books on outdoor photography
vma...@optonline.net
better pictures on my backpacks and hikes. This would include wildlife
but my focus is on landscapes, sunrises, sunsets. I've taken nice
pictures in the past but not on purpose. I was just lucky enough to
catch the sunset or landscape at a good moment. I would like to PLAN on
taking nice pictures instead of just getting lucking time to time. for
example my yosemite pictures totally sucked ass and that was a
beautiful trip.
Eugene Miya
<vma...@optonline.net> wrote:
>Anyone know of any goods books on outdoor photogrpahy. I wanna take
Start with any basic photo book and learn about composition.
You need to develop an eye for exposure (you may hear of the Zone system).
That's what makes for muddy pictures (lacking contrast).
View other picture books. Adams, Porter, Rowell, are common examples
(Galen was no where near Ansel's class, but he will be easy to find).
Copy them. Be prepared to learn to know when NOT to take pictures.
Study photographs. View with a critical eye.
A decent public library helps otherwise use interlibrary loan.
Attempt to take lots of pictures. A few will come out good
(a second philosophy says take very few good pictures).
--
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
Do your users want the best web-email gateway? Don't let your
customers drift off to free webmail services install your own
web gateway!
-- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_webmail.htm ----
Raptor
I've got this book titled "Capturing the Landscape with your Camera."
ISTR it has some good basic tips in it, along with a bunch more
advanced. It's been about a decade since I cracked open it though.
Plan to get up early or stay out late-ish. Mid-day sun casts no shadows
and has poor lighting contrast. Contrast is good for dramatic or
interesting photos. Morning's better than evening because the air is
cleaner.
That being said, you get some of your best, most colorful shots on an
overcast day. The colors are better with the more gentle, diffuse light.
Composition is important but pretty easy to learn. Rule of thirds: place
the interesting parts of the image not in the center, but one-third of
the way towards an edge or corner. Don't take a sunset shot with the
horizon perfectly bisecting the frame, put that line at the 1/3rd or
2/3rd position. Pick the spot based on what's most interesting - great
clouds mean you put the horizon lower, beautiful terrain beneath means a
higher horizon.
I'm sure there are web sites out there with tips for a beginning photog.
Talk to a pro or two at pro shops or developing studios. They'll be
happy to tell you which films perform best for certain subjects and
conditions. Velvia is (or used to be) the best film for the scenic
deserts of the Southwest, because it responds well to red tones. Film is
less important with the plethora of digital tweaking tools we have
today. The best film nowadays is probably one or two brands of digital
cameras.
And, take lots of pictures. Throw a lot away. Digital makes this easy.
--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.
Bill Tuthill
> Anyone know of any gooks books on outdoor photography.
The John Shaw books are often recommended:
Landscape Photography
Closeups in Nature
Nature Photography Field Guide
Also check out the Nature forum on http://photo.net
for specific advice.
hlil...@juno.com
Well, as Eugene says, you need to start with the basics, there are a
lot of things that beginners don't know. Things like composition, use
of light, use of different tools etc. You don't say if you want to do
digital or film but if it's digital I would suggest _The Joy of Digital
Photography_ by Jeff Wignall. My kids gave it to me for Christmas a
year ago and I've found it very useful. Covers not only taking of
photographs but equipment and the use of computer programs to make them
look better. He uses Photoshop for his examples but most of what he
says also applies to other programs Paintshop which I have and which is
much less expensive while doing nearly everything Photoshop will do.
If you are considering a new camera, with today's technology I would
suggest you go digital. The initial expense for good resulution is
more but
You will save in film and processing costs
You can fix a lot of problems with your computer
You can take lots of images then just save the ones you want.
You can even look at the images you took and toss the ones you want in
the field, freeing up memory for more photos.
If you're serious get at least a moderately higher end camera that will
do things like allow you to modify contrast, do focus lock, set f-stop
etc. My camera offers an exposure bracket which I almost always use,
takes one at what looks like the best exposure setting, then one a bit
under exposed and one a bit over exposed. That gives you the
opportunity to pick the best one and I often find that the under
exposed landscapes look better than the normal ones. Of course a
tripod is useful for things like that, I have one that is fairly light
(2-3 lbs) and collapses to the size of a medium back pack. It also has
a built in spirit level so I can be sure the camera is level.
