Splicing together two kodachromes from 1966 (thank you Photoshop!)

Photoshop CS5 is so awesome.  I am almost entirely a Lightroom man, but I do go into Photoshop for three things: (1) panorama stitching, (2) the content-aware tool, and (3) cloning.  The first two features are not available in Lightroom and the third feature, cloning, is far superior in Photoshop in my opinion.

So, here is today's story:

Last weekend I was "digitizing" some of my dad's Kodachrome's from a trip to Europe we took together in 1966.  He used a Kodak Retina IIIC rangefinder camera.  With just a 50mm F2.8 lens, and film rated with an ASA of 25,  many today would view his camera as "limited" in the images it could create.  On the other hand, neither of us knew anything different, so it was quite adequate.

Visiting the Cathedral at Chartres, France we actually thought it was pretty cool that the structure was so large and tall that he couldn't get it all into the viewfinder.  I remember enjoying the slide show we created that first showed the bottom half and then showed the top half. 

When I saw last weekend that the two slides had significant overlap, I was hopeful that I might be able to splice them together into one vertical image. I didn't let myself get too hopeful about the outcome, however, once I noticed that the bottom picture was in horizontal orientation and the top picture was in vertical orientation. 

So... without doing any editing to the images, I decided to challenge photoshop.  I exported the images from Lightroom to Photoshop.  Photoshop did all the rest, automatically.  Below are the two original images and the result from Photoshop.





Next, to create a finished product, and since I couldn't crop the bottom half to fit the top half, I used the "content-aware" tool to fill in the sky in the top half.  It just took a minute or two.  I am happy about the photoshop "content-aware" tool, because I know nothing about layers and all that other good stuff that most power-users of photoshop know.

At this point I still had some fill in some additional sky.

Lastly, after saving the file as a .tiff and bringing it back into Lightroom, I made some other adjustments, such as a slight rotation of the image and some color adjustments.  I am sure more can be done, but the final image below is good enough for me (and my Dad likes it too!)

Olympus E-M5 plus old Ai-S Nikkor 105 micro: samples

Two posts ago (here) I showed a few samples of macro flower shots taken at our nearby botanic garden using the Sony NEX-6 camera body plus a very old Nikon lens, the Ai-S version of the Nikkor 105mm F2.8.  Today I am posting what I believe are equally sharp macro images using the same lens on an Olympus E-M5. 



Like all the mirrorless models, both cameras can accommodate old lenses as long as the appropriate lens adapter is attached between the camera body and lens.  There are no electronics connections, so aperture must be adjusted on the barrel of the old lens and manual focus is required.

Reviews of the performance of old lenses originally designed for film cameras show that there are great variations in image quality depending on model, brand and/or focal length.  But I have been very happy with this old Nikkor Ai-S model 105mm F2.8.  (If you are interested, I see they sell for about $350 on eBay.)

On a full frame Nikon this lens is a 1:2 macro, but on a m43 camera with its 1/2 size sensor (half the diagonal of a FF camera) you get a 1:1 macro.

I've been recently comparing the image quality of this old lens on the Sony NEX-6 and the Olympus E-M5. There are differences in how the Olympus and Sony handle the old lenses.  A primary benefit of the Sony is what is called "focus peaking".  As you bring a subject into focus, areas in focus turn yellow along lines of high contrast (you can also select red or, I think, white).  Unfortunately this works inconsistently with macro shooting. 

One advantage of the Olympus is that there exists in-body image stabilization.  This results in stabilizing even old legacy lenses like this old Nikkor.  On the other hand, when shooting flowers outdoors (perhaps my primary use for a macro lens)  I like to use a shutter speed of about 1/160 to 1/250 because even in a windless day there is air movement that can create slight amounts of subject motion.  At these speeds, using a 105mm lens (with an effective reach of 160mm on the Sony and 210mm on the Olympus) I can hand-hold the camera without noticeable camera shake, without needing image stabilization.

So, perhaps the main benefits of each system (focus peaking on the Sony, and in-body stabilization on the Olympus) aren't that significant (to me) when using this lens.

There are other differences in operation which I expect to elaborate on in a future post; but first I need to shoot with both cameras and this one lens a few more times.

As you can see below, the results from this old-technology lens on a new-technology camera are very nice.  Perhaps new lenses are sharper (though nothing is currently available for Sony E-mount and Oly/Pany m43), but I doubt I would notice the difference at a normal viewing distances.  What I can say about the pictures below is that they are sharp enough me.

