[mountainsallaround]

Zach;

Your point about the “reality” of publishing and printing is well taken, but I think it’s important to distinguish between the somewhat movable production standards of a trade/hobbyist magazine and the higher standards used by other potential buyers of someone’s photography — including high end magazines, corporate, books, etc…

In one sense, that’s why I’m tempted to title this post “The myth of the sub-10 MP “Pro” DSLR. AA might be willing to use interpolation or run reduced resolution photographs, but higher-end magazines like Northwest Fly Fishing definitely aren’t interested.

In addition, large-format output would be a problem (posters, etc), and really high-quality printing methods (like 200-220 dpi waterless systems) at decent sizes would require more than a low-rez DSLR could provide.

Photographers really need to receive “downstream” revenue from their work to survive, and low resolution digital limits that revenue stream.

Or hell, one day you might want to produce a large format photo book like Ian and Charity Rutter are doing, and it would be a shame to have a lot of really nice pictures size-limited because of a low-rez camera.

Digital is clearly the way to go as there’s nothing more terrifying than sending original chromes to a magazine (my road race Kodachromes from the Los Angeles Olympics are probably still in a desk drawer in Europe) and wondering if you’ll ever get ’em back. Sadly, you often don’t.

I think you’re spot on in your thinking about cameras; why spend a chunk upgrading when you still won’t get the resolution you need to sell your pictures in a lot of high-end markets?

In essence, we’re waiting for all things digital to “grow up” and I don’t think it will be long before the lower-level “pro” cameras are actually fit to be used by most pros. That’s what’s weird about digital vs. film; in film, there isn’t any significant image difference between a cheaper camera body and a more expensive model. In digital, the difference is huge.

Interesting discussion,
Tom Chandler

[mountainsallaround]

Zach;

Thanks for the information.

I wonder if even a 6MP DSLR is suited for regular magazine work. A 10″ x 6.5″ image doesn’t cover a full page bleed, and that’s with absolutely no cropping. You’ve only got to crop 1/20th of the image on opposing ends to lose a full inch off the long dimension, and it gets a lot worse on the shorter dimension.

For a magazine shooter, it seems like a poor investment.

At least a 10MP pro camera buys you a full page bleed with cropping, and it at least offers the potential for a page-and-a-half lead photo. To be honest, I think it will be a couple years before any low-end DSLR or “prosumer” digital is up to everyday use for magazines or corporate use.

You hit it on the head with the size of the CCD; for the high-megapixel consumer cameras, it turns out they suffer from a lot more “noise” than their “pro” counterparts with lower megapixel counts but larger CCDs. Noise is most apparent in broad, evenly toned areas (like a blue sky).

Of course, let’s face it — the real appeal of digital over film for anyone selling pictures is the ease with which you can fix mistakes in the computer. Underexposure, a little blurring, poor contrast, etc., are all quickly remedied and the editor never knows.

A local stock photographer has moved to digital for all his non-strobed work because he can fix all his mistakes and no one knows the difference. He suggests he gets 20%-30% more usable images, which — to a stock shooter — is a pretty sizable improvement.

Thanks for keeping this discussion alive. The camera market has always been awash in hype, but with advent of digital, it’s worse than ever.

Tom Chandler

[mountainsallaround]

Thanks for the kind words, but the credit goes to Ian Rutter for the article. He lives (and breathes) small streams, and guides a lot of folks in GSMNP and on most of Tennessee’s tailwaters.

If you liked the article, then keep in mind he has a new photo book coming out in less than a month. I think he has a few sample spreads and an excerpt up on his http://www.randrflyfishing.com site.

From what I can see, it’s gorgeous.

Tight lines,
Tom Chandler

[mountainsallaround]

I second the vote for Loon Hard head. Very handy stuff to have on the bench.

Tom Chandler

[mountainsallaround]

OK, I’ll throw in a slightly divergent opinion; I can’t see why a shorter rod would be harder to cast, but on small freestone creeks, a longer rod can get you a lot better drifts.

On smaller creeks, the shortest rod I’m using is a 7.5′, and I’ll typically fish a light-action 8′ rod unless it’s really, really brushy. I do a *lot* of highstick dry fly fishing, and an 8′ rod is really the way to go (or 8.5′) if the river’s a tiny bit bigger.

