Four dollars a gallon.

Robert Brummitt · Mar 2, 2008

Photographer Ruth Bernhard had always stated that the best photographs were those taken thirty feet from your front door. Imogen Cunningham also did a lot of photography that was either close to home or In the neighborhood. And Photographer Ansel Adams did a lot of traveling for his personal photography; Edward Weston did some limited traveling, when he had the funds. But he also had the best place to photograph, Point Lobos, Calif. To date, I believe many of us do a lot of driving and flying for our photography. This is part of being a photographer, I would suspect.
I had just read that the forecast of gas prices might hit four dollars a gallon and I would like to hear from you if you plan to do any traveling? Do you plan to take fieldtrips, workshops, attend photography events or do you plan to stay close to home and plan day trips. If you are planning to travel. How? By car, plane or train. How far? Do you plan to stay closer to your home area or go out?
When I photograph, I find that I usually work by myself. Not that Im anti-social but photography is a private time for me. I like to look, see, study what Im photographing and then take my time. A rush photograph looks just like that rushed. I never go with my wife or kids. They just dont get it. Its hurry, hurry hurry. We want to go.
I do once in awhile go with other photographers because I also do enjoy the comradely of what we do. I dont do much photography then and do more talking shop or listening to stories of my companions. Different aspect of photography but just as important to me.
So, my next question to you is. Do you think with the coming price costs, do you see doing more carpooling?
I would like to know what you have to say and share on this subject. I do see myself curtailing my outings to certain times, locations and destinations. What do plan to do?

Andy K · Mar 2, 2008

I cycle or take a train to get to where I want to photograph. Taking a car is a pain because you have to find somewhere to park, you arrive tired from the drive etc.

Robert Brummitt · Mar 2, 2008

Andy K said:
I cycle or take a train to get to where I want to photograph. Taking a car is a pain because you have to find somewhere to park, you arrive tired from the drive etc.

Yes, I to would like to take the train but my train service here is so bad. I went to Northern Calif from Portland, Oregon. A supposedly 24 hour trip but it took nearly 36+ hours. I saved a bundle but lost a day. I tip my hat to Europe and other nations that have a great train system.

mikebarger · Mar 2, 2008

Robert, you should have hopped a boxcar. I'm pretty sure freight schedules are better than passenger service in the States.

Mike

Robert Brummitt · Mar 2, 2008

mikebarger said:
Robert, you should have hopped a boxcar. I'm pretty sure freight schedules are better than passenger service in the States.

Mike

That would have been a sight. Me running to hop a moving train with a 8x10, medium format cameras, tripod and support equipment in tow. I would be an eyewitness news item. "Man squished by train."

Photo Engineer · Mar 2, 2008

Andy K said:
I cycle or take a train to get to where I want to photograph. Taking a car is a pain because you have to find somewhere to park, you arrive tired from the drive etc.

I cycle to the local park, but arrive tired. I find that the drive to the park is much more relaxing. IDK how you do it!

As for train service, the worst schedule delays we have here are from NYC to Rochester. The other way, from Rochester to NYC seem to run on time. Trains I have taken out beyond Chicago have been within minutes of arriving on time traveling across the continent. The real problem I find is frequency and choice of destination. Thus, the train either does not go where I want it to, or I have to wait for hours at a time.

One amusing example is to go from Rochester to Montreal, I can get one train a day to NH where I change to the Vermonter. Unfortunately, the Vermonter leaves 1 hour before the Roch - Vermont train arrives in VT. So, I have a 24 hour layover. To make a better connection, I have to go all the way to NYC and then go north on the Vermonter.

OTOH, I can get to Toronto several times a day from Roch and they are almost always on time.

PE

Chuck_P · Mar 2, 2008

Unfortunately, I don't have bucket loads of money for it not to matter. BTW, what does this have to do with exposure?

David Brown · Mar 2, 2008

David Henderson · Mar 2, 2008

Here in the UK petrol is between $9 and $10 per gallon depending on type and where you buy it. The roads are still packed Of course one difference is that our cars here are generally made to deliver much better mpg than cars sold in the US. For example I spent the first half of February in California. I hired a Rav4 which turned in maybe 22 mpg- which one of the best I've had from a SUV sold in the US. The same car in the UK would deliver up at least 35mpg, and my larger 4wd Volvo here gets me about that level too. The thing I find increasingly difficult to understand about the US is why there is not a great deal more pressure put on manufacturers and importers to deliver much better fuel consumption. Most other places in the world just put much more efficient engines in the same cars and if they didn't then they wouldn't sell many. The US consumer seems to be very concerned about the cost of fuel but not really concerned about cost per mile which surely is the important currency to judge. Put another way, instead of concluding that you need to stop photographing or stop photographing alone, why don't you (and others) simply swap your car for one that reduces your cost per mile. If you all stopped buying new cars with lousy mpg and stopped buying used ones so the prices collapsed, there would be a message going out that the Fords of this world could not afford to ignore.

