growing with the flow

[piranha]

ancient rhododendron.

walklog:

04-14 millstone trailway and into bowen park to the rhododendron grove with the *poing* ~4 km ~2:00

not quite yet time for the rhodies in here; only the light blush pink ones were in full bloom.

Comments

[aquaeri.livejournal.com]

I must go and photograph the local lianas!

lianas

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

yes, do!

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

That's beautiful.

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

thanks!

[rockthecj.livejournal.com]

That's an amazing sight. I love it. It makes me think of that poem. *trying to remember*

The crow has flown away:
swaying in the evening sun,
a leafless tree.

If there was the sun in your photo, it'd be perfect. ^_^

Re: growing with the flow

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

oh, nice poem.

alas i can probably never get a sun into this picture, because the grove is fairly dark, and gets no direct sun at any time the sun would be low enough. i think. i have to look at it in google earth. :)

Re: growing with the flow

[rockthecj.livejournal.com]

*amused* I forgot that you aren't exactly a fan of poetry/lyrics.

From what I can remember, it's the white clouds on a blue day that make certain colours in a dark forest/woods/grove appear. This was explained how so to me, but I forgot (I was young). Something to do with reflector?

(note to self: do not write anything when groggy.)

[saoba.livejournal.com]

In the event I have not said so (or said so recently) I really enjoy seeing your photos.

We spent part of our trip to the coast last week with both of us lugging our cameras about, and took time on Sunday to grab some shooting time at the nearby park. The pictures of the pair of bald eagles on the rocks didn't come out tack sharp but still- eagles! next coast trip I'll remember to put the tripod in the car.

eagles

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

i hardly ever leave comments on flickr, a bad habit i should really change.

your eagles are way cool; for some reason they made me think of the two grumpy old men from the muppet show and i was giggling through all the eagle pictures, thinking of the sort of commentary they'd have about the visiting humans.

and i love the pictures of the stacks in the mist. i haven't found stacks up here anywhere yet, and in some way they're a quintessential part of my ideal beach.

Re: eagles

[saoba.livejournal.com]

Yes, they were rather Statler and Waldorf. Whatever the eagle-speak is for 'you damn kids get offa my lawn!' was clearly running through their little birdy brains.

I love the stacks. The Oregon coast is chock full of places like that. Yay for geology on the hoof. Poking about online I learn this beach was used for the shooting of the movie The Goonies, so evidently the rock with the arch in it is somewhat iconic to persons of a certain age. And the famous Tillamook Light aka Terrible Tilly is visible from many points along that stretch.

tripods

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

oh, and about tripods -- ghods, they annoy me. i have one, even a halfway decent one, but i usually can't be bothered to either take it, or if i take it, to set it up. it seems like too much effort for the gain. the camera i have now isn't a DSLR, it's a nikon coolpix 4500, and while it is a good little camera and has brought me much joy in the last 5 years, it does not take tack-sharp pictures under the best of circumstances; they're always a little soft at their full resolution.

nothing that can't be fixed with p'shop, but at this point, unless the light gets low, i shoot pretty steady by hand. i am much more of a point-and-shoot person than a "carefully plan the next shot" one (though i like a more capable camera than those usually made for people like me).

my ideal tripod would fold down into the size of a small umbrella, weigh no more than a pound, would unfold with the push of one button, and would find its own level speedily. the camera would fit on it with a soft *click* (none of this screwing it in business). and then of course i'd never pay for it because it would be too expensive. *heh*.

i'll probably appreciate tripods a lot more if i ever get a good camera with a big honking telephoto lens.

Re: tripods

[saoba.livejournal.com]

I get along fine without a tripod with my Canon S5 (and the S3 before it) most of the time. I subscribe to the 'pixels are cheaper than developing film so just keep shooting school' myself.
And tripods are a bit of a hassle.

There's an understatement for you.

That said, there are times when I want something steadier than handheld. When I push the zoom or am shooting macros or low light (all of which I am doing more of lately) having a tripod as an option is useful. I'm looking at a monopod/walking stick because I am no longer as spry as I once was and a friend swears by hers.

Re: tripods

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

my ideal tripod would fold down into the size of a small umbrella, weigh no more than a pound, would unfold with the push of one button, and would find its own level speedily. the camera would fit on it with a soft *click* (none of this screwing it in business). and then of course i'd never pay for it because it would be too expensive. *heh*.

It's not just that it would be too expensive -- it wouldn't actually be steady enough.

Re: tripods

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

in my dreams it is always steady enough. :)

actually, that part of it might work in reality; carbon-fibres are pretty sturdy for their amazingly light weight. something that small and light wouldn't be good enough for serious wilderness conditions, but for me it'd do (and there's always the trick of weighing it down with the camera bag.

