|
Post by kiev4a on Feb 25, 2006 21:04:17 GMT -5
This is Shoshone Falls, on the Snake River, near Twin Falls Idaho. This is how the falls would have looked in the 19th century when explorers considered it more scenic than Niagara Falls. (It's actually higher). Usually, the falls is just a trickle but 1997 was an unusually heavy water year and water had to be released from dams upstream. Nikon FT3 50mm lens (wish I had had a WA then). Below is the falls as it normally looks (June 2006) shot with 20mm Nikkor from about the same point as the 1997 photo.
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Feb 26, 2006 20:31:33 GMT -5
A sight worth seeing Wayne. Good job you had a camera with you! Have you got one of the "usual trickle" as a comparison?
John
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Feb 26, 2006 20:58:02 GMT -5
I'm sure I have one somewhere. I'll have to track it down
|
|
|
Post by byuphoto on Feb 27, 2006 9:19:24 GMT -5
Wayne, my hope is to one day spend some time out in the west. I have always been fascinated by history and especially the early explorations and exploits of the Mtn. men. I would love to visit these ans Wy, Mt and Co. so i could see the se beautiful natural wonders but until then I will satisfy myself with the images of others. Thanks, so much for sharing
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Feb 27, 2006 9:48:27 GMT -5
Really nice picture, Wayne. The exposure, to balance the moving water with the spray of water mist is just right. Pictures like this remind me of the old saying: The man who takes a picture like this has seen a mist: the person who hasn't has missed a scene!
Peter
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Feb 27, 2006 13:05:06 GMT -5
Wayne, my hope is to one day spend some time out in the west. I have always been fascinated by history and especially the early explorations and exploits of the Mtn. men. I would love to visit these ans Wy, Mt and Co. so i could see the se beautiful natural wonders but until then I will satisfy myself with the images of others. Thanks, so much for sharing The Snake River wasn't very accomodating to early explorers. The Wilson Price Hunt party (fur trappers) tried to navigate the Snake in 1811 and had to give up on the River before reaching Shoshone Falls--losing most of their gear.They had to split into three groups and go 500 miles overland to the mouth of the Columbia River--almost starved to death in the process. The early emigrants discovered that although the river was in view most of the time, there were only a few places along the route where they could actually get stock down to the water. The only reason the area is habitable now is because it is irrigated by water stored in reservoirs in the mountains or pumped up several hundred feet from the river. Otherwise it would be a dry, rocky, sage-covered desert. In a good year we only receive about 10 inches of rainfall down in the valleys. But most of us native "dry landers" can't handle the humditiy of the Midwest and East or the large amount of rain the Pacific Coast receives. Even in the pioneer daysbefore the dams, the falls would have only looked like the photo in the spring. By autumn there only would have been a trickle of water. Haven't been able to find a low water photo.
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Feb 27, 2006 16:15:14 GMT -5
Go and take one!!!
Of course I'm joking Wayne, but the alacrity with which Americans jump into their cars, drive 500 miles, check out a restaurant they've heard is good, then drive 500 miles back, never ceases to amaze me. OK - slight exaggeration - maybe only 300 miles for a restaurant.... !!
Regards - John
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Feb 28, 2006 12:11:21 GMT -5
John:
I'm about 150 miles from Shoshone Falls (a little over 2 hours on the freeway). But this time of year it would not be a "trickle." This is probably the best year in our area precipatation-wise since the above photo was taken. The falls will be roaring in May and June. I may try to get stop on the way to a conference I must attend in Wyoming in June and get a shot with my new 20mm Nikkor.
You are right about western attitudes on travel. We really have no other option but to take long distance driving as a way of life. Boise, Idaho is 350 miles from Salt Lake City--about the same distance to Spokane, Washington, 500 miles to Seattle, 400 to Portland, Oregon and 600 miles to San Francisco. It's at least a six-hour drive to any city of consequential size. There are no rail connections. It's either drive, fly or take a bus (and trust me on this, you REALLY don't want to take the bus).
Last June I drove to a conference in Spokane. At the end of the conference my mate flew in and joined me. Then we drove to Seattle, then down the coast, then back to Boise--a total of about 1,500 miles over a 10-day period.
I used to think nothing of driving straight through to Seattle (8-9 hours) to visit my sister. I'm to the age now where it more often is a two-day trip.
Even folks on the East Coast of the U.S. have trouble comprehending the distances we deal with in the West. The SECOND largest county in our state is the same size as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts! In Boston people think of Pittsburgh as being "out West." We are probably 2,000 miles west of Pittsburgh.
|
|
|
Post by Microdad on Feb 28, 2006 12:29:29 GMT -5
Wayne, those shots are very cool! I haven't made it to southern Idaho yet, but when I get some time I sure would love to. I recently picked up a book on old ghost towns and it appears there are many in your area. I may make a trip there someday to photograph them.
I know what you mean by having long distances! I grew up in Montana, in the mountainous west side. I have relatives around the Great Falls area (eastern) and the drive there is horribly monotonous. Although the plains of Montana have a beauty of their own, you can literally drive for hours in a straight line and never see a change of scenery.
Steve
|
|