You are pretty much correct; the lake is fed by a number of glaciers and normal snowmelt from a number of surrounding mountains. Of all the bodies of water it’s the most green of all of them. In similar fashion a different kind of particulate can make the water extremely blue, which I hear is somewhat common around Banff.
— Alan
Reemul
1922
A few from a trip to Marwell.
Amur Tiger by Reemul, on Flickr
Leopard by Reemul, on Flickr
Lovebirds by Reemul, on Flickr
Okay some more pics from my trip.
I’m so angry I overexposed the clouds in a few of my shots, especially the one above on the lower right and one I didn’t post yet. Once you blow it out, that data is gone–it’s just white noise (quite literally) and there’s really not a lot of recovery you can do with it. At the time I thought I was okay, but I guess not. And those are the ones I thought I underexposed as much as possible. Maybe I should have really shot dark and just done some bracketing.
— Alan
So I just discovered polarizing filters and realized that I’ll want to use them for outdoors photography. Question: are there any situations where you would ever want to not use the filter, i.e. remove it from the lens? Or can you handle any lighting situation by just turning it to another angle?
nKoan
1925
I’m certainly no expert, but from what I’ve gleaned there are artistic reasons to sometimes switch from a circular polarizing filter to a linear one. There are possibly reasons to remove the filter if you want more light to come in the lens and you have other methods of blocking out the unwanted reflections and stray light.
But, in the days of digital post-processing, I don’t think there is any reason to take off the polarizer. Most of my landscape lenses have a circular polarizer on permanently, and I’ll just fix the lower light levels later in Aperture.
Yeah, the slightly lower total amount of light shouldn’t be a problem – my camera can handle ISO 800 with no visible degradation, and there’s always post-processing. So assuming there’s always some rotational angle that makes a picture look reasonably good I’d rather just leave it on. Hey, extra lens protection!
prolix
1927
Polarizers sometimes cause problems with ultra wide angle lenses, since you’re not getting even polarization across the frame.
That’s actually my problem, as it covers perhaps 2/3rds of my wide angle at 11mm and so produces inconsistent polarization across a broad swath of sky (which is easily seen)–something that can be either corrected via composition, zooming, or selective post-processing.
I wind up taking off my polarizer for dusk, some interior, or night-time shots but that’s about it.
Panorama of Wenatchee in central Washington, stitched together from 6 shots. This is about… 170-180 degrees in view.
Starting calling this Gandalf’s Rock:
The town-let (really just a bunch of lodges/housing) in Diablo:
More Lake Diablo:
My friend Dale overlooking Washington Pass:
Other stuff:
— Alan
Interesting. That’s good to know but probably doesn’t apply to me at this point, as my widest angle is 18 mm on a 1.5 crop frame, i.e. 27 mm full frame equivalent. I shot a bunch of test pictures at 18 mm with the polarizer and the lighting seemed even to me.
Sarkus
1931
My best shot from a trip to Mt. St. Helens on Sunday:
You didn’t go to Johnston Ridge?
— Alan
I’m a huge fan of all of your pictures, Alan. I love it whenever you post these amazing pictures of nature.
I’m really happy you included this one. I keep going back and looking at it. It’s beautiful.
Thanks.
-xtien
That place is pretty amazing (Owl’s Soda Fountain & Gifts). Hand-crafted sodas, shakes and craploads of other drinks that are all bad for you. Hell they had various drinks I had never even heard of… phosphates, egg cremes, sours, fizzes, freezes, malts, floats, shakes and food.
— Alan
nKoan
1935
Egg Cremes! I believe that’s more of a New York thing. Or maybe its an old time thing (like handcrafted sodas in general) that has really only survived in NYC.
I believe it’s more of an east coast thing, though I’ve seen it in the South and elsewhere (and in Europe). It’s definitely not well-consumed these days.
— Alan
DeepT
1937
Alan, I must say I really love your landscape pictures. Most of them have found their way into my desktop background slide-show folder.
fire
1938
Christien beat me to it – but I’ve also gone back to this photo several times. I love the contrast of the lights and darks. And I love how all that chrome sparkles in the light. It reminds me of that car museum in L.A. with the fancy old cars that have been buffed to this amazing metallic shine. I’d probably drive one of those cars to this diner and order a tuna melt, fries, and a coffee shake. Christien would order something I can’t eat and refuse to share it anyway. “Sorry,” he’d say, “my vanilla chocolate-chip awesomesauce shake is made with bacon fat, and that’s not kosher.” He’d be right.
Sarkus
1939
I did, as well as going around and getting some photos from the northeast side of the mountain. I just like this one better because of Coldwater Lake in the foreground.
The northeast side was more spectacular in many respects because there is spot where you get a good view of St. Helens, Mt. Adams, and Mt. Hood all from the same spot. But I didn’t get there until around 8pm and Hood is almost lost in the haze the camera picked up at 65 miles away.
Reemul
1940
A couple from me shot in Black and White, more of an experiment than anything, the temperature was 32 degrees and the sun was washing everything out so thought maybe B&W would work.
Uncle by Reemul, on Flickr
Orchid by Reemul, on Flickr