For myself I'm going to stop renting the Explorers etc that I like to drive over there until they turn in the equivalent of 30mpg. I'm going to make sure that every company I rent from learns that fuel consumption is important to me, and that by failing to deliver acceptable mpg they are earning less because I'll choose less expensive cars that give me what I want. The thing I'm absolutely not going to do is to photograph less. I can save at least a third of my fuel and at least a third of my rental by changing the car I choose.

PhotoJim · Mar 2, 2008

Gas is $112.9 Canadian a litre here (no calculator handy, but * 3.8 litres/US gallon * 1.02 Canadian dollars per US dollar) and it hasn't stopped me from doing any photography or travelling. In fact, I have a conference in Vancouver in May that I've decided to attend by car (padding the dates on either side with some vacation time).

I drive a decently fuel-efficient car (it's not a compact but it uses under 10 litres per 100 km).

I only have one life. If I choose not to see the world, then I don't see the world. I've chosen to see it.

Andy K · Mar 2, 2008

David, don't forget the US gallon is smaller than the Imperial gallon. 1.2 US gallons to 1 UK gallon.

Photo Engineer · Mar 2, 2008

PhotoJim said:
Gas is $112.9 Canadian a litre here.

Wow, I'll bet there are a lot of angry Canadians right now.

PE

Andrey · Mar 2, 2008

It makes a huge difference when you're driving on the highways. More power and a larger car is safer, basically.

David Henderson said:
Here in the UK petrol is between $9 and $10 per gallon depending on type and where you buy it. The roads are still packed Of course one difference is that our cars here are generally made to deliver much better mpg than cars sold in the US. For example I spent the first half of February in California. I hired a Rav4 which turned in maybe 22 mpg- which one of the best I've had from a SUV sold in the US. The same car in the UK would deliver up at least 35mpg, and my larger 4wd Volvo here gets me about that level too. The thing I find increasingly difficult to understand about the US is why there is not a great deal more pressure put on manufacturers and importers to deliver much better fuel consumption. Most other places in the world just put much more efficient engines in the same cars and if they didn't then they wouldn't sell many. The US consumer seems to be very concerned about the cost of fuel but not really concerned about cost per mile which surely is the important currency to judge. Put another way, instead of concluding that you need to stop photographing or stop photographing alone, why don't you (and others) simply swap your car for one that reduces your cost per mile. If you all stopped buying new cars with lousy mpg and stopped buying used ones so the prices collapsed, there would be a message going out that the Fords of this world could not afford to ignore.

Andy K · Mar 2, 2008

Andrey said:
More power and a larger car is safer, basically.

Get a diesel Volvo then. It'll give better mileage than a truck and is a thousand times safer.

Shmoo · Mar 2, 2008

Robert Brummitt said:
...I do once in awhile go with other photographers because I also do enjoy the comradely of what we do. I dont do much photography then and do more talking shop or listening to stories of my companions. Different aspect of photography but just as important to me.
So, my next question to you is. Do you think with the coming price costs, do you see doing more carpooling?
I would like to know what you have to say and share on this subject. I do see myself curtailing my outings to certain times, locations and destinations. What do plan to do?

If you're of the inclination to photograph with another photographer, you might just try going with another APUG-er. Invite a local APUG-er to you to go shooting, or invite an APUG-er visiting your area to go shooting. Makes for a great time! I had a great time shooting with papagene here in S.D. when he was visiting family. Balboa Park will never be the same!

David Henderson · Mar 2, 2008

Andy, I know about US gallons. But the difference in consumption is still very significant. And reference the diesel Volvo- thats exactly what I've done.

Andrey. The "power" is just engine size, not performance. The vehicles I hire in the US ( and incidentally I drive maybe 5000 miles a year there) don't have more performance or ability to get me out of trouble . They just have big, old-fashioned, inefficient engines because the motor industry doesn't want to invest in more frugal and more modern technology- which incidentally makes them safer in an accident- and because the US consumer lets them get away with it because low R&D means lower prices.

dancqu · Mar 2, 2008

Shmoo said:
Save the Earth. It's the only planet with chocolate.

