Yosemite

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by ned_sud@yahoo.com, Dec 23, 2006.

  1. Guest

    , Dec 23, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mike Russell Guest

    > In article <>,
    > wrote:
    >
    >> http://nedsudduth.blogspot.com/2006/12/yosemite.html
    >>
    >> Awesome photo of yosemite valley


    This is the view from the first lookout when you enter the park, right?
    Ansel Adams did this one quite a number of times, so it's not the most
    original viewpoint, but it turned out quite well. Looks like you used a
    fairly long lens, which makes it a lot easier to see half done and the
    falls.
    --

    Mike Russell
    www.curvemeister.com/forum/
    Mike Russell, Dec 23, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Gregory Blank, Dec 23, 2006
    #3
  4. Mark² Guest

    wrote:
    > http://nedsudduth.blogspot.com/2006/12/yosemite.html
    >
    > Awesome photo of yosemite valley


    Where's the rest of the Valley? :)

    Here's a closer look at Half-Dome I shot in the Spring:
    http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/58828940/original

    It's hard to shoot anything in Yosemite that doesn't seem beaten to death.
    What I liked about the Half-Dome shot was that this "lake" isn't usually
    there at all. The area was flooded, so it offered an opportunity for
    something a little less typical.

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
    Mark², Dec 23, 2006
    #4
  5. ray Guest

    ray, Dec 23, 2006
    #5
  6. Eric Miller Guest

    Eric Miller, Dec 24, 2006
    #6
  7. Guest

    , Dec 24, 2006
    #7
  8. Hi Eric,

    > <http://www.dyesscreek.com/honeymoon/yosemite_valley_bw.htm>


    You have some really nice shots there:)

    --
    Arnor Baldvinsson
    San Antonio, Texas
    Arnor Baldvinsson, Dec 24, 2006
    #8
  9. Arnor Baldvinsson, Dec 24, 2006
    #9
  10. Mark² Guest

    wrote:
    > Continuing the sharing of Yosemite photos, I won't pretend that the
    > photos on the following web page are great from a photographer's point
    > of view, but the vantage point is unusual -- shot from a motor glider
    > while crossing of Yosemite.
    >
    > http://www-ee.stanford.edu/~hellman/soaring/pics/050513Yos/index.html
    >
    > There are other Yosemite photos accesible from the parent web page:
    >
    > http://www-ee.stanford.edu/~hellman/soaring/photos.html
    >
    > Thanks to the other photo posters. I enjoyed them all.
    >
    > Martin


    That something I've always wanted to do...either glide, paraglide,
    hang-glide, or fly an ultra-light.
    Someday... :)
    Thanks for sharing.

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
    Mark², Dec 24, 2006
    #10
  11. Mark² Guest

    Eric Miller wrote:
    > wrote:
    >> http://nedsudduth.blogspot.com/2006/12/yosemite.html
    >>
    >> Awesome photo of yosemite valley
    >>

    >
    > Since we're all showing our Yosemite shots:
    >
    > <http://www.dyesscreek.com/honeymoon/yosemite_valley_bw.htm>
    >
    >
    > Eric Miller


    That's an interesting shot. Was that shot with film, or is it a digital
    conversion to B&W.
    If digital, I'd like to see the color version...

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
    Mark², Dec 24, 2006
    #11
  12. J. Severyn Guest

    J. Severyn, Dec 24, 2006
    #12
  13. On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 21:01:03 -0600, Eric Miller
    <> wrote:

    [snip]
    >Since we're all showing our Yosemite shots:
    >
    ><http://www.dyesscreek.com/honeymoon/yosemite_valley_bw.htm>


    Not bad, not bad at all!

    I'd like to do Yosemite during autumn or winter. I was there once in
    1993 but unfortunately I was not really into photography then.

