Landscapes
- Thread starter Del Paso
- Start date
I live in Colorado, and sometimes the air is just too clear here to get the sense of depth you see in this picture. For instance as seen from Colorado Springs, Pikes Peak is seven miles (roughly 12 km) behind the lower foothills directly west of town, but you'd almost never know it. It looks like it's just a bit taller than those foothills, rather than much further away and therefore much taller. You almost never see how many ridges are between you and the horizon here--sunrise is the best time for that but still by no means certain.Along the blue ridge parkway
This is an awesome vista to me in Colorado even though there isn't a speck of land in that picture whose altitude exceeds that of the bottom of my well. Elevation ain't everything.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Yes, the mountain ranges in this area are known as the Smokys for a reason, although this particular shot is east of the park itself.
This was taking very close to Richland Balsam, highest point on the parkway and a fantastic view. I would need to do some investigating (and will at some point) but I suspect the view exceeds 20 miles.
Your post seems to mention a vista but if there is an image I’m not seeing it, at least on my phone.
Upvote
0
Here's a shot I made on the Isle of Arran recently. The island is on the West Coast of Scotland, effectively in the Firth of Clyde. It's a one hour ferry crossing to reach it. I was travelling light and just had my G1XIII with me and the smallest Manfrotto BeFree tripod.
This is Gen Rosa with the mountain Cir Mhor in the background. ISO 100, 1/80, f/8. 35mm equivalent.
Although I've only put it on here at 1000 px, the picture has not really given anything away to a much bigger camera system. Not loved here on CR because of its "slow" lens, I find it to be a brilliant pocketable landscape camera.
This is Gen Rosa with the mountain Cir Mhor in the background. ISO 100, 1/80, f/8. 35mm equivalent.
Although I've only put it on here at 1000 px, the picture has not really given anything away to a much bigger camera system. Not loved here on CR because of its "slow" lens, I find it to be a brilliant pocketable landscape camera.
Upvote
0
Great shot, I really like the lighting and prefer 'detailed' water sometimes versus every shot having what I'd call 'wispy water.' You are right, CR forum generally doesn't have much tolerance for anything less than FF and fast lenses. As always, the best camera is the one you have with you.
Upvote
0
I agree with you on water. I don’t like it as mist or solidified molten glass either ! The G1X does have a built in optical 2 stop ND filter that can be activated when required, which is handy, but in this case it was quite windy and exposed, so I could not afford a shutter speed below 1/80th really.
Upvote
0
Fine, I'm not the only one prefering "normal" water. Nothing against "wispy" water, but against seeing almost exclusively long exposure shots.
Upvote
0
Part of the artistic choice is the look of the water. I tend to like for landscapes to convey what it looked like, smelled like, felt like, etc., at the time. Rarely does water look perfectly still or like cotton candy. For me it is sort of like HDR: that is great unless it is obviously HDR. If the first thing I notice about a shot is the shutter speed, I consider the photo to be a failure. (Similarly, I don’t like to be distracted from the subject by an unnatural level of bokeh. I realize that makes me an outlier among photography enthusiasts.)
Upvote
0
