Originally Posted by
Dave Henry
While I tend to agree about the calphoto site, a lot of reports I find myself scratching my head over. This is my 27th year covering the Sierra color (and 31st shooting it) and we get thousands of emails suggesting "new" locations I should take a look at. Most of them I've visited over the years and periodically I re-check them just to make sure. I'm usually underwhelmed.
I make a big distinction between tourist color and photography color. A lot of amateurs consider any tree worth visiting. I don't fall into that category. For me to recommend a location and make a color recommendation, it had better be accurate AND worth the drive. We have hundreds of thousands of viewers and I can't run the risk of an emotional response to a small cluster of trees. My color chart evaluations are usually conservative prior to peak and aggressive post peak just to be safe.
True, I don't cover all the color in California but we do cover the area on the map thoroughly to the tune of about 3,000 miles in the four weeks. The rest of the color in the Sierra is too spotty for me to send hundreds of people chasing to. It may be great for the tourist on a Sunday drive but not to send photographers out to.
The color in Plumas County is predominantly oak and is very nice beginning the last week of October but most is way off and on private land. Wide shots are great but getting up close is trespassing so I can't recommend it.
The folks on Calphoto can say anything with no repercussions, except for the disdain of a few readers, with nothing to loose. I don't have that luxury.
Bookmarks