The color photographs version of this post is HERE.<<link

This post is identical except most of the photos have been replaced by monochrome versions. Also, the word “monochrome” has been added where appropriate.

For them who didn’t read the previous monochrome post, I done do this to avoid mixing what are two different ways of presenting photographs. I aim to let each version shine on its own stage. Think of it as a nod to the days before color was invented . . .

This is the second (monochrome) post documenting our September 13, 2017, visit to Juneau, Alaska, a now even longer-delayed continuation of my documentation of our 2017 Alaska Cruise. Current and previous posts relating to this cruise are HERE<<link. The following introduction is the same as that of previous posts so that’s something else you can skip.

One more thing . . . there are fewer monochrome photos than color photos, so the posts are not exactly 1:1 comparable. In part, that’s because some of the color photos are duplicates taken with the Note II and there’s nothing gained by converting them to monochrome, and some of the photos were not all that interesting in Monochrome.

There’s a gallery at the end of each post and a SmugMug gallery HERE<<link. Photos in SmugMug can be viewed full-size. Note that the SmugMug gallery will eventually contain all the photos from Juneau; those from this (monochrome) post (Part 2) and those from previous (monochrome) Juneau posts.

You can click on the photos in the body of this post to see a larger-but-less-than-full-size-version. If there’s a panorama, I’ll link the full-size files but be warned . . . they’re typically huge. Huger than people have ever seen before. Don’t click on those links unless you’re enjoying a biggly Interweb connection. Also, if you have biggly Interweb but you’re reading this on a phone — which is sad; VERY SAD — I wouldn’t bother with the full-size photos because they are HUGE; huger than anyone else’s huge photos. 

September 13, 2017, had me shoot around 300 photos (186 P900 photos, 10 D7000 photos, and 280 Note II photos, but most of those were three-shot HDR series, so probably around 75-80 photos) and a few videos. Also, many of the Note II photos were inside shops and are mostly of little interest to anyone. Photos I think are of interest are posted below.

I should probably do a brief introduction . . . 

First off, here’s the Princess Patter<<link for the 13th of September of 2017. 

Here’s a (NOT monochrome) map of the whole area . . . Juneau is roughly in the middle of nowhere . . . but not that far from Haines, as the crow flies (near the bottom of the map). I would guess more than 100 miles but less than 150 miles. Click the picture below for a much larger version (4.4MB).

This is the Juneau Port Guide<<link describing the attractions of the area and what little other information a visitor might find useful along with a rudimentary map.<<link

Right, that be enough background stuff to bore even the staunchest readers to tears. Many — I’m sure — have already tuned out and left. 

~ ~ ~ ~ here we go ~ ~ ~ ~

As before, most of these photos are from the Nikon P900 and the Samsung Note II. There are no D7000 photos in this post. Keep that in mind in case you’re considering whether using a point-and-shoot camera suffices to document your travels. 

Also, for this post, we’re now switching to specific and somewhat random stuff. Meaning, things I saw that I thought made for a nice photo or were otherwise worthy of my attention. Like, for instance . . .

That’s the display in front of the Visitor Center. Here’s another view . . .

And here are a details photo . . .

What to make of the sculpture . . . at first, I thought it depicted waves . . . but the more I looked at it, the more I started thinking about underwater plants and creatures. Those aren’t feet; roots, maybe? And those are likely urchins (not the human kind; the kind that will really hurt you if you step on them).

The visitor center is right on the waterfront, and if you turn 90º to your left from the photo prior to the last one, you get this view . . .

And, if you go to the water’s edge and look left . . .

OK, that’s not strictly true . . . that’s on the way back to the ship, and a few hundred yards from the visitor center.

However, if you are standing in that spot, and if you have a mucho-grand-wow-what-a-zoom-you-got-there, then you can take a few shots at an eagle that’s perched way the heck away from where you are. All of the following shots are at 2000mm eq. zoom, but the first three are with bland settings, and the next three are with the Auto setting of the camera. (Note: that don’t mean much in Monochrome)

Here, let me show you; the first three . . .

I should mention that I tried to process these in every which way so as to match what the camera does on the Auto setting . . . and therein lies the problem with a camera that doesn’t give you access to the RAW data . . . you are limited in what you can do because you don’t have all the data.

“Heck!” you say/ask. “Why not use the camera in Auto mode all the time? Those look pretty good.”

Or, you would if these were in color. Still, the color version does affect the conversion to monochrome.

Yes, Bob, yes they do. The problem is that Auto mode does other things that don’t always work for what one wants to shoot. Auto mode controls focus, exposure, aperture, shutter speed, and even the flash.

Yes, for many instances it does pretty good, but it also can screw up a perfectly good shot by focusing on the wrong subject or, worse, process the final version of the photo with a heavy hand, making assumptions about saturation, sharpening, contrast, etc. Assumptions that maybe one doesn’t agree with.

So, yes, in this case, the Auto feature worked well . . . but what I really wanted is for the camera do give me access to the RAW file so that I could do as good or better.

