Forum rules
Please keep the width of embedded images (using [img] [/img] tags) in this forum to no more than 800 pixels wide (this will avoid them being clipped without notice by most users' window sizes). Attached images can be any resolution so long as the file size is no more than 1 MB (attachments will be displayed by the forums as thumbnails no larger than 800 pixels linked to the full-size image).Please include a description of the pictures' content so that readers know what they're all about.
For topics focussed on narrative rather than the photos, please consider posting in one of the 'Trip Report' forums instead.
Second installment of W Arthurs photos
Tue 20 Apr, 2010 12:39 pm
Well as promised I have processed some more photos from my W Arthurs trip over Easter.
Cheers,
Michael.
Cheers,
Michael.
Re: Second installment of W Arthurs photos
Tue 20 Apr, 2010 1:13 pm
Some great compositions, image 5 is stunning!
Re: Second installment of W Arthurs photos
Tue 20 Apr, 2010 1:16 pm
wow, great pics, thanks for the inspiration!
Re: Second installment of W Arthurs photos
Tue 20 Apr, 2010 2:38 pm
Geat shots from the sunset at High Moor. I actually hope I can get back there some time.
Re: Second installment of W Arthurs photos
Tue 20 Apr, 2010 3:18 pm
sensational photos!
Re: Second installment of W Arthurs photos
Tue 20 Apr, 2010 5:56 pm
Great stuff Michael! The sunset in #5 looks like the Eye of Sauron under the Mordor sky! 
Re: Second installment of W Arthurs photos
Tue 20 Apr, 2010 8:10 pm
Nice shots. #5 is great.
Re: Second installment of W Arthurs photos
Tue 20 Apr, 2010 11:52 pm
Thanks for the kind words everyone 
Yeah you could almost imagine being on the traverse to Mordore if it stayed like that the whole time!
Yeah you could almost imagine being on the traverse to Mordore if it stayed like that the whole time!
Re: Second installment of W Arthurs photos
Wed 21 Apr, 2010 8:29 am
Great shots Michael! A slight crop on No 4 might be interesting.
Re: Second installment of W Arthurs photos
Wed 21 Apr, 2010 9:13 am
Wow - one of the best photo sets i have seen!
You've convinced me I need to get a wide angle since going full frame- (just got the 24-70f2.8 and 70-200 f4) used to love my 10-22 on a crop body but L lenses are soooo expensive!
Looks like you only used a 200mm once- do you think its worth taking out?
Robert
You've convinced me I need to get a wide angle since going full frame- (just got the 24-70f2.8 and 70-200 f4) used to love my 10-22 on a crop body but L lenses are soooo expensive!
Looks like you only used a 200mm once- do you think its worth taking out?
Robert
Re: Second installment of W Arthurs photos
Wed 21 Apr, 2010 11:15 am
Thanks Woka and Robert. Yeah the sky is probably a little too dominant in No. 4 now that you mention it!
Yeah wide angle in a FF is fantastic, the 17-40mm f/4 L is a great lens but does suffer from distortion and sharpness isn't great at the edges (not sure how this compares to the more expensive and heavier 16-35mm f/2.8 L), but I have found it a very good lens, and at under 1g not too bad on the wallet They are expensive but well worth it if getting a little more serious about photography.
Yeah I didn't use the 200mm as much as I would have liked, but it was just a bit too much mucking about most of the time and the misty humid weather didn't encourage me to open the camera up either, but I think I would still take it if I did the traverse again as there are more than enough oppertunities to use it to justify carrying it, just depends whether you will have the time to be swapping lenses around.
Cheers,
Michael.
Robatman wrote:Wow - one of the best photo sets i have seen!
You've convinced me I need to get a wide angle since going full frame- (just got the 24-70f2.8 and 70-200 f4) used to love my 10-22 on a crop body but L lenses are soooo expensive!
Looks like you only used a 200mm once- do you think its worth taking out?
Robert
Yeah wide angle in a FF is fantastic, the 17-40mm f/4 L is a great lens but does suffer from distortion and sharpness isn't great at the edges (not sure how this compares to the more expensive and heavier 16-35mm f/2.8 L), but I have found it a very good lens, and at under 1g not too bad on the wallet
They are expensive but well worth it if getting a little more serious about photography.Yeah I didn't use the 200mm as much as I would have liked, but it was just a bit too much mucking about most of the time and the misty humid weather didn't encourage me to open the camera up either, but I think I would still take it if I did the traverse again as there are more than enough oppertunities to use it to justify carrying it, just depends whether you will have the time to be swapping lenses around.
Cheers,
Michael.
© Bushwalk Australia and contributors 2007-2013.