ZapperZ's Great Outdoors Photo Contest

  • Thread starter Thread starter Astronuc
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around sharing and appreciating outdoor photography, particularly highlighting scenic locations like Moxie Falls and Bash Bish Falls. Participants share personal experiences and memories associated with these places, noting the increase in visitors and the beauty of nature. Photographers showcase their work, including stunning images of waterfalls, autumn landscapes, and foggy scenes, sparking admiration and encouraging others to contribute their own photos. Technical discussions arise regarding photography techniques, such as bracketing for exposure and scanning slides to digital formats. The thread fosters a sense of community among nature lovers and photographers, with a focus on the beauty of outdoor environments and the joy of capturing them through photography.
  • #151
I'd missed this, it's nice Andy. The snow looks a warmer colour than it usually does.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #152
I wonder if it is not an incorrect white balance.
 
  • #153
Yes, probably at night with the exterior light on, without flash. Can be corrected easily nowadays. In old days with films you'd had to put up a 80B something correction filter or your shot would be worth nothing.

Anyway, this was entered in a challenge for a album cover (square) with a scenic tranquil landscape, preferable a pastoral scene.

Is this pastoral?

xmo17o.jpg
 
  • #154
Borek said:
I wonder if it is not an incorrect white balance.

I like the result here, familiar and alien. It would not look as interesting to me otherwise.
 
  • #155
I have pictures that look interesting because of incorrect white balance. I like them which doesn't stop me from seeing what is wrong.
 
  • #156
That's very nice, Andre, very peaceful. Yes I'd say it's a beautiful pastoral scene.
 
  • #157
Andre said:
Yes, probably at night with the exterior light on, without flash. Can be corrected easily nowadays. In old days with films you'd had to put up a 80B something correction filter or your shot would be worth nothing.

Anyway, this was entered in a challenge for a album cover (square) with a scenic tranquil landscape, preferable a pastoral scene.

Is this pastoral?

xmo17o.jpg
Awesome Andre.
 
  • #158
Thanks Evo and Lisa,

I made that picture walking back to Montcru after a photo shoot with my niece, who wanted a modelling portofolio. I made these earlier then, which have also been entered in photo contests:

33jgzud.jpg


34qwqrs.jpg


and:

49710A71A35B48439B5BB2E65FF9847B.jpg


I cannot begin to describe the feeling of immense joy to be privilegded to witness such a scenery. It's only dampened by being alone, no friends around to share. But luckily there is the camera to capture it.
 
  • #159
Borek said:
I have pictures that look interesting because of incorrect white balance. I like them which doesn't stop me from seeing what is wrong.

This could just be a semantic, and not a big deal, as I have no problem with the query about correct white balance and respect your views as to causes of effect. But, however a, IMO, successful result was achieved: that it was achieved renders it a method by which a successful outcome (IMO) occurred. So if it was the result of incorrect white balance, then that was a successful method in this instance. I agree that images may look more interesting because less conventional means were used, like photos taken into the light (more conventional now, anyway), or blurred, low-fi, say, red scaled or cross-processed, etc. Here, a more conventional method could have left a banal result.


To elaborate, my view was that it had a familiar, cheery, welcoming glow becoming eerily unfamiliar with a sinister, discoloured shadow
(http://www.tate.org.uk/tateetc/issue9/emblemearthlyvanities.htm ).


I really like this photo, in the Guardian’s top 40 natural photos, which, regardless of method, has a similar feel for me, and nicely, the subject matter has a reputation for the inception of a creative inspiration about creation.


1izjiw.jpg

© Frans Lanting
Tortoises at Dawn, Galapagos Islands, 1984

"The Galapagos Islands provide a window on time. In a geological sense, the islands are young, yet they appear ancient. The largest animals native to this famed archipelago are giant tortoises, which can live for more than a century. These are the creatures that provided Charles Darwin with the flash of imagination that led to his theory of evolution. Today their populations are reduced on most islands. But inside the Alcedo volcano on Isabela Island I experienced a world where giant tortoises still roamed in ancient abundance. One misty morning When the tortoises were asleep in a pond, I was able to create an image that evokes the era when reptiles dominated life on land."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2010/apr/22/40-greatest-nature-photographs-earth-day

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ilcptop40/4493164319/in/set-72157623774840478/

I enjoy images where an end can justify the means, whether that means is more conventional, deliberately less conventional or serendipitous accident, and agree images can be more interesting because of different methods.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #160
fuzzyfelt said:
I'd missed this, it's nice Andy. The snow looks a warmer colour than it usually does.

Andre said:
Yes, probably at night with the exterior light on, without flash.

Borek said:
I wonder if it is not an incorrect white balance.

