Park Avenue (Page 3): And more scenic and less crowded. Nice shot.

JRiepe Loc: Southern Illinois

And more scenic and less crowded. Nice shot.

Moondoggie Loc: Southern California

Very nice image!

Blair Shaw Jr Loc: Dunnellon,Florida

Gorgeous image.....wow!

shangyrhee Loc: Nashville TN to Sacramento CA

Elegant !!! Shang

billmck Loc: Central KY

Nice!

Bill

dreff Loc: Bow, WA

👍👍👍

MTDesigns Loc: Corryton,Tenn.

One of my favorite places.

Ballard Loc: Grass Valley, California

Cany143 wrote:

...the one in Arches, that is, not the one in NYC.

Nice shot. Very Dramatic sky and shadows.

lmTrying Loc: WV Northern Panhandle

Cany143 wrote:

I'm tempted to give you a long, detailed explanation with regard to light and shadow and when and where it is or where it isn't in relation to higher lands and lower places in this wildly corrugated landscape, but I doubt I could describe it adequately. And I certainly couldn't explain any of those predictable, static variables without likewise describing what happens when and where any of the known, prevalent and sometimes even predictable micro-climates that dominate and affect this land, its light, and ultimately, its colors, in this region. Add in the smoke factor that's come and gone throughout the summer, and whatever explanations I might give would be correct for one day (or hour), but they'd be wrong (or different) the next day (or hour).

Simple 'answer' --and I am actually happy you've asked-- is that yes, the sky in the Park Ave pic is the exact same sky as is shown in my 'Clouds Rolled In' post. The difference being, however, that in Park Ave, the 'view' is to the north while the view in the 'Rolled In' image, taken 30 minutes later, is looking almost directly to the east. Golden hour? Not hardly. Park Ave was shot at 6:15 pm, 'Rolled In' was shot at 6:45 pm, and while that's within the range of the so-called 'golden hour' --sundown occurring about 7:30 pm--, had I waited, or shot either of these more technically during the 'golden hour,' everything but the sky in either of these shots would have been in shade. The highest point in Arches is about 5,800 feet (Elephant Mesa in Arches' Windows Section, seen on the horizon in 'Rolled In'. I immediately to the west, however, the lands (various mesas that include Canyonlands and Dead Horse State Park, etc.) rise over 6,000 feet, and in effect, those higher lands cast a shadow before sundown.

I live here, and over my years of living here and being and working on/in these lands --in this Park--, I've managed to get pretty accustomed to where and when and how a lot of stuff will happen. I can't predict what clouds will do, but I like to think I can get a pretty good idea pretty quickly. If anyone wants to believe anything in either of these images has been 'overcooked,' they're welcome to do so, but they won't have a clue what they're talking about having never been here, or at best, having been here a couple hours under entirely different conditions. I freely admit I've done a fair bit of processing of these raw images, but the fact is, they are really quite factual.

I'm tempted to give you a long, detailed explanati... (show quote)

Wow!
I'm honored with your short version. It was quite an education. I thank you from the bottom of my three score and ten heart.

Two years ago, three members of our local camera club flew to Moab and spent an intense week running around like mad men trying to photograph everything they could. I now understand that does not work and I understand the images that we got to see before all the fun started.

As I read through your description, I kept thinking about all those people who would ask for all the camera settings for a posted photo, honestly thinking they could go out to the same spot, duplicate those settings and come home with the same image. Your "simple answer" has increased my understanding exponentially. If I ever get back out west with my Canon mirrorless in hand, instead of Dad's old Ansco guess-n-shoot, I will be happy with less spectacular results than many I have seen here on the hog. Does this mean I have given up? No. It just means that I better understand what all is involved, and will I be able to put forth time to accomplish such results.

I remember in '78, standing in Yellowstone Park looking at the falls from Artists Point thinking I could spend an entire day, from pre sun up to post sun down, snapping the same images over and over as the light changes. Now I understand it even more.

Now I have to wonder, have you ever considered a retirement career as a photography guide?

Again, I thank you for your time and insight,
Bill

Cany143 Loc: SE Utah

lmTrying wrote:

Wow! br I'm honored with your short version. It wa... (show quote)

It doesn't take a lot of imagination to recognize the fact that people --camera people-- go places for a few hours or a few days planning/expecting/hoping they'll come away with some wowzer shots of the place they went, and manage to get pictures, but those pictures aren't necessarily what they'd planned/expected/hoped to get. Sometimes they get lucky --in a 'blind squirrel finds acorn' sort of way-- but as often as not, --if they're really objective about it-- their images might maybe be not quite as 'wowzer' as the pictures they'd seen in the brochures or on the web sites or in the books that probably drew them to that spot in the first place. First time visitors? Good luck. Second, third or tenth time visitors? Much better luck. Move to, work in, live in, be in that area for a bunch of years? Luck will play a part, but experience in knowing when not to bother -vs- knowing when to grab the camera --and which direction to go-- will net more keepers than klunkers.