Of course another option is to get one of the compact cameras. They do
not offer the features of the higher end versions (little lens
flexibility, no filters, usually no control over f-stop etc.) but they
are light and compact. You can carry them in your shirt pocket and
whip them out when you want a picture. They come with the most popular
settings which means that most of the time they can get a good picture.
However they cannot do things like cut the glare with a filter or
focus on one point then allow you to change aim without changing the
focus. They do often come with a zoom lens which is nice. A compact
may or may not allow you to change memory cards. That is a very useful
feature, you can carry a spare card or upgrade the memory to hold more
images. Some compacts only offer built-in memory which is very
limiting.
Another thing you want to do is to either buy a spare battery pack or
be sure your camera uses alkaline batteries so you don't get stuck with
your rechargeable having a dead battery. Actually instead of alkalines
I prefer nickel metal hydride, they are rechargeable and work in the
cold much better than do alkalines.
One thing I would warn about is to pretty much ignore digital "zoom"
when buying a camera. That is not a real zoom, all it does is magnify
the center of the captured image. You can do that, and do it better,
with your computer at home. Digital zoom gives you no resolution
improvement. It might be useful to help reduce the memory required if
you only want part of the image you see, but I can't think of any other
good use for it.
You might look in a book such as I recommend above before you decide
what to buy if you're considering a new camera. That book describes
the different types of digital cameras available with their advantages
and disadvantages. Though the particular models have changed, his
description of this is generic enough that it is still current.
johnrich...@yahoo.com
This is true, but contrast can be very difficult to deal with as well.
I was frustrated here until I read up on it. Filters, tripods, and
good lenses are a requirement for contrast photographs.
Digital equipment handles contrast worse than many films do. There's
less range there. Photoshop doesn't help when sunlit rocks are blown
out to white on the CCD. Throw in a circular polarizer, long
exposures, high f-stop, and a tripod and you might have a dramatic
photo.
I was re-reading Ray Jardine's book and found that he recommends taking
pictures on cloudy days, at mid-day for the even lighting. If you're
using a point-n-shoot digital (like me!) that's good advice. You might
not sell these photos, but you won't be embarrassed when friends browse
your "photocast."
John
hlil...@juno.com
> This is true, but contrast can be very difficult to deal with as well.
> I was frustrated here until I read up on it. Filters, tripods, and
> good lenses are a requirement for contrast photographs.
> Digital equipment handles contrast worse than many films do. There's
> less range there. Photoshop doesn't help when sunlit rocks are blown
> out to white on the CCD. Throw in a circular polarizer, long
> exposures, high f-stop, and a tripod and you might have a dramatic
> photo.
True. Also some cameras allow you to turn down the contrast when you
snap the image. This is a bit counterintuitive. You want vivid
colors but if you use the "vivid" setting on your camera you will have
so much contrast that the image will be poor. Use the "neutral" or
"low contrast" setting if you have one and you may get better results.
Film still exceeds digital for contrast range but you can do some
things to improve the image.
Programs like photoshop can turn down the contrast after the fact, but
they are limited. If the intial contrast is so high that the shadows
are just black or the bright areas are washed out, the computer has a
hard time with it. You can insert something else in those shadows but
that's a lot of work.
The most difficult image to capture is probably something like snow in
the background and a dark object on a bright day. Either the snow
washes out, or the dark object is totally black. Even saw this taking
a picture of a black frend on Mt Hood. I doubt the typical point and
shoot camera is capable of getting a good image under those
circumstances and it is difficult with a higher end camera. Getting
away from the bright day helps, either on a cloudy day (as you say
below) or morning/evening shots are often better. Partly cloudy can
help as well, especially if you can get the sun behind a cloud but
still some blue sky in the scene.
> I was re-reading Ray Jardine's book and found that he recommends taking
> pictures on cloudy days, at mid-day for the even lighting. If you're
> using a point-n-shoot digital (like me!) that's good advice. You might
> not sell these photos, but you won't be embarrassed when friends browse
> your "photocast."
