication close-ups without any additional accessory, revealing beauty in subjects such as sand grains. I tend to use it mostly in the studio, as it is very sensitive to vibrations, especially at the small apertures that are often required to maintain enough DOF.
• 85/1.8 fast short tele. I use it mostly around f2 as a portrait lenss that can produce a large amount of background blur.
• 90/2.8 TSE tilt and shift lens. An extremely sharp lens, that can be used to frame and focus very precisely a close-up subject. The tilt can also be used for radical far/near compositions with great apparent DOF, as well as for creating images with unusual blurry areas. The shift makes it easy to create a flat panorama image with twice the resolution, and the field of view of a normal lens. It works fine with TCE 1.4 and TC 2.0.
• 100/2.8 USM macro lens. An extremely sharp macro lens that I use for extreme close-ups. It goes to 1x without additional accessories, unlike the 90TSE which needs extension tubes and/or teleconverters to reach that magnification.
• 400/5.6. No-frills lens that is noticeably sharper than the 100-400 at 400, especially at full aperture.

My main memory card is a SanDisk 8GB Extreme IV. I find that I seldom fill-up the card in a day of shooting (it holds more 250 pictures). The Extreme IV supports the UDMA protocol, making it twice as fast as the Extreme III on UDMA devices, which includes the 1DsIII and the Extreme firewire 800 reader. Besides, I have a medley of older 4GB CF cards.

In the second slot of my 1DsIII, which almost never gets used, but is nice to have so that the camera is always ready to shoot, I have a SanDisk SD Plus. This clever card has a built-in USB connection that allows transfer to and from any computer, should the need suddently arises.

Many climbing pictures were made with a pocket camera (my current favorite, after trying many is the Ricoh GR1, with excellent controls and 28/2.8 optics), while underwater pictures are made with a 15mm Sea and Sea lens mounted on a Nikonos V, lighted with a huge and heavy Ikelite strobe.

Accessories

• 1325: super-stable, without a center column, I use it with the 5x7 camera on most trips
• 1227: used for most trips with 35mm, and on backpacking trips with the 5x7
• 1128: used on trips for which space is at a premium (such as independent solo travel in third world countries)

I currently use only two types of filters, polarizers and graduated neutral density filters, since they produce effects that cannot be duplicated using digital post-processing techniques. I prefer to digitally correct color casts such as the blue that comes from shooting in the shade. Before switching to digital, my polarizers were all warm-tone Kaeseman filters from Heliopan (I have found all the regular polarizers to be actually on the "cold" side). I still use them on my large format film camera, but for the digital camera, I use nowadays Hoya Pro1 series polarizers, which are thinner and better multicoating. I have a set of Hi-tech filters in 4x5 size that I use in a Lee mount. They are totally neutral with no color cast. Thanks to their large size, they are useful for Large Format, as well as for preventing vignetting on the 17-40 lens, but they are quite cumbersome. For 35mm, I used to carry a set of Singh Ray GND filters (in Cokin P mounts), that have the sharpest graduation of any brand. Since switching to digital, I have found that by blending bracketed exposures, I can achive results at least as good, so I no longer carry GND filters for 35mm.

I have a couple of Canon strobes, including a 550EX and accessories such as an extension cord and various bouncers, but I have been using flash less and less.

Depending on the destination, the following backpacks are used for the LF system:

• Lowepro Super-Trekker: the largest photo bag that one can buy offers quick and tidy access, good protection against shocks (I check it routinely when travelling by air) and elements. However it is quite heavy (10 lbs+), has limited room, and doesn't carry very well, limiting its use to short hikes.
• Gregory Swiftcurrent: a high-quality front-loading backpack that I use for longer hikes. It has an excellent suspension system and is fairly convenient for a general purpose backpack.
• McHale Inex Alpineer: a custom-sized backpack that I use to carry monster loads (60-70lbs) on overnight backpacking trips. It doesn't have some of the Gregory's refinments, but I have found that for carrying very heavy loads no other backpack has a suspension system which is as good.

