«

I am often near the Rockies and I have for years tried to get at photo that
really reflects the size of the mountains, but they always turn out more
like hills than the majestic giants they are. Is there a trick to doing
this, or do I need to use a specific type of lense?

My equipment is a Nikon D70 with the standard Nikkor AF-S 18-70mm 1:3.5-4.5G
ED. I have also tried with a Sigma DC 18-200mm 1:3.5-6.3 D, but neither
gave the wanted result.

I would appreciate any suggestions. Thanks.

"Jan Poulsen" <> wrote in message news:494a77bc$0$56793$ k...

>I am often near the Rockies and I have for years tried to get at photo that really reflects the size of the mountains, but they
>always turn out more like hills than the majestic giants they are. Is there a trick to doing this, or do I need to use a specific
>type of lense?
>
> My equipment is a Nikon D70 with the standard Nikkor AF-S 18-70mm 1:3.5-4.5G ED. I have also tried with a Sigma DC 18-200mm
> 1:3.5-6.3 D, but neither gave the wanted result.
>
> I would appreciate any suggestions. Thanks.

You can do it with long lenses, framing the scene tightly with
mostly mountains (by moving in), and also by giving size
references (as with foreground subject elements of familiar
scale, like bodies of water with trees, etc. - and you can also
use the reflections of the mountains in the water to increase
their apparent height). Clouds also help to show scale. You
can also shoot with wide lenses, but these must be level or
pointed down somewhat so as to minimize the "building falling
over backward" effect, and you can even exaggerate the
"building falling over forward" effect to make the mountains
look taller. Play with the framing - the tighter, usually the better
(and don't forget about using vertical framing...). Another "trick"
is to shoot taller mountains. While the Rockies are tall, the
plain they spring from is also high, limiting their height to about
5,000'. Did you know what the highest mountain in the world
is as viewed from its *visible* base to its peak? It is Mt. Rainier,
in Washington State! 8^) While we're at it, did you know what
the highest mountain in the world is from its physical base
(something that someone could conceivably stand on... and
its peak? Mt.Kilawaia, in Hawaii... Compared with these
(and many others, like many mountains in the Canadian Rockies,
the Olympics, the Himalayas, and the range that Denali (which
has more bulk and rise than Everest) is in - which is to say, start
with other than "pip-squeak" mountains to begin with...! 8^)

--DR

"David Ruether" <> wrote in message news:gie09u$g4i$...

My post, above, got rather "scrambled" near the end. It should
have read,
"Compared with these [named locations of some large mountains]

(and many others, like many mountains in the Canadian Rockies,

the Olympics, the Himalayas, and the range that Denali [which

has more bulk and rise than Everest] is in), the American

Rockies look rather small - which is to say, start with other than

"pip-squeak" mountains to begin with... 8^)"

--DR

"Alan Smithee" <> wrote in message news:...
> "David Ruether" <> wrote in message news:gie09u$g4i$...
>> "Jan Poulsen" <> wrote in message news:494a77bc$0$56793$ k...

>>>I am often near the Rockies and I have for years tried to get at photo that really reflects the size of the mountains, but they
>>>always turn out more like hills than the majestic giants they are. Is there a trick to doing this, or do I need to use a
>>>specific type of lense?
>>>
>>> My equipment is a Nikon D70 with the standard Nikkor AF-S 18-70mm 1:3.5-4.5G ED. I have also tried with a Sigma DC 18-200mm
>>> 1:3.5-6.3 D, but neither gave the wanted result.
>>>
>>> I would appreciate any suggestions. Thanks.

>> You can do it with long lenses, framing the scene tightly with
>> mostly mountains (by moving in), and also by giving size
>> references (as with foreground subject elements of familiar
>> scale, like bodies of water with trees, etc. - and you can also
>> use the reflections of the mountains in the water to increase
>> their apparent height). Clouds also help to show scale. You
>> can also shoot with wide lenses, but these must be level or
>> pointed down somewhat so as to minimize the "building falling
>> over backward" effect, and you can even exaggerate the
>> "building falling over forward" effect to make the mountains
>> look taller. Play with the framing - the tighter, usually the better
>> (and don't forget about using vertical framing...). Another "trick"
>> is to shoot taller mountains. While the Rockies are tall, the
>> plain they spring from is also high, limiting their height to about
>> 5,000'. Did you know what the highest mountain in the world
>> is as viewed from its *visible* base to its peak? It is Mt. Rainier,
>> in Washington State! 8^) While we're at it, did you know what
>> the highest mountain in the world is from its physical base
>> (something that someone could conceivably stand on... and
>> its peak? Mt.Kilawaia, in Hawaii... Compared with these (and many others, like many mountains in the Canadian Rockies,

>> the Olympics, the Himalayas, and the range that Denali [which

>> has more bulk and rise than Everest] is in), the American

>> Rockies look rather small - which is to say, start with other than

>> "pip-squeak" mountains to begin with... 8^)



> My missus has some big Himalayas. What's the best way to photograph them?