[mountainsallaround]

Creeklover;

The WPi is the updated version of the Optio WP. Think they worked out a few kinks and it’s only a few bucks more.

Pentax going out of business? I’d be suprised. Where did you hear that?

Tight lines,
TC

[mountainsallaround]

Paul;

It’s worth a look, if only because it’s different from the largely formulaic stuff that passes for fly fishing video nowadays. Like Zach said, the editing was uneven and I get tired of “shakey-cam for the sake of being shakey-cam),” but an interesting sound track helps.

Let us know what you think when you see it.

Tom Chandler

[mountainsallaround]

I cast the 8.5′ 4wt Streamline some time ago. Keeping the fact that I like bamboo rods in mind, I like it. Very smooth, resonable action — unlike some of the telephone poles on the market, a novice could actually feel what’s going on with the tip.

Tom Chandler

[mountainsallaround]

Yeah, I was disappointed by Harrop’s Trout Hunter. It lacks a theme, and as a writer, he’s neither a superb storyteller or brimming with insight.

Some of his stories were interesting, but in the end, the book failed for me. Thinking about selling my copy. Lawons’ Spring Creeks book is a much better “how-to.”

Has anyone read Fly Fishing Pressured Water by Gonzalez? I spoke with Seth Norman the other day and he thought it was a good book. Wondered if anyone else had read it.

Tom Chandler

[mountainsallaround]

I’m curious; did any of you consider the Fuji S9000? Sounds similar to the Sony.

It’s an interesting part of the market; the intersection of point-and-shoots and DSLRs.

TC

[mountainsallaround]

Zach;

My client shoots corporate, not studio ad work. That means he’s out in the field, shooting for coporate communications like brochures, annual reports, etc.

He’s dealt with a lot of these quality issues and is always amused when his competitors don’t recognize the limitations of their new digital equipment. Interestingly, his biggest problem remains workflow. Shooting raw digital means you have to clear the camera pretty often, which — if you haven’t planned for it — means you interrupt the shoot way too often.

Digital’s improving fast, but it has a ways to go. I suspect a lot of outdoor photography’s still being shot on film.

Tom Chandler

[mountainsallaround]

BD:

Now you know how I feel when I see mass-produced graphite rods selling for $700. I mean, Holy Cow, they make these things by the dozens…. 😎

Seriously, the high end cane rods are collectibles the second they come off the builder’s bench. The side-effect of this is that I can buy a Bob Summers rod for a couple grand, fish it a couple years, decide I don’t like it, and re-sell it for pretty much what I paid.

There are a lot of really nice bamboo rods out there for under $1500, but most of the rods I fish cost considerably less than that. In fact, most of my workhorse Phillipson 8′ and 8.5′ rods cast less than even mid-level graphite. (Being as I could sell all of them for more than I paid for them, I’m thinking I’m divorce proof on this one…)

TX
Casting a few rods would be a great idea. You didn’t say where you lived (Texas?). A lot of people who want to fish their longer graphite rods and use cane on smaller waters tend towards faster cane tapers, but it would be nice to know that for sure before buying one.

Many builders have designed tapers specifically for people who want to fish graphite and cane interchangeably. Chris Raine (http://www.dunsmuirrodcompany.com) and AJ Thramer (http://www.thramerrods.com) are good examples. AJ’s “Grouse Creek” series rods are probably the best deals going in new bamboo right now.

In terms of taper, almost any builder could make you something based on a Payne or Edwards taper, so it’s likely that you could work with a builder in your area (assuming there is one).

There are a lot of good builders out there, and don’t overlook the better used rod dealers like Jim Bresko (http://members.aol.com/canerodz/classics.html) where you can score a good deal on a lightly used rod, and enjoy a return policy if you don’t like it.

Good luck!
TC

[mountainsallaround]

There are a zillion builders out there, most of them pretty good. Some of them are exceptional.

It would be a lot easier if you had a sense of the kind of rod taper/action/length you preferred. Any ideas? Some builders tend to specialize in a specific kind of taper, so if you wanted a classic Catskill dry fly taper (perhaps a Payne) then you might be happier with one builder than another.