When travelling only with 35mm, I carry my system in a shoulder bag. I prefer those with a relatively low profile and as little padding as possible. In the past, only Domke bags met those criteria, but recently I have been using mostly a Lowepro Stealth Reporter that has a more useful volume.

Film Photography

• Fuji Astia: general multipurpose film, with good latitude (for slide film) and natural color rendition.

• Fuji Velvia: great color saturation and sharpness for scenics shot in good light.
• Fuji Provia F: its fine grain made it good for scanning, and using at ASA 200, however I never really liked the color of this film. In particular I found that in less than perfect light it would take easily an ugly color cast. Nowadays Astia F is even finer, and with a more pleasing color rendition.
• Kodak Ektrachrome EVS: saturated colors (similar to Velvia) were available for the first time in a 100ASA film. However, I found this film to be quite grainy. Nowadays Velvia F is 100ASA and much finer grain.
• Fuji MS 100/1000: a multispeed film which could be pushed fairly high with decent results. Fuji 400F: a 400ASA film with the better grain than the previous film. Nowadays for high iso photography I use digital, that I found to be less grainy at equivalent high-iso speeds.

Editing and storage

I then store them in Printfile archival slide pages that I group in hanging folders by locations. I use the Pendaflex IronHide folders (I buy them on the web, as they can be difficult to find in office supply stores) that are made of plastic, rather than non-archival green carboard, like the folders most commonly found. The most commonly used folders go into metal (wood cabinets, while esthetically more pleasing, are not as archival because of the chemicals in the wood and glue) hanging files cabinets, while the others go into opaque plastic storage crates. Tranparencies are placed into archival carboard boxes bought at Light Impressions, which are stored in a metal cabinet.

Scanning

For 5x7 transparencies, I have an Epson 4870 that I operate with Silverfast AI. I made my custom holders for 5x7 out of mattboard. I simply tape the film at the edges with tension, which help keep it flat. This Epson produces decent scans. Its real resolution is about 2000dpi (despite the advertised 4800dpi), which is enough to produce a very good file from 5x7. However, when used with multisampling it is extremely slow, taking several hours to produce a scan. The main problem is dealing with dust. The ICE feature does not work with files above a certain size (contrarily to advertised). I have scanned only a small number of transparencies with this scanner.

In the past, when possible, I would just use a scan of a nearly-identical 35mm to show the image to potential customers. Once a large print is ordered, or an image is licensed for mural reproduction, I would then order a drum scan from the lab, usually to 200MB or 300MB. As this workflow had several drawbacks, at the beginning of 2007, I had more than 1,300 5x7 transparencies professionally scaned to 300MB on Heidelberg drum scanners. If done in the US, such a job would have costed more than $100,000, but I was able to find a very competent lab overseas that charged me only a fraction of that amount.

Digital post processing

Computers and storage

CPUs are more or less fast and convenient, but the monitor is where all color judgements are made, so it might be the most important piece of equipment in the digital darkroom. The Dell uses a 24 inch flat screen, which is great for all image editing work except critical color work. The main monitor used for imaging work on the Mac is a Sony Artisan. This 22 inch CRT, with its self-profiling and self-calibrating abilities, color accuracy, and large display, was considered by many to be the gold standard. Unfortunately, it is now discontinued. A second smaller monitor is used mostly to hold palettes. All monitors are calibrated using ColorEyes. The main advantage of ColorEyes over the excellent dedicated Artisan calibration device is that it makes it much easier to calibrate a dual-monitor set-up, otherwise there isn't a significant difference in the quality of the calibration.

My storage is on about two dozen external hard drives. A few years ago, 250GB offered the best GB/money value in a drive of respectable size, but nowadays, considering the need for less enclosures, 500GB has become my standard. CDs are just too small capacity to be practical to archive TIFFs. With high-quality DVDs (ie gold) the cost per Gigabyte is not very different from the cost of storing on two hard drives. Hard drives are vastly more time-efficient to use, especially if you plan on refreshing your media periodically, a long-term necessity in the digital world.

