If you have an appointment, or have kids or pets that need attention,  you might want to read the part where this qualifies as a WordPress Longform post . . . in spades. I’m going for a record here, which means maybe one or two people will get through it all. 

This post documents a single day in which I snapped 450 photographs (no, I don’t show them all). Many were bracketed exposure shots (three shots brackets), but still, an excrement-load of photos. Some you have even seen a few of the photos in this group before, and those are not repeated, although some are presented with different processing.  So, if you are ready, oil your scrolling finger, get some moisturizing eye drops, and maybe put on an adult diaper or two . . .

. . . the day started out by looking outside the window and seeing my maples in full color. Unlike HERE, I took good care to snap a few decent shots.

After a quick breakfast, I stepped outside lugging my camera for companionship. It was late in the season, and there were not many flowers left; these petunias . . .

. . . and the husks of Bluebeard Shrub’s flowers . . .

Those were in the front yard, and also there other trees competed for showiest fall colors.

I snapped the above photos (no more, no less), and then it hit me . . . road trip!

Went into the house, gathered up enough snacks for four people, and the two of us headed out, the snacks trembling with apprehension in the back seat . . . they knew none would make it back home.

Where did we go? Well, you’ll have to figure it out.

Still no idea? . . . here’s a little hint.

That’s right! A cherry farm! . . . OK, I’m joshing you, esteemed and sharp reader. We went to Penrose, Colorado, and specifically the 3rd Street Apples Orchard.

We went there to meet the headless Ent, Berto. Had a heck of a time finding him since he can’t very well call out (being headless really cuts into one’s social life). I finally found him snared in one of the apple trees.

I did not know if he was sleeping (again, headless . . . very inconvenient), so I let him be.

3rd Street  Orchard is a small place, perfect for our needs (Melisa picks a few apples, I walk around with a camera). There are a few other orchards in Penrose, but they attract, you know, ‘p’, ‘e’, ‘o’, ‘p’, ‘l’, ‘e’. Hope you guys can spell, because I don’t want to say it out loud too often. I read somewhere that repeating a name three times is a summoning.

Interesting tree . . . looks like someone tried to kill it, and it just laughed it off.

The green ribbons on a tree means they are ripe and ready to pick. The orchard has ten or so varieties . . .

We were specifically looking for Honeycrisp apples, but it was past their peak, and what little they had, had been scrounged up by, you know . . . ‘p’, ‘e’, ‘o’, ‘p’, ‘l’, ‘e’.

By the way, I did a quick search on how to indicate you are spelling a word when writing, and got no help . . . I made up the format, so from now on, if you are reading my blog, the above format indicates spelling out a word.

Some trees were laden with apples, obviously striving for quantity over quality . . .

. . . while others went the other route . . .

I came across this next tree, and imagined a family of ‘p’, ‘e’, ‘o’, ‘p’, ‘l’, ‘e’ who were not into apples, but really, really liked apple leaves, picked all the large leaves, and left the small ones.

Whoever came with this equipment is a serious picker . . .

Apple picking is a tad boring, and I would have played around with filling the baskets in other patterns . . . every other one, or zig-zag from side to side, or maybe filling them all at once as opposed to in straight line series.

. . . Some people have no imagination . . .

“Hey, bud; c’mere.”

Startled, I looked around . . .

All I saw was this horse . . .

“. . . are you . . . ?”

“A talking horse? Yeah; get over it. You got a name?”

“Ah . . . Disperser?”

“Are you asking me, or are you telling me?”

“Ahem; my name is Disperser.”

“I don’t think so; that sounds like a blog name, or something equally idiotic.  What’s your real name?”

“Oh . . . Emilio.”

“So, Ema . . . Imil . . . Disperser; do you think you could feed me one of them there apples?”

“Well . . . well, it’s like this; I don’t know much about horses; I don’t know if I should give you an apple or not.”

“It just so happens I know a lot about horses, and you can bank my advice . . . Now, how about that apple?”

“I don’t know . . . “

“I’ll do an impersonation for you.”

“An impersonation? You’re not gonna impersonate a horse, are you?”

“No, smart aleck! Watch . . . “

“??”

“Oh, come on! Isn’t obvious? Miley Cyrus!”

“OK, you earned that one. Here . . . “

“Man, that was good . . . “

“You think I could have another? I’ll do another impersonation for you.”

“Oh yeah? Who you gonna do now?

“First of all, it’s ‘going to’ not ‘gonna’, and second, Gene Simmons.”

“That . . . that still looks like Miley Cyrus.”

“No, this is Miley Cyrus.”

“Now, that looks like Gene Simmons!”

“Are you messing with me? Because, you know, I got a few pounds on you.”

“No man; I’m giving it to you straight!”

“What’s your name again? You’re not the  Disperser, are you?”

“What do you mean?”

“There’s rumors of an old guy named Disperser who’s a real pain in the . . . say; you’re an old guy. You’re him, ain’t you?!”

“It’s ‘aren’t’, not ‘ain’t’ . . . and I might be, might be. Why do you ask?”

“You’re snapping photos for your blog, right? I’ll sign the release for more apples.”

“I don’t need a release from you; I can just use the photos without your consent. But, pose for me and I’ll give you a few more apples.”

“How’s this?”

“Wait, wait! . . . let me go over there, it’ll be a better shot.”

(sound of two coconut halves being banged together)

“How about this?”

“No, man; either look away from the camera or look right at it; your eye looks all funky and stuff!”

“OK then, how about now?”

“Much better, and that does look like Gene Simmons . . . or maybe Miley; I can’t tell the difference between them, except she wears more makeup.”

“Do you want more poses? Do I get more apples?”

“I’ll get you some apples, but I want some ‘regular’ horse poses. You know, where you look all disinterested and stuff, and maybe lost in your own thoughts.”

“You mean like this?”

“Nice! . . . how about a few more?”

“How many apples do I get?”

“One apple for each pose.”

“OK, I’ll do thirty-five poses.”

“. . . ah, no. How about two more?”

“Twenty-five? Fifteen? Seven? . . . oh, OK; two. Be sure you get them, because I’m not repeating them!”

“Hey! Those are almost the same pose!”

“Though! Now, pay up!”

I swear, it went exactly like that. I did pay the horse because, after all, I got some decent photos.

Shortly after leaving the horse (I forgot to ask its name!), I came across this tree. To me it looks like wild cherries, but that would make them real late in the season . . .

If anyone knows what these are, please leave a comment below.

The orchard, like any respectable apple orchard catering to tourists, also has pumpkins.

. . . I hope they’ll be able to separate them during the carving  . . .

I thought this made for a decent shot:

These two had almost a reddish color to them . . . not being a pumpkin connoisseur, I could not tell you if it was just the sun, my processing, or the actual coloring.This is pretty close to how the camera captured them.

Pumpkins are okay, but I had come for the apples . . .

For some reason, people passed these next ones up. . .

I’m trying to drag this out so I can break my own record for longest post . . . this is, after all, the WPLongForm.

Therefore, I give you . . .

That’s right; completely natural. All natural ingredients, no preservatives, no genetic modification except for, you know, hundreds of years of selective breeding by various horticulturalists. 

And then, I give you . . . the Perfect Pumpkin! I was going to call it the Wolf Head Pumpkin because the stem reminded me of a wolf’s head . . .

For comparison, a 6.5-rated pumpkin . . . 

But, you say, why are you showing pumpkins when there are apples all around you?

Good question!

Don’t they look good enough to eat? Maybe bake?

I was really impressed with the Orchard . . . they had a mock-up of the most famous apple of all:

That’s right! Sir Isaac Newton, who later in life got all squirrely, was clobbered by a similar apple, thereby setting free the idea of gravity, and what it do.  Maybe why he got weird in his old age; that looks like a heavy apple.

I wonder how that works . . . if he had been hit by three apples, would he have discovered a couple of more things?

I also got to thinking . . . must be nice having lived in the early days, before people knew stuff. All you had to do is declare what you observed.

“BEHOLD! . . . I have discovered things fall! Next, I’ll discover water is wet, rocks be hard, and salame goes well with cheese and fresh bread!”

“No! Really!? Tell us more, oh wise Disperser!”

Recently someone who reads this blog (but might not make it all the way down here) mentioned she was trying to get into film. Not as a permanent thing, but to get experience with it.

I used to shoot film, and to tell the truth, it was not particularly fun. In fact, it was frustrating! For one, you were limited to how much you could shoot, for another, you had to swap films to change the ISO, and lastly, labs never got the colors right.

Still, people have a fascination with “retro” stuff (there’s even a song . . . I’ve not heard it, but I think it’s titled “Baby’s Got Back” or something like that. There might be a video, as well.)

I’m not about to go back to film, but I do have a program (DxO Film Pack) that simulates a number of popular films from the era. For example . . .

Now, you might not be able to tell here, but for this, and other examples later on (that’s right, we’re barely at the halfway point of this post), one can go to the SmugMug Gallery HERE and see for themselves how close it comes to the real thing.

I’ll identify the film if I remember, but at the very least I will point out which of the following photos represent a consumer film from the past.

Of course, one does not need to have a specific program. It saves time, but you can approximate stuff on Lightroom or Photoshop.

