Frank Skomial
, Nov 19, 2005; 10:38 p.m.
Question is how to shoot panoramas and city wide photographs in Los
Angeles?
Los Angeles regained again the infamous crown and became the most
poluted city of the world. Smog (smoke + fog) is normally so bad,
that all pictures taken from higher elevation (mountains or tall
buildings) as so hazy and foggy that it does not make sense to print
them.
The best bet are the few days of opportunity during the year when
SANTANA Wind blows (Santana is the correct name from Spanish for
devilish strong wind. The term was twisted around in media and they
call it mow Santa Ana wind - possibly due to direction of it - or
more likely due to plain ignorance.)
Any other suggestions, or techniques to improve pictures in such
conditions?, like haze filters, post processing advice, etc. ?
Jim Strutz - Anchorage, AK
, Nov 19, 2005; 11:06 p.m.
Frank Skomial
, Nov 20, 2005; 12:03 a.m.
Jim,
Actually I was on Alaska cruise 2 years ago, and have great pictures taken there.
I was hoping to make pictures of similar clarity/quality in Los Angeles. Any better advice from you?
Richard Wong , Nov 20, 2005; 12:38 a.m.
You can do either of two things, choose not to shoot or roll with the punches and shoot it for what it is. An overdeveloped dust bowl. Smog is a reality so I don't see any reason to romanticize something that doesn't exist. The sunsets are very nice in So Cal because it's so hazy. Ever notice how red the sun gets? And avoid the telephoto. Get closer if you have to.
Richard Wong , Nov 20, 2005; 12:42 a.m.
http://www.rwongphoto.com/SCA.html
Reece Vogel , Nov 20, 2005; 12:43 a.m.
Hey Frank!
You sure paint a bleak picture of LA and the air quality. I've heard that Los Angeles got back the dubious distinction of the worst air quality back from rival Huston, TX, but the world? I find that hard to believe. And I don't know where you've been all week, but with the exception of one day, it has been spectacular and I could have made 100 panoramas that would not be possible in the place you have described.
The pollutants that do the most harm are not visible and having not read the report, I don't know what the award had been based upon. Having witnessed, through red, teary burning eyes, and inhaled more than a half century of what passes for air the Los Angeles basin, I am astonished at the dramtic improvement in air quality since the car, fuel and industrial emmission controls became effective. Growing up in the good old days, I can recall many occasions when being too active on a smoggy day made me sick and unable to take a deep breath. We called it "smog lung" as kids and it would be described as having 25% of normal lung capacity with any effort to go beyond that would be met with severe pain in both lungs. I can't remember the last time I felt anything but the mildest case of smog lung. I have to hand it to those who have implimented the changes the air quality reflects. With the 25% increase in population and half of them driving huge gas guzzling SUVs they only need as a personal statement of how little they care about the environment, responsible fossil fuel consumption and global warming, I can't imagine how bad it would be if the standards were kept at the 1960 level. It would be so poisonous that natural selection would step in and weed out those weak of lung.
To reply to your question, a few tests of UV and haze filter combinations with your camera and film of choice is a good start. I find the tendency of transparency film to intensify the magenta cast of the band just above the horizon line most annoying. Instead of more versions of the same old variation on Photoshop, someone should get creative and come up with algorythms that identify, correct sharpen and balance the damage done by airborne pollution. It can't be that hard and it would be very popular for sure. I don't know if using aerial films and filtration might help, but their spectral responses and over the lens filtration is designed to minimize haze. Some of those films are kind of slow but have granularity and resolution specs that would cause beads of sweat to bust out on your hi rez scanner.
Last but not least, shoot your panos in LA on New Years Day. It is always spectacular for the Rose Parade (inspires tens of thousands of SUVs to move here every year) and traffic is light except in Pasadena. You might have to be careful the B2 bomber doesn't spoil your pictures with that nasty thin, black line of a profile. It putts around the basin each year as a kickoff for the festivities and you can't see the damn thing until it banks in a turn and then it is pretty spooky looking. This year the bomber had some fighter jets riding shotgun and they are much less discrete. I overslept and missed the B2 this year. It took me a few seconds to get my bearings and figure out the fighters flying at treetop level with the afterburners lit wasn't the second coming of Christ afterall. But as far as shooting Panos in LA goes, try shooting between December and May when about 80% of the time you should have no problem with natural haze or man made smog fouling up your pictures.
Good Luck!
Ocean Physics
, Nov 20, 2005; 01:29 a.m.
The only thing "Santana" means in Spanish is a latin american rock musician.
The origin of the term is sometimes disputed, but it seems likely to me that it comes from the Santa Ana canyon, through the Santa Ana mountains. Big mystery.
I was hoping to make pictures of similar clarity/quality in Los Angeles.
I'm hoping to marry a multimillionaire heiress with nymphomaniacal tendencies who looks like a young Nastassja Kinski.
Jerry Litynski 
, Nov 20, 2005; 01:51 a.m.
Or you could visit Mexico City.
Ellis Vener
, Nov 20, 2005; 07:05 a.m.
Worse than Beijing or Mexico City? I don't think so.
Stephen W. , Nov 20, 2005; 10:13 a.m.