I run my data hard drives in independent enclosures, for maximum security and flexibility, as well as minimal cost. The AMS Venus enclosures are well-made, make it easy to swap drives, and have good heat dissipation with a large and silent fan. I get them with the dual USB/eSATA interface for maximum compatibility or maximum speed transfer.

The system drive,and current data drive are mirrored periodically, on two different drives that I rotate. As a Mac user, I mirror the system drives using Carbon Copy Copier, and non-system drives with Synchronize X Plus. The rotated drive is stored at another location. So at any time, there are three copies, two on my system (so that I can do frequent updates to the mirror) and one at the other location. This provides protection not only against drive failure (an inevitable occurence), but also catastrophic loss of the entire system (for instance due to theft or fire), and operator error. Once the data drive is full, I unplug permanently the mirror, and store it at the other location. The third drive would then be reused.

Digital capture workflow

In general, my 8GB card (250+ 1DsIII images in RAW) lasts me enough for the day, since I photograph with discrimination, and review and erase in-camera the most obviously imperfect images. In the evening, I download the images to two or three hard drives, in general dedicated downloading devices (portable integrated image storage devices). I prefer those devices to a laptop because of the weight and bulk savings, the ease of use, and the redundancy provided that the fact that each of them has its own card reading ability. I erase the card only after making sure that both copies were successful.

My downloading devices are currently one Epson P-5000, one Hyperdrive Space, and one Hyperdrive HD80. The Epson 5000 is a full-featured viewer with a brillant 4 inch screen that could be used for image editing, since it can display a zoomed in image, as well as metadata and histograms. It is much faster than the P-2000 that I used to have. The Hyperdrive Space is a compact and light device that stays in the camera bag. It is inexpensive, very fast, uses little battery power, and has enough data displays and buttons to be easy to use, unlike the Hyperdrive HD80 which is rather primitive.

I edit using Adobe Bridge or Lightroom, and select files for the website.

I run in batch DxO optics pro on all select images to correct automatically lens defects such as distortion, vignetting, chromatic abberation, and some sharpness fall-off. In general, I do not use the automated additional image algorithms such as DxO lighting at that stage, although I might apply them later to some difficult images. I also have DxO write into the DNG format, as I prefer the colors obtained with ACR/Lightroom, and the superior ACR/Lightroom controls.

I then use Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) or Lighroom for batch conversion to TIFF, 16bits, in Prophoto color space (Adobe 1998 clips some of the colors that are captured by today's high-end digital cameras, and that the Epson K3 printers can actually output). All the remaining sharpening and color correction are done using adjustement layers in Photoshop.

Digital correction

Printing

Technically, the Epson produces prints that are slightly sharper than the Lightjet. This is because the inks lie on the surface of the paper rather in the paper, where they are subject to some diffusion. The color gammut is also wider, making it possible to reproduce more accurately saturated colors such as the orange of California Poppies that always came a bit muted on Lightjet prints.

The archival life of Epson papers with Epson inks are estimated to 100 years before visible fading occurs. This is even better than the 70 years estimated for the Fuji Crystal Archive paper normally used in the Lightjet.

On the downsides, the Epson prints are more time-consuming to produce, as they require curating to prevent potential outgasing, as well as more careful handling. For some images, I also miss the depth and glow due to having the colors lie inside the paper.

However, the main advantage of using the Epson is that I am able to bring the printing process back to the studio, where it belongs, rather than outsourcing it to a lab. It is often said that a true artist should handle as many stages of the production of his work as possible. Before the advent of digital printing, I used to make color prints by hand in a darkroom using the Cibachrome process. Digital printing on the Lighjet produced results that were so superior, but the the Lightjet is a $250,000, 2000 pound digital enlarger which is running at only around 500 sites in the world. For me, controlling the printing process myself again with the Epson allows me to make prints that best match my vision, since it is easy to experiment, refine and redo a print immediatly until I am entirely satisfied with the results.

