Shooting in Columbia River Gorge--suggestions?

[moldovamark]

Hey Folks,


Another newbie-ish question . . .


I'll be visiting a friend in Portland, OR for a long weekend at the end of July and, and though the primary agenda will be hiking in the Columbia River Gorge by day and drinking craft brewed beer by night, I would like to wedge in as much photography as my non-picture-taking friend will put up with, so I'll be travelling with my 40D and 17-55 f/2.8.


For those who know the area, I know we'll be tackling either Larch Mountain or Mount Defiance (or possibly both), and we'll almost certainly be at the summit smack in the middle of the day.


I guess I have two questions:


1) recommended places in Portland or the gorge for interesting shooting?


2) if I were to take one other lens and maybe a monopod, what would you recommend? (as we're talking 10-16 mile day hikes, weight is an issue)


In the meantime, I've been practiciing my flower and waterfall photography near home.

[Daniel Browning]

Let me give you an advance welcome to my part of the world!

1) recommended places in Portland or the gorge for interesting shooting?

There's so many choices... one of my favorites is the Cape Horn Lookout, about 30 minutes east of Portland on highway-14. It has a gorgeous unobstructed view of the gorge, sometimes a blanket of fog, or rising moon, etc.


For a view of the three mountains, Tanner Butte trail is another beautiful choice, and it's near Mount Defiance: http://www.pbase.com/photos123/image/62578619/large There's also Whatum Lake (more driving; less hiking; same view).


If you like cityscapes, you might visit the Pittock mansion, which has a beautiful view of the city and Mount Hood in the background. My favorite shots of mount hood, though, combine the city with a 400mm telephoto lense to compress the distance and make it look like it's right next door.


No visit would be complete without the obligatory Multnomah falls, ("the worlds most photographed waterfall"). It's not far from Larch Mountain.


Portland makes great nightscapes, too. The waterfront on the east side of downtown has some excellent shots, you can find them all over the web.


And don't forget about the coast! It's 120 minutes through beautiful hill and pasture country to get to some rugged coastlines and unique geological features such as Haystack Rock.


There's also many fields of flowers of all varieties, but I can't think of any that will peak at the end of July.


People photography is big in Portland, we have a very unique subculture downtown.

2) if I were to take one other lens and maybe a monopod, what would you recommend? (as we're talking 10-16 mile day hikes, weight is an issue)

That's easy! The 10-22. It looks like you enjoy landscape photography, and an ultra-wide opens up a world of opportunity.


Enjoy your trip!

[clemmb]

I have never been there but I looked it up on Google-Earth. There are some beutiful photos of the area. Several waterfalls.


A 40D and 17-55 is a great cobo. For shooting waterfalls i would take a tripod. I do not think a monopod would work. To keep it light maybe a 70-200 f4 and maybe a 1.4x converter. On a tripod it would work well. There are some backpack cases that make light of carrying your equipment.


Look forward to seeing some images of your trip.


Mark

[IAMB]

I have to agree with clemmb on the tripod... if you're going to take the obligatory Multnomah falls shot while you're there I think you'll be much happier with your results if you stitch three or four shots together as a vertical pan instead of trying to get the whole thing at once with an ultra-wide lens. If you do the pan, though, make sure you catch it in the afternoon or evening if possible or you'll end up with some lighting issues near the top of the falls.

[moldovamark]

I hear you on the tripod. I've got a Manfrotto 725B I got from B&H that I've used for sunset and "waterfall" shots around Chicago (there's actually a small waterfall just west of town.) It's light enough to do the job.


Has anyone tried taking a tripod on an airplane (Southwest) with/in your carryon luggage?


And Pittock/Mt. Hood is an interesting idea. How poorly would the otherwise affordable 70-300 serve me for something like that? I've often considered it as an affordable option to any of the 70-200 lenses, but the mixed reviews of image quality have scared me off.

[Daniel Browning]

How poorly would the otherwise affordable 70-300 serve me for something like that?

I think it would be great. On a crop body, 300mm will fill the frame with Mt. Hood. Here's the shot taken 10 minutes from Portland airport on a $100 70-300 Sigma APO Macro:





If you really want to go light weight, consider the 70-300 DO. It has poorer image quality than the non-DO (and of course twice the price), but it's the most hiking-friendly tele there is.

I've often considered it as an affordable option to any of the 70-200 lenses, but the mixed reviews of image quality have scared me off.

The 70-300 IS non-DO is like the 18-55 IS: a very good value, even if the quality is not best in class. It's an excellent lens for the money.