Re: tripods

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

Carbon fiber is strong and stiff but not infinitely so; even if the metal parts on a professional tripod magically weighed zero, it would need to be more than a pound. And those metal parts are metal because they get too much abuse to not be. But the real problem is that the parts of the tripod that have to unfold and fold up, and the part that holds the camera, have to be set in place really solidly. Without some indistinguishable-from-magic technology, the only way to glom those moving parts together so they stop moving when they're supposed to hold the camera is to squeeze them together forcefully.

When I bought my first low-end pro tripod, I got low-end pro Manfrotto quick releases for it. The guy who sold it to me told me I wouldn't like 'em and I didn't listen. He was right; even though the quick release seemed to hold pretty tightly, with the camera (and telephoto lens) attached, they just weren't solid enough. Perhaps, if I'd spent $400 on quick release hardware instead of $40, I wouldn't have ended up leaving the quick releases behind and going back to using the screw in. But I doubt it.

All of the above relates to my experience wanting to hold a full size SLR body and a honkin' big supertelephoto lens. You might get slightly better mileage with a high end digicam -- but I still think your specs are well beyond present day engineering.

Re: tripods

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

but I still think your specs are well beyond present day engineering

yes. i know. that's why i said "in my dreams". :) though i thought the button that makes it unfold and find its own level would be even harder to achieve than small size and light weight. in reality weight is less of an issue for me than quick setup.

but at this point i don't have a full-size SLR and a honkin' big supertelephoto lens. so i don't have to worry about the reality of the right tripod at all yet.

come to think of it, i wonder whether one can rent tripods. this is something i think i'd have to actually work with for a while before i know what does and doesn't fit with the way i want to do things.

Re: tripods

[dubiousprospects.blogspot.com (from livejournal.com)]

Tripods and shutter up is good for a lot more sharpness at long focal lengths, I find.

I don't mind lugging the tripod around; I'm not hiking anywhere challenging, and even with shake reduction hand-holding 300mm is fairly hit-or-miss for me unless one is dealing with blazing bright sunlight and the resulting high shutter speeds and narrow apertures.

I do mind the two second pause from the shutter up; one is never quite sure what the picture is going to be of, with the delay and an animate subject. (Which means I should probably learn how to use live view.)

That's with a 300mm lens that's the long end of a 70-300 zoom that's on the light and fluffy side; I expect this gets more pronounced with serious lenses, but those aren't going to happen this year. (Digiscoping might, but not serious long glass.)

Does rather imply that the tripod isn't doing you any good until you've got the other stuff, though. :)

Have you considered one of those monopod hiking stick things? I see a fair number in use.

Re: tripods

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

i don't really like walking sticks much; they hinder me more than they help -- i want both hands free, or my balance is negatively affected. and the places i hike these days, they need me grabbing onto solid things. but i'll look into them when the time comes for another camera.

yeah, 300mm is a lot to handhold, though i've done it once upon a time. i sorta want it, but it might turn out that i ought to stick to 200 mm max with shake reduction if it means the camera otherwise has to always sit on a tripod. temperamentally i am not suited to careful set up and long waiting around these days. odd, as a child i was perfectly ok with that; had i taken photographs then i'd have some really amazing ones of wildlife. now i just want to keep walking.

2 sec? that seems awfully long. too long, really, especially for photographing animals. at which i suck even without that much of a delay.

the k20D has some form of shake reduction in the camera itself, right?

Re: tripods

[dubiousprospects.blogspot.com (from livejournal.com)]

Well, that's 300mm in 35mm terms; for an APS-C sensor, that's -- in field of view terms, which is apparently what counts for the purpose -- 450mm, so I suppose I should be pleased that it works at all. 200mm is no problem.

Some of it is probably the lens; it's a Sigma 70-300 APO, which is a nice, cheap little thing but not in the same category as the rest of my lenses, which are a bunch of really sharp Pentax short primes. I've got a bit spoiled by those; it's a pity that the long equivalent is getting into "downpayment on house" territory.

K20D (and the K10D, and K200D) all have in-camera shake reduction; move the sensor in response to camera motion. It has its limits, but it's very effective. The canonical test was done by a fellow in the Netherlands, who goes by Janeman on a Pentax chat forum I read; he got his new K10D, his ear defenders, and his great rackety old riding mower out, and started taking pictures while riding the mower. (K20D works better than the K10D because the CMOS sensor is physically smaller, so it's easier to move about.)

With the shake reduction off, one would squint at the picture and go "gazeebo? french doors? architectural feature being strangled by vines? scaffolding? tree with fungus?"; with shake reduction on, suddenly it's razor sharp french doors.

2 sec is the "mirror up, wait 2 sec, trigger shutter" setting, not a 2 second exposure! I'll dig up a comparison picture set of swans and post those tonight. Had to guess the swan's rate of advance but clearly sharper.