Price is also a consideration since new rods can vary from $600 to $3000.

If you’re located in the south and want to “buy local” there are a couple builders with national reputations. Harry Boyd is good, and Jame Beasley (Crossville) is an absolute wiz with classic Paul Young tapers, and frankly a bargain at $900.

Meeting the builder and casting some of the rods before deciding on a taper would handy; bamboo rods vary a lot more in action than graphite, so you can pretty quickly end up with a rod that doesn’t suit you.

I’m partial to the work of the western craftsmen who are hollow building their tapers, resulting in lighter, livelier rods. (Big surprise; I live out here and fish 8′-8.5′ rods exclusively.)

I wrote an article for California Fly Fisher on Western hollow builders and it’s on my Web site at:
http://www.troutunderground.com/bamboo.htm

Let us know what kind of rod you’re looking for and I’m sure you’ll get some real concrete suggestions.

Take care,
Tom Chandler

[mountainsallaround]

Zach;

I did some research on this too after my “digital cameras good enough for magazine use…” post — in fact, what you’re running up against is exactly what I was alluding to in that post.

You’ve only got so many pixels, and dividing the pixel count by 300 pixels per inch (ppi) gives you the maximum image size possible (not accounting for cropping).

Interestingly, the repro people I talked to say you typically get your best results at resolutions 1.5x your line screen, so if AA uses a 175 line screen in production, then an image resolution of 265 ppi gives you a slightly larger image size than 300 ppi while still yielding excellent results.

Doesn’t sound like it will help with your spread, but it’s a neat trick for the future.

A corporate photographer client of mine said that 6 mp-8 mp DSLRs just don’t cut it in the corporate world – you can’t get the image size you sometimes need, especially when you consider big duratrans show displays and poster-sized images.

Obviously, he’s a real pro, so it’s worth it for him to stay on the “double-digit megapixel” bleeding edge. In editorial, image sizes are typically restricted to a magazine spread, and as you’ve discovered, you’ll still need some extra oomph to get it done.

Interpolation sucks. And apparently my old Canon F1 film bodies have some life left in them… 😎

Tom Chandler

[mountainsallaround]

To be blunt, it’s hard to imagine a less useful tool. The cast itself provides all the feedback you need to diagnose and resolve the problem, and if you don’t have enough experience to diagnose it yourself, then you’re a lot better off getting a living, breathing casting instructor to help.

The analyzer can’t help you fix a casting problem, and from everything I’ve read, it’s limited in the sense that it can’t account for unusual casting styles.

A good friend of mine is a bamboo user and probably the best spring creek/midge fisher I know — largely because he’s an absolutely accurate caster. In fact, he’s one of the rare guys that actually can drop a #28 midge in a teacup and then turn around and cast a whole line.

Naturally, he scored abysmally on the analyzer, which suggests either the thing’s completely clueless or your score is largely dependent on your facility with a certain kind of rod and a certain kind of casting stroke.

I’m sure it’s in Sage’s interest to develop an analyzer based on how well you cast *their* fast rod taper, but I’m guessing this thing will get a lot of press and then become the curiosity it deserves to be.

Retrogrouches R Us,
Tom Chandler

[mountainsallaround]

I’m a bamboo guy, and I see this discussion played out a lot in cane circles, where the rods are heavier than today’s graphite.

I’ve tried heavy reels which obstensibly “balanced” my 8.5′ cane rods, and also fished all day with lighter reels (the static balance point was way up the rod).

My take is that lighter is better.

Highstick nymphing is about the worst thing you can do with a cane rod, and I came away from one of my infrequent nymphing sessions less fatigued with the lighter reels. It’s hardly scientific, but my results suggest I won’t be doing what a few cane guys do — adding leadcore line to their reels to bring the balance point down.

Today’s graphite rods are so light, I doubt that much needs to be done — even the lighter reels should probably provide enough balance.

FWIW.

[mountainsallaround]

The Orvis jacket is built from pretty heavy material. I can just about get it crammed in the back pocket of a vest, but it’s not easy.

As for submersibility, I’m sad to say I’ve tested the Orvis jacket EXTENSIVELY. (The waterproof digital camera wasn’t exactly an option).