These were all processed in Lightroom 4, from RAW files.

[Click on the images to see a larger image, up to 1600 x 1200 pixels depending on your monitor size and resolution.]



I focused on the yellow stamen tips. Any blur is a depth of field issue,
even though I shot at F8.  Shutter = 1/200.  ISO = 2000.

 

I think I was focusing on the center of this flower (i.e. the brown stamens). Most likely shot at F8.
Shutter speed = 1/200. ISO = 2500.

 

Focus was on the red stamen tips, and they are sharp.  But likely I was using wider aperture like F5.6 or F4  than I
was using on the prior two images.  Shutter = 1/200. ISO = 1250.

 

The view from atop Sulphur Mountain, Banff, Alberta, Canada

The submission of the panorama below (the third picture below) to my photo club's November Salon caused me to go back to my pictures from June of this year to look again at the images I took atop Sulphur Mountain. 

It had rained the previous day and through the night.  But in the morning the clouds began to break apart and we could see that it had snowed at the high elevations.  As it turned out, the top of Sulphur Mountain had about 3 inches of fresh snow.

We took one of the early gondola rides to the top, as we worried that the clouds would return.  Fortunately, we had plenty of warm clothes.  We knew before arriving in the Canadian Rockies that June could be a cold month and that snow should be anticipated.

[Larger Images: click on any of these images to see as large as 1600 x 1200 depending on your monitor.]





The panorama below was spliced together from four individual images.  If you look carefully you can see the Canadian flag on a flagpole next to the gondola station.  The pictures for the panorama were taken about half way along a very nice boardwalk that connects the gondola terminal to an observation building. 

 

In two of the images below you can see the town of Banff. The river that runs through town is the Bow River. You can't tell from the pictures, but the Bow River was raging well above its banks. Rains had been heavy but this is also a time of snow melt in the mountains.  You can easily see the brown color of the water.



Sony NEX-6 plus old Ai-S Nikkor 105 micro: Samples

My best guess is that this Nikkor Ai-S lens is 20 years old.  They just don't make them like this anymore:  metal construction;  useful markings;  manual aperture ring; mechanical focus.  On the other hand, the lens plus Nikon-to-Sony adapter weighs 21 ounces.  I am likely not the only one to find this creates a balance issue when attached to the 12 ounce NEX body.

Pictured below, the old Nikkor 105mm Micro lens is attached to a new NEX-6 via a $20 adapter. One end of the adapter fits the Sony E mount.  The other end fits the Nikon mount.  There is no electronic or mechanical connection between the camera and the lens.  The adapter simply creates the necessary space between the sensor and the lens to allow correct focusing.

Due to the cropped sensor (2/3 the diagonal dimension of a sensor on a full frame camera), a 105mm lens has an effective field of view of about 160mm (105 is about 2/3 of 160).  I need to get a little closer to the subject with this combo than I do with this lens on my Olympus EM-5 because the Olympus uses a sensor that is 1/2 the diagonal of a full frame sensor, so there is more magnification. (Therefore, you don't need to be physically as close to the subject with the Olympus.)

The pictures below came out nicely.  However, in the field this lens is too big and heavy
for the diminutive NEX 6 body. Perhaps that's because the body weighs 12 ounces
and the lens weighs 21 ounces.

I spent about 30 minutes yesterday shooting with the lens indoors (hand held, natural light only) at a nearby botanic gardens.  Being November, there's not a lot going on yet.  But I did find a few blooming plants.  I have read all kinds of things about these old, non-concentric lenses not working so well on the new cameras.  That's not been my experience with this Nikon micro lens.  I think these images are definitely sharp enough.

I can't remember the f-stop I used, but it was either F8 or F11.  Unfortunately because the aperture is set manually on the lens, there is no record in the image file as to what f-stop was used.  To maintain a 1/focal length shutter speed I shot these at 1/160th. This was fast enough to eliminate camera shake and subject movement.  Had I been outdoors I would have opted for 1/250th.  Even on calm days there is likely to be air movement.

I used Shutter Priority and auto ISO.  Frequently, I did have to use the EV compensation button to get the desired exposure.  For some reason the Sony exposure meter frequently wanted to underexpose the images.  Sometimes this was as much as three stops.  EV compensation changed the ISO, which is what I wanted, because I did not want to change the aperture (F8 or F11) or shutter speed (1/160th). 

