A few pictures from SF

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

moribundman

Joined
Jun 2, 2003
Messages
23,591
Those of you who have seen Dirty Harry know this location. It's the 103 foot tall concrete cross that tops Mount Davidson in San Francisco. The cross was put up on this 925 foot tall hill in 1934 as a monument to the Armenian genocide. The cross, which appears white when sunlit, is visible from 75 miles off the coast! In this shot I was facing west. If it weren't for the trees, you would be looking across the Pacific.
mt_davidson2.jpg


Walking away from the cross, I saw the fog-shrouded city at sunset. You can see the Twin-Peaks Sutro Tower. At 977 feet, the tower is the tallest structure in San Francisco, taller than the Transamerica Building (Pyramid).
mt_davidson_panorama.jpg


Sky ablaze at sunset two weeks ago.
sunset2_250409.jpg


sunset_250409.jpg
 
Originally Posted By: Spartuss
Very nice photos. What camera are you using?


Given adequate functionality, there is no correlation between the tool and the result. What hammer do you use for pounding a nail into a wall?
wink.gif


What's the point in asking what equipment was used? You are looking at tiny 96 dpi images!
 
Originally Posted By: moribundman
Originally Posted By: Spartuss
Very nice photos. What camera are you using?


Given adequate functionality, there is no correlation between the tool and the result. What hammer do you use for pounding a nail into a wall?
wink.gif



Not true at all. Obviously you've never used a hammer.

Nice pictiures.
 
Nice shots indeed. In the 2nd photo, is the tower you are referring to a cell phone tower? Interesting cropping. Would you call that smog or fog out there?
 
Originally Posted By: hate2work
Not true at all. Obviously you've never used a hammer.


Like most analogies, mine doesn't fit exactly either, because a camera and a hammer are not the same kind of tool. Did you get my point, though? If not, let me quote famed photographer Andreas Feininger, who said the following:

Quote:
Photographers — idiots, of which there are so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life.


By the way, the above applies to all images.
wink.gif


I always react allergic to the question, "What camera did you use?" If I were to show you an image that is of outstanding technical brilliance, for example a stunning 12 foot print with no distortion, no chromatic aberration, yes, then I would understand and accept the question. For tiny, low res snapshot pictures, as shown on Web sites, what camera is used is utterly irrelevant, as long as it is an adequate camera for the job. Any point&shoot camera fits the bill. Such small images can't be judged based on their technical merits. That's why the posed question makes no sense.
 
Originally Posted By: John K
Nice shots indeed. In the 2nd photo, is the tower you are referring to a cell phone tower? Interesting cropping. Would you call that smog or fog out there?


The Sutro-Tower is a radio and TV broadcasting tower, which began operating in 1973: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutro_Tower

The panorama shot is put together from three images. The distance to the Sutro-Tower was 1.4 miles, downtown was about 5 miles from my position.

Days on which the city can be seen completely without a smog covering are rare. That's a mix of fog and smog in the picture. There's also extra haze due to the low angle of light from the setting sun.
 
Nice pictures, the color is just right as seen in the last 2 pictures. Kind of like during the fall when the clouds at sunset give that red color.

I've been up to the cross area, its Mount Davidson. You can get a very nice view of the city when the weather is good. If I remember right Mount Davidson is the highest natural point in the city.
 
Mount Sutro: 909 feet
Mount Davidson: 925 feet
Twin Peaks: 910 feet/904 feet

Who can tell me how far the ocean's horizon line is at 925 feet above sea level? Presume a clear view and discount refraction.
wink.gif
 
I like the last picture, reminds me of the old instamatic days when one had slow film and fixed exposures... so sunsets were sky and a silhouette. Now everyone is into this HDR fad...

SF and Northern CA are very photogenic; I like how you approach it as a tourist even though you spend a lot of time there.
 
Originally Posted By: eljefino
I like how you approach it as a tourist even though you spend a lot of time there.


How do you know I was wearing my lederhosen?
 
Originally Posted By: moribundman

How do you know I was wearing my lederhosen?


crackmeup2.gif
It's like the cliché of the New Yorker who never visits the Statue of Liberty... so many can't see the beauty in front of their noses!
 
Well, you know how ignorant and oblivious many people are when it comes to their surroundings.
wink.gif


I normally don't see many tourists on Mount Davidson. The location is pretty obscure, there are no signs that point to it from any of the nearby main streets, and there is no visitor parking in the surrounding residential area. Finding the trailhead isn't too easy. The tourists go to the view points on the hills surrounding Sutro-Tower. It's crowded day and night there, if the weather is okay.
 
They filmed an episode of Monk near that cross.

Is it worth spending the money to visit San Francisco for a vacation ?
My wife has always wanted to visit, but our vacations have always been on the East coast.
 
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
Is it worth spending the money to visit San Francisco for a vacation ?


Tourists seem to think it's worth it. It just depends on what kind of vacation you enjoy. You surely can spend ten days in and around the city without getting bored. There is much to see and much to do. That's however not my idea of a vacation. I prefer spending my off-time in remote areas, for example in the desert or on lonely islands.
 
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
Is it worth spending the money to visit San Francisco for a vacation ?


If you want to see the Bay Area, but don't want to drop a lot of dough, there's always Oakland.
whistle.gif
 
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
Is it worth spending the money to visit San Francisco for a vacation ?


If you want to see the Bay Area, but don't want to drop a lot of dough, there's always Oakland.
whistle.gif


And there's Oakland Hills.
 
Originally Posted By: moribundman
Mount Sutro: 909 feet
Mount Davidson: 925 feet
Twin Peaks: 910 feet/904 feet

Who can tell me how far the ocean's horizon line is at 925 feet above sea level? Presume a clear view and discount refraction.
wink.gif



Approx 36.5 miles. I wonder how tall Sarah Palin's house had to be to see Russia?
grin2.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top