 |
Guest
Guest
|
pliukait wrote:
I guess I spoke a little too soon about it being not as bad a predicted with this post: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1417275/4#13478197
It got worse....about 30mm (1 inch) of freezing rain. We lost power for about 40 hours. This morning when we woke up it was 8C in the house, that's about 46F. It amazing how warm that feels on an early spring day outside and how cold that feels inside.
Anyway here is some of the aftermath at my house.
Maybe we shouldn't have retired the winter thread just yet...
Over in the Eastern hemisphere, even way up north where I am, the spring season is likely here to stay. Migrating ships have arrived...
http://cs628519.vk.me/v628519358/351b8/fem-HoKX3R0.jpg
I was rather shocked to find this icebreaker right next to my home. Actually, they're not that rare - they've been staying here for a while, and in the last few years this pier has become a default place for a couple of these ships, those that I'm fond of: "Moscow" and "St. Petersburg". The thing is, I've been present when both of these were being launched - shooting the ceremonies and the actual process - so I have a special affection for both of them. This, however, is a brand spankin' new ship: I was totally unaware of its existence until a few days ago...
This shot was done with the 24mm f/1.4 lens, f/4.5, ISO 800, 1/30 second of exposure (handheld).
http://cs628519.vk.me/v628519358/351c1/CrKLF-bKb6k.jpg
... and, as it turned out, it's named Vladivostok after my (and verbiage's  ) home city! Upon closer inspection (and some time spent with Wikipedia) it turned out that it's not quite the same as the two ships mentioned above - the scheme has been updated somewhat (for example, the helipad has been moved to the prow, and the ship is painted blue instead of black). It was built in Vyborg, not St. Pete's, and that's probably why I knew nothing of the construction. The reason must have been that the shipyard which has created the first two ships has gone through a rough (financial) patch a few years ago, and now it's busy building a larger nuclear icebreaker (these ones are all diesel-powered) and a floating nuclear power plant.
This shot was done with the 16-35mm f/4 lens @ 19mm, f/11, ISO 50, 10 seconds of exposure (camera on a granite wall).
http://cs628519.vk.me/v628519358/351ca/9RJc4YgIPOM.jpg
Lt. Schmidt bridge in the late evening. 16-35mm f/4 lens @ 21mm, f/6.3, ISO 1250, 1/8 second (handheld - did I hear "nobody needs IS on a wideangle!" again? )
http://cs628519.vk.me/v628519358/351e5/OY8LCdBFnqg.jpg
Across the river, I saw another icebreaker. It turned out that it's another one of the new series, called Murmansk. It was inducted into the fleet only last December. Again, I was totally unaware of its existence.
The shot was a tricky one to make. It was done with the Tamron 70-300mm lens @ 228mm, f/10, ISO 250, the exposure time was 4 seconds. I had to turn off the IS because it was behaving weirdly when the camera/lens combo was perched on the bridge - the viewfinder image was literally floating somewhere. Then, I had to focus manually - I'm never a fan of this and finding the optimum setting was very difficult.
http://cs628519.vk.me/v628519358/351ee/c40Vqvqum24.jpg
Again, this shot was made with the 70-300 on a "solid foundation" (this time at 209mm, ISO 400, and the aperture and exposure time were the same). I focused manually again aiming at the writings found inside the arch of the church building, in live view at 10x magnification. That was an experience I would not be repeating willingly (and you know I'm not a MF man).
|
| Mar 27, 2016 at 03:23 PM |
| |
|
 |
