Forums: Climbing Disciplines: Climbing Photography:
Redrocks
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Climbing Photography

Premier Sponsor:

 


Paul_Y


May 3, 2008, 7:23 AM
Post #1 of 8 (5018 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 7, 2007
Posts: 245

Redrocks
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I took this during a climbing photo class with John Evans at this years Redrocks Rendevous. The rest of the class shot Susanica Tam from down low and got some nice blue sky. I decided to shoot from above and get some desert in the background. What do you think?




blondgecko
Moderator

May 3, 2008, 6:11 PM
Post #2 of 8 (4999 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666

Re: [Paul_Y] Redrocks [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I think you chose well. Beautiful shot!


chanceboarder


May 5, 2008, 9:02 AM
Post #3 of 8 (4942 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 6, 2003
Posts: 1348

Re: [Paul_Y] Redrocks [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Nice shot, I like the DOF and the angle. To me it sort of gives the illusion of being hundreds of feet off the ground whether the climber actually is or not. Good exposure and I like the positioning of the climber and how their looking up at the route as if trying to figure out their next move. Reminds me of something you'd see in the movies from like a helicopters point of view from the angle and position you shot it from.

Well done,
Jason


(This post was edited by chanceboarder on May 5, 2008, 9:03 AM)


kriso9tails


May 5, 2008, 9:16 AM
Post #4 of 8 (4936 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 30, 2001
Posts: 7766

Re: [Paul_Y] Redrocks [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Well, I'll echo that it's definitely a nice shot... although it'd be nicer if it was full screen size. =p Out of curiosity, what focal length were you using? As a guess I'd say something between 150 - 200mm, but I'm bad at guessing games.

My only criticism: not that everything needs to play into the rule of thirds 'n all, but I feel like, as a matter of personal preference, I'd like to see it framed just a little higher.


Paul_Y


May 5, 2008, 10:04 PM
Post #5 of 8 (4894 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 7, 2007
Posts: 245

Re: [kriso9tails] Redrocks [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Thanks all! This was shot with a Tamron 18-250, around, you guessed it, 200 mm (320 mm 35mm equivalent). I knew it looked kind of unusual for a climbing shot when I saw the compression effect and the DOF in the viewfinder. You can tell I was a ways away. The only way to get higher was to get further away so this worked to my advantage with the longer lens. Sunsanica was about 40 feet off the ground here, but we were already high above the desert floor.

I was wondering about the rule of thirds when I shot this, but thought the sideways V of the rock would compensate. But now that I look at it I think your right.

One thing I just discovered about posting to Rockclimb.com - I have always in the past had horrible results when they downsize my images to their standard size of 580 pixels. The images always look pixelated or blurry. This time I sized to 580 to start with and it is by far the most artifact free image of any I have posted so far!


kriso9tails


May 6, 2008, 9:15 AM
Post #6 of 8 (4879 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 30, 2001
Posts: 7766

Re: [Paul_Y] Redrocks [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Paul_Y wrote:
Thanks all! This was shot with a Tamron 18-250, around, you guessed it, 200 mm (320 mm 35mm equivalent). I knew it looked kind of unusual for a climbing shot when I saw the compression effect and the DOF in the viewfinder.

It works well for this shot. I prefer to see longer lenses used when shooting from the side since it tends to give you a more interesting background. I think more photographers need to be conscientious of linear perspective when they shoot, myself included.

How are you liking the lens? I was considering picking up a (relatively) cheaper longer lens, but haven't decided yet. I've only ever used one Tamron lens, my 11-18mm. It's a bit slow and a little clunky when it's in autofocus, but I feel I definitely get my money's worth out of the lens.

In reply to:
I was wondering about the rule of thirds when I shot this, but thought the sideways V of the rock would compensate. But now that I look at it I think your right.

I think it's really really minor here, and I think if you made a large print of this, it would be mostly negated. I find the issue for me is that my eyes move naturally up the left of the photo to the climber and then want to move up through the rest of the photo, but catch the upper edge of the image too quickly and unexpectedly and jump back to the climber.

People rarely look at an image as a whole; their eyes move through the image as the composition leads, so generally speaking, as soon as their eyes get stuck in one spot, start to jump on the image, or can't figure out where to look the viewer detaches themself for the image.

I find with this image it's a bit like having a really nice dream and being woken up and disoriented just shy of the finish.

In reply to:
One thing I just discovered about posting to Rockclimb.com - I have always in the past had horrible results when they downsize my images to their standard size of 580 pixels. The images always look pixelated or blurry. This time I sized to 580 to start with and it is by far the most artifact free image of any I have posted so far!

I always ignore the inline image and click to see the full version, so I never really pay attention to how it compresses. Any sort of web display is the bane of my existence. I understand why there's a width restriction on images here, and I'm sure we're all thankful for it at one point or another in the regular threads, but this is one of those images that is meant to fill your eye. It has a nice spatial quality to it.


(This post was edited by kriso9tails on May 6, 2008, 9:17 AM)


Paul_Y


May 8, 2008, 2:59 PM
Post #7 of 8 (4703 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 7, 2007
Posts: 245

Re: [kriso9tails] Redrocks [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
How are you liking the lens? I was considering picking up a (relatively) cheaper longer lens, but haven't decided yet.

I like this lens for those trips where I climb and take pictures too. It goes from 18-250mm. It's compact (when zoomed wide) and lightweight. It feels plasticky but so far is holding up well.

It is definitely a lens that needs a lot of light to perform well. It is slow, 3.5 to 6.3 but focuses quickly in good light. It does not have any image stabilization, which so far hasn't been a problem in good light, but I would still like to have it when using the long end while climbing.

I'll admit I'm not a pixel peeper, but I've been very happy with the quality of the images I've been getting with this lens.

Here's a review:
http://www.phototestcenter.com/html/tamron_18-250.html

Thanks for the comments.
Paul


(This post was edited by Paul_Y on May 8, 2008, 3:00 PM)


Partner cracklover


Nov 12, 2008, 2:40 PM
Post #8 of 8 (2576 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10161

Re: [Paul_Y] Redrocks [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Don't really have much to add. Just want to lend another voice to the chorus: Great photo!

GO


Forums : Climbing Disciplines : Climbing Photography

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook