Convict Lake

[Darren Bradley]

Convict Lake owes its colourful name from some colourful history: The lake was named after an incident in 1871, where a group of three convicts escaped from prison in Carson City. A posse, led by Sheriff Robert Morrison, encountered the convicts here but was ambushed and killed in the encounter. The mountain on the left is now named after him (Mount Morrison). All three convicts were later captured by the posse, and two of them were "hanged by the neck until dead" in the town of Bishop, about 30 miles south of here. The third convict was returned to prison, given his relatively young age (19).

I stopped by here for a couple of photos on my way home today from my ski trip in Mammoth this week.



Here's another shot, where I tried to get the reflection (but the water wasn't as glassy as I would have liked due to some fairly high winds today)

 

[Chris Dodkin]

Nice - I see there was still plenty of snow around then!

 

[Hamish Gill]

Ill tell you what DB i reckon you have a good sense of good exposure and colour!
it looks like you pay good attention to a histogram somewhere in the process!

i much prefer the first, i like the fact you can see the stones at the bottom as well as the reflection ...

 

[Darren Bradley]

@Chris- oh yes, they've had record snowfall this year so even with the recent warm temps, it'll be awhile before the thaw.

@Hamish- thanks! I try to watch the histogram, yes, you called me out! But at the end of the day, it's more of a gut check than anything else, isn't it?

 

[Darren Turner]

couple of beauties here Darren i prefer the first i think with the fallen tree. That water is also incredibly clear showing stones on bottom. As for them mountains wow awesome..............!!

 

[Hamish Gill]

@Chris- oh yes, they've had record snowfall this year so even with the recent warm temps, it'll be awhile before the thaw.

@Hamish- thanks! I try to watch the histogram, yes, you called me out! But at the end of the day, it's more of a gut check than anything else, isn't it?

certainly is, but i think its often noticable (in a good way) when someone does use the histogram, exposures tend to look a little darker, especially in the mid-lighter tones and more natural ... of course there are times when using the histogram to keep everything within range is the opposite of what you trying to achieve ... high key for eg... and thats exactly when it is ALL about gut response i suppose?

 

[Darren Bradley]

@Darren- Thanks! It's a spectacular place. Landscapes are always a challenge for me to figure out how to counteract the wide-angle's natural tendency to make the mountains seem smaller and further away than they actually are. But yes, that water is crystal clear, and you can see quite deep. I was watching large fish swim around from the shore.

@Hamish- Thanks again! I should mention that I was also using a CP filter, which helped to cut through the glare off the water, but also gave the sky a deeper blue and cut through the haze.

 

[Paul Lange]

The UK has some great scenery but nothing on the shear scale in these photographs. Did you use a tripod or were they hand held shots, they look pretty sharp.

 

[Darren Bradley]

Thanks, Paul. These were both hand-held. I forgot to bring my tripod and in any case, with a wife and four-year-old in the car waiting, didn't really have much time to set up shots and such. I jumped out of the car, took a few quick shots, and left. I would like to come back sometime in the early morning to scout out better locations and get some nice light.

 

[Paul Lange]

If you were using a CP you would have lost 2 stops as well as well a additional softening due to the extra glass!

 

[Darren Bradley]

Well, I was using a CP!

 

[Darren Bradley]

Here's the EXIF data on these:
Photo #1
Exif data
Camera Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Exposure 0.005 sec (1/200)
Aperture f/7.1
Focal Length 25 mm
ISO Speed 200
Exposure Bias -5/3 EV

Photo #2
Camera Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Exposure 0.003 sec (1/400)
Aperture f/10.0
Focal Length 35 mm
ISO Speed 200
Exposure Bias 0 EV

As I mentioned, both were shot handheld, with a CP filter on the 24-70mm f2.8

 

[Paul Lange]

Still reasonably fast shutter speeds though. For some reason I assumed they would have been longer. Was it quite a bright day. The CP has really tamed the sky, I think I'll use mine more often in bright daylight.

 

[Darren Bradley]

I would highly recommend a good quality CP filter for sunny days. I really like how well it tames the sky, as you noted. I used a slim Heliopan here, which helped to keep the softening and extra glass to a minimum.

But you bring up an interesting point I've noticed before, but don't know if it's true. Perhaps Chris Dodkin or others could comment, too. It seems to me that the sun is brighter in southern California than in Europe. When I was living in France, visitors arriving from San Diego would often comment on how the light appeared to be different. And I find I need sunglasses more here than in Europe. In any case, the reflections from the snow also increased the brightness so combined with the late-morning sun, light was not a problem for these shots, CP or no.

 

[Chris Dodkin]

Apart from local cloud cover on any given day - the 'angle of dangle' for the sun is different due to latitude

This effects color temperature, which is why sunlight over Hollywood looks 'nicer' than say, sunlight over Glasgow.

Nicer in this case means warmer - the light will have a warmer color temperature, and as humans, we find this appealing.

The changing color of the sunlight due to latitude is mainly a result of scattering of light.

The blue color of the sky is caused by Rayleigh scattering of the sunlight from the atmosphere, which tends to scatter blue light more than red light.

The amount of scatter is effected by the angle at which the sunlight strikes the atmosphere, and hence your latitude makes a huge difference.

On top of that you'll have local effects from dust and pollution etc, and time of day effects as the sun rises and falls in the sky.

 

[Chris Dodkin]

RE: Circular Polarizers - I'm a convert, having avoided them for years.

Not cheap to get a decent multi-coated one, but worth the outlay I think.

I hunted on EBAY for ages to find an original Canon one for my lens size (77mm) - at a good price.

I've also just purchased one for my 300 f2.8L and 600 f4L from EBAY - again a Canon original filter, in this case it's a filter unit that goes in the back of the lens, rather than on the front - as the front elements on the 300 and 600 are just too large.

The rear filter slots into the lens barrel, and has a small thumbwheel which allows you to turn it around.

Looking forward to seeing the effect it will have on my long lens landscape shots.

 

[Paul Lange]

That seems like a really good idea. I currently have a A and a P series CP, good cause you can rotate them but hassle as you need a holder for them. The screw in ones don't rotate unless you have them loose in the thread but its only a matter of time before you have an accident and it falls out. I do like the effect they have though, I've been out early this morning and used mine where I normally wouldn't have to see what happens. It really tamed the morning sun rising over the trees.

 

[Chris Dodkin]

Paul - my screw on filter also rotates - it has a thread that screws onto the front of the lens, then the actual filter rotates smoothly without unscrewing the filter.

So problem solved!

 

[Darren Bradley]

I have a couple of screw-on CP filters and they both have separate, independently rotating threads, as well. So they stay firmly attached to the lens while moving.

 

[Paul Lange]

I'll have to look into that, I've just got back from Cambridge and nearly bought a screw on CP for my 58mm threaded lens. I chose not to in the end due to the rotating issue. Maybe I should get the shop assisstant to get one out of the box next time so I can see if it does indeed rotate.