Enjoy!
TC

[mountainsallaround]

I know what you mean about all the bling. That’s why I ended up with the Orvis jacket:

Only two big pockets on the front, a big flap pocket on the back, and an interior pocket. I often don’t bother with a vest in the winter, preferring a lunch-bag sized neck satchel, so a few pockets are appreciated.

And hell, I like the neoprene cuffs. Casting all day in the rain usually means water in my arms, but these neoprene cuffs do a fair job, especially once I cinch down the strap. I haven’t yet fouled any fly line in them, and I wear my Orvis jacket a lot.

And I gotta disagree about length. Short is better as far as this 5’8″ fly fisher is concerned. I didn’t buy this jacket to wear it around town (I have other clothes for that) so how it looks with street clothes isn’t important. Keeping the bottom couple inches out of the river is.

The hood arrangement isn’t great. If the rain isn’t just bucketing down, I usually prefer to wear a Akubra waterproof hat — it’s a lot easier to hear fish

[mountainsallaround]

Cool topic.

Lately, I’ve been plowing through a series of books on self publishing and book marketing. Not exactly “edge of your seat” stuff, but useful all the same.

Like Zach, I’m also reading Ian Rutter’s Tennessee Guide Books since I’ll be back that way in early May. Compared to other guides books I’ve read, his are a breath of fresh air. (I just saw sample spreads from Ian & Charity’s new photo & essay book titled “Rise Rings & Rhodedendrons.” Can’t wait to see it in print, which should happen soon.)

Reading Jimmy Carter’s new book, and trying hard to warm up to James Babb’s Fly-Fisin’ Fool. His perspective is interesting, but his sentences are long. Scheez.

The bookshelf in my office holds my “desert island” books — the reads I’d take with me if I had to grab and run, assuming the 14,162′ inactive volcano I live on woke up.

It includes most of what Gierach has written. The genius of Gierach is that he actually lives the life he writes about (and there are more than few “pretend trout bums” in this industry).

Gierach’s popular enough that it’s even become fashionable to dismiss him, yet he’s doing the same thing he always has — living the trout bum life and writing about it with great precision and insight.

Others include:
The Longest Silence by McGuane (beautiful)
Spring Creeks by Lawson
Fishing Small Flies by Engle
Seasonal by Engle (essays about his life as a forest service employee)
Trout Flies by Dave Hughes (an underrated book)
Slack Line Fishing Strategies by John Judy (another sleeper)
Wet Flies by Dave Hughes (classic)
Fly Fishing the Southe Platte by Roger Hill (a cult classic)
A Clean, Well Lighted Stream by Michael Checchio (another sleeper)
Meanderings of a Fly Fisher by Seth Norman
Jerusalem Creek by Leeson
AK’s Fly Box by AK Best (can’t warm up to Fishing with AK)
Trout by Ray Bergman

Non fly fishing:
Several volumes by Twain
The Dynamic English by Kosten (chess)
Mortal Games by Fred Waitzkin (wrote Searching for Bobby Fischer)
Assorted McGuane fiction
The Creation by Ernst Haas
The Elements of Style by White
Writing the Natural Way by Rico
Into Thin Air by John Krakauer
We Are Still Married by Garrison Keillor
A River Runs Through It by Maclean

Lots of other stuff. (As soon as I post this, I’m going to slap my forehead and wonder how I could have left “XXXX” out…)

TC

[mountainsallaround]

My seven year-old Cabelas breathable wading jacket (forerunner to the Dry Plus) did a good job of keeping me dry, though it left this plane of existence last spring and apparently left its water repellent capabilities behind.

All this happened last May when I was fishing in sustained rain in GSMNP and the Holsten. I’d have to be the ultimate pain-in-the-ass customer to suggest I didn’t get my money out of it.

I got a very good deal on the high-end Orvis wading jacket and it’s a very nice piece of work. Well designed and lots of nice touches, though I did just manage to wrip the velcro wrist strap off the velcro cuff on my right arm.

Probably won’t make any real difference.

I think they’re around $195. The Orvis warranty is pretty tough to beat, but Cabela’s price-to-performance ratio is pretty good too.

Good luck!
TC

[Author]

Posts