We moved here in May 2016 from Fort Collins because that was getting too crowded and expensive for us. (The same reason I left N. California in 1989.)
We get out often on county drives. Still haven't done the town much, except for me taking sports pics. On the down side the sugar plant still stinks (luckily, I have a weak sense of smell) and the roads still flood. But, we like it. Did they have the cannon at football games when you were here? Here are some I've taken of Morgan County ...

Are you using some embed code that flickr gives (perhaps with modification), or mostly rolling your own? Just curious.

It's displaying your original ("_o"), which is 1067 W by 1600 H.
For the others, in place of "_o", use:
_b for large
_z for medium
_m for large

You have downloads disabled, so I couldn't see what the filenames are for the additional sizes yours has that mine doesn't (eg, your two mediums that are not 640). And flickr hides those in the view source / html.

(b, z, m? Yeah, I don't get it either.)

The cat is mine. The others are not.

Thanks for all the welcomes, everyone!

I hope I haven't already posted an earlier version this, out of the few I've posted so far. It's just what I did most recently. On Facebook, for a group with the theme for the day of "over yonder":

green car

more intentional camera movement
0.4 sec f/9, ISO 100

Green clouds and rain. Where else do you think green beer comes from?

Christmas lights. 2.5 sec, f/5.6, ISO 100; intentional camera movement

That's freaky.

Fort Morgan, Colorado is officially at 4,324 feet (~1318m) above sea level. However, unlike Fort Collins, Colorado (elevation 5003 ft), where I lived for 26 years, Fort Morgan is on the eastern plains, not the foothills of the Rocky Mountains. So, the correct answer is that the photo is turned upside-down.

It's still a good effort.

You were trying for more out of the original photo than this, right? This is the one attempt I've made. But, now I want to try one that's more like what you're talking about.

This was not taken from a plane, spacecraft, hot air balloon, UFO, or a really, really springy pogo stick.
How was it done? Post 'em if you got 'em.

Thanks. I took about 400 exposures. I saved 8. I like 2 enough to use regularly. But, that's me. It was a pretty windy day and I used a SS of 1/8 sec mostly.

What R.G said.

I'm infatuated with photos of hubcaps in motion with slow exposures (~1/25 sec - ~1/5 second). They can produce interesting graphical patterns and, surprisingly often, faces. For this, you really have to get direct sun on a fairly sunny hubcap, and direct headlights at night, else it's too dull/low contrast. During the day, similar to what you saw in your pics, the car tends to not show much, but much better at dusk (I'm never up at dawn :-), then again less visible at night (but the shiny hubcaps show ok). I always use ISO 100. Then set SS for desired movement/rotation distance and set aperture per exposure.

I also prefer photos 5-7. I take it that a tripod (or other stability) is required, given that you're shooting 20-30 seconds. I use the (imprecise) term "slow" exposure to refer to durations that are somewhat longer exposures than ones that freeze action and are (much) shorter than long exposures. Often, daylight exposures of ~1/25 sec of moving subjects, and ~1/5 sec - 5 sec of nighttime ones often with intentional camera movement. I mention this because I wonder if the assignment (or personal interest in general) might allow for shorter exposures that are either handheld (with minimal movement) or handheld with intentional movement. ND filters could be used to alter the times. Also, given the shoreline theme, you'd probably need to change the subject on some by getting closer. Being in Colorado (29 years), I don't take many shoreline photos. Two examples:

#1: handheld (but fairly steady) with slow exposure 1/8 sec, f/5, ISO 100

#2: same exposure, but with camera movement

#1 minimal camera movement - subject moves


#2 intentional camera movement

I prefer a combination of #1 and #3. IOW, in #1, just tone down the brightness of the sky and the area between the mountains. #3 is an improvement over #2 because the grass saturation overpowers the horse. Plus, the horse breaks up the serenity of the scene.