Web publishing

Server

I rent a dedicated Linux server that I run under Plesk, with the usual open source web software such as Apache, PHP, Mysql, and Perl, and the stuff that comes with it. Currently the box is a dual processor Xeon 2.8Ghz with dual 160GB drives at theplanet.com, a hosting company that I have found provides outstanding support for a relatively affordable price. Before that, I have hosted with interland.com (both dedicated and shared), who also very good, and very well above the two cheaper companies that I began with (hostrocket.com and addr.com). I register my domains with active-domain.com which is inexpensive and provide a good range of DNS services at no extra charge.

The subscriptions are handled by the package dreamaccount from dreamcost.com, which is now deprecated. While the basic functions work, and the code is well-written and fairly easy to customize, being PHP/MySQL open source, I absolutely recommend against it. This package contains multiple and severe security holes (well documented on the web as of June 2006) that required extensive work to fix. Minor annoyances are also that the overall workflow is somewhat awkward, and there are a number of bugs.

I purchased a Geotrust digital certificate at a discount from a reseller (spacesurfer.com) who has been responsive so far. I offer the option to use paypal, or pay with a credit card direct on the site (my merchant account is with Wells Fargo/authorize.net). The latter looks more professional, and most customers prefer it.

Image preparation for the web

Web pages

The website uses a rather sophisticated custom CMS (Content Management System). To make sure it does exactly what I wanted, I developed all the code by myself. Besides the front-end visible to users (that includes search, personal selections, and e-commerce orders), there are a number of reporting tools and business tools to perform functions such as measuring impact of images via several metrics, managing and delivering orders, tracking invoices, usage rights, print edition numbers, generating sales and income tax reports, and even preparing a CD and paperwork for quarterly registration of images with the US Copyright Office.

The information about each photo gallery is held in flat text files that I just write with a text editor (emacs, possibly the best program ever written). HTML pages are generated from those files using a script written in TCL which now consists of about 4000 lines of code. TCL is a relatively little known high-level scripting language, but it comes standard with most unix distributions. I also have a number of scripts written in Perl (a similar langage that is much more popular) for performing tasks such as database updating that are more easily done than in TCL. For tasks that involve a lot of filesystem access and system calls, I use straight C-shell scripts.

It is impossible to maintain by hand (editing each HTML file) a large site. On the other hand, while maintaining a dynamically generated site (typically based on PHP/MySQL) is a snap, such sites can have performance problems under heavy traffic, as well as difficulties to get all their pages properly indexed by search engines. I chose to have a mixed approach, with all pages static, and dynamic functions (such as search, ratings, ordering, etc..) provided by PHP/MySQL, informed by a database that replicates the contents of the static pages.

As far as search engine optimization (how to make your pages highly ranked by search engines so that they come on top of search results), I just follow the recommendations that can be found on Google's own site. I have a lot of meaningful static content (more than 17,500 different images), each of my images is captioned in a descriptive and unique way, the site structure is clearly hierarchised and each page is well labelled and has comprehensive navigation links. It also helps that the site has been for a while on the web (especially counting the permanent redirections from my previous sites) and is updated regularly, at least twice a month.

I am sometimes asked if I can recommend a designer who can produce a comparable site. I don't know such a person. I could do it, but it will not be cheap. There is a package availabe from 20/20 software that provides more bells and whistles than I use (but is probably lacking in other areas) that I hear costs more than $10,000. Recently, technology providers such as stockpipeline.com, digitalrailroad.con, or photoshelter.com promise to offer a more affordable solution.

Where to buy ?

The two following links are affiliate links. When you click on either of those two vendors links, you are taken to their site with an ID that identifies the terragalleria.com site as refering you. If you purchase something during that session on either site, we get a small commission at no cost to you.

• B&H: the most complete stock of photographic gear, including hard-to-find professional/specialized items. B&H has almost everything photographic at decent prices and ships fast and reliably.
• Amazon.com: for everything else.