There are a gazillion images of Yellowstone National Park’s Lower Falls, but I posted this one to talk about capturing snowfall in an image.
There’s this sort of Goldilocks and the Three Bears choice when capturing a decent snowfall image, imo: too slow of a shutter speed means you’ll get white streaks (unless that’s what you want), too fast of a shutter speed means you’ll barely see any snow at all, and just the right shutter speed means you’ll see little white dots or flakes of snow, like you probably originally wanted.
In this shot, I’d just hiked down a steep, zig zag trail to reach the brink of the Lower Falls. There was nobody else there because the snow was beginning to come down hard. It wasn’t a beautiful, feathery-flake kind of snow. It was more like almost-but-not-quite freezing rain, so the snow flakes were small but numerous, and were beginning to fog up the scene a little. I got this shot, cropped it to get rid of all the melted snow droplets on the lens filter front, then began the steep hike back up to the top of the trail. It was snowing so heavily by then that I could barely make out the waterfall.
The Lower Falls of the Yellowstone River is quite impressive, however you manage to see it. I didn’t realize at the time, that there were quite a few more trails to different viewpoints. The next time I visit this park, you can sure bet I’ll ferret out all those other viewpoints. One can never have too many shots of this waterfall, right? 😉
It’s Waterfall Wednesday! So here’s a little falls courtesy of Yellowstone National Park. Kepler Cascades is a 150-foot tall, multi-tiered waterfall just off the roadside along Hwy 89, south of the Old Faithful complex. It’s not visited much, probably because most people are zoned in on reaching Old Faithful and surrounding environs. If you look on Flickr.com, though, you’ll see a ton of Kepler Cascades pics more or less the same as what I have here (so I guess I’m not that original, although I can claim I took this particular photo, so it’s *mine*).
As a side story, I had returned to my rental vehicle after photographing the cascades and continued driving for some miles when the low-tire light came on. That made me a little nervous, but I remembered seeing a small gas station right outside of the lodge area of Old Faithful, so I turned the SUV around and started heading back. I was worried something would happen before making it to the gas station, so I was quite relieved when I saw the sign for Kepler Cascades, because I knew I was nearing my destination. As it was, I had to purchase an old-fashioned (i.e. non-digital) tire gauge and valve caps because I’d forgotten to pack both of them into my luggage. Must have been mercury retrograde or something, because usually I remember to pack my own tire gauge and valve caps just in case something like this occurs. Car rental companies are not the best with upkeep, unfortunately.
Now I have my own travel wagon that I keep maintained, with tire gauge and valve caps always in it for my photo travels. Hah, car rental companies!
The National Parks Traveler has published my latest photography article. This month’s column is about photography and the art of patience. If you are interested in reading the article, then click on the image above.
As for this particular image, this was the reward for me and the rest of the crew on a photo tour of Lake Clark National Park and Preserve, in Alaska. If it wasn’t for this mother bear and her cubs appearing throughout our stay there, we would not have seen much in the way of Alaskan brown bear action, at all, during our stay. Having the privilege of watching her nurse her cubs was the reward for sticking around with the three of them instead of moving on to someplace new to look for other bear action.
Yesterday, I happened to look at the National Parks Traveler’s Facebook post about my latest article on glaciers, titled “Searching For Glaciers In National Parks.” There were 5 comments for that post, one of which (a guy) accused me by name of photoshopping lakes in the two images above. Two or three others (guys) were all quick to enforce this guy’s comment that yeah, they could see it themselves. I’d photoshopped that lake into a photo. Insert exaggerated eyeroll.
I replied to that guy (who claims he knows Mount Rainier intimately, so that’s why he would see I’d photoshopped lakes into these images) that if he looked closer at the top first image, he’d see that’s not a lake but a large shadowed area since the image was captured shortly after sunrise. He’d also see the squiggly line of the river running through that shadowed area.
In the second image, there actually, truly, really is a lovely glacier-fed turquoise-blue lake there below the mountain. You can see it if you hike to Glacier Overlook in the Sunrise Area. If you go to Flickr.com and type the words “Glacier Overlook Mount Rainier” into Flickr’s search field, you’ll pull up all sorts of images – many of that same area, where you’ll see the lake there.
I stand by my photography, and so does the Traveler. I’m a pretty damned good photographer (yes, I’m tooting my own horn here), and I have no need to do something stupid like photoshop into an image something that wasn’t originally there. I don’t want my street cred ruined. If I ever did change my original image in any way – like clone out (remove) something, like a tracking collar from wildlife, then I would definitely indicate that. An honest photographer will do that.
Here’s another example for you. How many of you have seen awesome star images of the Watchman over the Virgin River in Zion National Park? You can see so clearly the mountain and the river and these amazing stars overhead. I’m here to tell you that what you are looking at is a blended image. One (or more) image(s) was/were captured of the mountain and river at an earlier time, when there was more sunlight, and then blended with the dark, starry image. Go back to Flickr.com and type in the words “night photography zion utah” and see what pulls up. Then, see how many photographers will actually tell you whether or not that star shot is a blended one. Does it make the image less lovely? No, it’s still beautiful, but the photographer should, at least, indicate that the image is a composite of one or more shots taken at different times of the day. The really good photographers do that (well, at least one of them that I happen to admire who is honest about his shots). The image below is what the place actually looks like at 2 a.m. on a February morning, when the atmospheric conditions are at their clearest.
To that guy’s credit, he did apologize, once I replied to his comment, defending my images, he did take a look at them on a bigger monitor (I get the gist he was bragging he has a 30-inch monitor, so what, he’s a better photographer than I? I dunno.) and realized that yes, I was right about my images and no, I had not photoshopped anything into my already beautiful images (the “beautiful images” part are my words, not his). He then went on to tell me how he was intimately familiar with Mount Rainier because yadda yadda yadda. At least he apologized, so that’s something.
Another photographer with whom I am acquainted once noted that, if you are photographing for journalistic work, then you should be honest and leave your image as-is. If you are photographing for fine art purposes, then knock yourself out. I agree, to a point. Yes, you should absolutely be honest with those journalistic images. Since my imagery is used for the National Parks Traveler, you can sure bet that I not only use my best images, but I also don’t photoshop anything into or out of them. I do sharpen and use other editing tools to bring out the texture or add more color saturation or more brightness. Standard stuff. The camera captures the data, but sometimes, you have to pull the data details out with a little editing tool help.
As for fine art imagery, it’s the same thing. I’m not going to add that new sky feature Photoshop now has, where you can add a beautiful sky to your images in case the sky in your photo was blah on the day you captured the photo (as you can tell, I’m not a fan of something like that). If I photograph a beautiful close-up of wildlife, then I probably would remove the tracking collar, and would indicate I’d done that, in addition to saying the close-up was made with a telephoto lens.
It’s all about honesty and truth, and photographers who adhere to that policy fare much better than those that do not, in the end. So, if someone challenges you or accuses you of doing something fake to your image when you know you did not, you should stand up and fight back. You’ll still have plenty of naysayers just because they think they know better and are jerks about it – can’t fix that, unfortunately, but you’ll have championed your images and your talent as a photographer. Don’t stay silent and let the dickheads think they are right.
It’s Waterfall Wednesday, so how about a little waterfall along the cold, turquoise-tinted water of Baring Creek, flowing beneath the arched bridge on Going-to-the-Sun Road in Glacier National Park.
I last visited this park in 2017, when I captured the image above. No, it’s not Baring Falls – that one is much larger and further down the trail. I don’t really know why I didn’t hike the entire trail to the waterfall, but I didn’t. Next time I am in Glacier, I’ll hike down to get a different waterfall composition for a future Waterfall Wednesday.
A few weeks ago, my editor asked me to write an article about being able to see glaciers in national parks. So, I did. It’s been published in today’s edition of the National Parks Traveler. Click on the image to read the article.
As for the image, this is one of the first things you see when you cross the border from Banff National Park into Jasper National Park. You can even buy a ticket to go on a sort of bus kitted out with big honkin’ snow tires and ride out to, and walk onto, the glacier. My parents did it decades ago, and I wish I would have done the same thing, in retrospect. Maybe someday, when Canada lets us back in, I’ll take a little drive back into Jasper National Park and walk on that glacier.
Copyright Rebecca L. Latson, all rights reserved.
Comments Off on Searching For Glaciers In The National Park System
After I published that food photo post, I remembered my latest national parks quiz and trivia piece #24 had been published in the National Parks Traveler a couple of days ago.
The image was captured back in 2014 during an organized photo tour I’d taken to Lake Clark National Park and Preserve, ostensibly to photograph the Alaskan brown bears. Turns out, while we got bear photos (thank goodness a mom and her two cubs were around the entire time we were there), we also captured landscape images during those times when no bears were available for their Demille close-ups (has anybody ever watched “Sunset Boulevard”?).
Click on the image above to go see how much you really know about national parks, and learn some stuff, too. I find with every quiz piece I create, I realize just how much I don’t know about national parks, and how much I really do learn.
Copyright Rebecca L. Latson, all rights reserved.
Comments Off on National Parks Quiz and Trivia #24
WTF? What on earth is this? Food photos? And not even really good ones. Well, yeah, I basically just saved them as-is without any fancy touches. It’s to demonstrate my new toy: the LumeCube panel. And no, I’m not a paid whatever – I’m just impressed, that’s all.
Ok, here’s the backstory. I am a pretty damned good cook, and I do almost all of the cooking for our family (me, my sister, and my youngest nephew). My sister suggested I create a little Blurb-made cookbook to give as Christmas presents this year. I have tons of recipes that I’ve been using over the past 3 years, and I take photos of my daily dinner creations. They aren’t fancy, posed, food photos because I get these suckers right before we chow down, and frankly, I don’t have the time (nor do I want to make the time) to get everything all just perfect in terms of composition. I just take the photos and then will work on them later for my cookbook.So, last night’s dinner was an awesome tuna noodle casserole (how 1950’s, right?). I took a photo of it sitting in the oven after it was done, then remembered I’d just gotten my LumeCube panels (one for the camera, complete with little mini ballhead that sits on the flash shoe, and one for my laptop so I’ll look only slightly better and more lit-up during Zoom meetings. I’d not yet even tried the LumeCube panel for my camera and decided this would be a good opportunity to test it out. I’m totally impressed.Yes, I might be able to get the same view with a regular camera flash, but with LumeCube, the light is on all the time so I can actually see how everything looks lit up through the viewfinder before clicking the shutter button.
To learn more about LumeCube, click the photos.
Anyway, I can tell you from personal experience that the tuna noodle casserole was very good, and it’s going to end up in the cookbook, tentatively titled “Becky Homecky’s Cooking Template.” That Becky Homecky moniker was bestowed upon me by my hairstylist a year ago. She likes giving people nicknames and since I’m the cook, she thought up that name. It’s a “cooking template” because all the recipes I use can either be cooked per the recipe, or tweaked (and I’ve tweaked many if not most of the recipes I use). So, if somebody wants to add cheese, or take it out of the recipe, they can, since all the recipes are basically “templates” which can be changed to suit the cook’s preference. Clever, eh?
All images on these posts are the exclusive property of Rebecca L. Latson and Where The Trails Take You Photography. Please respect my copyright and do not use these images on Pinterest, Facebook, Tumblr, Instagram, Snapchat or any other business, personal or social website, blog site, or other media without my written permission. Thank you.
You can reach me at email@example.com