lambroving Posted October 9, 2006 Share #21 Posted October 9, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Have you considered that maybe, just maybe, the light at that spot was different the day you were there? Yes. Maui is ~ 20 degrees N and unless there is cloud, at 7,500' the light remains very much the same from this angle year round, (unless the whole peak is covered in cloud. ) There are multiple observatories on the other side of that far rim for that among other reasons... Can always rely on YOU to be my Devil's Advocate... Guess you will never learn that I don't shoot from the hip. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 9, 2006 Posted October 9, 2006 Hi lambroving, Take a look here Haleakala Crater . I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lambroving Posted October 9, 2006 Share #22 Posted October 9, 2006 OK, I have now looked at the shot at the PC at work. Obviously, I cannot tell what you saw 10 years ago, or what you can see on your 10x8, but both images look worse here than they do at home. Clearly, this is a pointless discussion unless and until you can see what I can see and vice versa, which would require us to be in the same room with your monitor and with mine. I am not quite sure why you continue to bring this up. Hmmm... I bring it up because most of the planet is on a PC. My home monitor is a 19" photo editing monitor. Maybe you ought to have a look at one since most labs use them. My office monitor is crap too, BTW. And yes, I've seen my pix on a 30" Mac display. Not superior IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arne_s Posted October 13, 2006 Author Share #23 Posted October 13, 2006 Thanks for your discussion, I never mind on taking hands on my photos. On my CRT monitor (21" FD Trinitron) mine looks better. The edges in the variation look oversharpened. The photo was taken from an AGFA Professional Photo CD, so now here is my own scan made with the Minolta Dimage Scan Elite II. For my taste it is a little bit too crisp, but I made it for you.... Regards, Arne Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/6372-haleakala-crater/?do=findComment&comment=69449'>More sharing options...
garyp Posted October 13, 2006 Share #24 Posted October 13, 2006 FWIW, I like the first one shown; the soft light seems more suited to a 'less crisp' version. Beautiful place at any rate. GaryP Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lambroving Posted October 15, 2006 Share #25 Posted October 15, 2006 Arne, Thanks for taking the time and trouble, but I find this new version very contrasty and I was really looking for the detail that lens can capture. Your first version has nice shadow detail. Working with only your tiny posted picture, as I mentioned, corrections are difficult. My own C-41 is scanned on this same Agfa machine, so I'm familiar with the output. Gary, You are only seeing 1/10th of the crater from this spot and at 7,500' the light would only be soft if it were filtered by cloud. The place is really very stark. This is late afternoon light and Arne's timing was perfect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted October 15, 2006 Share #26 Posted October 15, 2006 OK, I have now looked at the shot at the PC at work. Obviously, I cannot tell what you saw 10 years ago, or what you can see on your 10x8, but both images look worse here than they do at home. Clearly, this is a pointless discussion unless and until you can see what I can see and vice versa, which would require us to be in the same room with your monitor and with mine. I am not quite sure why you continue to bring this up. I don't think the differences have anything to do with whether one is viewing on a Mac or PC. The viewing differences are in the quality of the monitors and whether they are properly calibrated. To my eye, William's correction is an improvement and looks pretty darn good. Either way, the photo is excellent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kld Posted October 16, 2006 Share #27 Posted October 16, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Arne, I like your Minolta scan best. There is much more definition/detail in it and the clean cold air in such heights becomes becomes 'visible' in this high-contrast light. This photo absolutely deserves a high quality print. -- Klaus Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc_dufour Posted May 12, 2007 Share #28 Posted May 12, 2007 Perfect light, colors and framing, Arne, wich converge to a really great picture. Marc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billh Posted May 13, 2007 Share #29 Posted May 13, 2007 Beautiful! Do you happen to remember the elevation and temperature when you were there? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdg Posted May 13, 2007 Share #30 Posted May 13, 2007 The original is the best. The way I like to make (and see) my pictures. The impressing softness of the colours. Congratulation! Regards Hans (R9+DMR and D-Lux 3) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.