Posted by Marko Trebušak on November 16, 2007 at 1:47 AM
I'm often driving by or standing below this impressive range (the pyramid is some 2500 m high with that vertical wall being more that 1000 m) and watching in deep respect this mountain. I was on top of it, but from the other side and some 10 years ago.
17-40 at 40 mm, digital, tripod, four frames stitched together
Cheers,
Marko
Posted by Andy Astbury on November 16, 2007 at 3:17 AM
It's a very impressive pano Marko with good depth - and I like the fact that the rock of the mountains is very pale - is it dolomite by any chance?
I do think it would be a bit more impressive with some closer FG and wish there was some nice cloud on the left to fill that big blue gap in - the sky looks a tad lop-sided to me.
But don't get me wrong, these are only 'picky' nits - and what do I know about landscapes
Posted by Alan Woolnough on November 16, 2007 at 3:39 AM
Cracking range of rugged mountains Marko, and nice warm light thrown on them!!
To my eye, the ridge-line runs a bit too central through the frame, and i feel the need for a touch more at the bottom.
A fine, well suited pano though
Alan
Posted by Paul Everett on November 16, 2007 at 4:42 AM
What a beautiful mountain range and great pano. For my taste the foreground trees dominate the shot a little too much and the haze didn't do you any favours, but having said that its a great shot.
Paul
Posted by Adrian North on November 16, 2007 at 4:44 AM
Marko,
Lovely image and the colour int he rocks and sky is wonderful. I'd also vote for a bit more foreground at the bottom. My feeling is that I need to see the virtual "feet" of the tree trunks you can see - at the moment they seem to be cut off mid tree as it were.
But a good image none the less
Thanks for sharing
Adrian
Posted by Graeme Lee on November 16, 2007 at 5:05 AM
Looks pretty good to me Marko but I know 'jack' about landscapes....still!!!
Posted by Mark Sisson on November 16, 2007 at 8:09 AM
Marko,
Panoramics are really hard to judge on here - 720px doesn't do a 4 frame stich justice!
I really like the composition (not worried about the foreground) and love the pinky hue to the clouds, but agree only with Andy's comment about the imbalance created by the lack of cloud in the left hand element of the sky.
All that said it's one I'd be happy with
Mark
Posted by Chris Lloyd on November 16, 2007 at 11:44 AM
Bet this looks impressive when blown up big. I'd be happy with this one!
Chris.
Posted by Mark Fellowes on November 17, 2007 at 4:55 AM
I think that the size issue mentioned is a real one - looks good here, but this must look fantastic printed out. From this small image I feel that the dark foreground dominates a bit too much and doesn't lead into the background - the forest looks isolated from the background with no middle distance point. I can see that there is a middle point (lower mountains to the left of centre), but it needs size to bring that out.
Interesting point really - I wonder if the web affects how we photograph things. I tend to post images at 500px on my website, which means that for impact the subject has to be large in the frame, but as I can see from images here viewing size is really important in composition. Here, 720 allows that a lot more, so impact is greater. Screen size affects this too - my laptop is an ultraportable widescreen at 1280*800 so when I browse posts look small. My main processing screen is the same resolution, but a 20inch screen, so detail is clearer, but for a landscape, with loads of detail, this still isn't really enough. Does this mean that what we shoot lacks subtlety, since we know that the images seen will never have the presence of a 10*8 or larger printed image?
Mark
Posted by David Clapp on November 17, 2007 at 1:25 PM
I have a pano of this somewhere, I will have to post it... just not the same without the winter snow (as I remember it), but I am sure a large print looks rather wonderful.
Discussion
10 replies17-40 at 40 mm, digital, tripod, four frames stitched together
Cheers,
Marko
I do think it would be a bit more impressive with some closer FG and wish there was some nice cloud on the left to fill that big blue gap in - the sky looks a tad lop-sided to me.
But don't get me wrong, these are only 'picky' nits - and what do I know about landscapes
To my eye, the ridge-line runs a bit too central through the frame, and i feel the need for a touch more at the bottom.
A fine, well suited pano though
Alan
Paul
Lovely image and the colour int he rocks and sky is wonderful. I'd also vote for a bit more foreground at the bottom. My feeling is that I need to see the virtual "feet" of the tree trunks you can see - at the moment they seem to be cut off mid tree as it were.
But a good image none the less
Thanks for sharing
Adrian
Panoramics are really hard to judge on here - 720px doesn't do a 4 frame stich justice!
I really like the composition (not worried about the foreground) and love the pinky hue to the clouds, but agree only with Andy's comment about the imbalance created by the lack of cloud in the left hand element of the sky.
All that said it's one I'd be happy with
Mark
Chris.
Interesting point really - I wonder if the web affects how we photograph things. I tend to post images at 500px on my website, which means that for impact the subject has to be large in the frame, but as I can see from images here viewing size is really important in composition. Here, 720 allows that a lot more, so impact is greater. Screen size affects this too - my laptop is an ultraportable widescreen at 1280*800 so when I browse posts look small. My main processing screen is the same resolution, but a 20inch screen, so detail is clearer, but for a landscape, with loads of detail, this still isn't really enough. Does this mean that what we shoot lacks subtlety, since we know that the images seen will never have the presence of a 10*8 or larger printed image?
Mark