Lots of portraits/scenics/landscapes from Loveland Pass/A-Basin

[Deep Days]

All shot in the same day with the same types of techniques, so I figure one thread would be OK. I was hoping for some thoughts, but I realize asking for a dissection of such a huge number of pictures is retarded. If you've got any general comments, or if anything irks the hell out of you, please let me know.

I used a really cheap polarizer on a lot of these to bring out the blue in the sky and the orange/blue of my friend's shirt. Thus the halo in some of them... The vignetting is from a shitty $20 .5x wide angle converter (focal length of 18 mm at the widest, I believe...?) I didn't really ever want softening of focus at the edges with the wide angle converter, which I think is pretty pronounced in a lot of them, particularly in shorter focal lengths (is this normal?) but it produced a cool effect in a couple of them (I'll point it out).

Anyway, I'm just wondering if I used the polarizer appropriately and if my composition makes any of the pictures interesting. I'm having issues getting a low depth of field with this camera (Canon S2 IS), and I'm wondering what that comes from. The picture with the Dasani bottle was shot at f/4.0, but it seems like the DOF is much larger than other pictures I've seen shot at 4.0 with other, "better" cameras. How do I remedy this?

I went WAY trigger happy on the camera, as this day was absolutely phenomenally pretty. I (of course) made the retarded mistake of setting the resolution as low as possible (640x480) on most of these. ISO is 50 on all of them to reduce noise (a safe practice in high-light conditions like these?) At any rate, I hope you enjoy some of these images.

Lenawee stoke:






Loveland Pass:




My friend Jeff:


Citadel:


What the hell are these things anyway?




Sad it's closed, isn't it?










The beater train on Loveland Pass:


Which of these two is more interesting?




Jeff and by-standers:


Parking is indeed an issue...







What's the consensus on sepia and high-contrast conditions?

Appropriate use of the wide-angle, it would seem...




Yep, we went skiing:


Random dude:


Inbounds at the Basin:


Underexposed, damnit... Composition?


(cont'd)

[Deep Days]

This is where I run into issues. What I wanted to do was have the bottle in sharp focus but the mountain in soft focus and then take a vice-versa shot to compare which looks more interesting. This was shot at 1/1250 f/4.0, and I feel like everything is sharp...


Same here. I like how this looks with everything sharp, but I would have liked to try the same desired effects as above.


How do I get less of the image inside and more reflection? f/4.0 1/500 Focal length 6.00 mm (this doesn't seem right... What is the 35 mm equivalent? Don't know my sensor size.)


f/5.6 1/500 flash fired






Fuck autofocus (again going for shallow depth of field with focus on the trees):


It worked in this case, almost...










This is where the soft focus around the edges looks cool...


Taken by Jeff:




Back to me...


I REALLY wanted to ski this last week...













Are light disks (halos, whatever you want to call them) to be expected in a shot like this? How can I reduce them?

I like this one:








Sorry if this is overwhelming. I'm just psyched to be out shooting. Psyched as is the Gosey norm. Thanks for the thoughts.

[pechelman]

first off
good to see you shooting so much as thats a surfire way to learn from your mistakes and successes. I would however say to include FEWER pictures in these threads because its pretty impossible to comment on them unless someone was right next to you talking.

Overall, I think most of these are simple point\shoot snapshot type photos. They all have generally uninteresting subjects or lighting. Im not saying that to be harsh or to say I dont like mountains or anything, but Im saying that to tell you that you really have to work much harder to find interesting subjects\lighting in the middle of the day.

In general your exposure is fine, composition seems ok all around as well. Id suggest remembering to place the horizon line on a third and not crop out body parts of your intended subject.

Regarding polarizers, there is no "right" way to do it. Its up to you and what effect you want to create. You can rotate it for no polarization, effectively using it as a 1-2 stop ND filter, use it halfway for some reflection and some dmax increase in the sky\trees\etc, or use it all the way or anywhere in between. Its up to you is my point.

