Monday, October 19, 2009

Fotos of Fall Foliage

So, given that Saturday was a beautiful day, after lazing around the house for most of the morning and early afternoon, including reading a book on the porch with our puppy, I managed to make it up into the mountains to do a little amateur photography. I think some of them turned out pretty well, though I was also slightly more convinced that I'd like to get a monopod. Here's a sample:

Fall Foliage 2009 001

Fall Foliage 2009 026

Fall Foliage 2009 037

Fall Foliage 2009 049

Fall Foliage 2009 078

Fall Foliage 2009 003

More photos here.


Kimberli said...

great pics. My favorites are the one with the stream (#4?) and the close up of the leaves at the end.

CJ said...

Nicely done, man! Def like the mountain framed by the leaves best.

Why would you get a monopod? Generally they're for large telephoto lenses to support the weight. Maybe a small tripod?

j said...

Well, I was thinking a monopod might something that I could get that would be tall enough to not have stoop way down to take pictures, but light/small enough to not be cumbersome to pack around. Maybe I should also consider a tripod. Haven't done a whole lot of thinking about it.

And yes, I liked the way the line of the leaves semi-matched the line of the dark mountains opposite them, with the brighter peak in the middle.

CJ said...

Cool. Do they even make monopods for anything other than large telephoto lenses?

Wouldn't you still have to stoop down to look through the viewfinder?

j said...

@CJ: Here's an example of what at least got me thinking about the idea of a monopod:

Extends to 5' 4", so yeah, might have to stoop a bit, but not much. Not sure if it's overkill for a point-and-shoot, though. Would provide better stability than just holding the camera in my hand, though.

CJ said...

Gotcha--so that is for SLRs with telephoto lenses. I'm not sure how stable it'd be with just one leg, though; I'm betting you'd have teetering issues.

The other thing is, for interesting photos--particularly scenic/landscape--you generally don't want to be shooting at or near the typical eye-level. What makes such shots interesting much of the time is shooting them from a perspective/angle that the human eye doesn't typically experience.

Just my $.02.

j said...

@CJ: You do make some good points. So I guess I'm now slightly less convinced that I'd like to get a monopod, but still convinced that I will get fewer blurry photos (not included here for obviously reasons) with some sort of -pod. :)

CJ said...

You def will. Have you played with the ISO on your camera? That'll up the photosite/pixel sensitivity to light, giving you more light per unit time, which equals sufficient exposure in less time, which means less camera shake.

Also, like the Spanish spelling of "fotos" in the title. :)

j said...

I've "played" with the ISO settings, without really knowing the implications. I mean, I know that it affects how long the shutter is open, but not really how that affects the photos exactly. I took all of these on low ISO settings, because I was working on the assumption that if I could at least hold the camera still they'd turn out a bit better.

CJ said...

If you can hold the camera still, then yep, low ISO is preferable. A high ISO increases the likelihood of digital noise--particularly in low light. But if you're having any trouble at all holding still, you want to knock it up since you don't likely have much aperture control on your camera. (And you don't want to open up the aperture if you're doing landscape anyway, b/c that = shallow depth-of-field which = blurred background or foreground.)

You'll want to zoom into a shot at 100% to ensure it's sharp. They can look sharp in-camera and be blurry once you upload to your PC.

So, in the end, upping the ISO is less desirable, but if it's that (a bit of noise) versus blur, you clearly want the former.