Options

Marc Muench - SmugMug Artist-in-Residence

1131416181926

Comments

  • Options
    Marc MuenchMarc Muench Registered Users Posts: 1,420 Major grins
    edited August 5, 2009
    ian408 wrote:
    I'm just being practical. On a cold day, the hood covers my head and lets me shoot in style and comfort mwink.gif
    Speaking of practical, I dont think there is any practical reason for hanging shoes from a Cottonwood tree in the middle of nowhere. Here is what you will find along HWY 50.

    611189012_BM7RH-M.jpg

    Further down the road we almost got a room but thankfully it was fulleek7.gif
    611189278_8Rv3S-M.jpg



    Finally made it to Ely, birth town of "Pat Nixon" former first lady.
    611189315_z8YDG-M.jpg
  • Options
    ian408ian408 Administrators Posts: 21,913 moderator
    edited August 5, 2009
    Speaking of practical, I dont think there is any practical reason for hanging shoes from a Cottonwood tree in the middle of nowhere. Here is what you will find along HWY 50.
    There's a similar tree along Hwy 36 on the way to Redbluff thumb.gif
    Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
  • Options
    wfellerwfeller Registered Users Posts: 2,625 Major grins
    edited August 5, 2009
    Speaking of practical, I dont think there is any practical reason for hanging shoes from a Cottonwood tree in the middle of nowhere. Here is what you will find along HWY 50.

    There was a Joshua tree in the Mojave that had hundreds of shoes hanging from it at one time--but someone burnt it down. Good news is that the brassier bush remains unmolested!

    -
    Anybody can do it.
  • Options
    Marc MuenchMarc Muench Registered Users Posts: 1,420 Major grins
    edited August 5, 2009
    With my children older and not so eager to hang around while I take pictures we did not stray from the main roads much. However, when we did, everyone was very surprised by just how much there is to see. Yes, the shoe tree was cool and the old warn down buildings within the SMALL towns along HWY 50 were interesting but put it all together with a little journey into the past up to 10,000 feet in elevation and the experience is like no other. I have understood this for years and mention it in lectures at workshops and try to share it with my kids. But, there is no substitute for experiencing it first hand. Vast empty spaces dotted with the occasional outpost below thirty thousand foot tall clouds dropping rain will leave an indelible memory for my children who have been here when they were very little but needed a refresher in just how grand the West is.

    My kids in a three thousand year old tree during slight detour that turned out to be three hours longer than I promised:D
    611189408_83ULs-S.jpg
    No limbs twigs or needles were broken during the taking of this image:D



    Part of a Bristlecone
    611189474_BkWJ2-L-1.jpg


    611971266_W8j8c-X3.jpg

    The town in the lower right corner of this pano is called Baker. I recall being about 13 when visiting with my parents. At that time there was no National Park and the locals in the bar were up in arms about the government proposal to turn their home into a circus. They thought it would change forever the solitude of the area. WOW were they wrongdeal.gif The town of Baker looks the same now as it did some 25 years agowings.gif I guess even a National Park designation does not always mean tourism.
  • Options
    BeachBillBeachBill Registered Users Posts: 1,311 Major grins
    edited August 5, 2009
    Speaking of practical, I dont think there is any practical reason for hanging shoes from a Cottonwood tree in the middle of nowhere.

    As others have mentioned, I'm sure there are hundreds of such trees across this country and around the world.

    I'll add another... you'll find another a few hundred yards and across the street from Roy's Cafe in Amboy, California along old Route 66.
    Bill Gerrard Photography - Facebook - Interview - SmugRoom: Useful Tools for SmugMug
  • Options
    ian408ian408 Administrators Posts: 21,913 moderator
    edited August 5, 2009
    611971266_W8j8c-Ti.jpg

    This reminds me of how fast weather travels across that valley. I can easily remember running down from the peak trying to beat the t-storm coming across. At some point, we stopped to admire the lightning before getting the heck off of Wheeler.
    Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
  • Options
    TangoTango Registered Users Posts: 4,592 Major grins
    edited August 5, 2009
    611189408_83ULs-S.jpg

    where's your twin I always see with you in shots like these?

    also, I didnt know you had three young'uns? what a wonderful family pic!
    Aaron Nelson
  • Options
    Marc MuenchMarc Muench Registered Users Posts: 1,420 Major grins
    edited August 6, 2009
    BeachBill wrote:
    As others have mentioned, I'm sure there are hundreds of such trees across this country and around the world.