    --
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Website : www.metalvortex.com
    Contact : www.metalvortex.com/contact/

    Brain! Brain! What is brain?!
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu, Dec 24, 2006
    #13
  14. Eric Miller Guest

    Mark² wrote:
    > Eric Miller wrote:
    >> wrote:
    >>> http://nedsudduth.blogspot.com/2006/12/yosemite.html
    >>>
    >>> Awesome photo of yosemite valley
    >>>

    >> Since we're all showing our Yosemite shots:
    >>
    >> <http://www.dyesscreek.com/honeymoon/yosemite_valley_bw.htm>
    >>
    >>
    >> Eric Miller

    >
    > That's an interesting shot. Was that shot with film, or is it a digital
    > conversion to B&W.
    > If digital, I'd like to see the color version...
    >


    Shot with the Canon 10D and EF 28-135 IS USM. I'll post the color (and
    moonless) version later today when I have more time.

    Eric Miller
    Eric Miller, Dec 24, 2006
    #14
  15. Eric Miller wrote:

    > Mark² wrote:
    >
    >> Eric Miller wrote:
    >>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> http://nedsudduth.blogspot.com/2006/12/yosemite.html
    >>>>
    >>>> Awesome photo of yosemite valley
    >>>>
    >>> Since we're all showing our Yosemite shots:
    >>>
    >>> <http://www.dyesscreek.com/honeymoon/yosemite_valley_bw.htm>
    >>>
    >>> Eric Miller

    >>
    >> That's an interesting shot. Was that shot with film, or is it a
    >> digital conversion to B&W.
    >> If digital, I'd like to see the color version...

    >
    > Shot with the Canon 10D and EF 28-135 IS USM. I'll post the color (and
    > moonless) version later today when I have more time.
    >
    > Eric Miller


    I thought the moon looked fake! The shadows and lighting on the
    rocks say the sun is above the trees to the left, but the
    moon says the sun is down low (below the horizon),
    so the directions do not converge correctly.

    Also for a southwest view, the moon has entirely the wrong
    orientation.

    Roger
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Dec 24, 2006
    #15
  16. Eric Miller Guest

    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
    > Eric Miller wrote:
    >
    >> Mark² wrote:
    >>
    >>> Eric Miller wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> http://nedsudduth.blogspot.com/2006/12/yosemite.html
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Awesome photo of yosemite valley
    >>>>>
    >>>> Since we're all showing our Yosemite shots:
    >>>>
    >>>> <http://www.dyesscreek.com/honeymoon/yosemite_valley_bw.htm>
    >>>>
    >>>> Eric Miller
    >>>
    >>> That's an interesting shot. Was that shot with film, or is it a
    >>> digital conversion to B&W.
    >>> If digital, I'd like to see the color version...

    >>
    >> Shot with the Canon 10D and EF 28-135 IS USM. I'll post the color (and
    >> moonless) version later today when I have more time.
    >>
    >> Eric Miller

    >
    > I thought the moon looked fake! The shadows and lighting on the
    > rocks say the sun is above the trees to the left, but the
    > moon says the sun is down low (below the horizon),
    > so the directions do not converge correctly.
    >
    > Also for a southwest view, the moon has entirely the wrong
    > orientation.
    >
    > Roger


    This was my first trip to Yosemite and when I added the moon, I was not
    certain of the compass direction I was facing when taking the
    photograph. The only moon image that I had was a half moon and I knew I
    wouldn't get the rotation correct either; it was a guess. In any event,
    the moon was full on the date the photo was taken, which happened to be
    the date that a lunar eclipse lifted the curse of the Bambino and
    allowed the Sox to win the Series. Still, I liked the shot better with a
    point of interest in the sky.

    Eric Miller
    Eric Miller, Dec 24, 2006
    #16
  17. Mark² Guest

    Eric Miller wrote:
    > Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
    >> Eric Miller wrote:
    >>
    >>> Mark² wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Eric Miller wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> http://nedsudduth.blogspot.com/2006/12/yosemite.html
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Awesome photo of yosemite valley
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> Since we're all showing our Yosemite shots:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> <http://www.dyesscreek.com/honeymoon/yosemite_valley_bw.htm>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Eric Miller
    >>>>
    >>>> That's an interesting shot. Was that shot with film, or is it a
    >>>> digital conversion to B&W.
    >>>> If digital, I'd like to see the color version...
    >>>
    >>> Shot with the Canon 10D and EF 28-135 IS USM. I'll post the color
    >>> (and moonless) version later today when I have more time.
    >>>
    >>> Eric Miller

