Troutnut Forum > Photography > Stunning Photos
| Martinlf | November 29th, 2006, 8:02 pm | |
| Palmyra PA Posts: 972 | If new members have not yet checked out "Landscapes & Trout" take a look to see some of the most beautiful photos of streams you'll find anywhere. Jason's stomping ground is too far for a casual trip by me, but if it weren't I'd be walking the woods trying to find these brooks as much to see their unique geology firsthand as for the fish. | |
| Louis Is it not an art to deceive a trout with an artificial fly? A trout! that is more sharp-sighted than any hawk . . . and more watchful and timorous than your high-mettled merlin is bold! --Izaak Walton The Compleat Angler | ||
|
These advertisements will disappear if you register. | ||
| Gripngrin | December 1st, 2006, 12:11 am | |
| Front Range - Colorado Posts: 17 | You are right-on Louis. Jason's landscape photography is awesome. Frankly, I am a little jealous of the colors. So rich and vibrant. Beautiful contrasts. Sitting on high on the Colorado plateau, our trout streams are mostly pine - some aspen, cottonwoods & willows. Lots & lots of green. Almost monochromatic. We do not have the rich oranges, golds and yellows, except in the fall for a few brief weeks. Jason, which lens do you like to use? Filters? Mike | |
| Grip'n Grin Mike | ||
| Troutnut | December 1st, 2006, 1:15 am | |
| Fairbanks, AK Posts: 1144 | I'm really glad you guys enjoy the photos! That makes it easier to lug my tripod and digital SLR body/case/lenses around for miles when I find a pretty spot (although one day hiking 9 miles with that stuff this September just about did me in). My main lens for landscape shots is Canon's EF-S 10-22mm lens. I sometimes use the 70-200mm f/4 L, which is pretty nice, although I often wish I had the f/2.8 version with image stabilization. If I ever stumble upon a money tree I'll be sure to fix that. I use a polarizing filter for many of my shots, which helps with the colors. I also use a 6-stop ND filter to blur the water. I've had a few polite complaints about overuse of that effect. I don't quite agree, because I really like the large-scale structure and sense of motion it adds to most of the pictures, but next season I will try to balance it out by getting a little closer to the water and shooting stop-action exposures. I don't really like the texture of water "frozen" by a picture at normal landscape / stream portrait distances, but I think it will make for interesting pictures if I get in close enough to the turbulence to see interesting lines and forms rather than just a rough texture. Maybe the pictures will be crap, too. I'll just have to try it and see. The colors and contrast are all in the post-processing, for which I use RawShooter Pro (which has unfortunately been discontinued as the developers all jumped over to Adobe Lightroom) and Photoshop. RawShooter has a "vibrance" tweak which is much nicer than playing with saturation, and in Photoshop my favorite trick is local contrast enhancement. I'm sure you know this as a photographer Mike, but I always feel obligated to point out for the general audience that computer enhancement isn't "cheating" in any way because all digital photos are computer enhanced; I just do it manually rather than letting the camera's software do it automatically. I'm quite jealous of your position in the Colorado Front Range, Mike! I visited there once when I was about 12. My first memory of actual live trout (I grew up in troutless northern Missouri) is from that trip, and I vividly remember seeing one around 12" spook and dart upstream in the clear water of the Colorado River in Rocky Mountain National Park. I didn't get to fish because we were on a sightseeing trip -- that drove me crazy! It's been a downward spiral into troutnuttery ever since... | |
| Jason Neuswanger The Troutnut | ||
New features!