 



Sony NEX-6 versus Panasonic LX5: Some final thoughts

For the past few days I have been comparing the image quality of the Sony NEX-6 and its kit 16-50mm zoom against my Panasonic LX5, an "advanced" point and shoot camera.  The posts I wrote based on these comparisons can be found below today's post.  (Or enter "NEX-6" in the search tool.)



The Sony pretty handily beats the Panasonic for image quality, both in the center and at the edges, at the three comparable focal lengths I tested.  That shouldn't be surprising because the sensor on the Sony has 8x the surface area of the Panasonic.  But since most of my travel and landscape photos with the LX5 have been at low ISO (rarely as much as ISO 400) where sensor size is not as critical, and since I have always thought the images coming from the LX5 were "good enough", I thought I would use the LX5 as a "good enough" benchmark.  The Sony 16-50 beat my benchmark!

I like the Sony a lot. Especially with the pancake zoom it balances nicely and feels very comfortable in my hand.  I can even operate it with one hand, just like I do with point-and-shoots.  But, I'm not exactly sure how it will fit into my style of photography (which includes the Olympus OM-D as well as the LX5).  I'm thinking I might take it when I would otherwise take the LX5; however, the Sony is about 60% heavier. The LX5 fits in the pocket of my jeans, while the Sony fits in a jacket pocket. Lots to think about.

My next experiment is to compare the 16-50 image quality against my Olympus 14-54II.  The 14-54II is supposed to be a step above a standard kit zoom.  It's also a bit faster, perhaps by one stop overall.  I would expect it to sharper, too. But you never know.  You can buy the 16-50 for $350.  The 14-54II sells for about $600.

Back to comparing the NEX-6 and LX5.  Here are a few final thoughts:

I love the focus peaking feature of the NEX-6.  I have five old Nikon lens that work beautifully with the NEX-6.  (You do need to buy an adapter, however... about $20 on eBay.)  And, while using old manual focus lenses,  I like the implementation of the manual focusing and magnification feature on the Sony better than the Olympus.  Yes, I know that Sony has no in-body stabilization but all my Nikon lenses are of short focal lengths where I would use a shutter speed of 1/focal length anyway. I don't really need stabilization with them.

The histogram on the NEX-6 easily surpasses the LX5.  I use the histogram all the time and appreciate the RGB color channel histograms that can be reviewed after each image is taken.  A big plus with the NEX-6 (and one of the reasons I didn't jump for the 5N or 5R) is the EVF.  Another reason for buying the "6" instead of the "5" is the addition of a built-in flash.  It is not particularly powerful but I like the fact that it can be pulled back to bounce the flash off the ceiling.

The LX5 has some pretty advanced features, too.  I am surprised that the ones I like and list below are not also in the Sony.  The LX5 has an size-adjustable single focus point.  It can be made much smaller than the fixed size on the Sony, which I find very helpful for closeups.  And speaking of closeups, the macro at 24mm is a very helpful tool on the LX5.  Other great features include setting a minimum shutter speed (in P-mode) and being able to use Auto ISO in manual exposure mode.

One final note is that at this writing the new NEX-6 plus 16-50mm lens retails for about $1,000.  You can buy the two year old LX5 for $250 at Amazon.  And the new LX7, which seems to be sharper than the LX5 and has a faster lens, is selling for $449.

Sony NEX-6 plus 16-50mm v. LX5 at 70 mm equiv.

This is my fourth post about the Sony NEX-6 and the new pancake 16-50 kit lens. In the previous posts I compared it with my beloved Panasonic LX5 at 24mm-e and 50mm-e. So far, and as I had hoped and expected, the 16-50 kit lens on the NEX-6 provides sharper images with less noise than the LX5, at the focal lengths tested. 

This conclusion comes from pixel peeping, usually at 100%.  But at normal viewing distances I don't think the difference really makes a difference.  Just for fun I expect to print a few of these comparative images to see if there is a difference in small or medium sized prints, again when viewed at normal distances.  Of course, as the print size increases past, say, 10" x 15", I would expect the Sony to be noticeably sharper.

Also, with lower light levels, I suspect the Sony with its much larger sensor will begin to put the LX5 to shame, in spite of the LX5's faster lens.

In the prior posts I compared the two at 24mm and 50mm equivalent. 