I plead color-blindness! :)

Let's see... yes, it was our outdoor "security" light (halogen) lighting the snow, no flash. I usually have my camera set to auto-white balance, but I've had ongoing problems getting colors to render accurately- I tried photographing a color printer calibration sheet and adjusting the settings to make the displayed image look like the printed page, but I quickly got lost into a self-referential loop.

The camera has two color encoding settings (AdobeRGB and sRGB), and the Adobe setting gives me something closer than the other. But neither gives me accurate reproductions across the spectrum.

In the end, I decided to just go with it- you all have to live in my world. :)
 
  • #161
Andy Resnick said:
In the end, I decided to just go with it- you all have to live in my world. :)

More like "your world as presented by our monitors".

I have a dual monitor setup, each one shows something different.
 
  • #162
Last night was the first cloudless night since the snow started falling in November- I had been patiently waiting to take this photo:

[PLAIN]http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/2385/dsc42850.jpg

Which looks like this in my head:

[PLAIN]http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/2231/dsc4285.jpg

It's a 24mm lens, f/11, and a 4 second exposure. There's some problems- the camera wasn't perfectly straight and level for one, and I didn't get the streetlights centered properly. But, in my defense, it was about 5 F, 10pm, and I had to sit- the camera is about 18" off the ground. Wearing dark clothing, sitting in the street, taking photos of houses in the middle of the night is generally frowned upon by the gendarmes.

The image also let me explore some of the lens characteristics- here's one of the snow sparkles in the extreme lower left corner, blown up to 600%:

[PLAIN]http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/3323/dsc42852.jpg

I think that's coma, but otherwise it's well corrected. The streetlights have a nice diffraction pattern from the aperture:

[PLAIN]http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/1830/dsc42853.jpg

and also show little aberration (as well they should, since they are near the center). But again, there's some weird color stuff I can't figure out- this is a tight crop from the dead center of the frame, showing a tree:

[PLAIN]http://img547.imageshack.us/img547/381/dsc42854.jpg

There's no reason for it to be so red. Even I can tell it's red.

And of course, what's the point of being out on a clear night if you don't take some photos of stars! For some reason, my photos of stars (and this is also true for film) always appear much more colorful than in real life. Imagine my surprise when I found out this lens focuses past infinity- I ran the lens out all the way (since I can't see the stars in the viewfinder) and got this (with the lens open to f/1.8, 5-second exposure):

[PLAIN]http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/5917/dsc4291ub.jpg

Again, in real life all the stars look white to me. After correcting the focus- focusing on a distant streetlight- I got this:

[PLAIN]http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/7586/dsc42921.jpg

which is a section of this:

[PLAIN]http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/4372/dsc4292.jpg

For the star images, I had to do a lot of post-processing to pull the stars out of the background- you can see some residual sky in the lower corner. Again, it's red...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #163
Andy Resnick said:
[...] Wearing dark clothing, sitting in the street, taking photos of houses in the middle of the night is generally frowned upon by the gendarmes.

[...]

:smile:
 
  • #164
Amazingly, last night was clear again, and this time I used my 85mm f/1.4 to take some photos of Orion- this is the full-frame image:

[PLAIN]http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/2084/orion22.jpg Here's a close-up of M42- the orion nebula:

[PLAIN]http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/6237/orion21.jpg

Not bad! I reckon the lens acts like a 3" refracting telescope. I took these at f/1.4, 1.6" exposure, ISO 200. At some point I'll probably get some charts to figure out the resolution of the lens/camera.

Considering the amount of light pollution in my area, I'm very pleased with this photo. Getting a sharp image was tough- my tripod technique needs work (!).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #165
Totally bummed out- I didn't bring my camera home this weekend, and we got a once-a-year ice storm that coated everything in a layer of clear ice: the trees looked like puffs of smoke. Then the sky cleared overnight, so this morning at sunrise all the trees looked like glittering glass sculptures.

I can't get to work today because of the presidential visit- all the streets are blocked off.
 
  • #166
Oh dear me, Andy, that's awful. Don't you have a walk around pocket camera somewhere?
 
  • #167
Andre said:
Oh dear me, Andy, that's awful. Don't you have a walk around pocket camera somewhere?

I do, but additional circumstances occurred that moved "wander around taking photos" down the priority list. At least, that's how I'm consoling myself.
 
  • #168
As any student knows, sometimes enough complaining actually gets you something. Miracle of miracles, yesterday afternoon the only section of town still having clear skies and ice trees happened to be right where I needed to be- I did my best to get a few shots, but my lack of ability is clearly showing: there images don't have anywhere near the luminous quality of the real thing. Even so, I wanted to share them:

[PLAIN]http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/7890/dsc4358b.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/1564/dsc4360c.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/5309/dsc4352j.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/2513/dsc4363s.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/2981/dsc4368.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #169
Great shots anyway Andy; but I can imagine that you wanted more of it.
 