Now, play with the filters, add some grain, reduce the sharpness, and you get a decent approximation of film. In this case it’s not a specific one, but if you had an example of one, you could probably come very close.

Anyway, on the way out of 3rd Street Apples, I snapped a few photos of the place . . .

Sadly, last Spring’s late freeze hurt their crop, and they did not open for the 2013 season. I’m hoping they will open in 2014.

Can you, the smart reader, guess where we headed next? Here’s a hint . . .

That’s right; Guffey, Colorado.

Regular readers of this blog have last seen these cars in another post (HERE), and I had promised more about the place.

In the previous post I had presented the cars treated with either onOne Suite or the Topaz Suite filters. I now present the same cars with various types of “film” looks, or film treatments, if you prefer.

For instance, here are two different ones:

The first one is Agfa Apx film, and the second is a camera profile.

All of the next three are camera profiles based on generic film settings. Note the different looks.

This next one is another KodaK Tri-Max 100 rendition

Versus a generic film look . . .

The differences are more pronounced in the SmugMug gallery, which is another reason I think shooting film might be interesting for a person doing it, but not distinguishable to blog readers (unless you tell them it’s film).

Can you tell if the next one is a generic film, a specific film, or a digital rendition?

That is a Fuji Neopan Acros 100 treatment, and as far as B&W go, it’s one I find more pleasing than most.

So, here are two versions of the same photo; one as I would normally process the RAW file, and one processed for the Neopan film.

This next one is a non-film process I like for B&W renditions.

Some might see a difference between my regular process and the film processing, but again, it’s subtle (usually). The film processing is not as sharp, has more grain, and one could say a slight blur. The digital is much sharper.

That’s because, at least for 35mm, digital is approaching the information that a negative has, but can be manipulated more than a negative, even a scanned negative.

That’s my opinion, of course, and I am no expert. I’m going strictly by what I have shot in the past, and what the experience I currently have with digital.

Next is a photo presented as a digital rendition, then as Velvia 50 film, and then the Acros 100.

I remember when the Velvia came out. It was touted for its richness, and depth of color . . . basically, I thought it was over-saturated. Not a bad look, but I tried a few rolls, and went back to the Kodak films. I assume, like everything else, it’s what one gets used to.

Now, sure as all liquid excrement, someone will point out the following . . .

“You’re not really shooting film! You are just approximating it. Film, real film, is much better!”

Then they will proceed to list subtle qualities that make film what it is . . . well, I will say this.

They are mostly right. But, the various films are themselves a process. One that is hardwired to the medium, much like filters are on the PC. Depending on the subject, lighting, etc. the same process can result in different looks, but one thing is in common.

. . . “soft” look, slightly grainy (especially at the higher ISO values), and limited on how much one can enlarge (unless one shoots medium formats or larger).

Let’s not forget the film photo negative is scanned, and then manipulated digitally before being presented. I don’t think one can get on a high horse and claim substantial difference in the process of bringing a photo from film to the PC screen than the process to bring digital to the same PC screen.

Ultimately, it does all rest on “looks”. I think one can duplicate a film look, at least close enough for casual viewing. Maybe I’m wrong; it wouldn’t be the first time (or so I’m told).

Here are the same three films in another subject because, you know, I’m going for a record long post.

BUT . . . we are here to talk about Guffey . . . a strange place it be, with all sorts of strange things to feast one’s eyes on.

Yes, that is a house of ill repute, complete with red light . . . but, energy conscious. And yes, that is a picture of Elvira.

There be odd trucks . . . 

There be skulls . . . 

. . . did I mention a fun house?

As I looked down to check the exposure on the screen of the camera, I noticed the dried flowers . . . so I shot them.

But, my interest was still drawn to the old cars . . .

What, no Velvia?

No, but what about Kodak’s own Elite ExtraColor 100?

And the Neopan Acros 100 for comparison . . .

But, let’s turn away from the cars . . . this was also shown before.

Here’s another view . . .

I’ve shown this close-up before, but now I’m thinking this horse is doing a better impersonation of Gene Simmons.

And here is the same shot in B&W Acros 100 film version . . .

This car was also presented before, but here it is also in the Neopan Acros 100 representation of film processing.

But, let’s go to something new (although I will still occasionally present two versions of the same photo) . . .

This truck is on rails, elevated off the ground. It has a driver and everything.

Here are a few better views. By the way, the colors look vivid on the truck because they are. I had to tone them down for a couple of shots as they looked almost like HDR processing.

For a photographer, the visuals, the texture, the colors . . . it’s all good.

Yet another film process . . . I like this one too.

The front of the building is no less interesting . . .

