You make the call

[ATSF666]

For those of you a certain age, you might recall the old NFL TV feature - "you make the call."

PhotoID: 593789 Photograph © Indecline

A photo taken a little further to the west than the next photo. I never get the sense that Mt Hood is "looming" over the scene at Maryhill, but your mileage may vary.

PhotoID: 668692 Photograph © Chris Starnes

I'm taking my photo not too far from the eastbound siding signals.

I really don't expect this post to last all that long here, but what the hey. Too bad Troy can't comment on this one...…

[miningcamper1]

300mm full frame equivalent in Chris' shot, so the mountain "looms". I recall reading that if you shot this scene with a normal lens and cropped it, the photos would have the same perspective.

BTW, good thing you replaced that grain elevator shot. It was kind of confusing!

[ATSF666]

Originally Posted by miningcamper1

300mm full frame equivalent in Chris' shot, so the mountain "looms". I recall reading that if you shot this scene with a normal lens and cropped it, the photos would have the same perspective.

BTW, good thing you replaced that grain elevator shot. It was kind of confusing!

I'm not so good at figuring out how to make photos show in this format.

I've shot this scene with a 400 mm full frame 35 mm camera and still can't make the mountain 'loom". I live in Hood River with the mountain in my "backyard" and it still doesn't "loom". If it blows, I might have a whole lot more concerns though.

[Mgoldman]

Miningcamper1 is spot on.

If you take your shot, crop really tight by the mountain, you'll see the mountain "loom" with room for the train to be included in the shot. Not sure what Chris did to get the shot - could be a number of variables - 300 mm with a 1.4 or even a 2X extender, or a very high megapixel camera with the image cropped considerably, or a not so high resolution camera with a cropped image that won't reproduce well past an 8"X12".

Be wary of heat distortion, however - I'm always amazed when people "beat" this issue, as I only seem able to at sunset and sunrise, regardless of the time of the year.

/Mitch

[Mgoldman]

Originally Posted by miningcamper1

300mm full frame equivalent in Chris' shot...

I was happy to hear Chris was one of the few sharing EXIF info but later noticed it was hidden. I find it a shame people omit this info as it helps others learn, improve - lol, and better utilize their time in any possible attempt to emulate the shot, but perhaps with their own style. It's a hobby, right - or is it a business with trade secrets?

How did you come to the conclusion that Chris was at 300 mm?

BTW - forgot to mention - minigcamper1, you are correct, a crop sensor is like a full frame cropped. If you are using a crop sensor camera, it would be like using a full frame camera but only exposing the middle of the sensor.

A crop sensor is like having your own built in extender (1.6 for Canon, I believe and 1.5? for Nikon), ie; a 100 mm lens would give you a 160 mm lens looking shot. 'Course, a crop sensor usually has smaller pixels resulting in less low light performance - and, on the other end, you can not go as wide as you loose it on the opposite end.

/Mitch

[RobJor]

This is starting to get close to looming??

Bob

[miningcamper1]

Originally Posted by Mgoldman

I was happy to hear Chris was one of the few sharing EXIF info but later noticed it was hidden. I find it a shame people omit this info as it helps others learn, improve - lol, and better utilize their time in any possible attempt to emulate the shot, but perhaps with their own style. It's a hobby, right - or is it a business with trade secrets?

How did you come to the conclusion that Chris was at 300 mm?

Easily! Saved the photo to any folder and right-clicked to view 'properties'.
Then 190mm x the 1.6 crop factor for a Canon EOS = 304 equivalent.

[miningcamper1]

Originally Posted by RobJor

This is starting to get close to looming??

Bob

Presto!
[Anyone else think of The Shining when they see a Mount Hood photo?]

[bigbassloyd]

Oh the fun stuff I could show you with my 600mm and aggressive cropping. That is, if I shared my photos more. lol

Loyd L.

[Mgoldman]

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

Oh the fun stuff I could show you with my 600mm and aggressive cropping. That is, if I shared my photos more. lol

Loyd L.

Why not share?

I've had a ball with my Canon 300mm with a near permanently attatched 1.4 extender. Missed a lot of shots after the first clicks, patiently watching others zoom further and further out getting more perspectives. The 300 mm f/4 is a bargain, and sharp, however. Many more opportunities with my 100-400mm with the 1.4 attached (420 mm equivalent) but gotta up the ISO considerably at f/8 when maxed.