    I'll add another... you'll find another a few hundred yards and across the street from Roy's Cafe in Amboy, California along old Route 66.

    I guess so, but in all the driving I have done around this country it is the first time for me. I see something similar in ski areas all over, trees under the lifts covered with panties and bras rolleyes1.gif
  • Options
    Marc MuenchMarc Muench Registered Users Posts: 1,420 Major grins
    edited August 6, 2009
    I didnt know you had three young'uns? what a wonderful family pic!

    Thank you Aaron, the oldest is off to college this year so off to work I go:cry
  • Options
    pathfinderpathfinder Super Moderators Posts: 14,698 moderator
    edited August 6, 2009
    Just think Marc, in another 20 years, you'll be free again!:D
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • Options
    Marc MuenchMarc Muench Registered Users Posts: 1,420 Major grins
    edited August 26, 2009
    pathfinder wrote:
    Just think Marc, in another 20 years, you'll be free again!:D

    Jim,

    It might be more like 40:cry

    because now I must buy a new one of these every year.
    BTW, it has the same size sensor as the G11 YeHaaaa!
  • Options
    Marc MuenchMarc Muench Registered Users Posts: 1,420 Major grins
    edited September 16, 2009
    Just spent a week up in the Sierra's testing the new Canon 17mm T/S lens.
    My first impression of it was "TOO BIG". Then after seeing the results I have concluded, it is worth both the money and the extra weight. I will post a more in depth review of it in my blog soon!

    651567350_nfTRX-X3.jpg

    651567309_UD2em-X3.jpg
  • Options
    schmooschmoo Registered Users Posts: 8,468 Major grins
    edited September 16, 2009
    Just spent a week up in the Sierra's testing the new Canon 17mm T/S lens.
    My first impression of it was "TOO BIG". Then after seeing the results I have concluded, it is worth both the money and the extra weight. I will post a more in depth review of it in my blog soon!

    651567350_nfTRX-S.jpg

    651567309_UD2em-S.jpg

    Oh so that's where all the good light went! lol3.gif

    I was eying the whole lineup of new TS lenses at the Pro Photo Expo last month since Canon had their booth across the walkway from us. Can't wait to hear more about em.
  • Options
    ian408ian408 Administrators Posts: 21,913 moderator
    edited September 16, 2009
    i love the wide expansive view...uh oh...
    Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
  • Options
    chrismoorechrismoore Registered Users Posts: 1,083 Major grins
    edited September 17, 2009
    I have not tried it yet but...

    I do not believe I will. Because I am blending multiple exposures to create larger files for one image, I now use slightly longer focal length lenses to create the same field of view as a 17mm. The one caveat could be greater depth of field for the near - far type of imagesthumb.gif

    Following up this remark earlier in the thread, I'm curious from Marc or others who shoot this way what typically do you use as the focal length and with what lens? I've done several shots this way and like the technique, usually I use my 24-105 f/4L at around 28mm using a pano swivel. That works well for me minimizing distortion in blending the shots, but I'm curious as to what Marc and others use.
    Thanks!
  • Options
    Marc MuenchMarc Muench Registered Users Posts: 1,420 Major grins
    edited September 17, 2009
    chrismoore wrote:
    That works well for me minimizing distortion in blending the shots, but I'm curious as to what Marc and others use.
    Thanks!

    Every technique has a compromise so I am not certain how I will incorporate the lens in my work flow yet but will cover several of the issues in-depth when I write up the blog. However, the two advantages I can tell you with certainty is that the lens is sharper corner to corner than the 24mm T/S version I have "which is the older one". I now need to test the new version of the 24mm T/S to see if it is improved as well. And second, the distance covered when shifting is greater on the larger censor, which is a bonus!

