Sometimes one can get lucky and be there exactly when the thick layer of clouds forms a hole that allows the sunlight to illuminate only a sharply defined region of the mountains. I think that I zoomed in too much here, but I would be glad to hear your opinion.
DNickA: Sounds really great and I would take that immediately, but Annemette, we'd have copyright problems here. It sounds too similar to "Däniken", you know the guy with the extraterrestrials. They would throw us both in jail! (But perhaps they would throw us again out after some hours of headache of the chief jail officer, cause by endless argueings of Nick and Annemette about the "real" essence of this world! ;-))
Primitive Nickocell: Well, hmmm, sounds like a battery to me. A nickel-cadmium-cell. Not really my taste. I always hated batteries! I want high voltage. Batteries are fot small toys. :-/
Atomrocker: Uups, again copyright problems! It sounds to similar to "The atomic punk" of Van Halen. You see, all good nicknames are already given. :-(
Stardustpreacher: Hmm, stardust is a drug, preachers we have in religion - heeeyyy: That's great! This reveals religion as what it really is: Being high and preaching! Thanks a lot, now I know how the bible was written! :-)
On a side note: Be happy, be very happy that there is preaching like mine. Or else neither your PC wouldn't be workling, not the internet, your camera, your car, or anything else. Oh, you could of course give it all up, couldn't you?
Mr. Busybutt: Hmm, no not really... I am a lazy butt actually. ;-)
Lazybutt goes home now - 2 hours in the office are really enough! :-)
Photonic
P.S.: Why "Stardustsen" - you are not a son but a daughter. No suffix for that?
Well what about DNickA? Primitive Nickocell? Atomrocker? Stardustpreacher? Or plain and simple Mr. Busybutt? Over and out from ProtoMette Rosencell Stardustsen
I did notice that later, Annemette! But on first sight it appeared very serious to me. OK, perhaps, you make jokes a bit more... visible - since many people could perhaps think that you do mean it seriously.
Anyway, I find that so funny, that I have already some nice nicknames for you - what about "Bacteriomette"? Or even better "Protomette"? But I think that "Quarkomette" would be the best! LOL!!! :-)
Hey, and what about me? I want to be a "Photonick"? Or wait, better would be "Nickuark"! Oh no, even better: I am the subatomic particle of scientific work! I am a Karagiaouroglon! Of course one needs one hour to pronounce that, but it look nice and strange! ;-)
Errrrm, in case your partial knowledge (that stops at the level of bacteria) insists on making you feel that way, then feel free to be some bacterion Annemette. I choose a consious human existence.
Now to the photos, well, this is what I meant when I was telling that the good photo *demands* us to get the hell of a distance to persons, animals, whatever else that we may love, since it is only *we* that feel something special that remains recognizable through *any* photo. The spectator can't have knowledge of that. And here is the great challenge: make the spectator understand! One must consider each and every subtle detail at shooting time. And this demands a complete detouching from the subject (kid, pet, whatever) in the level of feelings, or else the danger is too big that the photo will be rubbish. In other words, why should spectator X care so much about my jasmine? Or your kid? Or somebody else's dog?
Only by looking completely independend from personal feelings we could be able to capture something special. But that something is a *photo*!
ROTFL, that was again Annemette's quick and dirty 1-2-3 logic. You mean, a written story is.. letters, just because it consists of letters? And of course any composite system can be equated to its components simply because it consists them, Annemette? The first question is: Which componenent do you mean? And do you know really what the components are, or do you base your statements on the partial knowledge that you consider enough in order to make such statements?
Well, in that case, we don't consist of bacteria only but of cells of many types, that are structured in a systematical approach on each level of life - from sub-atomic physics, up to consiousness.
So, one level down we consist of different kinds of tissue, which your surface scratching "philosophy" would find reason enough to say that we are "tissue"? And if so which kind of tissue, Annemette?
Another level down, we meet cells and primitive microorganisms - many kinds of them. Now we are microorganisms, only bigger ones, what Annemette? And if I may ask, which one of them - there are at least 1000000 types!
