Scott Hotaling wrote:

Sharon, I highly doubt Marc was hand-holding the camera for these. He might have been hand-holding the Grad. NDs (don't we all at times?) but I doubt the whole setup...

- Scott

, okay, I'm glad to know it was the grad you were holding. That made me laugh at myself.

Sharon

Nice work, here, Marc. Very nice exposure and color balance. Beautiful compositions and locations.

Varina Patel

You're the best landscape photographer I know, Marc...you never disappoint and your work is always inspirational. I may not comment on every image, but know that I always look and ALWAYS admire.

I love that 2nd shot Marc.

these are truly great images, and thanks marc for all the detailed replies about your methods. there's always something to learn on the fred! i'm surprised, though - especially here - that noone said anything about the shoreline being tilted in the images with the lake (2 and 5). i looked several times....is it an optical illusion? am i missing something? not something i would have even noticed a year ago, but hanging out here has taught me the importance of a disciplined approach to the details.

wp.

Just great.

Marc, I saw these on your photo.net site photo.net/photodb/member-photos?include=all&photo_id=4065475and they are beautiful. Looks like you had a wonderful and productive trip. Hopefully you had a lot of fun and inspiration.

Just to let you know, I do notice that the horizons on #2 and #5 are a tad off. I know sometimes this is an optical illusion but I double checked your #2 by using the ruler tool in PS and drawing a line from the peak of the mountain above to the peak of the mountain below and it is off by about 1.58.

Anyway, keep up the great work since I derive a lot of inspiration from it.

Mark

Oh, I know they are a little off. I usually just rush stuff up on the forums and don't get to fine tuning things until print or licensing. Thanks for the tip though. I'm surprised it took you guys so long ;-)

Extraordinary work, Marc. Very well made images.

Fred

Marc Adamus wrote:
Oh, I know they are a little off. I usually just rush stuff up on the forums and don't get to fine tuning things until print or licensing. Thanks for the tip though. I'm surprised it took you guys so long ;-)

ha! good to know my eye is at least accurate to the second decimal place. i noticed it immediately, but just because i see it doesn't make it wrong or right, and i think loooooong and hard before questioning somebody with your skills and vision. thanks for the reply!!

wp.

"40-120" what large format printer do you usually print on?

In the second being a 10 minute exposure was this iso 100 or 50?

On and for a minor nit pick there are quite a few dust bunny's in the sky off the 2nd but I'm sure thats just quick web posting as you mentioned.

Top notch work as always though! Whats next?

Drew Sinclair

Marc, I'm curious how you handled noise in the long exposure?

Drew Sinclair wrote:
"40-120" what large format printer do you usually print on?

In the second being a 10 minute exposure was this iso 100 or 50?

On and for a minor nit pick there are quite a few dust bunny's in the sky off the 2nd but I'm sure thats just quick web posting as you mentioned.

Top notch work as always though! Whats next?

Drew Sinclair



Drew, the long exposure was made at ISO 100. Yes, I know about the dust spots. I'll make more of an effort to clean things up before posting next time. I'm in a hurry going through a lot of shots right now.

I do the majority of my printing on an Epson 9800.

What's next? Get through the holiday rush of print orders, get a wrap on a heck of a lot of licensing issues dating back as far as September, do several assignments and teach several private workshops, hang out with the family for Christmas and maybe find a day to go shoot by myself if it snows a lot in the hills (which it is). No more big trips until summer though. Just small ones whenever I find time. I'm hoping for lots of snow and good winter shots around the NW. Things can change on a moments notice though...



KPieper wrote:
Marc, I'm curious how you handled noise in the long exposure?


Kevin, there really wasn't much noise to deal with. 10 minutes isn't too long for a properly exposed shot. There were a few dead pixels I removed but it looks pretty darn good at 100%.

marc, was given your rrd calendar today, grabbed two, got home and saw this post. delightful! makes me want to move west.

All are terrific shots. 2nd and 3rd ones are my most favorites.
10min exposure, wow, just wonder if the colors came from the long exposure?
The 3rd one has the most attractive foreground.

Thank you for your great work and sharing the experiences.
Wei

Hey Marco, el awesome-o shots-o's! You did Dusy Basin justice and I really like how you centered the reflection of Cathedral Peak between the dos trees!