    It appears as of now that I am getting fewer but better quality pixels, so I am in the process of convincing myself that the 17mm is the way to go.
  • Options
    ian408ian408 Administrators Posts: 21,913 moderator
    edited September 17, 2009

    It appears as of now that I am getting fewer but better quality pixels, so I am in the process of convincing myself that the 17mm is the way to go.
    Send it to me. I will help convince you lol3.gif
    Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
  • Options
    TangoTango Registered Users Posts: 4,592 Major grins
    edited September 17, 2009
    Marc, so your not shifting the 17mm T/S and stitching like you would with a 24mm T/S pano? is that what you mean by you "are getting fewer but better pixels"? My guess is the FG would be distorted by the wide 17mm and un workable as a pano?...

    (BTW, I can wait for these points in your blog, I look forward to it)
    Aaron Nelson
  • Options
    chrismoorechrismoore Registered Users Posts: 1,083 Major grins
    edited September 17, 2009
    Look forward to the blog as well! I was thinking the 17 would be too wide but your images are great. I'm especially interested to hear your thoughts on the 17mm vs 24mm TS's.
  • Options
    I SimoniusI Simonius Registered Users Posts: 1,034 Major grins
    edited September 18, 2009
    I'm reallyinterested in your experiences with the 17TS too, though the chances of me ever getting one are pretty slimmwink.gif
    Veni-Vidi-Snappii
    ...pics..
  • Options
    Marc MuenchMarc Muench Registered Users Posts: 1,420 Major grins
    edited September 20, 2009
    Marc, so your not shifting the 17mm T/S and stitching like you would with a 24mm T/S pano? is that what you mean by you "are getting fewer but better pixels"? My guess is the FG would be distorted by the wide 17mm and un workable as a pano?...
    Aaron,

    The second image is a side by side stitch with the lens cranked allllll the way in each direction, showing that the lens has a large image circle.
    I have done pano stitching with the 17-40 at 17mm and yes geometric lines are very difficult to stitch, but when it comes to natural rocks, twigs and flowers much distortion can be soaked updeal.gif I will be testing the new 24 T/S this week to determine if sharpness is equal to the new 17 T/S:ivar
  • Options
    I SimoniusI Simonius Registered Users Posts: 1,034 Major grins
    edited September 20, 2009
    Aaron,
    I will be testing the new 24 T/S this week to determine if sharpness is equal to the new 17 T/S:ivar

    I hope to see your results on that comparison;)
    Veni-Vidi-Snappii
    ...pics..
  • Options
    chrismoorechrismoore Registered Users Posts: 1,083 Major grins
    edited September 23, 2009
    Question for anyone using TS for landscape: I feel one of the greatest advantages of the TS with landscape is controlling DOF sharpness by tilting down, achieving uniform sharpness at relatively larger apertures. I have been going through some tutorials on doing that properly that I found, and really the most consistent advice on achieving this is: use the Live View and take multiple shots with fine variations on the tilt to compare the results of sharpness later. I found one thread with a calculator that gives near/far limits of sharpness based on tilt degrees.
    I was wondering if someone with experience using the lens has any advice controlling DOF in the field (some rules of thumb, etc). I know it varies with every composition, and I have read about the Scheimpflug principle, etc., I'm just a little lost as to where to start when actually trying to put it to use taking a photo!
    Thanks in advance for your help.
  • Options
    Marc MuenchMarc Muench Registered Users Posts: 1,420 Major grins
    edited September 24, 2009
    chrismoore wrote:
    Question for anyone using TS for landscape: I feel one of the greatest advantages of the TS with landscape is controlling DOF sharpness by tilting down, achieving uniform sharpness at relatively larger apertures. I have been going through some tutorials on doing that properly that I found, and really the most consistent advice on achieving this is: use the Live View and take multiple shots with fine variations on the tilt to compare the results of sharpness later. I found one thread with a calculator that gives near/far limits of sharpness based on tilt degrees.
    I was wondering if someone with experience using the lens has any advice controlling DOF in the field (some rules of thumb, etc). I know it varies with every composition, and I have read about the Scheimpflug principle, etc., I'm just a little lost as to where to start when actually trying to put it to use taking a photo!
    Thanks in advance for your help.

