Its not easy tagging a certain mountain in a certain mountain range "most rugged" however Ice Mountain (13,951-ft) is the most rugged peak in the massive Sawatch Range, no doubt. The Ice massif or often called the Three Apostles is made up of three officially ranked thirteeners, North Apostle, Ice Mountain and West Apostle.
As some of you know, I shoot a lot of panos so I included a few links to them. Shrunk down to 720 doesn't convey how I want the images viewed.
Thanks for the comments. I had to slightly work the shadows in the image, this may be the problem, not sure either. One problem I keep running into with this kind of shot (over half the image is underexposed) is the detail and sharpness in the shadows or underexposed areas is not as crisp as the properly exposed areas. I'm assuming this is normal? However I'm not sure. Is this a lens issue? Should I use a GND filter for this kind of image?
I shot the image at F4.5 and 1/320. I'm using a Nikon 16-85 3.5-5.6. I'm renting the pro 17-55 2.8 this week to compare. These lens' compare almost equally on every level except the 16-85 has les distortion at the wide. I don't care about that, what I'm looking for is more of the "micro contrast" that my 70-200 has. I'm preying this 17-55 has that clarity otherwise I'm stuck with the 16-85. BTW, I like the DX format.
Discussion
4 repliesIts not easy tagging a certain mountain in a certain mountain range "most rugged" however Ice Mountain (13,951-ft) is the most rugged peak in the massive Sawatch Range, no doubt. The Ice massif or often called the Three Apostles is made up of three officially ranked thirteeners, North Apostle, Ice Mountain and West Apostle.
As some of you know, I shoot a lot of panos so I included a few links to them. Shrunk down to 720 doesn't convey how I want the images viewed.
Critique and comments appreciated.
Thanks!
Three Apostles
Intimate Sawatch
North Face of Ice Mountain
Thanks for the comments. I had to slightly work the shadows in the image, this may be the problem, not sure either. One problem I keep running into with this kind of shot (over half the image is underexposed) is the detail and sharpness in the shadows or underexposed areas is not as crisp as the properly exposed areas. I'm assuming this is normal? However I'm not sure. Is this a lens issue? Should I use a GND filter for this kind of image?
I shot the image at F4.5 and 1/320. I'm using a Nikon 16-85 3.5-5.6. I'm renting the pro 17-55 2.8 this week to compare. These lens' compare almost equally on every level except the 16-85 has les distortion at the wide. I don't care about that, what I'm looking for is more of the "micro contrast" that my 70-200 has. I'm preying this 17-55 has that clarity otherwise I'm stuck with the 16-85. BTW, I like the DX format.
Kane