Today's images

The images below were taken hand held at 70mm equivalent. At this setting, the LX5 is at its best at F4. The 16-50 at 50mm-equiv seems equally good wide open at F5.6 or at F8. For the comparison, I chose to use the F5.6 sample.  I used the lowest ISO: 80 for the LX5 and 100 for the Sony. I shot RAW, used Aperture Priority and Auto White Balance. What you'll see below is that the Sony is sharper than the LX5.

Post Processing

I imported the RAW files from both cameras into Adobe Lightroom 4 (LR4). I used the default Adobe color profiles. Unlike my experience with the Sony RAW file at 24mm-e and 50mm-e, I did not correct for any distortion at 70mm-e, as I didn't notice any.

I added sharpness and clarity to both images. The Sony took more sharpening than the Panasonic without looking crunchy, so the Sony got a bit more sharpening. I also using the CA tool to get rid of the purple fringing in high contrast areas of the LX5. I saw no CA in the Sony image.

Finally, I downsized the Sony to the size of the Pany and created JPEGs at the 100% quality setting. That meant a pixel width of 3776. The JPEGs were brought back into LR4, and I used the X-Y comparison tool in the LR4 Library module to view the images side-by-side at 100%. These are screenshots of those comparisons.

The comparative image. The Sony is on Left.
Click on image to view BIG.

 

 

Center tiles.  Sony (left ) is sharper.
Click on image to view BIG.

 

Upper left.  Sony (left) is sharper.

Click on image to make BIG.

Upper right.  Sony (left) is sharper.
Click on image to make BIG.

 

 Lower left. Sony (left) is sharper.
Click on image to make BIG.

Lower right. Sony (left) is sharper.
Click on image to make BIG.

 

Conclusion:  At 24mm-e, 50mm-e and 70mm-e, the Sony provides sharper images which are also clean of noise.  Even at base ISO, the LX5 shows noise, which you may or may not find bothersome.

 

Sony NEX-6 plus 16-50mm v. LX5 at 50mm equiv.

This is my third post about the Sony NEX-6 and the new pancake 16-50 kit lens.  In the previous post I started comparing it with my beloved Panasonic LX5.  Albeit, the two are strange bedfellows as the LX5 is a small sensor 10mp camera and the NEX has that nice 16mp APS-C sensor. But in many ways the NEX plus pancake zoom is just a bigger version of the LX5.  Perhaps 60% heavier and 60% bigger, but with a very similar zoom range.

In the prior post I compared the two at 24mm equivalent.  Sony seems better in the center and at the edges.  But to be honest, when viewed as big as  possible on my 24" HD monitor (1920 x 1080) or my large HD TV, I really can't tell the difference when viewed at normal viewing distances.  Either way, both images need to be downsized to about 2mp to be viewed on a monitor or HD TV (1920 x 1080 equates to about 2 million pixels or 2mp).  My guess is that even a 10" x 15" print would not show the difference if viewed about 24" away. All that being said, all the picture I took were done in good light with the Panasonic ISO at its lowest 80 and the Sony at its lowest 100.  All bets are off when the light goes down.

Today's images

The images below were taken hand held at 50mm equivalent. At this setting, the  LX5 is at its best at F4. The 16-50 at 50mm-equiv is at its best at F8 and at its worst wide open at F5. I used the lowest ISO: 80 for the LX5 and 100 for the Sony. I shot RAW, used Aperture Priority and Auto White Balance. What you'll see below is that even at its worst (F5), the Sony is sharper than the LX5 at its best (F4).

Post Processing

I imported the RAW files from both cameras into Adobe Lightroom 4 (LR4). I used the default Adobe color profiles. Unlike my experience with the Sony RAW file at 24mm-equiv, I did not correct for any distortion as I didn't really notice any.  To match the incamera JPEG, I moved the LR4 distortion slider modestly, to +5.

I then added sharpness and clarity to both images. The Sony took more sharpening than the Panasonic without looking crunchy, so the Sony got a bit more sharpening. I also using the CA tool to get rid of the purple or green fringing in high contrast areas like tree branches.

Finally, I downsized the Sony to the size of the Pany and created JPEGs at the 100% quality setting. That meant a pixel width of 3776.  The JPEGs were brought back into LR4, and I used the X-Y comparison tool in the LR4 Library module to view the images side-by-side at 100%.  These are screenshots.

For 50mm equivalent field of view, my conclusion is that even at its worst (wide open at F5), the Sony beats the LX5 at its best setting (F4).

The comparative image.  Sorry they don't line up too well.
These were handheld.
The Sony is on Left.  Click on image to view BIG.

