# Filters for landscape photography



## emydura (Jun 14, 2011)

From my photos of Murramarang NP, a few people were interested in more detail on graduated neutral density filters which I had used on many of those sunrise/sunset photos. So I thought I’d create a separate post. I thought I might include some information on a couple of other filters I like to use as well. I didn’t expect I would write so much so apologies for the length. Hopefully someone will find it of use.
There are numerous filters you can use but many of these can be easily done in Photoshop so there is not a lot of point using these in the field. The advantage in leaving these to post-production is that if you don’t like the effect it is easy to reverse. However, there are two groups of filters that really need to be used on the camera – the polarizer filter and the neutral density filter.
Polariser Filters
If there is one essential filter then it is the polarizer filter. Polariser filters are great at reducing glare and reflections in an image. This is particularly useful around water. Whenever I photograph waterfalls I always use a polarizer filter. Below are two photographs of the same waterfall. The one on the left has been taken without a polarizer. Notice how the pool of water at the front has a lot of reflections coming off it. There is also a lot of glare coming off the rocks, log and leaves. The overall look is pretty harsh. The photograph on the right has been taken with a polarizer. The water now has no reflections – I can see right through it. There is no glare coming off the rocks or log. The ferns and moss have a much nicer saturated colour. 





Polariser filters are also useful at deepening the intensity of blue skies as well as giving real punch to clouds (it makes them really pop out at you). I had trouble finding a before and after shot of this but here is one from my trip in Nepal. The first one is taken without a polarizer. Notice how the sky is nowhere near as intensely blue while the clouds pop out at you a bit more in the second photo. The leaves are a lot more saturated in colour in the second photo as well. To be honest the sky in the second photo is a little over the top. At high altitudes the air is so clear that the skies are already very blue. If you add a polarizer filter on top of this, it can look a little fake. 










Neutral Density Filters
Neutral density filters are used for reducing the amount of light entering the camera, thereby increasing the length of the exposure. They can be square in shape and slot into a filter holder (see below for more details) but most commonly screw onto the front of your lens.





I find the main reason I might need a ND filter is when I want the water in a waterfall to be soft and blurry. If the light is very bright you may find that the exposure is too fast to get nice blurry movement in the water. Therefore, adding a ND filter will increase the length of the exposure and give the water a softer look. Here is an example of the look you are after. 





A neutral density filter that is currently quite popular is the 10 stop ND filter or Bigstopper as it is commonly called. This filter is useful for creating extremely long exposures. So for example, an exposure of one second without the filter can be increased to over 17 minutes with the 10 stop filter. So you can get some pretty extreme effects. It is really good at getting pretty dramatic cloud movement. I have only just bought this filter so I’m still coming to terms with it. Here is one of my first attempts from a couple of weeks ago. This exposure was just over 4 minutes. This photo may not be everyone’s cup of tea. ☺


----------



## emydura (Jun 14, 2011)

Graduated Neutral Density Filters
When I first started trying to take nice sunrise/sunset photos the results were terrible. Typically the photos would look like this one. The sky would look OK but the foreground would be so dark you could barely see anything. If I tried to make the foreground brighter the sky would get blown out. No matter what I did the results would always be the same. I studied the photos of the landscape photographers I liked but could not even closely replicate them.





As I studied more I came to realise there was too much contrast in the scene. That is, there is so much variation in light between the lightest and darkest elements, that the camera just cannot handle it. So you end up with some parts of the photo well exposed (generally the sky) but others poorly exposed (foreground). 
One of the solutions was to take two or more photos with multiple exposures. In one photo you would expose correctly for the sky and in another you would expose correctly for the foreground. You would then put both photos in photoshop (or some other software) and blend the two images together (example HDR). The composite image would result in perfect exposure throughout the image. I never found this easy. It could be hard to get the photo to look natural. You can also have problems where you have movement in your image (eg. waves, wind blown branches etc.). In one photo the wave could be crashing while in another it could be building up. So the two photos you are trying to blend together are not mirror images. When you try and blend such images it doesn’t look right. The other issue is that spending long periods of time processing photos quickly loses its appeal and pretty soon your hobby becomes a chore.
Another solution I found was using neutral density graduated filters. The graduated ND filter is the same as the ND filter above except that only part of the filter is grey and hence only part of the scene you are photographing will have reduced light. The purpose of the graduated ND filter is to reduce the variation of light in your image, enabling the camera to take a correctly exposed photo. You place the grey part of the filter over the bright area (usually the sky) and the clear part of the filter over the shaded foreground. Therefore, the filter reduces the light over the bright sky but does not reduce the light over the shaded foreground. While you want to even out the light in your photo you can overdo it. You don’t want the shaded foreground to look as bright as the blazing sunset sky. So you still need some contrast.
Graduated filters are normally large and rectangular in shape. They can come in different densities. I have a 1 stop, a 2 stop and a 3 stop grad filter. You can get a 4 stop grad as well. Often in high contrast scenes I combine the 3 stop and the 2 stop grad for a total of 5 stops.





There are also different types of graduated filters that have different purposes. The one on the right is a hard-edged grad. The grey part of the filter is a solid colour from the point of the transition to the top. Therefore the light is blocked evenly in the top half of the filter. In the other two the light is not blocked evenly. The one on the left is a reverse graduated filter. It is a solid colour at the transition but gets softer as you go up. You tend to use these for sunrise/sunset photos in seascapes where the sun on the horizon is very bright but the light at the top is darker. Both the hard-edged and reverse graduated filters have a sharp transition from ND to clear. This can be a problem where you don’t have a straight horizon ( eg.mountains) as you will likely notice a distinct band across your photo at the transition point. In this situation you would use a soft graduated filter as it provides a smooth transition from clear to ND. 





To attach the filter to your lens you need a filter holder. The holder screws onto your lens and you simply slide the filters into the slot. You move the filter up or down depending on where the horizon is in your photo. My holder has three slots so I can use 3 filters back to back if required. You can get screw-in graduated filters but they are pretty useless as the transition point is always half way across your photo. You have no ability to adjust the filter for your composition. In most landscape photos the sky should be roughly 1/3 of the photo in anywise.





So here is an example of the use of ND grads. This was first photos I took when I received them and I think is a good example of how useful they are. I went down to the Murrumbidgee River here in Canberra and chose a site that had a huge contrast in light. The foreground was under a tree and heavily shaded but the rest of the scene was in bright sunlight. In the first photo I haven’t used any filters. I have chosen an exposure that is the perfect for the foreground. The grass looks pretty good. But the rest of the photo is completely blown out. Therefore way too much contrast in this photo. If I had exposed correctly for the sunny areas, the foreground would have been pitch black. Therefore, I need to use grad filters to reduce the variation in light between the shaded grass in the foreground and the rest of the photo in sunlight.





In this photo I have added a 2 stop soft-edged filter and as you can see it look much better. However, the sky is still blown out a bit and the water is a little too bright. 






In this photo I have added a 3 stop soft-edged filter (5 stops in total) and as you can see the exposure is pretty much perfect. Nicely exposed foreground and the sky is lovely and blue and the water is perfect. Sunrise/sunset photos are exactly the same as this and that is why grad filters work so well with them.





I’m sure some of you may be thinking this is cheating. That I am somehow creating a fake image that never existed. Actually it is total opposite. The image I could see with my eye is that last one. The human eye is pretty amazing. When I looked at the bright sky and water, my eye can see every detail. When I looked down at the shaded foreground my eye can instantly adjust. The camera sensor cannot adjust. It can only see a correctly exposed sky or a correctly exposed foreground. It cannot see both. All I’m trying to achieve with these filters is too take a photo that my eye can see but the camera cannot take without some help with filters. 
In the photos above I used a soft grad filter as there was no distinct horizon in which to place the transition line. Below is the sort of problem you can run into when trying to use a hard-edge filter in such a photo. The light in front of the grass is a mixture of sun and shade so it is quite tricky. That is why you need a soft grad so there is a gradual transition from ND to clear. 





I think the ND graduate filters have been one of the best pieces of camera equipment I have bought. I found them pretty easy to use. Very quickly I was able to take photos I was very happy with and almost comparable with the professionals. The photos I now take are the ones I use to dream about but were previously never in reach. 
They aren’t real cheap so you need to think whether you want to invest that much money. Fixing it on the computer maybe a better option for you. There are a few brands. I would stick clear of the Cokin grad filters as they reportedly leave a colour cast. Lee and SinghRay are the deluxe brands. Quality filters but you have to pay for them. I have been using HiTech graduate filters which are about half the price of Lee. People who have used both said they couldn’t tell the difference.

David


----------



## KyushuCalanthe (Jun 14, 2011)

David, awesome. Thanks for that tutorial. You left one thing out though - you need a good camera with an excellent piece of glass between it and all that running water


----------



## emydura (Jun 14, 2011)

KyushuCalanthe said:


> David, awesome. Thanks for that tutorial. You left one thing out though - you need a good camera with an excellent piece of glass between it and all that running water



It helps but I don't think it is essential. Especially expensive glass. Expensive lens are mostly designed for speed, something not required in landscape photography. I saw a comparison of the Nikon 18-55 mm kit lens (costs about $85) against the Nikon 17-55 f2.8 (costs about $2500). At aperatures like f8 the cheap kit lens came out ahead. These are the sort of aperatures you would use in landscape photography so there was no advantage in using the expensive lens. Not only would your wallet be lighter, so would your backpack. Those big lens way a tonne.

That is the good thing about landscape photography. You don't need really expensive equipment. 

A good camera can have some features that can really help you take better photos. But you can take nice photos even with an entry level SLR. At the end of the day, good photographers take good photographs not good cameras. 

David


----------



## SlipperFan (Jun 14, 2011)

I think the keyword here is "nice" photos. One can take nice photos, even good photos, with inexpensive lenses. But for excellent, sharp, clear photos, good glass is a better option. Nonetheless, I do agree that it is the poor craftsman that blames his/her tools. One does not need an SLR to make good photos.

Very good lesson on filters.

As a personal choice, I'd take the first two photos into photoshop and combine the bottom part of the first photo with the upper part of the second. I like the way the reflections on the water give depth to the water there. Again, as you say, my eyes would have seen all that at once in that scene. So, although it would have been "manipulated" in photoshop, the purpose would have been to give a more real view.


----------



## goldenrose (Jun 14, 2011)

:clap::clap: Wonderful lesson! Thanks for taking the time to post it!


----------



## emydura (Jun 14, 2011)

SlipperFan said:


> I think the keyword here is "nice" photos. One can take nice photos, even good photos, with inexpensive lenses. But for excellent, sharp, clear photos, good glass is a better option. Nonetheless, I do agree that it is the poor craftsman that blames his/her tools. One does not need an SLR to make good photos.
> 
> Very good lesson on filters.
> 
> As a personal choice, I'd take the first two photos into photoshop and combine the bottom part of the first photo with the upper part of the second. I like the way the reflections on the water give depth to the water there. Again, as you say, my eyes would have seen all that at once in that scene. So, although it would have been "manipulated" in photoshop, the purpose would have been to give a more real view.



Yes, reflections on water are often a good thing.

I do agree with you on lens quality. Good glass is always the better option. I really see the distinction when shooting at larger apertures for portraits etc. It is like chalk and cheese. At smaller apertures I find the distinction is more subtle. I found it interesting and amazing that tests showed the cheaper 18-55 lens to be sharper at smaller apertures then the pro 17-55 f2.8. But then the pro lens was far superior at larger apertures which you would expect and why you would fork out all that money.

If money is an issue I have found that prime lens such as 50 mm f1.4 and 85 mm f1.8 give astonishing results for the money. It just means you may have to move your feet. 

David


----------



## JeanLux (Jun 15, 2011)

Thanks a lot David for opening my eyes a bit  !!!!

2 questions directly:
- do you let the camera decide of the exposure time, or are you working manually?
- does the filter holder fit on different diameter lenses?

More questions to come, surely!!

Jean


----------



## emydura (Jun 15, 2011)

JeanLux said:


> Thanks a lot David for opening my eyes a bit  !!!!
> 
> 2 questions directly:
> - do you let the camera decide of the exposure time, or are you working manually?
> ...



In terms of the grad filters, yes I let the camera decide the exposure time. I generally shoot in the aperture mode (A). I may change the exposure time from there if I think appropriate (after checking the histogtram etc.). Many people suggest you should get the exposure you want before you put the grad filter on. You spot meter the foreground to get the correct exposure, then change to manual, recompose your photo, slot the filter in and then take the photo. Personally I have found the camera nails it pretty well every time with the grad filters in so I have no need to follow that complex setup.

Below is a photo of the holder setup. The ring on the right screws onto your lens. This can be any size diameter depending on your lens. Mine is 77 mm as you can see. You can do as I have done and buy adapter rings. I have a 77mm to 52 mm adapter ring if I want to use my 52 mm lens for example. The ring on the right of the photo is held in the holder by that pin. 




David


----------



## Wendelin (Jun 15, 2011)

Thank you David, for posting this very nice tutorial. I find that *very* useful!!!


----------



## biothanasis (Jun 15, 2011)

Great photoshooting tips!!!! Thank you very much David


----------



## Marc (Jun 15, 2011)

Thanks for the tutorial and it's greatly apreciated.

Thumbs up from me!


----------



## Clark (Jun 15, 2011)

Extremely informative write-up. Thank you David for putting this together. I know a bit of time was spent on this.
Mentioning brand names- ever so important. Too much overpriced crap out there.

Qs-
Do you shoot RAW?
May I copy your print for my personal use?

Thank you.


----------



## emydura (Jun 15, 2011)

Clark said:


> Extremely informative write-up. Thank you David for putting this together. I know a bit of time was spent on this.
> Mentioning brand names- ever so important. Too much overpriced crap out there.
> 
> Qs-
> ...



Thanks Clark. Yes, I shoot RAW. Happy for you to copy it. 

Lee and SinghRay really are quality filters. They are what the professionals use. If I was loaded I would get these but I don't think you lose much with the Hitechs. I should have mentioned that the holder I use is a Lee holder.

David


----------



## Heather (Jun 15, 2011)

Nice tutorial, David. 
I doubt I'll ever get into anything like this, but still found it really interesting what you can do with those filters. Your photos really are beautiful and it's great to understand them a bit better.


----------



## Marco (Jul 8, 2011)

David - Thanks. I really enjoyed the read. This is getting printed. I inherited some nice manual lenses that I can fit on my DSLR and I'm sure this will come in handy one day.


----------



## emydura (Jul 8, 2011)

Marco said:


> David - Thanks. I really enjoyed the read. This is getting printed. I inherited some nice manual lenses that I can fit on my DSLR and I'm sure this will come in handy one day.



Thanks Marco. Glad you found it of use.

David


----------



## Clark (May 15, 2015)

This article was so good to me, I thought I would bump it.
It was my go to reference for shopping.
My hands are killing me this week, so I am going to cheat and post links.
This is not a plug for vendor, although I find them to be on my credit card often.


David, I bought these before a 12 day trip to Grand Canyon(both rims), Horseshoe Bend, Sedona, Zion and Bryce.

Kit
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/87108-REG/LEE_Filters_FK_Foundation_Kit_Standard_4x4.html


77mm ring
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/searc...le+Lenses&N=10087147&InitialSearch=yes&sts=pi


Circular polarizer
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/searc...ss+Filter&N=10216637&InitialSearch=yes&sts=pi


This is my favorite. I love it so much, when I break it out, I do a silly little chant. Exactly like this- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJPg1Fivmqg
Gotta love Ted Knight. I know people look at me chanting to my filter case at 5:30am.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/615228-REG/Singh_Ray_R_63_Daryl_Benson_4x6_Reverse.html

Also got a 2-stop and 3-stop ND Grad Soft by Lee Filters.


For the trip to Crystal Mill in Colorado last fall, I bought the Little Stopper.
I thought the Big Stopper was a bit much, but I will be getting the 10-stopper eventually.
I am using the Little Stopper topped with the Circular polarizer here- http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=35076

The Little Stopper is a 6-stop filter for anyone that doesn't know.
Combine it with the circular polarizer, and your at about 7.5-stops.(or so I have read)

Without this read, I would of been lost when shopping.
Thanks again David.

For anyone going this route, I recommend getting these covers to save time in the field. I left them home on the 12 day trip   
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/491475-REG/LEE_Filters_LENSCAP_White_Adapter_Ring_Caps.html


----------



## emydura (May 15, 2015)

You have got some great gear there Clark. All top quality. I'll have to get one of those Singh Ray grads. They are the best.

I assume you must have a Lee holder that enables you to rotate that square polarizing filter?


I noticed at the start of the thread that a few of the photo links aren't working. I'm not sure why as I haven't deleted any. The problem is I can't work out how to get the photos back in as I can't edit any of those earlier posts. Can anyone offer assistance?


----------



## ehanes7612 (May 15, 2015)

nice tutorial..I use Photoshop myself (Layer Masking) ..but if you aren't into post production, ND is the way to go for good shots


----------



## Clark (May 15, 2015)

emydura said:


> I noticed at the start of the thread that a few of the photo links aren't working. I'm not sure why as I haven't deleted any. The problem is I can't work out how to get the photos back in as I can't edit any of those earlier posts. Can anyone offer assistance?




David, all the photos on the first page of thread show for me. I am using Internet Explorer for my daily needs.


----------



## JeanLux (May 16, 2015)

Thanks for reopening this thread Clark!!!! Jean


----------



## emydura (May 17, 2015)

Clark said:


> David, all the photos on the first page of thread show for me. I am using Internet Explorer for my daily needs.



I can't see two of the photos regarding polarizing filters. In Firefox I see nothing, in IE I see 2 x's. 

I'll repost the section on polarisers here - 

*Polariser Filters*

If there is one essential filter then it is the polarizer filter. Polariser filters are great at reducing glare and reflections in an image. This is particularly useful around water. Whenever I photograph waterfalls I always use a polarizer filter. Below are two photographs of the same waterfall. The one on the left has been taken without a polarizer. Notice how the pool of water at the front has a lot of reflections coming off it. There is also a lot of glare coming off the rocks, log and leaves. The overall look is pretty harsh. The photograph on the right has been taken with a polarizer. The water now has no reflections – I can see right through it. There is no glare coming off the rocks or log. The ferns and moss have a much nicer saturated colour. 








Polariser filters are also useful at deepening the intensity of blue skies as well as giving real punch to clouds (it makes them really pop out at you). I had trouble finding a before and after shot of this but here is one from my trip in Nepal. The first one is taken without a polarizer. Notice how the sky is nowhere near as intensely blue while the clouds pop out at you a bit more in the second photo. The leaves are a lot more saturated in colour in the second photo as well. To be honest the sky in the second photo is a little over the top. At high altitudes the air is so clear that the skies are already very blue. If you add a polarizer filter on top of this, it can look a little fake.


----------



## KyushuCalanthe (May 17, 2015)

Thanks for the tips David. Question - I've played a little with polarizing filters shooting waterfalls at long exposures to get that flowing sugar look. The only problem is that the whites tend to lose all detail and just become supernovas. Any way around this - faster exposure times or…? Example below (sorry for the small size).


----------



## emydura (May 17, 2015)

KyushuCalanthe said:


> Thanks for the tips David. Question - I've played a little with polarizing filters shooting waterfalls at long exposures to get that flowing sugar look. The only problem is that the whites tend to lose all detail and just become supernovas. Any way around this - faster exposure times or…? Example below (sorry for the small size).
> 
> [/IMG]



That happens to me a lot as well Tom. I think you just need faster shutter speeds. The problems with waterfalls is they are often dark places so your camera will meter for a longer exposure resulting in the relatively bright rapids getting overblown. You could try spot metering the water or just take a few photos at different exposures. It can be a bit hard to judge that in the field so when you get home you look at the photos on your computer and realise a shorter exposure would have been better.

If you shoot in RAW you may be able to retrieve some of the information. I've done that a bit.


----------



## Clark (Jul 5, 2015)

Just ordered the Big Stopper. It will be here Tuesday.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=lee+filters+big+stopper&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ps


Somehow, while I was on the vendor's page, my hand slipped.
This one will be here Tuesday as well.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/980547-REG/singh_ray_r_303_100mm_x_100mm_lb.html

Sale ends today. 
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/searc...&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=


Thanks again David.


----------



## Ozpaph (Jul 5, 2015)

KyushuCalanthe said:


> Thanks for the tips David. Question - I've played a little with polarizing filters shooting waterfalls at long exposures to get that flowing sugar look. The only problem is that the whites tend to lose all detail and just become supernovas. Any way around this - faster exposure times or…? Example below (sorry for the small size).



Adjust down the whites in Lightroom (must shoot in raw). Nice photo by the way


----------



## emydura (Jul 6, 2015)

Clark said:


> Just ordered the Big Stopper. It will be here Tuesday.
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=lee+filters+big+stopper&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ps
> 
> 
> ...





Excellent Clarke. Look forward to seeing some extreme long exposure photos in the future.

You probably already know but here is how I photograph using the ‘big stopper’ filter. 


•	Because you lose so much light with the filter on, you initially need to set everything up with the filter off. 
•	Without the ‘big stopper’ filter work out your composition and focus. In aperture mode determine the shutter speed.
•	Then put on the filter. Change the focus to manual as your camera cannot automatically focus with the filter on. Change from aperture mode to manual. 
•	To calculate the shutter speed required, multiply the shutter speed you got without the filter in aperture mode by 1024 (2 to the power of 10). You use the power of 10 because that is how many stops of light you are losing. If you had a six stop filter then it would be 2 to the power of 6 (64). So if your shutter speed was 0.2 seconds with the filter off, then with the filter on it becomes 0.2 * 1024 = 200 seconds. When you have these really long exposures then you don’t really need to be exact. You wouldn’t see much difference with 210 seconds for example.
•	If the shutter speed is greater than 30 seconds, which it will almost certainly will be, in manual mode switch your shutter speed to BULB.
•	Using the lock button on a shutter release cable (or something similar), hold the exposure for 200 seconds. 



That Singh-Ray Color Intensifier Filter looks nice as well. That was an expensive slip.


----------



## Clark (Jul 9, 2015)

David, just me send a bill for what I owe you.
Thanks for going over the math and technique. 

Thought I would post a snapshot with Color Intensifier, but there is no sun now. 
David, I bought the Big Stopper now for - just in case for this trip. I don't think I will use it, but it would be wise to take.
We have a wonderful place called Ricketts Glen State Park about 3 hours from home by auto. I am going to combine it with the fall foliage in October. 
More waterfalls than you can shake a stick at.....


Stay focused!


----------



## Clark (Aug 3, 2015)

emydura said:


> That Singh-Ray Color Intensifier Filter looks nice as well. That was an expensive slip.



While out west, it fogged up on me during early am shoot. So I said F it, put it back in bag and used just the polarizer like I done in the past.
Go to use it yesterday, it still had the residue on it. Tried cleaning it with my regular wipes that I use all the time, and the stuff would not come off.
In the end I scratched the filter in at least two spots. The residue is still on it.
I will try windex later after I cool off.


----------



## emydura (Aug 3, 2015)

Clark said:


> While out west, it fogged up on me during early am shoot. So I said F it, put it back in bag and used just the polarizer like I done in the past.
> Go to use it yesterday, it still had the residue on it. Tried cleaning it with my regular wipes that I use all the time, and the stuff would not come off.
> In the end I scratched the filter in at least two spots. The residue is still on it.
> I will try windex later after I cool off.



That's a bit disappointing Clarke. So obviously there is more than just moisture on the filter? Cleaning filters is a bit of a pain. Sometimes the more I try to clean them the dirtier they get.


----------



## Clark (Aug 4, 2015)

I am to assume the pouch that it comes with is clean on the inside, right?
I got less than 20 clicks on it. It might be a while before I get to clean it.
I have lost my enthusiasm for it.


----------



## Clark (Nov 28, 2015)

Clark said:


> Extremely informative write-up. Thank you David for putting this together. I know a bit of time was spent on this.
> Mentioning brand names- ever so important. Too much overpriced crap out there.
> 
> Qs-
> ...



6/15/2011

I remember this post like it was last week.
How many times did go back and use this thread for reference???

I got letter in mail yesterday. 
Two of four images I submitted in a juried show, have been selected. 
Needless to say, I'm high as a kite right now.

Neither image would make the grade, if I did not use the filters I had I my kit.
This is big deal for me. Its the first time I feel like an artist.

David thank you so much for putting this thread together.
Rugged Beauty and New Day are wallhangers.
Cheers!


----------



## emydura (Nov 28, 2015)

Clark said:


> 6/15/2011
> 
> I remember this post like it was last week.
> How many times did go back and use this thread for reference???
> ...



WooHoo. That is fantastic news Clarke. Congratulations. It should be a big deal for you. That is a great achievement and something to be proud of. I'm glad I could play a small part. It took a while to put that post together but I'm sure glad I did now. 

Those are two great photos that will look great mounted on a wall in a big format. You should post the photos in a new thread for others to see. 

You have inspired me to try and get my own photos displayed.


----------



## naoki (Nov 30, 2015)

That is exciting, Clark! Congrats!


----------



## Clark (Nov 30, 2015)

Thanks a million!


----------



## emydura (Dec 4, 2015)

A big thank you to Dot who restored the photos at the beginning of this thread using the Photobucket links I provided.


----------



## SlipperFan (Dec 4, 2015)

Happy to do it!


----------