  • #170
Thanks, Andre. I'll work on photographing glass objects- I want to be able to pull out the depth and clarity.
 
  • #171
Wow. I can feel your pain, such subjects are beautiful but very difficult to catch.
 
  • #172
It is almost impossible to photograph some effects that are visually stunning. One sunny sub-zero morning when I was a kid, a friend and I snowshoed into Moxie Gorge. The previous rain and the mist from Moxie Falls had coated the trees with ice, and the sun had the whole gorge glinting in all the colors of the rainbow. I didn't have a camera, nor could I have afforded film or processing then, anyway. Still, I doubt that any camera could have captured that effect like human eyes could. That's OK - at least we got to see it in person.
 
  • #173
Some additional ideas: here are two images of shoveled snow, where I changed the 'gamma' of the image. The idea is that human vision is very nonlinear in intensity, while CCDs are linear detectors. In fact, television broadcast signals use a gamma of 2.5 or 2.8 (gamma = 1 is a linear object-image relationship).

Here's the raw image auto white balance, autoexpose, etc. etc.:

[PLAIN]http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/9313/dsc4401z.jpg

Very low contrast, but the image is *not* overexposed- this is important. Now, all I do is adjust gamma to 2.8:

[PLAIN]http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/4465/dsc44011.jpg

Major difference! In fact, the adjusted image looks a lot more like what my eye saw (in terms of contrast). Although for some reason, again the color balance is not quite right- here, the snow looks very blue.

So I'm back to color rendering problem again- under halogen lights, snow looks red. Under daylight (overcast daylight), snow looks blue. And under fluorescent lighting (streetlights), the snow looks very green.

I may have to take some 'calibration' images of something like Spectralon with different sources, and set up custom white-balance settings- I have no problem with images not appearing true-to-eyesight, but there are times when I *want* the image to be as neutral as possible.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #174
I think things are even more difficult, as our eyes are not only non linear, what we see is also heavily processed by our brains - and we see dark ares brightened out and bright areas darkened out, to get as many details as possible at the same time. That's another reason why it is so hard to take good picture when there are high contrasts in the field of view.
 
  • #175
I am green with envy. I think I will call Marzena to take a picture for the contest.
 
  • #176
How fantastic!
 
  • #177
Gokul43201 said:
Some pictures from this past weekend, climbing some fun ice formations on the bluffs overlooking Lake Superior:

Excellent!
 
  • #178
Just wanted to share this one, it's unsuitable for the landmark game.

22085868.jpg


It is not a fantasy cyber pic from some game, it's real
 
  • #179
Borek said:
I am green with envy. I think I will call Marzena to take a picture for the contest.

fuzzyfelt said:
How fantastic!

Andy Resnick said:
Excellent!
I can understand the envy, but I should probably mention that all these activities come with a little potential for injury (or worse). I've generally been a careful outdoorsman, and have managed to go several months at a time with negligible damage, but this past week has been less fortunate. The weekend gave me a fat lip, a bruised chin, a tender ear and a bump on the side of my head (which would have been a whole lot worse, if not for my awesome helmet) from trying a somewhat tricky climb. And last night, I dislocated my shoulder (not too severely, I hope - I was able to pop it back into place fairly easily) while skiing down a somewhat icy hill.

But despite the occasional bang-up, the experiences are so worth it.
 
  • #180
Cute creature.. maybe if I get some time I'll show you guys what this little bugger did to my porch swing. I hope he's warm right now.
100_9335i.jpg
 
  • #181
Gokul43201 said:
the occasional bang-up

I would say that's part of the joy. Just not too much.
 
  • #182
Borek said:
I would say that's part of the joy.
Agreed. You're green with envy; I'm black and blue with joy! =)
 
  • #183
Gokul43201 said:
Agreed. You're green with envy; I'm black and blue with joy! =)
When I threw myself into white-water kayaking, I wound up being black and blue with some regularity. I ditched the larger kayaks in favor of a low-volume squirt boat with sharp rails. Low volume means low buoyancy, and when you're running very heavy white-water (lots of air bubbles), the water gives you even less buoyancy. Flip in heavy rapids, and you have even less "purchase" on the water with your paddle, so it's tougher to execute a roll unless you are very experienced. All this with boulders whizzing by your head (hopefully whizzing by, anyway), upside down in heavy rapids. I returned home from time to time with a couple of dings, sore muscles, bruises, etc. Still, it was so much fun that I wouldn't trade it for any other outdoor hobby. I enjoyed Alpine and Nordic skiing, technical rock-climbing, hiking, climbing mountains, etc, but white-water kayaking was tops!
 
  • #184
turbo-1 said:
but white-water kayaking was tops!