RE DOF. You will not get good\shallow DOF on distant objects with that camera. To minimize your DOF like on that water bottle, get as close as possible until youre at the cameras minimum focal distance. Turn the F-STOP all the way down to open the aperature as much as possible. On a digicam id figure it would be somewhere around 1.8 or something? It seems like everyone I pickup has a range somewhere around 1.8-4, so you were shooting completely stopped down, which only maximized DOF (exactly the opposite of what you should have done)

Those things are snow fences.

for the love of jeebus, please stop with that UBERsepia toning or whatever the hell that is


You get more reflection on glass by not using a polarizer. Polarizers remove reflection.
Also, you cant really create more reflection unless youve got a big giant reflector in your pack.
Just remember, incident = reflected (angles at which light reflects)

Soft focus\loss of sharpness around the corners doesnt really work in these photos imo.
Would have been cool if you were taking a picture of an oncomming car\skier to blur the rest of the frame to create some speed effect when you're stationary. Sidenote: another way to do that sorta, with a film camera\zoom lens, is to zoom in or out during the exposure. Works better during night though since you can take advantage of longer shutters.

Those halos\lens flares are caused by shooting into the sun, not using a lens hood, shooting at a wide angle, and possibly using cheap glass with poor coatings.

also your b&ws dont seem to look as good as the colors
like theyve lost a bit of contrast.
lots of grey snow.

[Deep Days]

Wow. Thanks! That these images are uninteresting is exactly what I need to hear. Knowing that they aren't really any good gives me a reason to narrow down the selection a LOT.

However, I tried opening up the aperature as much as possible (tends to be 4.0 at higher shutter speeds but can get down to 2.7 only sometimes... wtf?) when trying to get a shallow depth of field. Good to hear that it's difficult with this camera.

At any rate, thanks for the thoughts, P. One question, though: what is meant by "neutral density"?

[pechelman]

from the spec sheet

Lens: 6.0-72.0mm f/2.7-3.5 zoom lens (equivalent to 36-432mm in 35mm format).
Focus Range: Normal AF: 1.6 ft./50cm-Infinity (WIDE), 3.0 ft./90cm-Infinity (TELE); Macro AF: 3.9 in.-1.6 ft./10-50cm; Super Macro: 0-3.9 in./0-10cm.

So yea, 2.7 is your minimum.


And I guess the phrase I was looking for, instead of "uninteresting", was a tourist photo. Its not that they arent that interseting, its just a shot that you take quickly, given whatever light, and whatever your position is. Thats all.

Neutral Density filters are basically "window tint".
They dont change the color spectrum, absorb any wavelength of light, or anything other than make the frame darker. The only reason why youd want something like this, is on a bright day, stuck using a certain speed film\wanting to use a specific sensor speed, and wanting to show some action (ie use a slower shutter). You can buy ND filters in 1, 2, and 4 stop increments if I remember right. You can stack them as well, but you might vignette on wider lenses.

Or, use the same shutter speed and a wider aperature to minimize DOF.
Or both, but generally its one or the other.

Obviously not very practical in action photos unless you just leave it on there, but theyre pretty handy in really fine macro shooting when you really want to take advantage of your DOF.

[Tippster]

Snapshots. That's what you took. That's ok, but understand the difference.

You have to visualize your pictures first before pulling the trigger. Pick out the important elements, then adjust your camera accordingly. Yes happy Accidents happen, but most shots you see that make you say "WOW" are pre-planned to a large extent.

The orange (Sepia?) toned pix add nothing. The B&W converted ones are way too flat - not nearly contrasty enough.

To get really shallow DoF you need to get faster than f/4. You also need to shoot at a greater focal length - a wide angle will overcome any aperture-induced separation. The Dasani Bottle would have benefitted from you zooming all the way IN first, then use your feet to get the composition you want. Unfortunately the Lens on your Camera actually stops down (to f/3.5 according to Pechelman) when you do that, making what you were attempting even harder.

Take some classes in Photograhy or buy some good books. There have been several recommended in this forum, and i would add the bible: Ansel Adams' "The Camera."

[Viva]

Some of those shots have potential if the lighting were right. If you see something interesting, imagine it during twilight, when the sun's going down. Some places are worth returning to just before dusk because of the opportunity for some interesting photography.

Back in the day, I'd head out to the Sierras and be at some kool spot in time for sunrise. Afterwards, I'd play all day and then go to another kool place for some sunset action.

Another way to spice up your shots is to have some nekid chicks sliding around on the snow.

[Deep Days]

Thanks, Tipp and Viva. I've been reading Upton & Upton's Photography, but I have difficulty sometimes trying to figure out what transcends into the realm of digital and what is specific to film. Reading yesterday about a "relative aperature", I wasn't sure if this was one of those things, and I called Summit to confirm.