    The 4 variables I can think of are:

    1, Distance from lens to FG subject
    2, Distance to BG subject or infinity
    3, Aperture
    4, subject protruding plane of focus. This could be grass, tree or tall rock

    Below is a typical example where I applied the normal technique, in other words, no distracting #4eek7.gif

    20090924-g743f4mwf9e57ai451gefdywy3.jpg

    First I set up the camera and composition with the bottom of the pool out of view.
    Then I lowered the front standard/lens using the shift
    Then I made a tilt of 2 degrees, my normal start
    Then I used live view to check and make focus on the FG
    Then I scrolled to BG steam (Castle Geyser) and checked focus
    The next part is a play between altering the tilt degree slightly and focus until both FG and BG are in at the sweet spot of the lens which in this case was F.11

    I am quite sure someone has figured out the math to make the exact tilt based upon the distance, but the time it would take to measure would most likely be greater than the time taken to complete the live view focus checks. (I really hope we get a touch screen to make live view focus checking faster)clap.gif
  • Options
    chrismoorechrismoore Registered Users Posts: 1,083 Major grins
    edited September 24, 2009

    ....

    First I set up the camera and composition with the bottom of the pool out of view.
    Then I lowered the front standard/lens using the shift
    Then I made a tilt of 2 degrees, my normal start
    Then I used live view to check and make focus on the FG
    Then I scrolled to BG steam (Castle Geyser) and checked focus
    The next part is a play between altering the tilt degree slightly and focus until both FG and BG are in at the sweet spot of the lens which in this case was F.11

    I am quite sure someone has figured out the math to make the exact tilt based upon the distance, but the time it would take to measure would most likely be greater than the time taken to complete the live view focus checks. (I really hope we get a touch screen to make live view focus checking faster)clap.gif

    That is super helpful, thanks so much. I was looking for a reasonable starting point... 2 degrees it is! Was that taken with the 17 or 24? We're anxiously awaiting your impressions and comparison of the two mwink.gif
    Thanks for all your help.
  • Options
    schmooschmoo Registered Users Posts: 8,468 Major grins
    edited September 24, 2009
    (I really hope we get a touch screen to make live view focus checking faster)

    Amen!! I have to say, however, that since you've given us this hot tip about focusing a TS lens with Live View, it's saved more bacon than a farm's worth o' pigs. lol3.gif What a great combination!
  • Options
    Marc MuenchMarc Muench Registered Users Posts: 1,420 Major grins
    edited September 24, 2009
    schmoo wrote:
    it's saved more bacon than a farm's worth o' pigs. lol3.gif What a great combination!

    U bin down south recently or just hanging around with the wrong crowdrolleyes1.gif

    BTW 2 degrees = 2 notchesdeal.gif at least in my worldthumb.gif
  • Options
    Marc MuenchMarc Muench Registered Users Posts: 1,420 Major grins
    edited September 24, 2009
    chrismoore wrote:
    Was that taken with the 17 or 24?

    24mm!
  • Options
    Marc MuenchMarc Muench Registered Users Posts: 1,420 Major grins
    edited September 30, 2009
    This slide digitizer is being offered right now! I have never used it but for those with many slides it may be helpful, and $40 is a low pricewings.gif
  • Options
    hawkeye978hawkeye978 Registered Users Posts: 1,218 Major grins
    edited October 13, 2009
    Kenko Filter Info
    Marc,

    Just a quick follow up to what we were talking about at the shootout. I mentioned that Kenko filters were just Hoya filters rebranded for the Japanese market. The link below is where I got my Kenko Pro1 Digital Wide Band coated CPL. From what I can tell it's identical to the Hoya but for less money.

    http://maxsaver.net/Kenko-Polarizer.aspx

    Great to meet you at the Shootout in Acadia.
Sign In or Register to comment.