True.
Eugene Miya
In article <1137453682....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
johnrich...@yahoo.com <johnrich...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>This is true, but contrast can be very difficult to deal with as well.
>I was frustrated here until I read up on it. Filters, tripods, and
>good lenses are a requirement for contrast photographs.
Ansel Adams in his bio wrote about this when he made his decision
to turn pro on his Half Dome face swept across. He took several from
no filter, K25, to deep red, and the deep red is the one most people see
(this is B&W). I have mixed opinions about drama or interest
(say like Yellow journalism).
Now he started an entire photographic movement which was largely
ignorant of his outdoor accomplishments. That's pretty ambituous
and likely a ways off.
I left out dark room work.
>Digital equipment handles contrast worse than many films do. There's
>less range there. Photoshop doesn't help when sunlit rocks are blown
>out to white on the CCD. Throw in a circular polarizer, long
>exposures, high f-stop, and a tripod and you might have a dramatic
>photo.
>
>I was re-reading Ray Jardine's book and found that he recommends taking
>pictures on cloudy days, at mid-day for the even lighting. If you're
>using a point-n-shoot digital (like me!) that's good advice. You might
>not sell these photos, but you won't be embarrassed when friends browse
>your "photocast."
Take lots of photos.
Toss the bad ones. Keep a few as lessons.
--
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ---------------------
For a secure high performance FTP using SSL/TLS encryption
upgrade to SurgeFTP
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgeftp.htm ----
johnrich...@yahoo.com
If you're saying that you have mixed feelings about pictures don't
accurately reflect or predict the actual view, I empathize with you.
I'm thinking of postcard pictures that have been cropped, photoshopped,
dodged, and burned. The result is a picture that is pleasant to look
at, but not what you'd see from the trail. The picture often doesn't
accurately reflect the place itself and doesn't evoke memories of being
there. Not for me anyway.
On the other hand, I am profoundly impressed by picturesque photos
which DO transport me back. (I think the idea is to make only subtle
"darkroom" changes while accurately capturing what the viewer would
remember, but I'm no expert.)
> Take lots of photos.
Probably the best advice, IMHO.
John
johnrich...@yahoo.com
> ignorant of his outdoor accomplishments.
Eh? Ansel Adams' outdoor accomplishments in photography? Or something
else?
John
Gary S.
<johnrich...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Consider that he carried 8x10 or larger view cameras into various
backcountry locations, and stayed extended times in order to get the
right lighting.
Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
--
At the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence
Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom
Raptor
>>I have mixed opinions about drama or interest (say like Yellow journalism).
>
>
> If you're saying that you have mixed feelings about pictures don't
> accurately reflect or predict the actual view, I empathize with you.
>
> I'm thinking of postcard pictures that have been cropped, photoshopped,
> dodged, and burned. The result is a picture that is pleasant to look
> at, but not what you'd see from the trail. The picture often doesn't
> accurately reflect the place itself and doesn't evoke memories of being
> there. Not for me anyway.
I have yet to see a photo of a photogenic natural scene that does
justice to being there. So "knock yourself out" is my attitude towards
post-processing. (Sort of. The few pics I have on my archaic web site
have been processed minimally.)
Eugene Miya
In article <1137600576.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
johnrich...@yahoo.com <johnrich...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>If you're saying that you have mixed feelings about pictures don't
>accurately reflect or predict the actual view, I empathize with you.
>
>I'm thinking of postcard pictures that have been cropped, photoshopped,
>dodged, and burned. The result is a picture that is pleasant to look
>at, but not what you'd see from the trail. The picture often doesn't
>accurately reflect the place itself and doesn't evoke memories of being
>there. Not for me anyway.
Just a quick note.
I was in Yosemite over the weekend.
Previously last year I did a more accurate viewing of where Winter
Clearing Storm by Adams was done. It was further S of the parking lot
at Inspiration Pt. is located. I was explaining to my Italian visitor
that this view was unlike the Adams photos which made the place seem huge.
