carstenw wrote:
The Glen Canyon shot is a great colour remake of Ansel Adams' shot. I have seen poor versions so often, with cut off river banks, a non-straight horizon, terrible exposure, terrible processing, and on and on, and this is the first really good one I have seen. The Death Valley shot is also modelled on a classic shot, right?
Thanks Carsten. Ansel Adams did a shot of the Horseshoe bend? Do you perhaps have a link to the picture? I'm afraid that I'm somewhat illiterate when it comes to the bulk of his work. I made a point of not looking up photos of the specific areas where I was going in order not to be too influenced by the work of others.
As it has been photographed about a gazillion and a half times I can't rule out that it has been shot like that before, but I have not seen any shots that are just like that one.
akronzip wrote:
I hope we treated you well.
It was great. I think it's much easier for an European to visit the US than vice versa. In my experience Americans are much politer, shops, restaurants and hotels are more service oriented, traffic is tamer etc
It was extremely interesting to see the different regions and to meet various people. The differences are pretty large. There are some very exotic parts - when travelling through parts of Arizona you could hardly believe you were in the US. The people and surroundings are just completely different from say urban parts of California. Also when you've spent time in the national parks with the crowd that frequents them and the get to Las Vegas it's like you've landed on a different planet populated by aliens
There are of course common threads that bind all together, but like the previous times I've been to the US I was reminded how huge the US is and that there are massive differences between the different parts of the country.
There are of course common threads that bind all together, but like the previous times I've been to the US I was reminded how huge the US is and that there are massive differences between the different parts of the country.
... you think it's different out west, try visiting the deep south... it's a different solar system I guess it's nice to be reminded of that by someone with outside perspective b/c it does get frustrating at times when others seemingly in the same country have such radically different views from you... thanks for that
morpheus2891 wrote: ... you think it's different out west, try visiting the deep south... it's a different solar system I guess it's nice to be reminded of that by someone with outside perspective b/c it does get frustrating at times when others seemingly in the same country have such radically different views from you... thanks for that
i'm always amazed by how different the dress and language can be in different parts of the country as well.
Alright, I’ve got some shots from Grand Teton and Yellowstone.
We were stationed in Jackson, WY where we stayed three nights dedicating one day to Grand Teton and one to Yellowstone.
Grand Teton National Park has a beautiful alpine landscape. It’s not very unlike something you would find in Switzerland or Austria. It doesn’t have the uniqueness of some of the other national parks but it is a beautiful place. Also unlike most other national parks there are no given “must see” items. In most national parks you have one or more loops that you cover by car with points of interest along the way. Grand Teton is more an open area. The number of visitors are much fewer than in the neighboring Yellowstone. There is plenty of wildlife and an unbelievable number of mosquitoes (large black clouds of them).
Yellowstone is different. It’s huge and varied. We basically followed the main central loop and made a couple of stops and that took the whole day. I could easily see myself spending a whole week here. There are some really cool places like the various prismatic springs or the Grand Canyon of Yellowstone. However, if you say “Yellowstone”, what do you think of first? The Old Faithful geyser, right? Man, what a ripoff. It’s the most useless, boring thing I saw during the whole trip. I estimate this photo is about 50% more exciting than the real thing
YE-1) http://peltarion.eu/img/m9/cron90aa-057.jpg
This was the first thing we saw in Yellowstone and I was rather disappointed. Fortunately things improved quickly. The various multicolored springs that we visited next were awesome:
Like Grand Teton, Yellowstone is full of wildlife that you encounter by the road. We saw buffalo, elk, deer, moose, bears and coyote. The only time during the entire trip that I saw people with professional photo gear was when a family of bears passed by the road. Dozens of photographers with 500 & 600 mm lenses lined the road and were snapping away. Personally I only use wide angles for wild life shots – no sport otherwise
Speaking of cameras there were lots of DSLRs with kit lenses. Apart from the people photographing the bears, I saw only two Canon L lenses during the entire trip and a Zeiss lens on a Sony Alpha in Yosemite. The rest were just kit lenses. Apart from that Zeiss lens I didn’t see any alt lenses at all except for a couple of Pentax DSLRs with kit lenses. Among the general population it seems to be Canon & Nikon with Canon outnumbering Nikon at least 5 to 1.
The last stop in Yellowstone was the Grand Canyon of Yellowstone. Marvelous place – unfortunately we only made a brief stop but I’d really like to come back some day. It’s truly spectacular.
Alright, that rounds up the images for this round. Next up will I think be Arches, Dead Horse Point and Canyonlands.
A few words about Jackson, WY where we stayed when visiting the two parks. It’s a nice place and a great base of operation for Grand Teton and Yellowstone. Supposedly Jackson county has the highest income levels per capita in the US but although the people in the region are clearly well off we did not see any spectacular mansions. I suppose they are hidden somewhere in the woods. Jackson itself is very tourist oriented catering to various winter sports.
Like most other US cities we were in it is not pedestrian friendly. We had to take the car to travel about 100m from the hotel to a restaurant. There was no way getting there on foot! It felt particularly ridiculous as we drove a massive SUV. Perhaps one of the Americans here can answer that – what’s up with the hostility towards pedestrians? The city planners in just about every place we visited seemed not just to have ignored pedestrians but made life as difficult as possible for them.
Here in Stockholm, and for the most part in Europe in general the opposite is true – the cities are built with pedestrians first in mind with the car roads being a secondary concern. A car is considered a necessary evil for those that live outside the cities. This is probably going to sound unbelievable to most Americans but I actually only got my driving license a little over two months ago (I’m 31 yo), to a large degree because of this trip. I’ve always lived in cities where going by car is a major PITA compared to various forms of public transport or *gasp* walking or going by bike.
denoir wrote:
Like most other US cities we were in it is not pedestrian friendly. We had to take the car to travel about 100m from the hotel to a restaurant. There was no way getting there on foot! It felt particularly ridiculous as we drove a massive SUV. Perhaps one of the Americans here can answer that – what’s up with the hostility towards pedestrians? The city planners in just about every place we visited seemed not just to have ignored pedestrians but made life as difficult as possible for them.
Here in Stockholm, and for the most part in Europe in general the opposite is true – the cities are built with pedestrians first in mind with the car roads being a secondary concern. A car is considered a necessary evil for those that live outside the cities. This is probably going to sound unbelievable to most Americans but I actually only got my driving license a little over two months ago (I’m 31 yo), to a large degree because of this trip. I’ve always lived in cities where going by car is a major PITA compared to various forms of public transport or *gasp* walking or going by bike. ...Show more →
cities in which a good part of the city planning was done post car invention definitely have that quality (probably partly frank lloyd wright's fault). city planners (and architects) considered cars first before pedestrians. on the east coast where the cities are older it is less extreme (though still nothing like europe). the southwest and southern california are the worst offenders in the US. recently given green concerns in some areas modern developments are trying to reverse things.
Beautiful shots, Denoir! Though I currently already live near these areas, I've only had the chance to get to a handful of them (and, like you, only with fast-moving hiking groups that aren't amenable to waiting all day and night for the best photography conditions). I'd love to see the rest of these places some day, and am glad to get a wonderful "preview" from your photos.
denoir wrote:
Perhaps one of the Americans here can answer that – what’s up with the hostility towards pedestrians?
I live in a city that used to have an extensive and popular trolley/streetcar public transit system. Then the transit system was privatized --- sold to car companies (GM in particular, I recall) --- who (surprise!) immediately dismantled the transit system. Coupled with a successful century of propaganda that equated getting to spend a big chunk of your income on owning/operating a car with "Freedom," US transit systems join our healthcare situation (better than Somalia, at only twice the cost of other industrialized nations!) as a triumph of private enterprise. Next up: education.
mpmendenhall wrote:
... US transit systems join our healthcare situation (better than Somalia, at only twice the cost of other industrialized nations!) as a triumph of private enterprise. Next up: education.
Luke, any issues with sensor dust, in the southwest especially ?
With one M body and the wide number of lenses you took seems like you must of been swapping lens quite a bit in the field and I was wondering how the M9 held up in dusty conditions like Death Valley, Antelope Canyon etc, especially as the M body isn't very deep so everything is pretty exposed whenever a lens isn't mounted.
Nice, honest photography that is---with the possible exception of the unnatural-seeming magenta vistas in the first few--a cut above the usual postcard shooters, many of whom sell workshops and have TV shows. I feel I've seen a good selection of what these places really look like.
Thanks Michael, Charles, Jeff, John, Mirek, Keith & Bifurcator millsart wrote:
Luka, any issues with sensor dust, in the southwest especially ?
With one M body and the wide number of lenses you took seems like you must of been swapping lens quite a bit in the field and I was wondering how the M9 held up in dusty conditions like Death Valley, Antelope Canyon etc, especially as the M body isn't very deep so everything is pretty exposed whenever a lens isn't mounted.
Oh yes. Not in the place you might expect though. I had major dust problems one day and the cause of that was.. me. I had noticed a small dust spot in the corner of my images after the first day and decided to clean the sensor. I had a wet cleaning kit but my compressed air bottle was in the car and I decided to clean it anyway. This was a big mistake as the next day it looked as if somebody had sneezed on the sensor:
I'm close to crying like a little girl each time I think the time it will take to clean each frame of that crap. I'll probably have to think of some way of automating it - like a saved selection mask combined with content aware fill in Photoshop. I'm pretty sure it will still involve a lot of manual work.
I cleaned the sensor again that evening, using compressed air first followed by another wet cleaning and I had no problems at all. I did an additional dustoff with compressed air about a week later (and a cleaning of all the lenses) but I had no problems with dust.
The only really dusty place was Antelope Canyon. I had however been warned and had wrapped the M9 into a plastic bag, cut holes for the viewfinder, rangefinder window & eye piece. The lens was covered as well. I sealed the whole thing with electrical tape. I did the same thing to half my 5DII covering the non-weather sealed lens (although I removed it in mid-Canyon after the UV filter was producing nasty flare and I removed it). It was a really good thing that I used a plastic bag on the M9 as when I exited the canyon everything was covered by a very fine powdery red dust. I'd hate to think what that would have done to the delicate mechanics of the M9.
My advice for anyone going to Antelope canyon is to use a weather sealed camera or to take other protective measures like I did. It's probably the most camera hostile environment I've ever been in and it does deserve its reputation as a camera killer.
FlyPenFly wrote:
Curious, any use of a polarizing filter?
Are you asking me or Max (morpheus2891) who posted the Glacier NP shot above? In my case the answer is no. I don't use polarizers or other filters. Filters are a PITA to use with the M9 anyway as you are not looking through the lens as on a DSLR so you can't really see the effect of the filter.
... you think it's different out west, try visiting the deep south... it's a different solar system 
I guess it's nice to be reminded of that by someone with outside perspective b/c it does get frustrating at times when others seemingly in the same country have such radically different views from you... thanks for that 
I'll probably have to think of some way of automating it - like a saved selection mask combined with content aware fill in Photoshop. I'm pretty sure it will still involve a lot of manual work.