Posted by Kane Engelbert on September 9, 2010 at 11:15 PM
I recently packed up to Kneeknocker Basin in the Gore Range for a shot I've been longing for since 2006. I climbed Mount Powell back then and remembered a profile of Peak C that cannot be explained unless you see it. There's about a quarter mile area that gets you this profile. That area resides on the south slopes of Mount Powell. I have to admit, this one the most grueling pack I've done all year. The hike is incredibly steep. I certainly don't remember it being that steep.
Peak C is one of the more popular peaks in the Gores however it still remains unoficially unnamed. "Peak C" is a local name. I call this one the "King" only because of this rare perspective. Otherwise, I like Peak Q and Peak L better. I'll go back into the Slate Lake area one day and shoot those two great peaks from Peak R again.
I love both Kings and the goat is totally awesome!
Posted by Paul Wegemann on September 10, 2010 at 8:26 AM
Great stuff, Kane. I enjoyed reading the trip details too. As much as I like the King images, I think the goat shot is my favorite.
Posted by Scott Bacon on September 10, 2010 at 9:05 AM
Fantastic! That is some profile...
Posted by John Mumaw on September 10, 2010 at 9:35 AM
A majestic scene that I'd never seen nor heard of before. Surely you're one of the first to photograph it so very well. Loved reading about the adventure in getting there!
The images are just first rate. I like 'em all, but I really like your evening star photography. That wonderful light opposite the Milky Way makes this one special. Can you share your tech. data for capturing that?
Posted by Jeff Beard on September 10, 2010 at 9:44 AM
A fantastic set. Love the lighting on the Peak C shots.
Posted by Bob Karcz on September 10, 2010 at 10:05 AM
Kane- great shots! These are in my backyard but, will just enjoy your images as I could not do the hike.
Wow! I think I have a new favorite peak in CO! That light is fantastic. I also love the Milky Way shot!
Posted by Jeff Hackett on September 10, 2010 at 10:53 AM
Sounds like a brutal trip. The first image is incredible and I like the Milky Way shot.
Posted by Doug Koepsel on September 10, 2010 at 11:32 AM
Kane, sounds/lookks like quite the brutal pack, but it certainly had its heavy rewards, especially the goat pic and the first image of King. When I look at the goat photo, I sense it needs just a slight cw rotation, but still retain the angling of the legs. Really like how the goat is set against the bright gold rock behind and how that color is reflected off the white coat.
Pretty cool that you got to name a peak - and very appropriate. Great work, especially the first King. The effort and the result are equally inspiring!
Posted by Koveh Tavakkol on September 10, 2010 at 12:25 PM
The King and that Goat one are really nice, but I also like that last Pano shot. Well done Kane!
What an amazing image, definitely worth the hike to have a shot in your portfolio that most others do not.
Posted by Morris McClung on September 10, 2010 at 8:38 PM
Ditto, ditto, ditto, and on and on. Superb work!
Posted by Kane Engelbert on September 11, 2010 at 10:01 AM
Wow, what a nice feeling I have right now. Thanks for all of the nice comments.
John M, the star photography is something I feel works well for the kinds of outings I'm into. Right now, I do alot of overnighters. So I'm always thinking about shooting the stars. When you're away from the city lights there seems to be infinate opportunities.
My night photography is as basic as it gets. I wish I had a secret. I use a tripod. I shoot infinity, unless there's a full moon. My camera can actually focus fairly well with a full moon. I shoot RAW. I don't use in camera NR. I like a warmer WB. I try to keep my exposures at 30 seconds or less. I'm not a fan of star trails unless I feel like hanging out for a while.
Also, I try not to go above ISO 200-400 I want to print my night shots as big as possible while limiting noise. If I have to, to keep the exposure less than 30 seconds, I'll underexpose up to 2 stops to keep it at 200. I can easily pull out the 2 stops of noiseless exposure from a D700 raw file and Capture NX2. I also have CS5 and Ive noticed the raw converter isn't as good as nikons NX2. It's about the only advantage NX2 has when comparing the two.
Honestly, If I had to really drill down, I think Nikon has done a great job with low light, cooler color photography. It's too bad Nikons day time landscape can't match Canon's. I love Canon's warm colors. I can get those warmer colors, however I have to work for it. Nikons also stuck on the 12mp full frame cameras. But I'm convinced it's the primary reason I can shoot the stars with minimal effort. Big fat light gathering pixels. Currently anything above 12mp has trouble limiting noise.
Posted by Paul Martin on September 11, 2010 at 11:12 AM
Wow, what everyone else said -- awesome work! That has to bee one of the coolest peaks I've seen, well done for putting in so much work to capture it.
Discussion
19 repliesPeak C is one of the more popular peaks in the Gores however it still remains unoficially unnamed. "Peak C" is a local name. I call this one the "King" only because of this rare perspective. Otherwise, I like Peak Q and Peak L better. I'll go back into the Slate Lake area one day and shoot those two great peaks from Peak R again.
http://www.kaephotography.com/gallery/gore-mountains/
The images are just first rate. I like 'em all, but I really like your evening star photography. That wonderful light opposite the Milky Way makes this one special. Can you share your tech. data for capturing that?
John M, the star photography is something I feel works well for the kinds of outings I'm into. Right now, I do alot of overnighters. So I'm always thinking about shooting the stars. When you're away from the city lights there seems to be infinate opportunities.
My night photography is as basic as it gets. I wish I had a secret. I use a tripod. I shoot infinity, unless there's a full moon. My camera can actually focus fairly well with a full moon. I shoot RAW. I don't use in camera NR. I like a warmer WB. I try to keep my exposures at 30 seconds or less. I'm not a fan of star trails unless I feel like hanging out for a while.
Also, I try not to go above ISO 200-400 I want to print my night shots as big as possible while limiting noise. If I have to, to keep the exposure less than 30 seconds, I'll underexpose up to 2 stops to keep it at 200. I can easily pull out the 2 stops of noiseless exposure from a D700 raw file and Capture NX2. I also have CS5 and Ive noticed the raw converter isn't as good as nikons NX2. It's about the only advantage NX2 has when comparing the two.
Honestly, If I had to really drill down, I think Nikon has done a great job with low light, cooler color photography. It's too bad Nikons day time landscape can't match Canon's. I love Canon's warm colors. I can get those warmer colors, however I have to work for it. Nikons also stuck on the 12mp full frame cameras. But I'm convinced it's the primary reason I can shoot the stars with minimal effort. Big fat light gathering pixels. Currently anything above 12mp has trouble limiting noise.