Washington from Lake of the Clouds

[bikehikeskifish]

Here is my favorite shot from my recent trip to Mt. Washington. I took along my brand new A570 IS. I have received positive feedback on some of the photos from that trip in the trip report section, but I am interested in what you all have to say.

It was about 9:30 AM on a cloudless day, so the sky is not interesting, per se. The sun was above and behind me to the right -- you can see some shadows in the foreground. I was hoping for a better reflection of the mountain in the lake. You can see the colors of the tundra and the blue sky clearly, but no reflected "image".

Model:                Canon PowerShot A570 IS
F stop:               F/5.6
Exposure:             1/200 sec.
Focal length:         5.8 mm
Metering mode:        pattern (5)
Dimensions:           2048x1536
Shutter speed (Tv):   7.7

Thanks,
Tim

 

[Bobby]

Nice shot Tim. I think you lost the reflection because of the action on the water. There must have been a breeze causing the water to move. Great job.

 

[Mark Schaefer]

I agree. There is too much chop in the water which prevented the reflection from appearing, and no doubt it looked fairly much like while you were there. If the breeze was intermittent than you possible could wait for a lull. Windy days may never give you a reflection.

This is also a very high contrast situation. Shadows on the right hillside and bright sun elsewhere. The camera's auto exposure is going to have difficulty capturing the range of light that the human eye can see. An image of this view would probably be more evenly lit in the afternoon, which should produce a photo with more color.

Also review the image carefully in the LCD display and override the exposure if the image it shows is too light (assuming the camera allows this). I have just purchased a Canon XTi, and I have found that it will overexpose in bright sun (with or without a polarizer). I am beginning to suspect that may be a common problem with digital cameras, but I am still a novice with digital cameras. I would try to underexposure / darken this image a bit. However, I suspect your exposure is probably fairly accurate, and nearly captures what you saw.

 

[DougPaul]

Also review the image carefully in the LCD display and override the exposure if the image it shows is too light (assuming the camera allows this). I have just purchased a Canon XTi, and I have found that it will overexpose in bright sun (with or without a polarizer). I am beginning to suspect that may be a common problem with digital cameras, but I am still a novice with digital cameras. I would try to underexposure / darken this image a bit. However, I suspect your exposure is probably fairly accurate, and nearly captures what you saw.

Different manufacturers calibrate their metering differently and there is unit-to-unit variation. Check the exposure after each shot (using the histogram display--overexposed parts of the image also flash when the histogram is displayed) and, if need be, take another shot with exposure compensation. I find that I need up to 1 1/3 stops of compensation in high-contrast situations on my XTi. The compensation may make the pic look too dark, but that can be fixed in post-processing.

Most digital cameras should have exposure compenstion. It has dedicated controls on the XTi, but may only be accessible through menus on P&Ses.

Note that in some cases, allowing small portions to be blown out (over exposed) can be ok.

Doug

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I do believe this to be a faithful representation of what I saw. By 'hoping' I really meant 'wishing' -- I didn't expect much of a reflection given the wind ripples. I mean how often is the lake going to be ripple-free given its location? Only if the wind is coming from the Tucks/Wildcats side, I guess...

On my solo hikes, I try to plan my breaks around scenic areas where I take some pictures while eating and drinking. My overall goal is to take photos while hiking, not hike to take photos. So, the light is what it is when I get there.

I have not played around with exposure compensation, but the camera does have it. I will look into that as my next learning experience.

What about the % of sky, mountain, lake, foreground? I tried to balance these to be about the same. Obviously the lake and Washington are the 'stars'. Does one detract too much from the other?

Tim

 

[Bobby]

What about the % of sky, mountain, lake, foreground? I tried to balance these to be about the same. Obviously the lake and Washington are the 'stars'. Does one detract too much from the other?

Tim

I think it's just right. I looked at the lake, then the mountain then the sky. I think it's a great shot, no one section overwhelms any other part of the photo.

 

[Grumpy]

Looks to me like all the tones are in about the right place. Nothing is seriously -- read that as "inappropriately" -- blocked up (overexposed or lost in shadow).

As for composition, I experimented with different cropping. Reducing the amount of sky robbed the photo of the sense of vastness or grandeur that the photo conveys. Cropping the foreground robbed it of framing that moves the eye toward the main subject (lake and mountain). So I conclude the composition is sound as-is.

I like the ripples on the lake, even if they overpower reflections of the scene.

Now, if you are interested in experimenting sometime in the future, it might be worthwhile to step back a way (if you can) and shoot this scene with a longer focal length lens. That would "compress" the perspective -- make the peak seem to loom more closely over the lake -- which might be a nice effect.