I would have a nice conversation and brief friendship with Dave Brower
from 1975 on to his death because of those observations.
>On the other hand, I am profoundly impressed by picturesque photos
>which DO transport me back. (I think the idea is to make only subtle
>"darkroom" changes while accurately capturing what the viewer would
>remember, but I'm no expert.)
Darkroom work is fun if tedious.
Good emphasis (Tony Bourdain and Thomas Keller would be proud).
>> Take lots of photos.
>
>Probably the best advice, IMHO.
--
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
For a quality usenet news server, try DNEWS, easy to install,
fast, efficient and reliable. For home servers or carrier class
installations with millions of users it will allow you to grow!
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dnews.htm ----
Eugene Miya
>> ignorant of his outdoor accomplishments.
In article <1137601371.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
johnrich...@yahoo.com <johnrich...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Eh? Ansel Adams' outdoor accomplishments in photography? Or something
>else?
Group f/64.
--
Eugene Miya
Gary S. <Idontwantspam@net> wrote:
>On 18 Jan 2006 08:22:52 -0800, "johnrich...@yahoo.com"
><johnrich...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Now he started an entire photographic movement which was largely
>>> ignorant of his outdoor accomplishments.
>>
>>Eh? Ansel Adams' outdoor accomplishments in photography? Or something
>>else?
>>
>Consider that he carried 8x10 or larger view cameras into various
>backcountry locations, and stayed extended times in order to get the
>right lighting.
Many people carried view cameras.
I have at least used a 4x5. The whole geometry is important.
Find photo history books.
--
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
Want to have instant messaging, and chat rooms, and discussion
groups for your local users or business, you need dbabble!
-- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dbabble.htm ----
Eugene Miya
Raptor <law...@xmission.com> wrote:
>johnrich...@yahoo.com wrote:
>I have yet to see a photo of a photogenic natural scene that does
>justice to being there. So "knock yourself out" is my attitude towards
>post-processing. (Sort of. The few pics I have on my archaic web site
>have been processed minimally.)
While far from perfect, investigate stereo.
Things look like cardboard. Then start to look at holography.
It also has a ways to go. Then go for flight simulation, not
the PC stuff, Evans & Sutherland in SLC makes the best systems.
And you will start to see what people are aiming for (you get movies
for resolution, but not depth).
--
Eugene Miya
johnrich...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> If you're saying that you have mixed feelings about pictures don't
>> accurately reflect or predict the actual view, I empathize with you.
>>
>> I'm thinking of postcard pictures that have been cropped, photoshopped,
>> dodged, and burned. The result is a picture that is pleasant to look
>> at, but not what you'd see from the trail. The picture often doesn't
>> accurately reflect the place itself and doesn't evoke memories of being
>> there. Not for me anyway.
So I am staying with my friend Cary who is building a 3-D imaging lab
here at the ETHZ. They plop me down to watch demos to see how I react.
So then I leave them to work, and just wander for the day 91st).
So I decide, It's Friday, the post will be closed tomorrow, I should go
to Vaduz to get rare stamps, etc. for Jerry, Ed, Gina.
Oh, they are close until exactly 1330. So I wander shops, oh yeah they
have puzzle cards. And what do I find 3-D post cards using various
technologies (grins back at the lab).
They don't have money to send people to US conferences to demo this.
In article <dqnaq3$cfg$2...@news.xmission.com>,
Raptor <law...@xmission.com> wrote:
>I have yet to see a photo of a photogenic natural scene that does
>justice to being there. So "knock yourself out" is my attitude towards
>post-processing. (Sort of. The few pics I have on my archaic web site
>have been processed minimally.)
"Knock my socks off" was a line from the film Brainstorm.
Rent the film. You will see what inspired a slew of people to do work
in "virtual reality." Has a ways to go (wearcam.org). But people are
working on neural inputs. You will also get some idea (demo tapes)
what would be requierd for fidelity.
Just beware of the tape which is labelled "TOXIC: PSYCHOTIC EPISODE."