BUT . . . even as I complain, I’m cognizant of the fact that no other camera/lens combination that I own (owned then or have now) would have netted me these photos. I mean, isn’t that the thing about life? We seldom stop and think about the positive stuff about it, and concentrate more on things that could be better. In itself, a worthwhile goal if one actively works toward making things better . . . but, if all one does is complain about not yet being there . . . well, that’s not as good, is it?

Anyway, here’s a lesser-but-still-interesting bird. Notice the sea snake right behind it . . .

Oh . . . nevermind . . . that’s just a stick.

Note: the next portion of the color photos version of this post has many Note II photos I did not bother to monochrometize. I’m skipping ahead to the photos I do have.

Before I continue with the Note II photos, here are a few more from the P900 . . .

. . . I liked the reflection and ripples of this shot of one of the tenders coming from the ship . . .

This next one I took because the Sun appeared . . .

Yes, a cheap play on words . . . seriously, I snapped it because of the birds.

What birds?

These birds.

What’s so interesting about the birds? . . . nothing specific, but in person, they were more visible to the naked eye than the camera eye.

Because there’s no motion in a still — amazingly, it’s why they call these images “stills” — the birds blend in as your eyes are drawn to the big orange blob . . . What? No, not Trump; I mean the logo on the ship. Note: this joke doesn’t work as well in monochrome . . . but, come to think of it, I doubt Trump would work any better in monochrome.

{a bunch of Note II photos removed because I don’t have the equivalent photos in monochrome}

Back to the P900 . . .

There was a reason I snapped this photo . . . I think it’s a historical building of some kind, and if I had the gumption, I’d look it up and give you a link.

Instead, I’ll tell you that a search for “889 Franklin St. building with red roof” turns up many photos of the building. Apparently, cruise people like to photograph red roofs. Honestly, that’s why I took the photo. Of course, in monochrome, you can’t tell the roof is red. Still an interesting building, though.

But, why this photo?

Two reasons . . . one, because on the wide-angle photo (below) they looked crooked, and two, to once again showcase the P900’s zoom . . .

Not that I do, but if I did, I’d never do naked yoga in front of a window, even if I have a three-quarter-mile worth of water between me and the opposing shore.

For instance, look at this shot of amazingly happy and festive people enjoying breakfast:

That’s from the back of this ship (empty at the time I snapped the photo below as most people had gone ashore by then) . . .

{here, again, a bunch more photos from the Note II that are missing from this version of the post because I didn’t convert them to B&W}

Let’s return to the P900 . . . with a photo of the Coast Guard patrolling the harbor:

OK, you got me . . . you realized this was me just doing the zoom thing again . . .

About fifteen minutes later, from the upper deck of the Coral Princess . . .

This next photo is about 1 MB in size, and 4,800 x 920 pixels in size . . . click it to see it in its native resolution.

It’s one of the things the P900 does not do especially well. I mean, it’s OK, but it could be better.

Here’s the Emerald Princess practically empty . . . you can see two men on adjacent balconies, but that’s about it.

Meanwhile, on the Sun, the crew was holding drills (the ships do that when they are in port and most of the passengers are ashore).

Too close? Here . . .

Yes, we were on the way out of the bay . . . Here’s a shot of the other side of the ship about three minutes later . . .

For as much crap as the cruise lines take, the workers don’t do too bad. Most of them are from countries and lives where they might not ever get to see as much of the world as they do on these ships, and I’ve yet to meet anyone who didn’t appear genuinely friendly and at least relatively happy.

Of course, I’m sure that, like any job, there are crap days, but it’s difficult faking good humor and interest. Some people can do it, but I think I’m pretty good at spotting fakers, and most of the workers seem to be having a good time.

A few sights on the way out . . .

What’s that? You want to see it closer? Why, you’ve asked the right guy!

The only thing better would be if I’d shot some movies . . . which I did and will publish in the next installment.

Another angle on the water running down to the water . . .

Most of the shoreline is peppered with houses . . .

Wait . . . what’s that spec on the water?

Boy, sure wish I had a BIG ZOOM at my disposal . . . well, duh! . . . I do!

I mean, I’m sure it’s safe and all, and they probably know how to swim, but I wouldn’t go out on that  . . . not with big floating cities going by.

Here’s another set-up for a zoom demonstration . . .

Why, Disperser, what be them dots along the shore?

Well, Bob, them be houses. Houses with people in them, and if they are doing naked yoga by their windows, we’ll be able to see them.

Nope! No naked yoga, but I see a sewing machine, a ladder, and what looks like a chair.

Anyway, later on, I trained the big zoom on the half moon. Technically, if you consider the other side, it’s a quarter moon, and the full moon is actually half a moon . . . but, I digress.

Here’s the B&W version of the composite photo of the moon and water . . .

Artistic license, and all that. If the pros can combine shots, so can I.

OK, here’s a gallery of the above . . .

That’s it. This post has ended . . . except for the stuff below.

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

Note: if you are not reading this blog post at DisperserTracks.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><><><><><><><>

If you’re new to this blog, it might be a good idea to read the FAQ page. If you’re considering subscribing to this blog, it’s definitively a good idea to read both the About page and the FAQ page.