Upper left corner: Sony sharper
Click on image to view BIG

Upper right corner: Sony sharper

Lower left corner: Sony sharper

Lower right corner: Sony sharper

 

NEX-6 plus 16-50mm v. LX5 at 24mm wide angle

In my previous post I mentioned my recent purchase of the Sony NEX-6 and the new pancake 16-50 kit lens.  On the Internet there seems to be lots of negative talk about this new lens.  Because it is one of the reasons I bought the NEX-6, I decided I would see how it performs against my most similar camera/lens combination, the Panasonic LX5. The LX5 has an equivalent zoom range of 24-90, and the Sony 16-50 has an equivalent zoom range of 24-70. The LX5 has a much smaller sensor, so I am pretty sure I could crop a 70mm image taken with the Sony to the size of the LX5's 90mm image and actually have a larger file size and more detail.  I'm looking forward to checking that assumption out.

The LX5 weighs 10 ounces including card and battery.  The NEX-6 plus 16-50 weighs 16 ounces.  The NEX-6 is bigger in size: while the LX5 is marginally pocketable (unless you wear tight jeans), the NEX-6 requires a jacket pocket.  I am thinking of using one of the new sling-straps, since I dislike neck straps.

The Panasonic is a small sensor camera so is at a disadvantage when it comes to image quality, but I have always found the images sharp (or at least "sharp enough").  If the new Sony pancake is at least as sharp, then I will be happy.

I will start posting some comparative images. 

Today's images

The images below were taken at 24mm equivalent.  The F-stop range shared in common by the LX4 and the 16-50mm lens is F3.5 to F8.  I know from my own two year use of the LX5 and from the Imatest results on the Internet that the LX5 is sharpest at F4, pretty much throughout its zoom range.  The 16-50 at 24mm-equiv seems to be at its best at F5.6.  I used the lowest ISO: 80 for the LX5 and 100 for the Sony.

Post Processing

I imported the RAW files from both cameras into Adobe Lightroom 4 (LR4).  I used the default Adobe color profile. I ran distortion control on the Sony RAW file (as it was not corrected in Lightroom) with the distortion slider set at +50.  This resulted in a RAW file that duplicated the composition of the Sony incamera JPEG.  And it matched the corrected LX5 file. 

I then added sharpness and clarity to both images.  The Sony took more sharpening than the Panasonic without looking crunchy, so the Sony got a bit more sharpening.  I also using the CA tool to get rid of the purple or green fringing in high contrast areas like the tree branches in the upper left.  Interestingly, just clicking on the box in LR was all that was needed for the Sony.  But with the Pany I had to use the eyedropper to remove CA.

Finally, I downsized the Sony to the size of the Pany and created JPEGs at the 100% quality setting.  The downsizing meant that all the JPEGs measured 3776 pixels wide.  The JPEGs were brought back into LR4, and I used the X-Y comparison tool in the LR4 Library module to view the images side-by-side at 100%.

My conclusion is that when the Sony is at its best setting (F5.6 and ISO 100) it beats the LX5 at its best setting (F4 and ISO80). Both in the center and especially at the edges. My guess is that as light is reduced that the difference in image quality will become even greater.

Winner at 24mm is the 16-50 on the NEX-6.

The Sony is on top.  When the original image is viewed full size

on my computer monitor at normal viewing distance I

really can't tell the difference in sharpness.

 

These are 100% crops from the center.  Sony on top.  Not much difference.

 

These are 200% crops.  The Sony is on top.  The difference is a bit more obvious here.

Look at the greater detail in the roof tiles in the Sony image.

 

100% crops from the righ hand edge.  Sony on top, is sharper. And smoother.

100% crops from the left hand edge.  Sony on top, is sharper.

 

Next: comparisons at 50mm equivalent field of view.

Why I bought the NEX-6 plus 16-50 kit lens

Why? Well, actually I wasn't completely clear on "why" until I wrote this post.  Since I already own an Olympus EM-5 with an assortment of lenses plus a Panasonic LX5 to fit in my pocket, I know the NEX-6 will not make me a better photographer.  But I am nevertheless drawn to it.

First to come to my mind is that I have liked small range-finder style cameras ever since using my dad's old German-built Kodak Retina IIIC 35mm film camera. Also, I prefer using an eye-level viewfinder, and the Sony is currently one of the two cameras in this class that have one.  Fuji is the other.

1955 Kodak Retina IIIC and 2012 Sony NEX-6



The first NEX was not of interest to me because, though it had a high quality LCD, it lacked an eye-level EVF. The other problem I saw was not-so-high-quality lenses (at least compared with what was available with the m43 system). The lenses were also pretty large and therefore seemed out-of-balance on the very small NEX bodies.

Well, the new NEX 6 has a state-of-the-art EVF and a new kit lens. I received mine last week, just two days after it became available at BHPhotovideo. The new kit lens is a "pancake" zoom lens, and measures only 1" long when retracted (1.25" with lens cap!) It weighs only 4.1 ounces.  I love the new lens' 12-50mm range (24mm to 75mm equivalent), especially the 24mm wide angle. If Sony were only offering the more traditional kit zoom range of 18-55 I would have passed on the entire kit.

With the NEX 6 body I only paid an additional $150 for the lens, which when purchased separately retails for $300. Alternatively, I could have paid $400 for the Panasonic pancake zoom with its effective field of view of 28mm to 90mm. The Panasonic lens is fully compatible with my Olympus EM-5. It's a small lens but lacks the 24mm wide angle I find so useful.

Another choice is the perhaps more useful zoom range of the new Olympus 12-50mm zoom with its effective field of view of 24mm to 100mm.  But this lens measures 3.25" and weighs 7.1 ounces. Even on the smallish EM-5 this is not a small package.

So, the NEX-6 and kit 16-50mm (1) is a small package considering the APS-C sensor, (2) has a superb EVF, and (3) balances nicely with the new pancake zoom that starts with an equivalent 24mm wide angle.

All that being said, I want to be sure the lens has adequate sharpness. I worry about this with any kit lens. It doesn't have to be super sharp, but it does need to be "sharp enough".

I will be testing it first against my beloved Panasonic LX5, an advanced-featured compact camera. I have been very happy with the images I get from the LX5 with its Leica 24-90mm lens. I am very curious as to how these cameras will compare with regard to sharpness.

But beyond sharpness, I have no question that the Sony with its vastly larger sensor will provide greater dynamic range and color depth.  Too, the Sony should provide more detail in low contrast areas, such as grass. I expect from what I have read on the DxO Web site that the Sony will have 3 stops better low light performance (i.e. less noise), though the LX5 will gain back 1.5 stops of low light performance due to it's 1.5 stops faster lens (example: LX5 has a F2 lens at 24mm while the Sony has F3.5).

I look forward to posting some of my findings in hopes that this will help others.

Panasonic LX5 and Sony NEX-6



Assuming the lens passes my quality tests, my plan for this camera is to use it as a jacket-pocketable camera for landscape and travel pictures. I am also becoming increasingly interested in street photography. Because I feel a bit anxious while photographing people on the street, I am hoping the small size of the NEX 6 and pancake zoom will make my actions less obvious.

My Favorite Fishing Pictures from 2012

I enjoy spending a few days each summer fishing the small coldwater streams of northern New Hampshire (Mt. Washington area) for native trout. Pictured below are six images from July 31st, 2012.  Seen in some of the images is Jim, one of my fishing buddies.

What a beautiful day we had. It was a blue ribbon day. But none of these images are prize-worthy.  They are taken in the middle of the day, there're shadows and bright reflections off the rocks, and sometimes I was shooting nearly into the sun.  And all with a very small sensor point and shoot camera, the waterproof Panasonic TS3.

 



One reason I like these so much is not the image quality but that they remind of a fabulous day fishing with friends.  I'm also a sucker for bright blue skies... which, by the way, are often the most blue during the middle of the day when the "pros" tell you not to bother shooting. 

Yes, the six images below are very similar in composition, with a wedge of sky above the stream and green foliage on the sides.  I couldn't decide which ones of the six I liked best so I posted all six!

If you want a closer look, click on any image and you'll get a view up to 4x the area, depending on the size of your monitor.



Which image would you pick?

This coming month's theme in my photo club is "country/rural setting".  I don't have much, especially since I am trying to find something since April.  For some reason, I feel there must be a human or man-made element in the image.  Maybe that's the wrong interpretation, but that's what I am going with.  Which one of these works the best?  (Of course, that's not to say that any will win any prizes, but I do like to participate in these "theme" contests.)

Shoot me an email or add a comment below if you can help me choose the best one.  These are 650 pixel wide images.  If you click on them you can see a larger, 1500 x 1000 pixel version.

House by the Water

Flyfisherman on a Trout Stream

Cabin near an Estuary

RV in the Rockies