Outstanding work Marc. This is benchmark stuff.

What a fantastic place as well.

Blazing K.

What can I say that everyone else hasn't?

I always look forward to your posts Marc!

Amazing photos...

If I said your work was inspirational it would be an understatement. Getting this stuff out of the backcountry begs a question though: What is your normal backcountry "kit"? Just wondering what you take in terms of cameras,. lenses, tripod, etc. along with your normal camping stuff. Judging by these shots, I'd think you just take the 5d, filters, and 16-35.

I do a lot of mountain-biking/camping/fhotography and I'd sure be interested in knowing the details.

Thanks,

Harvey

Stunning series again, Marc. I again thank you for bringing me to beautiful wilderness places that I am too old and unfit to get to on my own legs!

This is why I lllllllllove filters But, there is still the trick of getting the exposure right with them, so with that said, awesome work!!!

I like these a lot.

A few technical questions: you say you sometimes hand-hold the filters in front of the camera.

Are the filters inside the filter holder, or really handheld all the way?
If in filter holder how do you manage to avoid blur when moving them ?
If outside the holder how do you position them in the first place? Approximative placement and then the feeling and talent of the photographer does the rest :) ?

I guess that the exposure must be always fairly long, at least one second, to give enough time to move the filter up or down. Is that correct?

Thanks, and congratulation for these great pictures.

I have felt for a long time that you are one of the most talented landscape photographers in the world. These photographs reinforce that feeling dramatically.

I am assuming these photo are shot at f/22 or f/20. You do incredibly well with a circ polarizer and ND filter with no trace of vignetting. I frequently get unpredictable results with a circ pol on such a wide angle lens. How does one reign in the sometimes uneven effects of a circ pol on full frame with wide angle?

Many thanks for all the answers you have provided in this thread and for posting images which inspire as much as they awe.

Tom K. wrote:
I have felt for a long time that you are one of the most talented landscape photographers in the world. These photographs reinforce that feeling dramatically.

I am assuming these photo are shot at f/22 or f/20. You do incredibly well with a circ polarizer and ND filter with no trace of vignetting. I frequently get unpredictable results with a circ pol on such a wide angle lens. How does one reign in the sometimes uneven effects of a circ pol on full frame with wide angle?

Many thanks for all the answers you have provided in this thread and for posting images which inspire as much as they awe.


Tom, thanks for the comment. Actually, my aperature values were as follows: f11, f18, f11, f14, f16. I needed a lot of DOF. but not so much that I was going to risk introducing diffraction softening with an extreme aperature like f22. It's all just a matter of knowing your hyperfocal distances and knowing what you can get away with. Even at f14, I can still focus 3.5 feet to infinity at 16mm. The result is a higher quality image in doing so.

As to your polarization comment, I hear you. It's a complicated matter with ultra-wides and sometimes I'll do some minor touch-ups with the ol' dodge/burn brushes or curves adjustments to even things out a bit. Same with grad lines.

Marc Adamus wrote:
Tom K. wrote:
I have felt for a long time that you are one of the most talented landscape photographers in the world. These photographs reinforce that feeling dramatically.

I am assuming these photo are shot at f/22 or f/20. You do incredibly well with a circ polarizer and ND filter with no trace of vignetting. I frequently get unpredictable results with a circ pol on such a wide angle lens. How does one reign in the sometimes uneven effects of a circ pol on full frame with wide angle?

Many thanks for all the answers you have provided in this thread and for posting images which inspire as much as they awe.


Tom, thanks for the comment. Actually, my aperature values were as follows: f11, f18, f11, f14, f16. I needed a lot of DOF. but not so much that I was going to risk introducing diffraction softening with an extreme aperature like f22. It's all just a matter of knowing your hyperfocal distances and knowing what you can get away with. Even at f14, I can still focus 3.5 feet to infinity at 16mm. The result is a higher quality image in doing so.

As to your polarization comment, I hear you. It's a complicated matter with ultra-wides and sometimes I'll do some minor touch-ups with the ol' dodge/burn brushes or curves adjustments to even things out a bit. Same with grad lines.

Any recommendations as to the best way to learn hyperfocal distances, any sites or books that explain this well? Are these shots auto or manually focused and where are your focal points in each image?