Well, since no one knows, why not?

Your perception about the land not presenting a level line is correct but maybe not for why you might be thinking. The ridge of brush was not perpendicular to me but drifting away on the right side. Had I done this with my 4x5, I could have swung the back to make the brush line look level.

Thanks for the compliment. Actually there are quite a few Cibachromes of it in people's homes around the country mainly sold thru galleries. Too bad Ciba went down the drain. We also published 5,000 - 24x30 inch posters of the image on top end paper (Kromekote C1S) which I hawked myself and have only 100 left. No sense in hiding my candle under a bushel basket, so, www.kollodgegallery.com.

Indeed!. I used it for +/- 20 years in Alaska and sold a slug of images from it. Pentax even used two of my shots in their trade shows. I, however, found the system lenses going from exquisite to down right shoddy. The 45 rubber ring, 75 shift and 165 f2.8 were unbeatable. The 500 f5.6 was a 10 lb anchor and the 200 metal ring was equally bad. The 300 f4.0 was pretty good but mostly used vertically. I think the Achilles Heel in the system was the torque of the shutter in horizontal shots. Even with the mirror locked up and hanging your camera bag over the camera or even a mesh bag of stones, it was only if the gods were smiling that I could get a sharp photo with the 300 horizontally and then it wasn't "tack" sharp ever. Vertically, the shutter torque had to lift the camera and Gitzo tripod off the ground to introduce softness in the chrome.

Yes. I had a week there in a tent and qualified for a permit to drive the road 24/7 in either direction. Don't know if they still have that program for "professional" artists that meet the criteria set up by the Park Service to qualify for that perk. Moved back to America from Fairbanks 14 years ago and have somewhat lost touch on stuff like that.

Yes, unlikely to forget. July 2, 1982. Best landscape opportunity I ever had in 30 years we were in Alaska. I thought I knew it at the time and that turned out to be true.

From 1982 with a Pentax 6x7 and 300mm lens. I was 40 at the time and this image has been very good to me. (thought I did this already but can't find it on Ugly Hedgehog. Sorry if it's here twice now.)

I've had several pairs of Leica and I think they can't be beaten. The 10x25 and 8x20 are real light but not nearly as bright as the 10x32 which are somewhat heavier with an exit pupil of 3.2 mm which makes them harder to use than the 8x40 with an exit pupil of 5 mm making them very easy to use for long periods of time and much brighter than the others mentioned. The 8x40 are also noticeably bigger and heavier than the 10x32. All Leicas I've ever had are sharp as a scalpel and very contrasty. The biggest problem with inexpensive binoculars is not necessarily a softer image with less contrast but frequently that the barrels are out of alignment (a mechanical manufacturing problem) so both eyes do not quite see the same thing and your eyes will "pull." That was my experience with both Minolta and Nikons I bought many decades ago because of price. I've heard Swarovski are excellent and are priced similar to Leica. Zeiss are also from the top shelf.

For those who don't already know or could not discover the guide # for this flash either in the instruction manual, which one has to download as a PDF, or easily on Google, the "40" is SF-40 indicates the guide # in Meters. So the guide # in feet is appx. 131 and I assume that might be for the 50 mm lens setting/coverage or maybe even for a 35mm lens, covered with the 24 mm setting on the flash. The formula would be 39.37 inches (a meter) divided by 12 inches (a foot) times 40 = guide # 131 in feet.

I think your reply could be confusing to a novice. To say that with the Nikon 7200 (apparently with APS-C sensor with a crop factor of 1.5) "has a crop factor of 750mm" might lead some to believe you might be suggesting that the Nikon 7200 will change the Nikon 500mm lens that covers "full frame" to a 750mm lens resulting in a change in magnification from 500mm to 750mm, which would, of course, be incorrect. I suspect you are meaning to convey that putting the 500 lens on 7200 will give you an angle of view "as though" you were using a 750mm lens on a full frame camera. I've seen confusion on this even printed in articles in Shutterbug Magazine that the editors didn't catch and clarify.

The grain hauling "saltie" (meaning loading and heading for Europe eventually over the Atlantic Ocean after plying the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway) "Cinnamon" entering the Duluth Harbor at the farthest west end of the Great Lakes on Lake Superior in Duluth, MN.

Hot, good looking young babes.

Are you glad, sad or did you have it comin?

Why?

Yes. Mine has a black cover, © 1984. Also have the Kodak Master Darkroom Dataguide for black and white - ©1972. Also the 1980 Kodak B&W Darkroom Dataguide and the 1988 Darkroom Dataguide. Finally, I still have the 1995 Kodak Professional Photoguide. Ken Kollodge, Duluth, MN. Was 76 in July.