DSLRUsers.com

Managed to squeeze a day and a half in Switzerland a few weeks ago- WOW what a place!

Those mountains are so high and driving the passes is an experience in itself.

Click for larger

Aletsch Glacier- it was after sunset for this one.



The Matterhorn






Flowers in Jungfrau




A fifth image just to show a miniaturisation I had pre envisioned- didnt quite get the right image/ perspective but didint really have time to find a better spot.




Got a few stiched shots but they are pretty thin- ie 1:6.

Robert

Lovely collection of shots Robert.
The first three really capture the ruggedness of the terrain, while the last two show more of the 'softness and vegetation' I think the train was an obvious choice for the tilt/shift miniaturisation look. I guess my only niggle is that only work screens the flowers seem a little blown, but it’s a pretty minor niggle.

Robert

These are all good, but #1 is the star. Not only is it well exposed but compositionally those leading lines draw the eye brilliantly to the mountain at the top.

I agree with Stubbsy. Excellent photography.

stubbsy wrote:Robert

These are all good, but #1 is the star. Not only is it well exposed but compositionally those leading lines draw the eye brilliantly to the mountain at the top.

great work.

I do like the miniturisation as well!

First glance at the first one an dI thought I was lookign a road thru the mountains! It is a really nice picture and I imagine when viewed full res is more stunning!

The pano Matterhorn is very nice, well balance composition and nice contrast between teh sky and whites!

The flower shot is also very nice, classic stuff which shows much more that a bunch of yellow flowers...

These shots are primo and that's been pointed out already.

I haven't got much to add really. If you were printing those flowers, I'd remove the distracting pink and the little blue dot in the distance.

Slightly higher POV for the train would have been better but previsualising this is top stuff.

Breath taking scenery which you have captured so very well. Do you have a landscape version of no1?

Thanks for all of the positive comments- it really is a special place and not too hard to get nice shots- though impossible to capture the grandeur of it all.

biggerry wrote:First glance at the first one an dI thought I was lookign a road thru the mountains! It is a really nice picture and I imagine when viewed full res is more stunning!

It the largest glacier in the Alps at about 25mk long!!

Big V wrote:Breath taking scenery which you have captured so very well. Do you have a landscape version of no1?

havent printed this one- actually only printed about 6 or 7 (all at A3) though not sure if it is as good as the portait- also portrait at 70mm with above at 24mm.

This one works really well!!! Can we please see a nice contrasty B&W (A.Adams style) conversion?

Hi, wow what a location! Nice shots

On my screen the shadows look a bit milky. Maybe you've brought up the shadows a fraction too much? Especially LHS centre of this as there isn't much there to look at. Maybe a bit of a crop and a punchy b&w might be good to solve that??

There's a tiny bit of sun on the mountain to the right of picture. It looks nice but distracts from the main show (the glacier and distance). I'm sure you had time restrictions though would have been ideal to have more sun around the peaks or wait later and have a moodier sky.

Cheers,

C

Wigspotter (Connor)

I see you're new here. Welcome.

Please understand there is no need to repost a copy of an image you are commenting on in your post. Just say #2 or your landscape version of #1 or whatever and we'll know the one you're talking about. If we all reposted images we'd have pages and pages of repeating images to scroll through

Thanks

The photo I was commenting on wasn't in his original post. Far easier to just quote it rather than explain it. These pages load pretty quickly so I don't see the problem.
C

Wigspotter wrote:The photo I was commenting on wasn't in his original post. Far easier to just quote it rather than explain it. These pages load pretty quickly so I don't see the problem

Connor

I know it wasn't in the original post, but I'd also just seen your comments in THIS post. At that time in 6 odd posts you'd done it twice. If this was a one off I'd have not bothered, but it looked like a pattern.

I'm beginning to sense a pattern myself.

Wigspotter wrote:These pages load pretty quickly so I don't see the problem.

That you do not see the problem is precisely the point.

It may be the case for you, as it is for me, that we each enjoy somewhat fast-ish connections, but neither you, nor I, represent the whole membership of this forum. Until the NBN rollout is complete - and even then - there are many areas of Australia that are not served by fast(ish) connections, and it's not really a good idea to presume that because you have a fast connection, so too does every other member here. Indeed, the reverse would be true.

Our rules and guidelines have been framed in order to try to give all members a good viewing experience, and Peter's suggestions to you are valid and in order.

Your cooperation in following those rules and guidelines is greatly appreciated.

Hi Gary,

Apologies for being inflammatory. Petter's comments are in order but less than welcoming despite his use of the word.

It might be worth making this guideline prominent in your forum rules for the sake of future members.

Are there many forum users on dial-up?

Apologies to Robert for this thread.

Conor

Wigspotter wrote:Are there many forum users on dial-up?

I don't have actual numbers, but I do know that there are quite a few. As an example, we have some members who visit regularly, and are situated in areas like outback Northern Territory and Qld. Not all of them post on a regular basis, but the logs indicate regular visits.

Further, we also today need to consider that increasing number of members who visit the site using a mobile connection. As you may or may not know, some of the wireless broadband connection plans are less than generous when it comes to provisioning bandwidth, and thus it's also inappropriate for us to overload their connections with images in this way.

I think that the forum rules, as currently stated, adequately cover this situation:

Forum Rules wrote:no more than four images per post or thread

I don't see Peter's words as being less than welcoming. I do see that they may have made you take a defensive posture, but I suspect that was more because Peter saw fit to pull you up, rather than anything specific in what he wrote.

Regardless, I think that you're now fully appraised of the situation, and that's what matters.

That's just it Gary, it appears to be a reference to the original post and not rules for critiquing. And does a repost count as a separate image? 800px images may well be for the sake of easy viewing on a screen and have nothing to do with bandwidth considerations.

I've been pulled up, as you say, for a two post 'pattern.' His responses are officious with no encouragement to be an active participant in these forums. As a new eye to your forum rules it's quite reasonable that I wouldn't interpret your 4 image per thread as a critique format guideline.

Conor

Wigspotter wrote: 800px images may well be for the sake of easy viewing on a screen

Exactly.

As a new eye to your forum rules it's quite reasonable that I wouldn't interpret your 4 image per thread as a critique format guideline.

I appreciate your feedback, but will add that very few people seem to have any issues with interpreting this, and I would think that the word "thread" is quite clear in its meaning. You also might care to review the posting guidelines in our FAQ.

Regardless of the semantics, I think that you now have a better understanding of what our requirements are, and we look forward to seeing your work posted here.