One way to wait is to consider night time. It's a simpler photographic
and simulation environment (a lot of the major flight sim work started
off with night because it's a computationally less complex environment
and it works [fools the pilot's brain]). One of the 3-D experimental
films I saw was titled Nightfall just made last year. Not bad.
In a few years, we will think of it as crude.
I did suggest that they nix the music (false drama).
--
DN
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
I'm way late to this thread but I'd be remiss for not posting my book
suggestions:
-The Backpacker's Photography Handbook by Charles Campbell (A *MUST*
have)
-Any photographic technique book by John Shaw
They will cover the techniques but it definitely helps to *study* nature
photos to determine what you find appealing. Once you understand what you
like, you can pick up a coffee-table style book and study the composition
and subject. If you like macro photography, get that kind of book. If you
like black and white photography, search for B&W photographers. It's all
a matter of personal preference - many people rave about Ansel Adams but
I'm not moved at all by his photos. But show me a fall foliage photo and
I'm thrilled.
lhfot...@hotmail.com
I used to use an old Canon AE-1 and it helped me to learn about
exposure and shutter speed. Now that I have a Fuji digital, I find
myself regressing and getting lazy about manipulating the picture
BEFORE you take it.
With digital storage being so affordable these days, I just kind of
"wing it" and alter exposure through locking in the exposure setting by
holding the shutter release away from my subject then framing my
picture with the different setting and snapping the picture. With the
film camera, there was lots of pictures I didn't take, being frugal
with my exposures. Now, I am more free to be a madman and experiment
more than in the old days.
One thing that I HAVEN'T seen in this thread is someone advocating that
you actually read your camera's manual (perish the thought! <G> ). I
can't seem to locate my own...lol.
Regarding Ansel Adams, everyone has their own tastes, and since I'm a
big fan of Yosemite and have been there many dozens of times, I
appreciate his work more and more. His best talent was in going to
those magical spots and capturing the realism of Yosemite with his
camera better than anyone else. Like someone else in this thread said,
it's impossible to fully realize the experience of actually being
there. However, that's not going to stop me from trying <G>.
I've been to Yosemite three times in the last month. Check out some of
those pics on my picture blog
http://lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Enjoy!
Woof
collection of lenses and filters. A polarizer is a must to bring out the
colors, a zoom is necessary to get up close and personal, and macros are
needed for the close-ups to show texture and detail of minute objects.
Sunsets are often highlighted with the use of filters in the red, yellow,
and orange ranges, and a cross screen will give that "star" effect on your
sun or other light source. There are numerous other filters for various
coloring and effects as well as cut-outs for various vignette shapes. Buy
some, have fun and experiment. I recommend Cokin filters.
"DN" <d...@12345.12345.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9785F1F50...@216.196.97.131...
Eugene Miya
Woof <jamesd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>One of the most important features of nature photography is a good
>collection of lenses and filters. A polarizer is a must to bring out the
>colors, a zoom is necessary to get up close and personal, and macros are
>needed for the close-ups to show texture and detail of minute objects.
>Sunsets are often highlighted with the use of filters in the red, yellow,
>and orange ranges, and a cross screen will give that "star" effect on your
>sun or other light source. There are numerous other filters for various
>coloring and effects as well as cut-outs for various vignette shapes. Buy
>some, have fun and experiment. I recommend Cokin filters.
I'm not big on filters to enhance sunrises or sets. But people should
know how they work.
>"DN" <d...@12345.12345.invalid> wrote in message
>news:Xns9785F1F50...@216.196.97.131...
>> vma...@optonline.net wrote in news:1137011104.500393.318910
>> @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>> > Anyone know of any goods books on outdoor photogrpahy. I wanna take
>> > better pictures on my backpacks and hikes. This would include wildlife
Excepting a small range of animals a zoom won't cut it
you need a serious range os telephoto lenses.
>> > but my focus is on landscapes, sunrises, sunsets. I've taken nice
>> > pictures in the past but not on purpose. I was just lucky enough to
>> > catch the sunset or landscape at a good moment. I would like to PLAN on
>> > taking nice pictures instead of just getting lucking time to time. for
>> > example my yosemite pictures totally sucked ass and that was a
>> > beautiful trip.
