I hope I did this one right! This was shot in November, during a break in a storm in the Cascades. Film is Velvia, 80mm lens, @ f22. Scanned with Nikon LS-2000 (my old Photosmart couldn't even touch this slide). More here. I really will update it soon... http://www.spiritone.com/~kclark/

-- Keith Clark (ClarkPhotography@spiritone.com), February 05, 1999

Answers

Overall, this is an excellent photo; however, I am troubled by two problems:

1) At least on my monitor, the sunlit portion of the snow-capped peak seems a bit overexposed with some loss of detail. A ND grad may have helped.

2) The non-coniferous leaves in the lower left corner seems out of place to me in the Evergreen dominated scene.

-- Edward C. Nemergut (ecnemerg@iupui.edu), February 05, 1999.

Great shot of an over-photographed mountain. Certainly, nicer than any of the Wy'east slides in my own files :-). The above concerns about exposure seem correct, but perhaps the slide contains more info than the scan? It would be nice to have more detial to set off the ferocity of Yocum Ridge (the one descending directly to the west, towards the photographer). The foreground seems a bit cluttered, and the hillside to the left partly obscures - could you have gotten the same view maybe a hundred yards to the south?

Oh, and one more thing: the Posting Rules would disqualify this image, because the "hand of man" was responsible for those clearcuts on the foothills. This is why I think the Rules are overly strict and a bit silly.

-- Alexey Merz (alexey@webcom.com), February 07, 1999.

I'm getting tired of seeing the rather impossible suggestions about ND grad filters in the forum as if they're some kind of cure-all. I'd like to see an ND grad that could be used in this case.

As to "blown out" snow, the vast majority measures 254/241/206, a ways from being blown out.

I think it's time for more thinking before posting critiques.

Yes, some interpretations of "hand of man" rules are a bit too much. But I never did care much for ultra-legalistic intrepretations of rules. Must be my 60's

-- Keith Clark (ClarkPhotography@spiritone.com), February 08, 1999.

I like the low clouds(fog?) separating the ridges from forground to background; gives the shot great depth. As for exposure, it's a tough job with this much tone scale, and you have exposed so as to have some detail in the snow ridges so that's not bad. I suppose you could scan a bit darker and let the trees go darker.

As for your response to the critiques, remember, people are taking the time to comment as you requested, and it is up to you to determine the value of each. It's not a bad shot Keith. If you get NO responses, it's a "so what" shot!

-- Mike Green (mgprod@mindspring.com), February 08, 1999.

Mike,

Yes, you're right of course. I didn't mean for that to sound defensive or anything.

-- Keith Clark (ClarkPhotography@spiritone.com), February 08, 1999.

Well, I like how the exposure was handled...seems very realistic. (And this is intended as a compliment, of course. I don't know if that was your goal or not.) As for overall, it is a nice shot as Mike Green mentioned.

-- Jim Harrison (hphoto@earthlink.net), February 08, 1999.

Oops, Mike said it was "...not a bad shot." I say its a nice shot.

-- Jim (hphoto@earthlink.net), February 08, 1999.

This is a very nice shot and way above average for mountain scenics. The wooded ridge on the left so neatly repeats the shape of the mountain's right flank as to be eerie and contributes a major part of the image's beauty, without it (and the foreground ridge to a lesser extent) this image would fall much closer to the average category.

Frank

-- Frank Kolwicz (bb389@lafn.org), February 09, 1999.

To my eye there are alternating horizontal lines in this image. I like it.

-- Paul Di Biase (Paulcanada@hotmail.com), February 09, 1999.