At any rate, I'll see if I can find some nekkid chicks. It IS Boulder after all...

I should be going up to Estes Park for some evening shots that I have picked out pretty soon (Longs looked really aesthetic at about 7:15 last week). I'll post up some of those if I think they're any good.

[lemon boy]

IMVHO, especially for mountain scenics I don't want to see much man made bs. I can make an exception for really old or exquisit man made objects.

Most people's biggest beginning sin IMVHO is not getting close enough to or not zooming in enough on their subject(s). Sure, a wide angle lens can give you a great perspective but I think people try to take in too great a scope of landscape. And of course, great landscape photos happen with extrodinary light.

But note, I totally suck at photography.

[Deep Days]

IMVHO, especially for mountain scenics I don't want to see much man made bs. I can make an exception for really old or exquisit man made objects.

I thought it might make the images interesting to have a contrast in types of subject matter. I'll try out pure nature-type stuff (was really looking forward to taking a tripod and shooting waterfalls this summer, but I leave for the swamp on Wednesday or Thursday...)

Most people's biggest beginning sin IMVHO is not getting close enough to or not zooming in enough on their subject(s). Sure, a wide angle lens can give you a great perspective but I think people try to take in too great a scope of landscape. And of course, great landscape photos happen with extrodinary light.

I'll definitely keep that in mind. Thanks, LB.

[smmokan]

I agree with the above posts... I can tell you're trying to get some different perspectives and angles in your shot, but honestly- where you were taking those pictures from, its really hard to get something interesting out of a photo. Sure the scenery is beautiful on LL Pass, but you're so far away from the good stuff that it doesn't make a great picture. Keep shooting and you're bound to figure it out.

Personally, I like the simplicity of my little P&S.

[lemon boy]

Max, you totally forgot to quote the most important part of my post:

But note, I totally suck at photography.

[Deep Days]

Max, you totally forgot to quote the most important part of my post:

I disagree, which is why I neglected (not "forgot") to include it. Incidentally, smmokan agrees with you.

Edit: I suck too much to get up to RMNP before I leave for summer. Looks like it will be shots of egrets, gators, hibiscus, and cypress knees from here on out...

[lemon boy]

Just remember that for getting close shots of gators a zoom is the preferred method

[Deep Days]

Ah! Thanks for the reminder! A man of my level of intellect needs to be reminded of these things.

(Shots of gators will be very few and far between. Night would be the best time for it, but I'd be in a boat, which would be drifting with the current when I saw the gator, so it would be hard to get the shot due to blurring.)

[pechelman]

Just remember that for getting close shots of gators a zoom is the preferred method

for max or the gator?

[Duffman]

Out of curiosity, how are you carrying the S2 when skiing/touring. I really want an s3 for the zooming capabilities, but I am concerned that I won't be able to bring it with me everywhere easily due to size/ bulk issues, as opposed to a little P&S like a Cannon A-series that can be put in a pocket.

[brice618]

I carry a fairly heavy camera and 2 lenses with me when i ski/hike/bike/kayak/whatever its not too bad you just have to not think, "shit, this is a lot of extra weight". Its mental for me.

A backpack will be the best way to carry anything bulky IMO. The minimalist camera cases seem to be just another thing to add on to the numerous things i'm already carrying. I just throw it all in my dakine ski pack

[Duffman]

My concern is that with the camera buried in a backpack, I'll use it far less often than if it was more accessible. I guess not being a pro photog, I just like to take shots a conveniently as possible and not necessarily spend a lot of time setting up.

[Deep Days]

My concern is that with the camera buried in a backpack, I'll use it far less often than if it was more accessible. I guess not being a pro photog, I just like to take shots a conveniently as possible and not necessarily spend a lot of time setting up.

Some of the people I skied with this year bitched about the size of my keychain, much less my camera, so my input may be an unusual one: I just throw the lens cap on and sling the camera around my neck under my shell. Worked fine for me all winter.

[Duffman]

ever have the camera drill you in the sternum during a fall?

[Natedogg]

You can buy ND filters in 1, 2, and 4 stop increments if I remember right. You can stack them as well, but you might vignette on wider lenses.

You can also get graduated, which can be very helpful if you have something like a very bright sky and shadowed foreground...