G.

 

[DougPaul]

Now, if you are interested in experimenting sometime in the future, it might be worthwhile to step back a way (if you can) and shoot this scene with a longer focal length lens. That would "compress" the perspective -- make the peak seem to loom more closely over the lake -- which might be a nice effect.

IIRC, there is a small bluff both behind and to the back left of the photographer. And the terrain slopes generally down as you move back. This would block the pond in shot with a longer lens.

I suspect this scene has been photographed many times--the viewpoint is just off the trail. I too have at least one similar photo somewhere on film...

Doug

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Good memory Doug I walked around a bunch of spots on the lake and this appeared to be best.

Here is a bird's eye view from Monroe:



I took it from the SW side of the north pond.

I will say that my 16x10 wide screen (1.6:1, vs. 4:3) cropped the photo high and low (when set as a desktop background) and I kind of liked it. If I were to trim, it would largely be off the bottom, I think, for the reasons Grumpy pointed out (don't want to rob the sky.)

Tim

 

[bikehikeskifish]

What about this one?

I would also appreciate comments on this shot:



This was taken from the slabs near the top of Ammonoosuc Ravine. I believe it is Dartmouth/Deception (correct me if I am wrong.) I metered off the lit portion and then panned down to get the silhouettes of the trees which are waiting their turn for the sun to rise further.

I personally am undecided whether I like it or not. Obviously the foliage is better at lower altitudes, but this was pretty good.

    Canon PowerShot A570 IS
F stop:
    F/5.6
Exposure:
    1/500 sec.
Focal length:
    5.8 mm
Flash:
    flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode (16)
Metering mode:
    pattern (5)
Dimensions:
    2048x1536
Shutter speed (Tv):

Tim

(p.s. feel free to look over the album and pick out your favorite / least favorite and tell me why -- this was an enormously enjoyable hike for me, and I am surprisingly pleased with how well the photos captured the color and vastness -- something I have traditionally found lacking in the photos. I am not sure if it is "me" or "the new camera", or "both".)

 

[Grandaddy]

I really like pic #2. I think that it is well composed. Nice rocks in foreground do a nice job of framing the pond.

The contrast "problems" are endemic with most shots in the high mountains, because most people are up there during poor lighting conditions (high sun-->high contrast.) Clouds are a great thing, because they can decrease contrast and/or give texture to the sky. I find a blue sky to be boring and dimensionless. But then again, you take what you are given! A clear day on MTW is A-OK.

On #3, I like your idea, but this one would be nice to explore in greater depth. (I have not looked through all of your photos.) I think that the ground should be a little more exposed to show the trail-- but not so much to lose the silhouettes.

As far as composition is concerned, I think that it is important to frame each shot well in the viewfinder, and then critically analyze the photos to see what works for you and what doesn't. These photographs are documents of your hiking experiences...they are there to hang on your walls. Figure out what is most important to bring out in each photograph. Experiment with your camera at home to get used to the controls so you can work quicker on the mountain.

 

[w7xman]

Tim,

I think you've gotten worthwhile comments on the first two images, and I would like to add that the compositions are great IMO, and the light is well handled as far as the contrast. Time of day has a huge impact on color rendition of the scene, and you hit a rather 'cool' time, as opposed to warm light.

The last scene is a bit of a different story for me. I don't think it works as well as the others. The rule of thirds is applied well, but while the shadowed trees frame the mountain, there is little rest for the eye. A grand scene, yes, but it lacks something to draw me really into the scene. The colors are fine, the scene nice (though the horizon is crooked), but a leading line, a stronger foreground element would help, but I just don't find it THAT interesting as is as a landscape image...

 

[NewHampshire]

I pretty much agree with everything Jim says. The first two are spot on and lovely. The third does not do too much for me. The sihlouette in this case just seems to distracting.

Brian

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Thanks for the comments. I really do like the first one the best (one of my all-time favorites.) The second one wasn't so much for critique, but to see where I was situated when I took the first one.

The third one was the most disappointing one for me. I was hoping it would come out more interesting than it did. Maybe if the silhouette framed three sides (or four) it would have worked better. I thought it was kind of neat watching the sun rise and the shadow line race towards me, but obviously that doesn't translate in a still frame.

Tim

 

[Mark Schaefer]

I thought it was kind of neat watching the sun rise and the shadow line race towards me, but obviously that doesn't translate in a still frame.

True, but with a light weight tripod you could possibly get a time lapse series of 4-6 photographs, shot from exactly the same position, over a sufficiently long period of time. It could be very effective in a slide show.