Whitney as you've never seen it, C&C and some ?

JC

I try not to impose on the forum with second threads while my old threads are still on the front page at least*, but I haven't been able to do much with my photos recently, and I'm just getting caught up.

A couple more shots from the Whitney high country. We had some discussions here on landscape versus portrait for landscape shots (the terminology alone signifies a preferential orientation I guess). I've got a couple of sets of landscape versus portrait, the first I'm sure I prefer as landscape, I just wanted to include the portrait to see if anyone went for that one. The lake on fire one, I'm not so sure. Any preferences?


My route, 1st set of pictures were taken from about 3/4 of the way down.


I'm pretty sure that very few have seen Whitney from here, it was, shall we say, not a recommended route. It's in Secor, and not technical, but a pain in the ^$$ with a full pack, not to mention a full frame DSLR.

These are really the first set of pictures I've wondered if I should watermark. That would also imply putting my real name out there in the forum world, which is something I've always resisted.
1)


2) I'm 100% sure I prefer Landscape here


3) Thought about going for moody dark waters, but I prefer the reflections above



4) Alpenglow on Whitney/Keeler ridge. We were considering spending the following night on Whitney ridge/summit, and I really really really wish we had, but when we got up there the next day, the weather was just too unstable. In hindsight, there were no lightning strikes, and we probably would have been safe.



Not sure on these, I have a moderate preference for the horizontal, anyone go for the vertical?
5)


6)



(* not least of which, it's sometimes like pulling teeth here to get comments on stuff, not to mention critical comments, and I don't like to dilute my audience, as it were

masterofone

I prefer the landscape orientation in every case here.
A watermark can be whatever you want. I have a watermark that reads "stolen photography" that I use occasionally.

bfluegie

I'm not an expert or anything, but I think that a vertically framed landscape photograph works when there is a feature that draws the eye upward or into the scene, along with strong foreground elements. At least that's my preference--I can't speak for anyone else's. So, for you shots 1-3 I prefer #2. There are more horizontal features and the framing suits the scene. I also prefer the reflections of the clouds in the lake. 5 and 6 are a little tougher to decide since there is the vertical element in the lake and the slope on the left. I was going to say that I think the vertical works, but I still like the horizontal better. However, I kept jumping back and forth between the two and the vertical framing is starting to win me over. Great light by the way, and they are both beautiful images. I also really like #4 and I can't imagine vertical framing doing that scene justice.

dbd

kolibri wrote: »

My route, 1st set of pictures were taken from about 3/4 of the way down.
...
I'm pretty sure that very few have seen Whitney from here, it was, shall we say, not a recommended route. It's in Secor, and not technical, but a pain in the ^$$ with a full pack, not to mention a full frame DSLR.
...

In August of 1971, on the 41st day of a hike down from Tahoe, I sat on top of Hitchcock with my feet dangling over to edge while I ate my lunch. The 42nd and last day I topped out on Whitney and exited by the Portal. That was my first time up Whitney. The last 41 times I've been up Whitney since have been day hikes from the east side.

I like #2 the best. One of the things about having a high view point is that your picture gives an idea of what the trip up the mountain actually involves. While the trail is not visible in the picture, the terrain the trail must cross is. The typical postcard shot from the east side of Whitney from or including the Alabama Hills so foreshortens Whitney that there is no feeling for the 6,000 feet of elevation change from the Portal or 10,000 feet from the valley floor. People who have actually been up there have a different feeling about the place that is not captured by the images of drive by shooters. Your image #2 will have that feeling for those who have been through there.

Dale B. Dalrymple

JC

dbd wrote: »

I like #2 the best. One of the things about having a high view point is that your picture gives an idea of what the trip up the mountain actually involves. While the trail is not visible in the picture, the terrain the trail must cross is.
Dale B. Dalrymple

It's visible now-



The trail is more visible from the shots from the top of the ridge, but from the ridge connecting Hitchcock to Discovery (which is the way I assume you went?) I couldn't see the reflection of Mt. Whitney in upper Hitchcock Lake, I could only see it about halfway down the slope.

Only ~ 3000 feet of elevation gain (net) for the day, but making it up those switchbacks at 12k with a full pack before I could drop my pack at the ridgeline.....

spacefuzz

(* not least of which, it's sometimes like pulling teeth here to get comments on stuff, not to mention critical comments, and I don't like to dilute my audience, as it were <---- I have the same feeling!

For the photos, its so beautiful in the high country I need to go back! It looks like you had an awesome sunset on your trip!
Photo wise #5 is my favorite, Id have loved to see several shots stitched into a pano to contrast the pink lake with the stark landscape.

PGM

I love #4 and #5 for the light and the colors. I like the horizontal, too. You worked hard for these photos! Best, Pam