This is a good example of a short versus a long lens at the same place.
The long lens isolates the big mountain at the back. But this would need some low power binoculars to match what is seen when standing there.
The wide angle shot is pretty much what I see in person. But the fine detail that makes it my favorite on a 26 inch monitor is lost at web size. This is the one I would print, but it does not show well.
Thanks Stan. This is a 2-3 week a year opportunity. A week earlier and the road is still closed and by now the water level is too low and the snow is not as good.
I have searched for a less centered comp, I have gotten low, no way to get high but it hardly matters anyway. I just have to plan on a crop.
Jeffrey wrote:
Nice imaging, Ben. I like both. What lenses are you referring to?
Thanks Jeffrey.
The long one is a 24-70 f2.8 mk2 at 70mm. The short one is a Samyang 14, which does not show up in EXIF. I took some with my 16-35 at 16 but it was not wide enough. I would love a Canon 14-24.
I also took some at intermediate focal lengths, but this scene either calls for just the large mountain in the background (Timpanogos) or an entire view of the lake with the emerging aspen reflections included.
The good alpineglow was fading as I got around to mounting the 14.
Ben, When you said long I was thinking 300 - 400mm. I love the long lenses, 70 is mid to short for me. That said, I prefer the 14 on this one, I am a reflection nut and the leading reflections into the mountain are sweet on that shot. #2 for me. Rick
Rick Schump wrote:
Ben, When you said long I was thinking 300 - 400mm. I love the long lenses, 70 is mid to short for me. That said, I prefer the 14 on this one, I am a reflection nut and the leading reflections into the mountain are sweet on that shot. #2 for me. Rick
Thanks for the vote on 2. I sold a 500 last year because I don't have as much chance for birds as I did when I lived in Spokane. For landscapes, 70 is long. Today I went out for a hike and left the 70-200 at home and just carried a 14, 16-35, and 24-70. I could have left the 14 and 16-35 home as well as it turns out.
There are elements of #2 that I really like, I am an UWA fan...but there is such a clear subject, with great light and textures in #1 that makes it stand out for me.
I think it's not short vs long, it's just a composition with long is more interesting. There are nice strong lines in a second composition that can be emphasized by cropping foreground off.
I really like the compression of the first shot, and those wonderful foreground reflections. This photo really gives a very soothing feeling, and the soft gradient in the sky adds to that.
I don't have LR, but have a methodology just for FM, one for portrait and one for landscape. I downsize using bicubic smoother then use a sharpening action I have. After lots of experimenting, I found smoother worked best with fewer artifacts.
The real issue for UWA at web size is that the UWA shots depend more for fine detail to convey its attractiveness than do longer shots which have less total subject (territory) to cover.