Another step down we meet macro-molecules - what you know as DNA and similarly made proteins and polypeptids and many more. So now, we are DNA molecules or are we polypeptids, or what?
One step more down and we come to the molecular world, so now we are molecules? Do you know which one of them we are, Annemette? Do you know how differently a molecule bahaves compared to an "Annemette"?
And yet another step down and you are at the stage of atoms, so you might claim as well that we are big carbon atoms? Or was it hydrogen? Or oxygen? Do you know anything about the properties of such atoms, Annemette? If you were carbon you would be... a diamond or a piece of coal. Quite bad for living...
Yet another level down and we meet subatomic particles. So we are protons, huh? Or was it electrons? If you were an electron, Annemette, you would be able to go through a wall, without being ever in the wall itself.
Should I proceed to quarks? OK, then you would be perhaps dark matter, being unable to interact with anything and to... live and state anything at all!
Oh, here was that word, interaction - hey, you heard anything about that? And how it makes a system of any interacting components to be completely different than its components?
Such "wannabe" statements can really make me angry or simply laugh. I do the second.
Take care and read before giving us your "wisdom".
Yes, indeed they can get flooded very rapidly, so it´s necessary having some knowledge about the special caverns one wishes to explore. Haha, we ARE one big bacteria in the sense that they live on us and inside of us, but unfortunately that doesn´t make us able to survive like they do;-)And Earth doesn´t benefit much from us small germs hehe About the beautiful, but dull photos then I imagine that it´s a natural proces most photographers experience. I wonder if there has been a discussion about this subject at UF with many involved? Although I´ve taken such photos and probably still will take them from time to time, I just need to see something different now. I´ve also learnt that especially a child, familymember, cat or dog needs to be presented in a special way to make it interesting for other people to look at because they just don´t share the same feelings for those ones not knowing them at all. It really is a fascinating process to go through. Take care Annemette
The thing is, how do we know when the dry cavern is going to get slightly flooded? There are so many cave-systems in the alps that are dry until they get filled with water in minutes! Brrrr! Nope! Not for me! I prefer the open air!
The creatures that can survive such conditions that would surely kill us all, do wonder how we can stand the conditions under which we live. An architeuthis for example must find the pressure of one atmosphere under which we live something like a nightmare.
Of course there are also living organisms that can survive quite anything - like for example my heroes, the small quick cockroaches. From such examples we see that the easier some living system is, the wider is the domain of conditions in which it can live. Complex organisms need more special conditions without which their system break down. So, speaking about that, should we wish to be able to live under a wider range of conditions, we should... evolve to bacteria! ;-)
I couldn't agree more with what you say about the boredom of the "nice" smiles. I alreadyy stated that long ago in the thought exchange here, and especially with Andre and with you. It's really unbelievable how many "sweet kids and pets" we get to see. Perhaps we should remember, we also did that - you with your daughter and I with my flowers and other "nice natural whatever. So perhaps that kind of development from the merely "nice" to the more thoughful is some kind of a process that does happen to all of us but simply needs time - who knows?
Anyway, this way the photo of some "smiling child" gets even more difficult due to the filtering process that gets stricter and stricter in our minds because of the already mentined boredom. As the time passes by, perhaps we start understanding what makes a smile to a great photo and separates it from the tones of photos of "sweet kids, pets, flowers" and any other contentless subject.
No I wouldn´t either. Quite spooky being lost down there in the darkness under Earth, but dry caverns would be a treat to explore. Yes, I´ve read about such animals - fascinating really how many being that are out there highly specialized. Just see how fish survive under the ice at wintertime. Amazing that some being can exist where man can not breath due to poisinous air or water, creatures that live in the dark deep oceans where the pressure is so intense that we´d explode, worms and bacterias that can survive almost in lava etc. It never ceases to wonder me. I like the long exposures of waterfalls and the ocean, but after a while it tends to get dull to look at. I don´t know for how long you´ve been at Uf or other photoforums? I´ve been here a year now, and I feel this boredom about such photos slowly taking me over. Now I´m more into photos like the ones Leonardo Regnier takes that are quite narrative - documentaries from the streets with real people - not beautiful glamourous smiles that also tend to become very dull and uniformed to view. Take care Annemette
Brrrr, I wouldn't dive in such a hole for all money of the world!