Turbo,

hehe, maybe for you, but I must say that riding a bike (motorized) at a spirited pace does it for me, one post Rhody... over and out of this thread...
 
  • #186
Astronuc said:
http://squashfalconer.com/everest.shtml

http://www.summitclimb.com/new/default.asp?vid=789&ltitle=Mount Everest Foundation News&mtype=smenu

Astro,

Interesting story, I admire those who follow their dreams (see thumbnail of Squash) quite an amazing story. I admit as a kid Everest did hold some allure which sadly for me today does not exist. I prefer truly wild places, ignored or as yet undiscovered by "the masses". The ascent of Everest (South Col Route) well worn, with discarded trash, oxygen bottles and un-recovered bodies, and fixed ropes is a turn-off, for me anyway. I must have been spoiled somewhere along the way, having hiked to some fairly remote areas, being rewarded with the best unspoiled beauty nature has to offer, and feeling extremely humbled to do so.

Rhody... :rolleyes:
 

Attachments

  • Squash Falconer.JPG
    Squash Falconer.JPG
    13.8 KB · Views: 398
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #187
Nice rhody. :)
 
  • #188
drizzle said:
Nice rhody. :)

Thanks Drizzle, I wasn't expecting comments, but yours is most appreciated.

Rhody... :wink:
 
  • #189
Someone sent me an email about 'amazing striped icebergs'. A search lead to Snopes.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/natural/stripedicebergs.asp

http://www.snopes.com/photos/natural/antarcticwave.asp

Actual icebergs are found on sites like NatGeo and the following:

http://www.antarctica.gov.au/about-antarctica/antarctic-images/parliament-house-exhibitions/aurora-extraordinary-visions-of-antarctica-2006-exhibition/icebergs

http://www.antarctica.gov.au/about-antarctica/antarctic-images/photo-gallery/icebergs-and-ice
 
  • #190
Yesterday:

grzbiet.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • #191
Borek said:
Yesterday:

grzbiet.jpg
Image doesn't show up for me! Skiing?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #192
Not enough snow for skiing. Can you see images in my other posts? I always post them exactly the same way, perhaps that's just some temporary problem.
 
  • #193
Borek said:
Can you see images in my other posts?
Yes, I can see your images (Marzena's too) from the photo contest threads.
 
  • #194
This is a great thread... I know someone who lives in a bit of the rural-suburban wilderenss... and has quite a few pictures of things ranging from turkys, a network fo chipmunk warrens, and soon... a HUUUUGE cardinal.

http://nancysnaturenook.wordpress.com/2009/10/

Clearly a novice photographer, but doing good stuff given some technical limits and the fickle nature of nature.

Turkey on stairs...

http://nancysnaturenook.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/img_0106.jpg

Distant Cardinal...

http://nancysnaturenook.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/cardinal.jpg
 
  • #195
Gokul43201 said:
Yes, I can see your images (Marzena's too) from the photo contest threads.

There were capital letters and a dash in the name, perhaps that was source of the problems (but there is no trace of potential problems in my server logs). I have changed filename and modified both posts, perhaps it will be better now.
 
  • #196
Borek said:
I have changed filename and modified both posts, perhaps it will be better now.
Yes, it is. Thanks.

So what are we looking at? Is it a naturally bald hill or a ski mountain?
 
  • #197
Not a ski mountain for sure, how natural - no idea. It is not very high, something like 700 meters above sea level (about 2000 feet), could be the forest was removed for farming. The picture is (intentionally) misleading - it was composed to avoid most traces of people. This one was taken about an hour or two later, in a different spot, and better shows how the area really looks like:

grzbiet2.jpg


As you see it is not as wild as the first picture suggests.

Patches of snow were left only on northern slopes, and pictures were taken in different directions.
 
  • #198
Borek said:
Not a ski mountain for sure, how natural - no idea. It is not very high, something like 700 meters above sea level (about 2000 feet), could be the forest was removed for farming. The picture is (intentionally) misleading - it was composed to avoid most traces of people. This one was taken about an hour or two later, in a different spot, and better shows how the area really looks like:

grzbiet2.jpg


As you see it is not as wild as the first picture suggests.

That is so beautiful, it takes my breath away; that stand of (birch?) in front of the conifers is a perfect segue from the sepia tones through red, to green. I think I like this more casual shot even more than the snowy ones.
 
  • #199
Birches they are.
 
  • #200
Borek said:
Birches they are.

If that's where you live, you are a very lucky man.
 

Similar threads

Photo Contest - Into The Great Wide Open (4/4-4/10)
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • Poll Poll
VOTE Photo Contest - Are We Having Fun Yet?
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • Poll Poll
VOTE Photo Contest - A Sight For Sore Eyes
Replies
2
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top