Some recent AK photo's (Bethel, Barrow: concrete, satellite, groups)

[ShipOfFools42]

^ Indeed it does. That's why I appreciate them as well. But, like you, I am unable to rep tigre at the moment. Thanks for the first-hand view! Now I need to come see it in person...

[tigre79]

Yeah, I realized that I generally only post pics from mostly clear days, because the clouds we get here are usually quite light-colored and uniform, and make everything look kind of flat, especially when the mountains are white.

Earlier that morning the clouds dropped down really low, and it was much like I described in that other thread. You could still see all the way across the bay, and even to the base of the mountains down at the mouth of the bay, but there was a cloud ceiling at about 300 feet, above which you couldn't see anything. That was the worst overcast we've had in a while, but I was working out on the rearing pens and couldn't take a picture.

[ShipOfFools42]

Originally Posted by tigre79

Yeah, I realized that I generally only post pics from mostly clear days, because the clouds we get here are usually quite light-colored and uniform, and make everything look kind of flat, especially when the mountains are white.

Sounds kind of similar to that "flat light" phenomenon that one of the pilots was talking about on Flying Wild Alaska. Very perilous for flying. From Wikipedia:

In clear air conditions, when there is little or no snow falling, but the ground is completely covered with snow, diffuse lighting from overcast clouds may cause all surface definition to disappear. It becomes impossible to tell how far away the snowy surface is. In polar regions this optical illusion can make whole snow-covered mountains invisible against the background white cloud, and the horizon cannot be identified, slopes cannot be judged for steepness, and snow surfaces cannot be seen. This effect is exacerbated by a smooth surface of fresh snow. It is only when a contrasting object is placed on a snowy surface that the surface can be detected. In less extreme cases, it may suffice to break the snow surface by throwing a snowball ahead. This form is also known as flat light or sector whiteout

[tigre79]

Yup, scary when you're out snowmachining or skiing or whatnot as well. You literally cannot tell where small hills or rises are if you're not following a track or there aren't any willows to show you where the ground is. You'll think you're on a perfectly flat area and suddenly go up or down without any warning. Very disorienting.

[Floyd_Davidson]

Originally Posted by tigre79

Yeah, I realized that I generally only post pics from mostly clear days, because the clouds we get here are usually quite light-colored and uniform, and make everything look kind of flat, especially when the mountains are white.

Wonderful light for portraits. It's particularly great for flowers, children and young women, less so for men or older people. But it makes for pretty bland landscapes unless you up the contrast.

The Exif data is pretty limited on your images. Could I ask what kind of a camera you use, and if you do much processing, or just take the JPEG as it comes from the camera?

[warptman]

Tonight's sunset.

White Alice and sundogs

[tigre79]

Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson

The Exif data is pretty limited on your images. Could I ask what kind of a camera you use, and if you do much processing, or just take the JPEG as it comes from the camera?

Just a Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ59. Don't do much to them, sometimes increase contrast or adjust color temperature with Picasa. I've been encouraged to buy a real camera and take photography more seriously, but I'm not sure I really want to lug something like that around. I don't really do portraits, but it is true that flat light is good for flowers. This wild iris was taken on quite an overcast day:

[Floyd_Davidson]

Originally Posted by tigre79

Just a Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ59. Don't do much to them, sometimes increase contrast or adjust color temperature with Picasa. I've been encouraged to buy a real camera and take photography more seriously, but I'm not sure I really want to lug something like that around. I don't really do portraits, but it is true that flat light is good for flowers. This wild iris was taken on quite an overcast day:

Yeah! Is that ever a wonderful example!

I sympathize about the camera getting lugged around. I actually quit doing much photography for a few years in the late 80's and early 90's, mostly because I couldn't have a darkroom (which is at least half the fun for me). Then digital came along,

At first I used smaller cameras because I was traveling a lot. But when I "retired", I switched to professional model DSLR's, starting with a Nikon D1. The difference is that before that photography had to be secondary, but now it is my primary work.

When the whole purpose of being wherever it is I go is to photograph it, I don't mind lugging a big camera! During the summer months I usually have about 25 pounds of photography equipment on my 4-wheeler, even when just cruising around town. :-)

[Frostnip]

Yeah, I used to be big into photography, but then I moved and no longer had access to a good darkroom, and kinda fell out of it. I just got a DSLR, though, so we'll see. So far I more or less like it, but doing it all with computers just isn't the same. Playing around with the RAW data is interesting in its own way, though...

[ShipOfFools42]

Holy crap Warpt! That sun looks like a comet, the way it has a trail as it's setting in that picture. And sundogs are always very cool. Is that a White Alice tropospheric antenna right under the sun in the sundog picture? I know the tropospheric antennas were these huge things that looked like barrels, at least from one side, and that's what that looks like in that picture.

I, too, used to love working in the darkroom. Of course, that was back in high school, and I haven't done it since. I have a decent point-and-shoot and post some extremely mediocre pictures of the Blue Ridge Mountains on the western NC forum.