    >>
    >> I thought the moon looked fake! The shadows and lighting on the
    >> rocks say the sun is above the trees to the left, but the
    >> moon says the sun is down low (below the horizon),
    >> so the directions do not converge correctly.
    >>
    >> Also for a southwest view, the moon has entirely the wrong
    >> orientation.
    >>
    >> Roger

    >
    > This was my first trip to Yosemite and when I added the moon, I was
    > not certain of the compass direction I was facing when taking the
    > photograph. The only moon image that I had was a half moon and I knew
    > I wouldn't get the rotation correct either; it was a guess. In any
    > event, the moon was full on the date the photo was taken, which
    > happened to be the date that a lunar eclipse lifted the curse of the
    > Bambino and allowed the Sox to win the Series. Still, I liked the
    > shot better with a point of interest in the sky.


    I suggest you remove the moon and stick with reality in the shot.
    The image is nice, but when you start playing with reality, it just loses
    something...


    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
    Mark², Dec 24, 2006
    #17
  18. Eric Miller Guest

    >
    > I suggest you remove the moon and stick with reality in the shot.
    > The image is nice, but when you start playing with reality, it just loses
    > something...
    >
    >


    Reality maybe?

    I get your point. But where do I draw the line? After all, black and
    white isn't exactly reality, neither is the way that I arrived at this
    grayscale image by first discarding the blue and green channels and then
    sharpening it. And, generally speaking, no one ever criticizes the moon
    in this image until I tell them that I have added it, which tends to
    make me think that the objection is more of a principled one than one of
    immediate impression, i.e., that it isn't about the way the image looks,
    but about the critic's view regarding certain types of manipulation. I
    guess, to me, the wholesale abandonment of reality in this image lessens
    the impact of criticism of only the placement of the moon. When I looked
    at the nearly final image before adding the moon, I figured I had
    already manipulated it so much, why not add a little interest in the sky.

    Eric Miller
    Eric Miller, Dec 24, 2006
    #18
  19. Mark² Guest

    Eric Miller wrote:
    >> I suggest you remove the moon and stick with reality in the shot.
    >> The image is nice, but when you start playing with reality, it just
    >> loses something...
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Reality maybe?
    >
    > I get your point. But where do I draw the line? After all, black and
    > white isn't exactly reality, neither is the way that I arrived at this
    > grayscale image by first discarding the blue and green channels and
    > then sharpening it.


    It depends on the reason you photograph a scene. If you wish to render an
    interesting interpretation of reality, there is a lot of leeway for that.
    You can control exposure, contrast, perspective, color rendition, and on and
    on. For me, knowing that the moon had no part in that scene turns it into
    an imagined reality. Some are fine with that, and you'll have to decide for
    yourself. There is a fundamental difference between paintings and photos,
    in my thinking. -When people view a painting, there is a built-in
    assumption that the artist has most likely taken license with the scene,
    because it is a given that the scene COULD NOT capture at single moment in
    time--rather it was created with bits and moments which "passed over" a
    scene over the span of time taken to paint it. But with photography, the
    assumption is that you recorded very close to a single moment in time of
    what was there--at the very least...in terms of the objects and scene
    elements. Folks could argue endlessly about long exposure exceptions, blah
    blah blah, but a reasonable person will understand the difference I'm
    describing here. As I said...you'll have to decide for yourself.

