New Mexico landscapes in black and white.

[anorcross]

We recently took a trip to Santa Fe and Taos. I thought I'd see what some of the landscapes looked like in black and white. I converted these with Fred Miranda's B&W plugin in PSCS2, applying either red or yellow filters to the ones with sky in them,and blue filter to the statue. All taken either in Santa Fe or between Santa Fe and Taos, except the one looking down on the Rio Grande. That was taken from the bridge on US 64 650 feet above the Rio Grande a few miles north of Taos. All taken with the Canon 300D and 17-40L at ISO 200. 17mm, 1/800 F8:

17mm, 1/500 F8:

40mm, 1/640 F8:

17mm, 1/400 F8:

17mm, 1/800 F8:

40mm, 1/400 F8:

17mm, 1/640 F8:

[bburton]

Very nice work. I've been to most of these places, but the B&W treatment makes them look new to me again. Also, makes me want that lens for landscapes. :)

Can you also post a few photos in color using that lens? Thanks.

[anorcross]

Originally Posted by bburton

Very nice work. I've been to most of these places, but the B&W treatment makes them look new to me again. Also, makes me want that lens for landscapes. :)
Thanks. Yes, it's a great lens. I bought it with the camera instead of the kit lens, during the amazing triple rebate deal last fall.

Can you also post a few photos in color using that lens? Thanks.

Sure, I'll post color versions of some of these in another thread.

[anorcross]

Well, I tried, but I couldn't figure out how to split a quote in 2 and reply separately to each part, so my reply to your first thing shows up as part of the quote.
By the way, which college do you teach at in Fort Worth?

[bburton]

Originally Posted by anorcross

By the way, which college do you teach at in Fort Worth?

I teach English at Tarrant County College - the Northeast Campus in Hurst, currnetly laboring there through the hot summer sessions. :( But, it does enable me to support my photography habit. :D

I'm thinking I need the 17-40L; I have the 70-200L already and am pleased with it (still learning to use it). You have both lenses; how do you like the combination? Is it adequate coverage for you?

[anorcross]

Originally Posted by bburton

I teach English at Tarrant County College - the Northeast Campus in Hurst, currnetly laboring there through the hot summer sessions. :( But, it does enable me to support my photography habit. :D

I'm thinking I need the 17-40L; I have the 70-200L already and am pleased with it (still learning to use it). You have both lenses; how do you like the combination? Is it adequate coverage for you?

It's a great combination. I also have the 50 1.4 for low light and the 100 macro for, well, macro (but it's a great long portrait lens too). I also have the cheap Tamron 1.4 extender, which adds some useful range to the 70-200 for only $80, at very little loss of quality. The 17-40 is probably my most used lens. It's the one that's on the camera all the time. For my recent New Mexico trip it only left the camera briefly once for a couple of indoor available light shots with the 50. It's a joy to use. It handles really well and has a good sturdy feel to it. I'm sure you won't be disappointed if you get it.
I used to teach at SMU in Dallas, from 1992-2002. I'm at Rice now, but will be back in Dallas for three weeks in July.