TR October Day 16

Distance: 8.3km - Ascent: 450m - Effort Rating: 12.8 - Duration: 3 hours 17 minutes

wildwales.fsnet.co.ukoctober16.htmlOpen ↗

Paul
--
The October Project 2003
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukoctober.htmlOpen ↗
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
| Now that the sunny weather had finally arrived I decided to climb a decent hill for a change, so I
| revisited my "local" mountain, Fan Brycheiniog. I've climbed this summit more often than any
| other. Although somewhat hazy in the valley, the sunshine was extremely clear on the tops, due to
| a temperature inversion. From the summit could be clearly seen a dark horizontal line through the
| sky, below which everything was brownish and murky, but above everything was crystal clear. The
| cold easterly breeze was a little stronger than the previous day on Cribarth, and so gloves were a
| good idea.
|
| At the summit shelter I met Graham from Brynamman, and we chatted for a while. He was spending a
| few days wandering around and bivvying on Mynydd Du, and he picked some great weather to do it,
| although personally I wouldn't be too happy in a bivvy bag at this time of year.
|
| On the way back I saw a red kite riding the breeze along the cliff edge. A pity I had to return,
| it was good camping weather. This was the longest and hardest walk so far this month (not actually
| long or far, just relatively long and far). This is the first time I've exceeded the effort rating
| limit of 10, which I class as a short, easy walk.
|
| Paul

Hi Paul, I really like this photo, I think it's one of your better ones this month. I just love all
the rocks in the foreground, with all those different angular shapes, then the mountain and water in
the background too, with the blue sky...

Well done!

Ste

ste © said:

Hi Paul, I really like this photo, I think it's one of your better ones this month.

I tend to agree, although funnily enough, people have been clicking on the Fan Fawr and Mumbles
Sunrise photos more often (I uploaded them all at the same time).

Quoted message said:

I just love all the rocks in the foreground, with all those different angular shapes,

Yeah, not unlike the surface of Mars, isn't it?

Quoted message said:

then the mountain and water in the background too,

Yeah, a long way in the background. Believe it or not, this shot was taken from the outflow of the
lake, the point at which the water drains into the stream.

Quoted message said:

with the blue sky...

Hint: I used a polariser.

Paul
--
The October Project 2003
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukoctober.htmlOpen ↗
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
| ste © wrote:
|
| > Hi Paul, I really like this photo, I think it's one of your better ones this month.
|
| I tend to agree, although funnily enough, people have been clicking on the Fan Fawr and Mumbles
| Sunrise photos more often (I uploaded them all at the same time).

Those others are very nice shots too, don't get me wrong (they're all good!), but I personally
prefer this one. Of the other two you mention though, I prefer the Mumbles Head photo - I also
think this shot would have been an ideal candidate for a panorama, with the mountains at the
bottom excluded.

| > I just love all the rocks in the foreground, with all those different angular shapes,
|
| Yeah, not unlike the surface of Mars, isn't it?

It does, and I really like these rocks in foregrounds.

| > then the mountain and water in the background too,
|
| Yeah, a long way in the background. Believe it or not, this shot was taken from the outflow of the
| lake, the point at which the water drains into the stream.
|
| > with the blue sky...
|
| Hint: I used a polariser.

Good work, and I take it that this also had an effect on the reflections in the water too?

| Paul

Ste

ste © said:

Of the other two you mention though, I prefer the Mumbles Head photo - I also think this shot
would have been an ideal candidate for a panorama, with the mountains at the bottom excluded.

You mean the cliff? Same as Neal suggested. Yes, I tend to agree. I tend to think of panos as wide
things, but that doesn't have to be the case, a telephoto pano can work well too (even though it's
not a "real" panorama, but a panoramic "format"😉.

Quoted message said:

Good work, and I take it that this also had an effect on the reflections in the water too?

I don't know, I didn't really pay much attention to the water. I doubt it would have had much effect
in this shot though.

Paul
--
The October Project 2003
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukoctober.htmlOpen ↗
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
| ste © wrote:
|
| > Of the other two you mention though, I prefer the Mumbles Head photo - I also think this shot
| > would have been an ideal candidate for a panorama, with the mountains at the bottom excluded.
|
| You mean the cliff? Same as Neal suggested. Yes, I tend to agree. I tend to think of panos as wide
| things, but that doesn't have to be the case, a telephoto pano can work well too (even though it's
| not a "real" panorama, but a panoramic "format"😉.

Yes, the same as Neal - though I have only just read his post now, after you mentioned he wrote the
same (I only highlight the posts that I've responded to, so I hadn't read all of your other post and
his reply).

I was reading in this months Outdoor Photography, and there was a guy that took normal photos with
film, but cropped them to a panoramic shape, and that's the way he preferred to do his
'panoramas.' As you have said in the other thread, doing this with digital has problems if you
want to keep the resolution, so best sticking to the stitched images (unless screen resolution is
all that is desired).

| > Good work, and I take it that this also had an effect on the reflections in the water too?
|
| I don't know, I didn't really pay much attention to the water. I doubt it would have had much
| effect in this shot though.

What type of polariser do you use on your G3? I have a Cokin A series holder and polariser
for my G5.

| Paul

Ste

ste © said:

I was reading in this months Outdoor Photography, and there was a guy that took normal photos with
film, but cropped them to a panoramic shape, and that's the way he preferred to do his
'panoramas.'

That's really not a bad way to do it, especially if you have an ultrawide lens. That's basically how
the Fuji camera you mentioned does it. You can get 35mm film holders for many medium format cameras,
which allows you to take panoramic shots without having to crop the film later. My panoramic camera
has the same dimensions as a 6x6 MF 35mm film holder would have, so in effect my panoramas are like
cropped MF.

Quoted message said:

As you have said in the other thread, doing this with digital has problems if you want to keep the
resolution,

Yeah, even cropping 35mm is a problem if you want to print it really big.

Quoted message said:

so best sticking to the stitched images (unless screen resolution is all that is desired).

Yeah, that's the only option if you want a large print from digital.

Quoted message said:

What type of polariser do you use on your G3? I have a Cokin A series holder and polariser
for my G5.

A circular polariser with a 58mm thread - fits the Canon adapter.

Paul
--
The October Project 2003
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukoctober.htmlOpen ↗
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