Hmmm... Well, gosh, I guess you will just need to try applying some
of the suggestions already made in this thread. The principles are the
same...8^)
--DR

"Jan Poulsen" <> skrev i en meddelelse
news:494a77bc$0$56793$ k...
>I am often near the Rockies and I have for years tried to get at photo that
>really reflects the size of the mountains, but they always turn out more
>like hills than the majestic giants they are. Is there a trick to doing
>this, or do I need to use a specific type of lense?
>
> My equipment is a Nikon D70 with the standard Nikkor AF-S 18-70mm
> 1:3.5-4.5G ED. I have also tried with a Sigma DC 18-200mm 1:3.5-6.3 D,
> but neither gave the wanted result.
>
> I would appreciate any suggestions. Thanks.
>

Thank you everyone ... These are all the kind of suggestions I was hoping
for so I wouldn't have to invest in expensive lenses. I now have some ideas
to try when I am in the Rockies the next time.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:23:14 +0100, "Jan Poulsen"
<> wrote:

>"Jan Poulsen" <> skrev i en meddelelse
>news:494a77bc$0$56793$. dk...
>>I am often near the Rockies and I have for years tried to get at photo that
>>really reflects the size of the mountains, but they always turn out more
>>like hills than the majestic giants they are. Is there a trick to doing
>>this, or do I need to use a specific type of lense?
>>
>> My equipment is a Nikon D70 with the standard Nikkor AF-S 18-70mm
>> 1:3.5-4.5G ED. I have also tried with a Sigma DC 18-200mm 1:3.5-6.3 D,
>> but neither gave the wanted result.
>>
>> I would appreciate any suggestions. Thanks.
>>
>
>Thank you everyone ... These are all the kind of suggestions I was hoping
>for so I wouldn't have to invest in expensive lenses. I now have some ideas
>to try when I am in the Rockies the next time.
>


Don't wait, practice on houses, other buildings. See what works for
you.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:20:49 +0100, "Jan Poulsen" <>
wrote:
: I am often near the Rockies and I have for years tried to get a photo
: that really reflects the size of the mountains, but they always turn out
: more like hills than the majestic giants they are. Is there a trick to
: doing this, or do I need to use a specific type of lense?

The trick is to stand closer to the mountains when you take the picture.

Bob

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:12:33 -0500, "David Ruether" <>
wrote:
:
: "Jan Poulsen" <> wrote in message news:494a77bc$0$56793$ k...
:
: >I am often near the Rockies and I have for years tried to get at photo that really reflects
: >the size of the mountains, but they always turn out more like hills than the majestic giants
: >they are. Is there a trick to doing this, or do I need to use a specific type of lense?
: >
: > My equipment is a Nikon D70 with the standard Nikkor AF-S 18-70mm 1:3.5-4.5G ED. I have
: > also tried with a Sigma DC 18-200mm 1:3.5-6.3 D, but neither gave the wanted result.
: >
: > I would appreciate any suggestions. Thanks.
:
: You can do it with long lenses, framing the scene tightly with
: mostly mountains (by moving in), and also by giving size
: references (as with foreground subject elements of familiar
: scale, like bodies of water with trees, etc. - and you can also
: use the reflections of the mountains in the water to increase
: their apparent height). Clouds also help to show scale. You
: can also shoot with wide lenses, but these must be level or
: pointed down somewhat so as to minimize the "building falling
: over backward" effect, and you can even exaggerate the
: "building falling over forward" effect to make the mountains
: look taller. Play with the framing - the tighter, usually the better
: (and don't forget about using vertical framing...). Another "trick"
: is to shoot taller mountains. While the Rockies are tall, the
: plain they spring from is also high, limiting their height to about
: 5,000'. Did you know what the highest mountain in the world
: is as viewed from its *visible* base to its peak? It is Mt. Rainier,
: in Washington State! 8^) While we're at it, did you know what
: the highest mountain in the world is from its physical base
: (something that someone could conceivably stand on... and
: its peak? Mt.Kilawaia,

Kilauea. But I think you're wrong anyway. I believe it's Mauna Kea (34,000
feet from base to summit) that fits that criterion.

: in Hawaii... Compared with these (and many others, like many
: mountains in the Canadian Rockies, the Olympics, the Himalayas,
: and the range that Denali (which has more bulk and rise than
: Everest) is in

Don't hold me to this, but I think it's the Denali Range, whereof Mt McKinley
is the tallest peak.

: - which is to say, start with other than "pip-squeak" mountains
: to begin with...! 8^)

OK, here's one for you: What's the highest point in the U.S. east of the
Rockies?
Mt Washington, NH?
Mt Mitchell, NC?
Mt Trashmore, NY?

Nope, it's Harney Peak, SD.

Bob

I don't believe there is one answer. However I do believe most
people fail when they use a telephoto lens. It is far away so you use
a telephoto lens to make it look close, but then when you get it
printed there is nothing of the effect you saw looking at the
mountains.

The problem is you cropped out all the foreground that provided the
perspective/reference to provide the scale. When you looked at them
when you were there, you saw all that stuff, all the stuff you saw in
your peripheral vision, but did not notice. That stuff puts it in
perspective and without it, it just does not look the same.

I do agree that after you have captured the whole experience, you
get the most out of it by printing it large and viewing it from a
short distance.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:18:04 -0000, Alan Smithee wrote:

>> the Olympics, the Himalayas, and the range that Denali (which
>> has more bulk and rise than Everest) is in - which is to say, start
>> with other than "pip-squeak" mountains to begin with...! 8^)
>
>
> My missus has some big Himalayas. What's the best way to photograph them?

Hand held. She can take some solace in that you didn't make her
the butt of your joke.