On Earth as it is in .... . $5 would help even more. Dan

Click to expand...

Andrey · Mar 2, 2008

David Henderson said:
Andy, I know about US gallons. But the difference in consumption is still very significant. And reference the diesel Volvo- thats exactly what I've done.

Andrey. The "power" is just engine size, not performance. The vehicles I hire in the US ( and incidentally I drive maybe 5000 miles a year there) don't have more performance or ability to get me out of trouble . They just have big, old-fashioned, inefficient engines because the motor industry doesn't want to invest in more frugal and more modern technology- which incidentally makes them safer in an accident- and because the US consumer lets them get away with it because low R&D means lower prices.

I don't know my engines that well. What is this "engine R&D" you're talking about?

I thought it was a stable industry with no innovation. In US the cars are bigger and eat more gas. In europe - smaller.

What am I missing?

eddie gunks · Mar 2, 2008

back on topic,

i drive a fairly economical car. i will keep traveling to shoot. i like to drive and i enjoy shooting in different locations. higher gas prices have been long over due here in the USA so i am just continuing on with what i do.

i plan to use cars and plans for my traveling. i may be able to get back over to SE Asia this year......maine for sure and possibly out to SLC for some fun in the dessert.

as for car pooling....i got too much camera gear to fit anyone else in my wagon......my wife barely fit sin.

eddie

Changeling1 · Mar 2, 2008

I remember when gas was .20 cents a gallon back in '69. You could get a clean but old downtown hotel room for $2.50 a night and buy a decent 3 bedroom home in California for $20,000. So... since everything has gone up 10 or 20 times in the last 35 years we shouldn't be shocked at $4.00 per gallon gasoline which by world standards is a pretty good deal. I have to look at it that way or I too would be stressing excessively about the economy of today.

My biggest concern is the (possible) return of the dreaded "stagflation" that made life so interesting back in the early to mid 70's.

Curt · Mar 2, 2008

10 mpg 1000 miles price per gallon $3.50 Cost $350.00 2000 mile trip $700.00
10 mpg 1000 miles price per gallon $4.00 Cost $400.00 2000 mile trip $800.00
10 mpg 1000 miles price per gallon $5.00 Cost $500.00 2000 mile trip $1000.00

Truck and RV trailer, no room to rent, no restaurants for three meals a day. Local use will be in my wifes foreign car, new, that gets 32 mpg, and I will be using my Jeep that gets 20 mpg. For the longer outings we will continue to use the truck and rv.

If I took the train to Yosemite I would only get close and be dumped at a connecting bus station and then a bus ride to Yosemite where I would have to walk to a hotel and pay $$$$'s per night. Then I would be doing what at the park, walking around?

This country has about zero transportation outside large cities. We are a car culture. Look on a map and see just how large California is. Compare it to Italy.

Photo Engineer · Mar 2, 2008

WOW, 20 cents / gallon? Thats a lot. I remember when it was 10 cents / gallon! I'm old.

Sorry. My first car used 9 gallons / mile, but today my much larger and heavier and better car uses 20 gallons / mile city and 30 miles / gallon highway.

PE

Alex Hawley · Mar 2, 2008

Ain't no trains a-goin' where I need a-go photographin'. Plenty a diesel here; Fords, Chevies, Dodge and Jimmies. Volvo's and stuff ain't got 'nuff wheel.

Photo Engineer · Mar 2, 2008

Alex Hawley said:
Ain't no trains a-goin' where I need a-go photographin'. Plenty a diesel here; Fords, Chevies, Dodge and Jimmies. Volvo's and stuff ain't got 'nuff wheel.

Redneck!

You know I'm kidding.

Ron

Sparky · Mar 2, 2008

You'd think wages would have gone up commensurately - ! MAYBE 100% but no more... seems they've all but frozen since the mid-80s!! That was 20 years ago!

Changeling1 said:
I remember when gas was .20 cents a gallon back in '69. You could get a clean but old downtown hotel room for $2.50 a night and buy a decent 3 bedroom home in California for $20,000. So... since everything has gone up 10 or 20 times in the last 35 years we shouldn't be shocked at $4.00 per gallon gasoline which by world standards is a pretty good deal. I have to look at it that way or I too would be stressing excessively about the economy of today.

My biggest concern is the (possible) return of the dreaded "stagflation" that made life so interesting back in the early to mid 70's.

Four dollars a gallon.

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency