G Dan Mitchell | Photography

Autumn, Merced River. Yosemite National Park, California. October 22, 2006. © Copyright G Dan Mitchell (Sales).

—–

G Dan Mitchell :: Oct.31.2006 :: Photographs: Yosemite :: Comments Off

Oak Leaves, Autumn. Yosemite National Park, California. October 22, 2006. © Copyright G Dan Mitchell (Sales).

—–

G Dan Mitchell :: Oct.30.2006 :: Photographs: Nature :: Comments Off

Ferns and Dogwood Trees. Yosemite National Park. October 22, 3006. © Copyright G Dan Mitchell. (Sales)

—–

G Dan Mitchell :: Oct.29.2006 :: Photographs: Yosemite :: Comments Off

Autumn Colors, Merced River. Yosemite National Park. October 22, 2006. © Copyright G Dan Mitchell. (Sales)

—–

G Dan Mitchell :: Oct.28.2006 :: Photographs: Yosemite :: Comments Off

Autumn Trees, Merced River Canyon. Yosemite National Park. October 22, 2006. © Copyright G Dan Mitchell. (Sales)

—–

G Dan Mitchell :: Oct.27.2006 :: Photographs: Yosemite :: Comments Off

Three Brothers, Merced River. Yosemite National Park. October 22, 2006. © Copyright G Dan Mitchell. (Sales)

—–

G Dan Mitchell :: Oct.26.2006 :: Photographs: Yosemite :: Comments Off

Barn, Foresta. Yosemite National Park, California. October 22, 2006. © Copyright G Dan Mitchell. (Sales)

—–

G Dan Mitchell :: Oct.25.2006 :: Photographs: Structures :: Comments Off

Luminous Landscape is featuring part one of a multi-part article on “ http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/Digital%20Focusing.shtml“>Focusing in the Digital Era” by Gary Ferguson.

This article confirms some of what I have believed about the concept of depth of field. Many people seem to assume that objects within the depth of field at a given aperture (on a given camera) will be “in focus” and those outside of the depth of field will be “out of focus.” I’ve always thought it couldn’t really be quite that simple. It has seemed to me that there should be a plane of optimum focus with objects in front of or behind that gradually going out of focus at rates varying by aperture. In other words, an object that is not in the plane of focus may be “acceptably out of focus,” but it is not really in focus.

Ferguson explains the history of the depth of field scales on lenses, and points out that they were designed in an era when photographer did not think to enlarge images to the extent we do today. If one took a 35mm negative and enlarged it to, say, 4 x 6 inches, the fuzziness in front of and behind the plane of focus would not be visible. However, today many of us make quite large prints from images captured on sensors that are often smaller than 35mm film frames, and the focus issues become more critical.

He includes a series of photographs that clearly illustrate just how fuzzy objects that “should be in focus” turn out to be - important stuff to understand and think about.
—–

G Dan Mitchell :: Oct.24.2006 :: Ideas :: Comments Off

I was in Yosemite Valley for a day this past weekend, and I have just one thing to say to those of you who live in the area - go NOW!

The colors were spectacular - more so than I remember from previous years. (And the light was wonderful that day as well, which may have improved the overall effect.) The dogwoods are turning colors between the Valley (at 4000′) and the higher points on the Hiway 120 entrance (slightly above 6000′), and many different trees are wildly colorful all over the Valley and above. I ran out of time to go up toward Glacier Point, but I could see large patches of very colorful trees up that way from my hike up above Vernal Fall.

These things are hard to predict, but I have a feeling that this coming weekend might mark the end of the best colors.
—–

G Dan Mitchell :: Oct.24.2006 :: Commentary :: Comments Off

Yosemite Valley, Nevada Fall Trail. Yosemite National Park, California. October 22, 2006. © Copyright G Dan Mitchell.

—–

G Dan Mitchell :: Oct.24.2006 :: Photographs: Yosemite :: Comments Off