When I worked at Arches (in the pre-digital '90's), I'd been 'designated' the Park Photographer. It wasn't an actual 'position' though, it simply meant that I did my normal daily duties as an (Interpretive) Park Ranger, then when there was some need --a dedication of some sort, a visiting notable, a research or resource management project that needed documentation, or another of the Interp Rangers needed a better picture of this arch or that plant or some other whatever for their Evening Program (typically a slide show)-- I got 'assigned' to go shoot whatever that might be. Which, as anyone might guess, was perfectly fine with me. Within certain NPS standard guidelines (theme, goal, objective), we Interp types were allowed a lot of latitude in the program topics we got to give. Most of mine over the years revolved around archaeology, but at one point I decided I'd like to do one that had to do with photography. I planned it out and wrote up a proposal for what was intended to be what we termed 'a Guided Walk' and presented it to my boss. She quickly agreed. I only did that program a couple months; it didn't take long to recognize it was pretty much a horror show. Herding cats isn't difficult, just open a can and they'll follow you to the ends of the earth; herding 'camera people' in an area --even in a really, really beautiful area-- is (I learned) virtually impossible. 'Ma'am, you might get better results if you removed the lens cap...' 'Sir, had you thought about using a little rise on the front standard of your 8"x10"? And had you considered pulling the dark slide out of the holder before you shoot?' 'No, I'm not familiar with that nice --what's that? a 1937 Bolzzieflex?-- your grandfather loaned you for your trip, but I do notice that the lens seems to have fallen off....' And meanwhile, I'm trying to suggest that these nice folks use their eyes, not mine or somebody else's. So no, I wouldn't consider becoming a Photography Guide.

I could go on. I get long-winded like that sometimes.

lmTrying Loc: WV Northern Panhandle

Cany143 wrote:

It doesn't take a lot of imagination to recognize the fact that people --camera people-- go places for a few hours or a few days planning/expecting/hoping they'll come away with some wowzer shots of the place they went, and manage to get pictures, but those pictures aren't necessarily what they'd planned/expected/hoped to get. Sometimes they get lucky --in a 'blind squirrel finds acorn' sort of way-- but as often as not, --if they're really objective about it-- their images might maybe be not quite as 'wowzer' as the pictures they'd seen in the brochures or on the web sites or in the books that probably drew them to that spot in the first place. First time visitors? Good luck. Second, third or tenth time visitors? Much better luck. Move to, work in, live in, be in that area for a bunch of years? Luck will play a part, but experience in knowing when not to bother -vs- knowing when to grab the camera --and which direction to go-- will net more keepers than klunkers.

When I worked at Arches (in the pre-digital '90's), I'd been 'designated' the Park Photographer. It wasn't an actual 'position' though, it simply meant that I did my normal daily duties as an (Interpretive) Park Ranger, then when there was some need --a dedication of some sort, a visiting notable, a research or resource management project that needed documentation, or another of the Interp Rangers needed a better picture of this arch or that plant or some other whatever for their Evening Program (typically a slide show)-- I got 'assigned' to go shoot whatever that might be. Which, as anyone might guess, was perfectly fine with me. Within certain NPS standard guidelines (theme, goal, objective), we Interp types were allowed a lot of latitude in the program topics we got to give. Most of mine over the years revolved around archaeology, but at one point I decided I'd like to do one that had to do with photography. I planned it out and wrote up a proposal for what was intended to be what we termed 'a Guided Walk' and presented it to my boss. She quickly agreed. I only did that program a couple months; it didn't take long to recognize it was pretty much a horror show. Herding cats isn't difficult, just open a can and they'll follow you to the ends of the earth; herding 'camera people' in an area --even in a really, really beautiful area-- is (I learned) virtually impossible. 'Ma'am, you might get better results if you removed the lens cap...' 'Sir, had you thought about using a little rise on the front standard of your 8"x10"? And had you considered pulling the dark slide out of the holder before you shoot?' 'No, I'm not familiar with that nice --what's that? a 1937 Bolzzieflex?-- your grandfather loaned you for your trip, but I do notice that the lens seems to have fallen off....' And meanwhile, I'm trying to suggest that these nice folks use their eyes, not mine or somebody else's. So no, I wouldn't consider becoming a Photography Guide.

I could go on. I get long-winded like that sometimes.

It doesn't take a lot of imagination to recognize ... (show quote)

OMG! Sounds like trying to teach kindergarten, or seventh grade, not much difference, except the kindergartners don't have hormones screwing everything up.

Those examples just can't be made up. I could listen to those stories all night. But I can understand how just a couple of months would overflowth your cup.

One thing I have learned, is that trying to photograph a scene does make you look closer at the details, and the view before your eyes. I come home with better visual memories because I spent more time looking for and planning a shot.

When I suggested the photography guide thing, I was thinking more along the lines of one on one, like the Navajo guides to Chaco Canyon. But I understand if that's not on your radar. There are many tasks I have performed over the years that I'd rather not repeat.

Your long-windedness is not wasted, my friend. I have learned a lot from you, your insights, and your explanations. And I hope to learn a lot more in the future.