This is the camera and DxO B&W processing:

Looking slightly to the left . . .

And again, shown in the Ilford FP4 Plus film filter . . .

Here’s the whole front of the store . . . which was not a store as nothing was for sale (I asked). The golf cart was were the guy (owner?) was sitting, reading a book. It wasn’t the Bible, so maybe he is a Democrat.

Remember the skulls? They don’t look human, but I don’t know about demons . . . or Minotaur.

Some people have no spine . . . I know because it’s here.

There is more from Guffey (from a different drive) and since this is all from one day, I’ll leave it for a future post.

We got back into our trusty Tahoe (not so trusty, really . . . already had a number of repaired leaks, a couple of door lock motors going out, and a few other annoyances, and we’re barely at 60K miles), and headed out of Guffey, and toward Florissant, Woodland Park, and home.

But, just out of town I had to stop for some turkeys . . . actual turkeys, not politicians.

They were a long way off, and the sun had gone behind a cloud, hence the poor quality of the shots.

The road to Florissant is nearly deserted, and one gets quite the vista while driving through roads winding among the hills and rock formations.

All of the following B&W renditions were done in the Fuji Neopan Acros 100. It worked the best as far as I am concerned. Another good reason to use a post-processing filter as opposed to carrying 10 or 20 different film types.

Here are a couple of single shot panoramas.

Wide angle lenses are nice, but they limit what one can see, and they also diminish the impact of the vista.

. . . and that’s why I like shooting multiple shots panoramas . . .

Click on the above, and it should open to another tab or window, and click again to see the 1:1 full size view (it be big) . . . also not doable with film. If clicking on the photo does not work, click HERE for the full size, or go to the SmugMug gallery.

Mind you, I’m not harping on film or them who want to use it. Just pointing out the advantages of digital. Also justifying to myself my lack of desire to dust off the Nikon 8008 and put a few rolls of film through it.

Few people seem to think of it, but you can take panoramas the other way as well (portrait orientation). Here are three shots in portrait orientation stitched together into a panoram.

You should be able to click on this one as well, but if the link does not work (thanks WordPress) click HERE for the full size photo, or as I said before, both in the SmugMug gallery.

Again, if you click on that, you will be downloading a lot of data; you better have a good connection.

Here’s a few more combinations of color and B&W shots of the clouds.

And a last color shot . . .

So, if you and your bladder made it this far, you are now within sight of the end.

All we have left is the full moon. Remember, this was all one day . . . that very night, we had a full moon.

That’s right. The day was September 29, 2012 . . . been a long time coming, but it’s now here, and it’s almost over.

The next two shots are of the full moon with my 70-200mm f/2.8 lens and my 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 lens.

The 80-400mm is a great lens, but any atmospheric “shimmering” really distorts the image, and any shaking shows up in blurry details.

However, when it works, it beats the heck out of the 70-200mm.

Here is the full crop of the 70-200mm . . .

 And here is the crops of the 80-400mm lens (I did all three because I could not choose between them, and because it adds to the length of the post.

Okely Dokely . . . if you’ve made it here, all I can say is . . . bravo; well played!

However,  the SmugMug gallery HERE has a few more photos that were not included in this post . . . hard to believe, ain’t it?

 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o o o o o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Astute persons might have noticed these doodles, and correctly surmised they hold some significance for me, and perhaps for humanity at large.  

If you click on the doodle, and nothing happens, this is the link it’s supposed to go to: https://disperser.wordpress.com/2011/12/26/palm-vx-and-i/.

<><><><><><><><><><o><><><><><><><><><o><><><><><><><><><>

Note: if you are not reading this blog post at Disperser.Wordpress.com, know that it has been copied without permission, and likely is being used by someone with nefarious intention, like attracting you to a malware-infested website.  Could be they also torture small mammals.

<><><><><><><><><><o><><><><><><><><><o><><><><><><><><><>

Please, if you are considering bestowing me some recognition beyond commenting below, refrain from doing so.  I will decline nominations whereby one blogger bestows an award onto another blogger, or group of bloggers.   I appreciate the intent behind it, but I would much prefer a comment thanking me for turning you away from a life of crime, religion, or making you a better person in some other way.  That would actually mean something to me.

Should you still nominate me, I will strongly suspect you pulled my name at random, and that you are not, in fact, a reader of my blog.  If you wish to know more, please read below.

About awards: Blogger Awards          About “likes”:   Of “Likes”, Subscriptions, and Stuff

Note: to those who may click on “like”, or rate the post; if you do not personally hear from me, know that I am sincerely appreciative, and I thank you for noticing what I do.

. . .  my FP ward  . . . chieken shit.