On a whim I decided to put breakfast at Country Bounty in Salida on hold and detoured up to Poncha Pass yesterday morning. It was quite a dynamic little show. Here's Shavano squared.
#2: Shavano not so squared. I like the low clouds better in this one because they're catching a little light, but the peak gets a little lost in that puffy cloud, so I like the mountain better in the previous one.
#3: And here's Denny Creek in the rain. Oops! This one's too big, so here's the url: Eat @ Denny's!
Funny thing about this one; I've been using a polarizer on scenes like this to take the shine off rocks for years. Now, looking at this, I can't imagine why I ever did that! I think the dominant wet rock helps make this shot what it is.
And as a follow-on to Nat's $20,000 detail shot, here's what $2,700 buys you. Mind you, this was taken with my "crappiest" lens (100-400 @ f14, handheld w/IS on), so I imagine a really killer Canon tele could resolve a lot better than this.
Is the 40-mp shot better than this 21-mp shot? I don't know, but I know it's not 740% better. There are certainly advantages to the MF digital systems out there, but not so much for landscape shooters on a "budget," both in terms of dollars and weight.
Todd Caudle - a man of letters? Since these shots of Shavano look exactly like the mountain described in Lost Horizon (the book where the term "Shangri-La" first appeared), I must assume so. Although the shots are very nice, I find the surprisingly apt literary allusion far more impressive!
Tough call as both a very nice images. I lean towards the square image as it emphasizes the higher elevations and the cumulus cloud is not detracting from Shavano.
If that puffy cloud were darker, I would say that was my fav because of the cloud shadows on the face of Shavano, but being bright as you pointed out, 1 is my fav.
Really nice set Todd. I personally lean towards your square image as the triangular forms fit this frame very well and the peak is set off by the blue sky.
As for the resolution issue... Don't make me bust out the fluid mount 4X5 scans. I've got you both beat on budget and resolution. My 4X5, lenses betterscanning holder and scanner combined are under the $2700 price point. I might be in that neighborhood on film+processing over the last three years, but I estimated it would take 15-20 years (for me) to break even on a MFDB. Probably won't be able to buy color sheet film at that point, but I'll keep going while the getting is good.
Nice work Todd. I have to agree with you on the MF. I am not a landscape guy, but can't imagine spedning that kind of coin on one....especailly with the reesults you are getting here with the 5D II. Plus from seeing the early news on the Canon 1Ds 32 MP, not sure the MF market is gonig to hold up much longer. Early rumors are under 8K. I know then there are lens arguments and so on...and not sure where it all ends for the pixel peepers. For me, a real large print wasn't meant to be viewed from 2 inches away.
Nice. I think I like the comp on #2 more as well: the foreground and the clouds in front of the mountain are sweet. I don't know if I would have noticed the large cloud behind the peak too much if you hadn't said anything.
Posted by Chris Martin on June 15, 2010 at 7:33 PM
Nice shots. I'm partial to #2 as well; the layers with the clouds work well.
Both of these are exquisite! I agree with your ramblings on the pros and cons of each, and tend to favor #2.
'Eat @ Dennys' is OK, but not among your better work frankly.
Re: pixel quantity comparisons--
As Maria Muldaur once sang, "It ain't the meat, it's the motion...".
Posted by Todd Caudle on June 16, 2010 at 12:26 AM
I'm pretty sure ol' Maria was talking about dixels
Discussion
23 repliesFunny thing about this one; I've been using a polarizer on scenes like this to take the shine off rocks for years. Now, looking at this, I can't imagine why I ever did that! I think the dominant wet rock helps make this shot what it is.
Is the 40-mp shot better than this 21-mp shot? I don't know, but I know it's not 740% better. There are certainly advantages to the MF digital systems out there, but not so much for landscape shooters on a "budget," both in terms of dollars and weight.
Have you tried brushing in a little local brightness adjustment to get a few highlights in the low clouds?
Tough call as both a very nice images. I lean towards the square image as it emphasizes the higher elevations and the cumulus cloud is not detracting from Shavano.
As for the resolution issue... Don't make me bust out the fluid mount 4X5 scans. I've got you both beat on budget and resolution. My 4X5, lenses betterscanning holder and scanner combined are under the $2700 price point. I might be in that neighborhood on film+processing over the last three years, but I estimated it would take 15-20 years (for me) to break even on a MFDB. Probably won't be able to buy color sheet film at that point, but I'll keep going while the getting is good.
'Eat @ Dennys' is OK, but not among your better work frankly.
Re: pixel quantity comparisons--
As Maria Muldaur once sang, "It ain't the meat, it's the motion...".