    Perhaps it would help to describe a recent experience I had in a
    photographer's image gallery/store that I recently visited in Big Bear,
    California. There were a large series of landscapes and other
    scenics...many of which had wildlife in them. One particularly striking
    image was a panoramic of a stony, treed mountain-top. The lighting was
    beautiful, and the detail was fantastic...UNTIL...I set my eyes on the
    various rams which posed so perfectly on several rocks in the scene. Any
    photographer worth his salt would have been able to determine that the rams
    were superimposed into the scene. The shadows were a dead giveaway, and the
    lighting was just plain wrong. This did two things to me: One...it took
    what I was at first glance admiring as amazing timing, exposure and
    opportunity of subject, and turned it into utter disppointment that no scene
    ever really existed at all. Two...it immediately erased my interest in
    viewing any of his other work, because it now became a demonstration of his
    Photoshop skills, rather than a display of what WOULD have been impressive
    captures made by patience, timing and expertise. I abandoned the shop, and
    the photographer's work at that moment, because he had chosen to abandone
    reality for trickery. No thanks. Heck, I could skip any further trips to
    Alaska by his rules, because who cares if I actually capture that
    grizzly...at just the right moment in time...under carefully-awaited
    conditions...at that rare moment in time. -By his rules, I just need a few
    crappy snaps to cobble together. Again... No thanks.

    I'm not saying that your work is all fake, but were you a person whose work
    I was familiar with, it would immediately call every one of your shots into
    question in my mind.

    >And, generally speaking, no one ever criticizes
    > the moon in this image until I tell them that I have added it, which
    > tends to make me think that the objection is more of a principled one
    > than one of immediate impression, i.e., that it isn't about the way
    > the image looks, but about the critic's view regarding certain types
    > of manipulation. I guess, to me, the wholesale abandonment of reality
    > in this image lessens the impact of criticism of only the placement
    > of the moon. When I looked at the nearly final image before adding
    > the moon, I figured I had already manipulated it so much, why not add
    > a little interest in the sky.


    Why not stick a penguin in the field? That might be interesting...
    :)

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
    Mark², Dec 24, 2006
    #19
  20. Mike Russell Guest

    I think Mark² has summed up my own thinking on the matter pretty well.
    Stieglitz, Strand, Adams, and others gave us our current concept of fine art
    photography. It's ok to use filters, dodge and burn, and even spot out tiny
    bright objects along the edge of the image. Adams gave us particularly a
    visual vocabulary that applies to black and white images of El Capitan. I'm
    not a religious person, but I have a little ghost, of St. Ansel, who tells
    me whether I'm doing something wrong or not in Photoshop. He would not be
    happy about adding the moon to a picture.

    I often joke about writing a plugin called "moonslapper" that would add the
    moon, in any phase and rotation, to an image. If such a plugin ever became
    popular (God forbid) the moon would be recast as an unimportant bauble.
    Imagine a digital camera with a built-in moonslapper function. Everyone
    would have the moon in any picture they wanted, and the presence or absence
    of the moon in an image would soon become unimportant.

    Your Yosemite image has real impact, and I liked it even more after spotting
    the moon in the sky. By the same token, after hearing the moon the image
    lost its authenticity. It's as if the moon subtracts from the image, rather
    than adding to it. If I felt you were a great soul of photography, and had
    taken moonslapping to new heights, that would be different. As it is, it
    seems you experimented with a short cut that any of us could easily take,
    but don't.

    Call it my own prejudice, but part of the contract of photography is that
    your an image contains what you saw. If you step outside of that contract,
    then you're competing with graphic artists at large, specifically with the
    visual effects folks at ILM and Pixar. As a viewer, before I will suspend
    disbelief, I need more than just something that looks like an excellent
    photograph: you have to really do something incredible, on a par with the
    best CGI, and that's a very high bar.

    Anyway, it's still a damn good image, and I would add my voice to those who
    suggest that you make it even better by taking the moon out.
    --

    Mike Russell
    www.curvemeister.com/forum/
    Mike Russell, Dec 24, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Charles M. Kozierok

    July or August better for Yosemite/Sierras trip?

    Charles M. Kozierok, Nov 5, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    33
    Views:
    765
    william coverdale
    Mar 2, 2005
  2. Yosemite Recommendations

    , Jun 8, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    309
    MadHatter
    Jun 9, 2005
  3. Photographs of Yosemite 2006

    , Apr 29, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    306
    Paul Allen
    Apr 29, 2006
  4. Tim

    Yosemite - clouds

    Tim, May 1, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    315
    Stacey
    May 3, 2006
  5. Eric Miller

    Bash/"Doctor" my Yosemite Photo

    Eric Miller, Dec 28, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    492
    Arnor Baldvinsson
    Dec 30, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page