I find the only time I can use the lens, however, is at sunrise and sunset - both before and after the ground warms up. Don't know how Steve Schmollinger does it in between - perhaps it's that dry Texas air.

Saw some really nice results with Sigma's 150-600mm - even with a 1.4 or so attached. Seemed even better than Canon (ugh). As I understand it, that lens even comes with calibration software - and it shines when tuned.

Wonder if any weaknesses would become more apparent at higher resolutions - say, a 40-50 MP?

/Mitch

[Mgoldman]

Originally Posted by miningcamper1

Easily! Saved the photo to any folder and right-clicked to view 'properties'.
Then 190mm x the 1.6 crop factor for a Canon EOS = 304 equivalent.

Thanks - noticed sometimes the information is saved, often, not though.

I used to use freeware called PadaEXIF, I think? - you could install it, and when you right clicked on any image, it would show the EXIF - if it was there.

/Mitch

[RobJor]

I am glad posters are venturing at least softly into questioning photos. Maybe add a little fun back into forum.

Big zooms are for the birds, celebrity stalkers and beach watchers. Make a mountain out of molehill. Alternate reality.

Bob

[bigbassloyd]

Originally Posted by Mgoldman

Why not share?

Having tons of my stuff out on the web (or magazines) doesn't do a whole lot for me. You're on my facebook friends list; take a quick gander and you'll see that I really don't post many photos.

Saw some really nice results with Sigma's 150-600mm - even with a 1.4 or so attached. Seemed even better than Canon (ugh). As I understand it, that lens even comes with calibration software - and it shines when tuned.

I've never shot with the Sigma, But my Tamron generally walks over the Canon 100-400. Very capable lens. I'll be heading to NWO Sunday to do some more sunrise - sunset monster zooms. I rarely remove it when in the Midwest.

Loyd L.

[ATSF666]

I understand what happens with using a long telephoto, but the train doesn't look like it's a 300 mm shot. I went to the basic location this last Saturday where Chris took the photo without doing the wandering into Rattlesnake territory to try and replicate it. It just didn't look right to me. But your mileage may vary.

[baggydave]

I too have been there and Mount Hood never dominated like that in my memories. I also don't know what is happening with the diagonal wires. They don't match up
Might see some of you next week in New England as I am having to go to Canada again and I am tired of always going to Wisconsin. Trying New England instead. Dave

[miningcamper1]

Perhaps this wider view of the area will help set the scene. Obviously Mount Hood will loom closer in a telephoto view.

[Mberry]

Originally Posted by baggydave

I too have been there and Mount Hood never dominated like that in my memories. I also don't know what is happening with the diagonal wires. They don't match up
Might see some of you next week in New England as I am having to go to Canada again and I am tired of always going to Wisconsin. Trying New England instead. Dave

You make going to Canada sound like a chore!

[RobJor]

Here is another one not quite that extreme. Only 500+ listed, I got tired of looking.
Interesting trying to figure what is level. in terms of looming I think I prefer this take.

PhotoID: 400295 Photograph © BurghMan

I am guessing at 30 miles as the crow flies. Last time I was there I was riding in a gondola in 1973 and when we pulled into Wishram it took me a while to figure out it was a stub yard and I had to catch a train heading out in the same direction i came in on.
Gondola was a nice view tho.

Bob Jordan

[ATSF666]

Originally Posted by RobJor

Here is another one not quite that extreme. Only 500+ listed, I got tired of looking.
Interesting trying to figure what is level. in terms of looming I think I prefer this take.



I am guessing at 30 miles as the crow flies. Last time I was there I was riding in a gondola in 1973 and when we pulled into Wishram it took me a while to figure out it was a stub yard and I had to catch a train heading out in the same direction i came in on.
Gondola was a nice view tho.

Bob Jordan

Note the head end power is located exactly where the photo in question is. The mountain in this photo is no where as large as in the photo I have a question about, but yet the locomotives are much larger in the photo RobJor linked. For the most part I don't really care, but as some of you may have noted, I shoot this area a lot with many different focal lengths, I've yet to get anything like the photo I'm questioning.

[baggydave]

You make going to Canada sound like a chore!

If you know the area of North Bay you will know what I mean

[RobJor]

Originally Posted by baggydave

You make going to Canada sound like a chore!

If you know the area of North Bay you will know what I mean

You got to go North young man.

PhotoID: 661019 Photograph © Robert Jordan

Bob

[ATSF666]

Derailed.....