Awesome shot Jim, and I would like to thank you for all the helpful comments you have made to the forum. I have learned so much form this group of talented folks. Keep'em coming! Best, Bob
dgdg wrote:
Hey......... Sunny said he couldn't use the Astrotrac!
Ha ha.... I think Sunny ran out of tripods and cameras to put the Astrotrac on! He wanted to use it, and I was looking forward to seeing it in action, but in the end we just had too many people in our a group to end up getting that set up and shot from.
Cheryle Sytsma wrote:
This is a very, well, not beautiful as such, but perhaps engaging capture, Jim...
The clouds set the stage. The rock underneath almost make me motion sick,
and the swirl of the tree itself entices you to look! To gather in the experience
of this place...
...at least for me today as I view this...
Hi Cheryle,
I am very glad that you find the image engaging, it certainly was a beautiful scene to have viewed in person. Thanks!
Matt Tilghman wrote:
lol, my first thought after reading your title was "there's no way that tree is 40,000 years old, I wonder if I should break it to him". Glad you already knew, saved me the dilemma :P
Great shot and congrats on the milestone!
Ha ha Matt! Glad I almost got you. That would have been classic had you written to tell me the tree wasn't really 40,000 years old.
nugeny wrote:
Jim, that brings me to the question I always wanted to ask, but never did.
The question: Why do you shoot B&W when you know if you shoot colors, you can always convert to B&W. Is there significant advantage to do so, as you did in this case?
Hey Bob,
This was shot in color technically, but in my brain, I saw it as B&W and processed it as B&W. Sorry for the confusion there. If you have ever shot with B&W film you will recall that when you did so, there was a special place your brain had to go to see it in B&W instead of Color. I find it fun to once in a while to let my brain go back to that B&W place.
This was shot in color technically, but in my brain, I saw it as B&W and processed it as B&W. Sorry for the confusion there. If you have ever shot with B&W film you will recall that when you did so, there was a special place your brain had to go to see it in B&W instead of Color. I find it fun to once in a while to let my brain go back to that B&W place.
Jim
So you didn't really do it. If I remember, we can use Nikon 800 or 810 to shoot B&W to get digital original B&W, but I never bother, thinking why restricting my options at PP.
Congratulations on your 40th! I've been the beneficiary of many and enjoyed all that I've read. You give honest feedback in a supportive way and we all appreciate that.
Great shot of the tree as well! The clouds give it a splendid moody tone.
Super cool shot Jim. Great composition and nice B&W. I was thinking, to separate the tree a little from the sky. You could do it by adding a little more brightness and crispness, contrast to the sky. It would give it even more impact and drama. Great shot.
Looks super Jim. The B&W treatment seems very appropriate for the majestic subject. Although this tree has had many more years of life experience than even you, I doubt it comes even close to the quantity and quality of your posts. Congrats on the big 40k!
What a balanced and grandiose composition. The B/W just kills it. . . aptly suited for post #40,000. That's a huge dedication and commitment to the FM community.
Dave
Congratulations on your 40th! I've been the beneficiary of many and enjoyed all that I've read. You give honest feedback in a supportive way and we all appreciate that.
Great shot of the tree as well! The clouds give it a splendid moody tone.
DonH wrote:
Ran At that altitude? You're a better man than I, Gunga Din.
Congrats on the shot and 40k.
Hey Don,
Good to see you post. Jim and I were just talking about you the other day in Bishop. We were discussing sunrise spots and Manzanar and i remembered the B&W shot you had done a few years ago from Ansels spot.
At that altitude? You're a better man than I, Gunga Din.