The turtles hybernating... hmmm, in Yucatan it is warm and so they get the necessary energy to mainain their blood circulation, but on a mountain with some -20°C in winter their blood would freeze. But perhaps they ahve that kind of anti-fridge than some other seprents have, that are able to survive winter even being enclosed in an ice block. Strange things on this earth!
And yes, a tele limits the light expept of course if you have some with great maximum aperture - something about 1/2 or so. Of course one can combensate with longer exposure but then you can't freeze some rapid movement, like for example a waterfall or a bird. Oh well, quality costs...
Cheers,
Nick
P.S.: It is also possible to abandon the "red thread" by consiously diminishing the DoF - but that's hard to do when taking photos of landscapes. You really have to have a special view that fits a limited DoF then. Hard to find.
Oh yes, I remember such pools in Greenland. One that was very small from above turned out to be extremely deep, and a truck disappeared down in it. They sent divers down, but they weren´t able to locate it! Amazing what lies beneath our feet. In the Yucutanpeninsula they also have such small pools that go on almost forever in deep underground caverns. It sounds fascinating about the turtles - I guess they hybernate like turtles do in the desertareas at "wintertime"? Yes, narrow aperture and tripod- the red thread:) Using a tele also limits the light, but I guess using a tripodand longer exposuretime would make up for that? Best wishes Annemette
Thank you so much for the in depth going explanation, Annemette - and I have to agree completely here. The feeled distance to the next slope can be really breathtaking. I do like the more "classical" mountain photography but I do also wonder why there is so little of mountain photography of this kind. But it could be simply because a tele flattens depth and makes the distances to the depth look actually smaller on the photo than they are in reality. (The opposite of a wide angle.) Also, a tele makes it much harder to keep the DoF since the range of sharpness is mich narrower then. Which again implies to go for narrow apertures, and loger exposure times. (And as always the tripod or some rock or anything that can help to fix the camera.)
Oh, about the lakes, well, yes, most people have that kind of picture in mind. A mountain is something like a flat cone with a peak, so where the hell should be place for a lake? But most of the time mountains are not conical at all. It is only the upper regions some hundreds of meters before the peak, that are many times cone-like. The rest of them can have any possible shape. And sometimes the lakes should beter be named "pools" since they are so small. And somtimes also, they are deeper than they are wide - I remember one of them in Greece, the famous "Dragon Lake" that is some meters wide but really soo deep! A very special kind of turtles lives in those waters - I wonder how they survice the winter since they are cold blooded.
Best wishes,
Nick.
P.S.: If only somebody would turn the right lights on for me to shoot 55 photos! Wow! ;-)
You´re welcome, Nick. What I meant was that usually you don´t really see these different "layers" in mountainphotos that naturally creates a sense of depth. I´ve seen the most spectacular out-of-this-world mountainphotographs, but they usually gave a sense of depth in the valley. I like such a zoom-in on a piece of nature that intensifies the feeling of it and shows that it´s not only up and downhill. There is so much more to a mountain which your photo illustrates well. As a small child in the lowlands of Denmark, I always wondered, how there could be lakes on top of mountains having only seen them with pointy peaks;-) Yes, the right light can be a gift when wanting to make a photo- or 55... Annemette
Thanks a lot for the great detailed comment, Annemette. If this one is right for your taste then I think that you will find some more for your taste in the next photos I post. Many like this one.
With "... different layers of nature and DOF." I assume you mean the forest at the lower part followed by the "mountain shoulder" in the middle followed by the rocks behind it? Or something else?
Anyway, I really had much luck with this one, since the sunlight came exactly through the clouds when I was there with the camera. I think that without the sunlight spot it wouldn't be as good. But OK, luck is always a part of the whole.
Just wonderful - right for my taste. The crop shouldn´t be changed, as it it nice having the different layers of nature and DOF. The sunlight adds a lot to the atmosphere. Breathtaking landscape. Annemette
0 