Avoid taking photos after 10 AM and before 2 PM.
>> photos to determine what you find appealing. Once you understand what you
>> like, you can pick up a coffee-table style book and study the composition
>> and subject. If you like macro photography, get that kind of book. If you
>> like black and white photography, search for B&W photographers. It's all
>> a matter of personal preference - many people rave about Ansel Adams but
>> I'm not moved at all by his photos. But show me a fall foliage photo and
>> I'm thrilled.
You must like Impressionism.
--
Eugene Miya
<lhfot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>DN wrote:
>> They will cover the techniques but it definitely helps to *study* nature
>> photos to determine what you find appealing. Once you understand what you
>> like, you can pick up a coffee-table style book and study the composition
>> and subject. If you like macro photography, get that kind of book. If you
>> like black and white photography, search for B&W photographers. It's all
>> a matter of personal preference - many people rave about Ansel Adams but
>> I'm not moved at all by his photos. But show me a fall foliage photo and
>> I'm thrilled.
>
>I used to use an old Canon AE-1 and it helped me to learn about
>exposure and shutter speed. Now that I have a Fuji digital, I find
>myself regressing and getting lazy about manipulating the picture
>BEFORE you take it.
I would not feel too bad about that. Digital photography is still in
its infancy. I have also gotten lazy, but it doesn't cost you film.
The interesting thing is the behavior of cameras at their limits.
>With digital storage being so affordable these days, I just kind of
>"wing it" and alter exposure through locking in the exposure setting by
>holding the shutter release away from my subject then framing my
>picture with the different setting and snapping the picture. With the
>film camera, there was lots of pictures I didn't take, being frugal
>with my exposures. Now, I am more free to be a madman and experiment
>more than in the old days.
Photography cost more in some senses. But that cost and experience
could be compensated by taking a class and using class equipment like
view cameras to better explain the geomtery of scenes and cameras.
B&W film teaches about exposure better than color film, and dark room
work got into details about process and printing (basically positives
and negatives in the photo sense: image by filtering or by reflection
and absorption).
>One thing that I HAVEN'T seen in this thread is someone advocating that
>you actually read your camera's manual (perish the thought! <G> ). I
>can't seem to locate my own...lol.
I think RTFM is generally assumed.
>Regarding Ansel Adams, everyone has their own tastes, and since I'm a
>big fan of Yosemite and have been there many dozens of times, I
>appreciate his work more and more. His best talent was in going to
>those magical spots and capturing the realism of Yosemite with his
>camera better than anyone else. Like someone else in this thread said,
>it's impossible to fully realize the experience of actually being
>there. However, that's not going to stop me from trying <G>.
Adams was big on minute detail, but it's not quite realism. He used
filters expensively. That's the interplay between light and how film
recorded it.
One thing I have to do is take my copy of This is the American Earth,
place it on a portable book stand next to Inspiration Point so that I
can take a photo of the real scene and the book below it subtending the
same photo angles.
>I've been to Yosemite three times in the last month. Check out some of
>those pics on my picture blog
>
>http://lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Not bad, the first Yosemite photo is of the Rostrum, but you did not
catch the notch behind it.
--
Pat O'Connell
> In article <i_3Tf.54941$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
> Woof <jamesd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>One of the most important features of nature photography is a good
>>collection of lenses and filters. A polarizer is a must to bring out the
> Very true.
>>colors, a zoom is necessary to get up close and personal, and macros are
>>needed for the close-ups to show texture and detail of minute objects.
>>Sunsets are often highlighted with the use of filters in the red, yellow,
>>and orange ranges, and a cross screen will give that "star" effect on your
>>sun or other light source. There are numerous other filters for various
>>coloring and effects as well as cut-outs for various vignette shapes. Buy
>>some, have fun and experiment. I recommend Cokin filters.
>
> I'm not big on filters to enhance sunrises or sets. But people should
> know how they work.
Polarizers are more expensive than most filters, but greatly enhance
shots with a lot of sky in them, including sunrises and sunsets.
--
Pat O'Connell
[note munged EMail address]
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...