Moonlight Photography

[SSSdave]

Those guys were all good friends of Rowell of course. If you want a 67 AEII w 45mm 55-100mm 150mm and a lot of accessories, I would sell below the used market prices. The big 55-100 zoom lens was my main lens but has developed the common lens problem of a loose element so the focus has to be checked carefully. Pentax repair in Colorado will take it apart and make it as good as new with colimation etc. Don't know how much they quoted me but it was enough that I've been using it as for now as is since it was already collecting dust. But honestly I would not recommend that any competant small format landscape photographer go to MF unless they are trying to go cheap for a few years because they can't afford the latest max pixel digital SLR's. I say that since you mention the GX617 as that would easily be as expensive as a big dSLR. Those digital cameras at 15mp are already near to the 6x7 quality. Enough to print up to 22x28 inches and not look to shabby next to LF detail. Otherwise the jump to LF for a landscape photographer is problematic and only for those with an intention to make large prints. Everything one does with LF from equipment to print is very expensive so one cannot cope in the poor mode. But the results can clearly blow away anything else. ...David

[Buck Forester]

Yes, I agree "detail" wise that high-end digital approaches medium format quality (and will only getter better with time while film remains technically static), but beyond just pixels and grain and detail and enlargement, there is the "feel" factor. I still prefer the look and feel of properly exposed Velvia film over anything digital. That may change with time, and it might change as my Photoshop skills get better (I suck at Photoshop), but as for now I still prefer film for wilderness landscapes, in most situations, not all. I prefer my digital for people shots and wildlife closeups.

[mountaineer]

Wow! I post a couple of snapshots and the ensuing thread is chock full of tons of good info. Thanks everyone. Of all the photography books I have perused, the one that gets the most use is Galen Rowell's Inner Game of Outdoor Photography. Excellent!

For a good read with beautiful photos and great tips, I enjoy Galen's book High and Wild.

[mountaineer]

Speaking of lighting, here is one with everything. The lake in the foreground is still in the early morning shade, the peaks in the background have the first rays of sunshine on them, and the moon is just beginning to move behind the mountaintops before setting. The second photo is a telephoto of the moon just as it begins to set.(Sorry about the dirty scans)

[ERIC]

I'm a photography dummy. I just like what I like. But I have to say, that first photo of yours mountaineer, is my favorite of anything I've seen of yours! Good show, buddy. Keep up the good work!

[SSSdave]

Interesting M you have posted just the type of controversial image with lots of shadows I commented about in my post above. Typical early morning view up up towards the high Rock Creek peaks since Mount Morgan blocks views for a long time. The Decades ago color images with lots of shadows were not often held with much esteem unless a shadow offered some kind of aesthetic geometry to the rest of an image. With the advent of Velvia a lot of photographers developed a taste for such photographs that immediately roused critisms in the older art world. However everyday people more often don't have any problem enjoying such images.

[mountaineer]

Hikin' Mike...I thought I commented on your photos but I can't find my post. Yours have a really cool, almost eerie feel to them. Do you remember your settings? Full moon or half?

Thanks for sharing!

[mountaineer]

As far as shadows in the images, I have to be blunt, I like them. Of course, I don't make my primary living(really, I don't make anything at all) off of my photography so it is personal taste. I feel shadows can draw you into the photo in a certain way. Some photos have absolutely no depth of field or perception of dimension...unless there are shadows. Personally, if the "established arts crowd" has a problem with the way I like my images, i.e. shadows, strange lighting, etc., then I feel I have done something right! Here is a favorite image of mine, maybe not the best quality, but at the very moment the morning sun hit the small trees behind me, casting shadows across the frosty meadow that met the reflection in the lake...well, you get the picture. The only thing I am disappointed in is the vignetting due to too much polarization at altitude.

[Windwalker]

Mountaineer...That first shot is awesome!
I'm going to have to try that sometime....I usually tend to focus on the moon itself

[Buck Forester]

For the record, I too like shadows. They often give depth and character. But that's just my taste. Excellent images!

Hey Windwalker, Inc.®, is that moon shot with your 100-400mm lens? If so, that things durn sharp! I recently purchased the Canon 400mm L f/5.6 because I've heard a couple people who owned the 100-400 say it wasn't real sharp for landscapes, which is what I mostly do, but the stuff I've seen from you has been very sharp indeed! I'd still like to get that lens for kayaking, when I'm handholding from the cockpit and need a strong zoom for birds and Loch Ness Monsters and leaping great white sharks and such.