That article was really interesting and the photos were stunning. How did you take the picture of the ice pinnacles on Yr Elen without the sunlight being a problem and overexposing the film?
I've put this in the 'starting out' folder, because I've just bought an SLR and am starting out. I'm off to South America in May and would love some more advice before then on how to get the most out of my pictures.
Well, obviously, I could have used a highly complex and technical method involving light meters, calculators, slide-rules and the inverse-square law, but in actual fact I set my Canon EOS to Auto and pointed it - it actually handles shooting into the light, or 'contre-jour' as they say in Wales, very well, although the rule of thumb is to open the lens up by at least one f-stop to compensate for the extra brightness of the sun.
As for bracketing the exposures to make sure you've got one right, my old boss used to say: "Bracketing, laddie - have you got shares in Kodak?"
Tell us about exposure compensation on glaciers at altitude and that annoying effect where the sky is darker around the edges. Which filters should one consider in the Andes then? Given that there is a load of UV around.
Also, is it true that the soft, evening light registers on film before the human eye spots it? Just wondering.
You've actually identified the answer already, Jon - ultraviolet light increases with altitude, and is intensified by the effect of sunlight reflecting off bright surfaces like ice and snow.
The major problem with allowing UV to enter the lens is the fact that film is sensitive to UV (and infra-red) light which is invisible to the eye. This causes the image to be over-exposed and washed-out, even when the exposure has been set correctly. A UV filter will eliminate the unwanted ultraviolet wavelengths.
It's a good idea to leave a UV filter permanently attached to the lens - not only will it remove the offending UV, it will provide protection to the front element of your very expensive lens.
Image fall-off in the corners, or 'vignetting' as they say in Glossop, is usually a problem with low-quality wide-angle lens which do not produce even coverage across the full image. The Fuji GX617 panaoramic camera, as used by Colin Prior and Ian Evans to produce their fabulous mountain images, utilises a neutral density filter with a centre spot to compensate for this efect on the ultra-wide lens used to capture images like Ian Evans' celebrated Ben Nevis shot.
Same filter, different name - depends what you consider fantastically expensive. Basically, despite all the electronic gadgetry and programmable shooting modes, any camera is still just a box with a hole in it - the better the lens the better the image. £200 isn't wildly expensive for a good quality 24 or 28mm lens for an SLR. Like most things, you get what you pay for...
To put it in context, a lens for the Fuji costs around £2000, so £200 looks cheap by comparison.
Also - this is great, I get to ask questions - I have an old EOS 650 which is very tough and reliable, but I fancy something lighter for hoiking round at altitude. Any minuses to the latest, much lighter Canon bodies like the EOS 300? Also how good, or otherwise are the lenses from companies like Sigma or are the Canon lenses better?
Great article..... the link to the Ben Nevis article was very interesting too.
For me, when on snow/glaciers, as well as having the UV filter on the lens I have a hood too. I find it helps with most situations other than when you're going for wide angle.
To date, most of my decent mountain photos have been done on black & white, the colour stuff needs a bit of work but at the moment, I haven't got the time/patience!
BTW.... In cold conditions, the other things to consider when doing mountain photography is the quality of the grease used in the camera mechanism & lenses as well as snapping the film itself. I know from bitter experience after trashing a SLR when it froze!!!
I've got a Canon EOS 300, which I find perfectly adequate for most purposes, and image quality is pretty good - you're always limited by the smaller film size of 35mm anyway, so to make dramatic improvements you need to shoot larger format film anyway.
As a rule, a lens of fixed focal-length will provide better quality than a zoom, but the 28-80 and 35-80 zooms fitted as satndard to the EOS 300 will produce good results. I actually bought a 28mm Sigma to go with my 35-80 and the main benefit is speed - the zoom I think is f5.6 wide open , whereas the Sigma is f2, so you can shoot longer, at faster speeds, in worse light.
The other consideration with lightweight, fully battery-dependent electronic cameras, is there's more to go wrong, they're more delicate, susceptible to dust and moisture, and if the battery dies, they stop working altogether. My knackered old Olumpus is metal body, fully mechanical, but keeps working if the battery-powered meter packs in.
If I were you, I'd get an EOS with the 28-80 zoom, make sure you'got spare batteries (mine packed in at a village half-way up Mount Meru) and use an Oyster case or similar to protect it, and keep the whole thing in those ziploc bags to keep the dust and wet out.
Yes, should have mentioned the lens hood - although I keep losing them, and end up using my other hand as a kind of mobile lens shield.
Very expensive pro 35mm lenses - at normal and short focal lengths, I personally doubt you would ever see the difference. With the wonders of digital technology, it is possible to improve the final repro quality to an amazing degree compared to the old, what you get on the film is what you see in the final print. If you shoot in good lighting, on Fuji or Kodak film, not too fast, using good quality gear like the Canon EOS, and get the techicalities right, you'll get good results, no question.
I've got the Pentax SFX/N (auto focus, yada, yada...). Although Lithium batteries stand up to the cold very well, I also have an external battery pack for it so that in very cold conditions I can keep the batteries next to my body thus minimising their failiure due to cold.
BTW... Now that I've had an auto focus for a while, at the end of the day I think I prefer the fully manual type..... less to go wrong.
My tip to stop loosing bits off your camera is to use Velcro.
I use a CCS (Camera Care Systems) bag where the cover is held down with Velcro.... I've put a bit of Velcro onto the lens cover so that when I take it off I just attach it to the bag to prevent me dropping it & loosing it.
Funny thing I noticed with the Canon - the zoom auto-focuses perfectly, but the Sigma 28mm never seems to reach infinity, always setting itself at some closer distance, which I find disconcerting when shooting landscapes, so I tend to use manual focus and set it to infinity.
It may be using the hyperfocal distance, which is used by fixed-focus cameras, which is the point at which maximum depth of field is achieved, from a point in the foreground to infinity.
That is such a useful article, Simon. And thanks for the extra pointers, too - I may yet take a decent mountain pic. But yours are so spectacular, I have to ask, do you plan and set up your shots well in advance? And do you wait for clouds, light etc to arrange themselves attractively? Or do you just make it up as you go along? They all seem so perfectly composed.
I have to confess - there's no planning on any of this stuff. It's simply what appeared in front of me on any particular day. Sometimes you're lucky with the weather, sometimes you're not.
I should point out - this is all just personal work that I've accumulated over the past three years. A lot of the pix on my site are no more than snapshots taken to record a day out. When I am shooting professionally, there is planning, especially regarding direction of lighting, time of day, weather etc. but that didn't apply to any of these pictures - so, yes, I make it up as I go along - and you can too!
Excellent article. I've recently started doing some mountain photography and have found that just a few moments thought before taking a picture can turn it from a snapshot into something special.
I use a consumer digital camera and have achieved some pleasing results. Have a look at my website for the results
I have a digital camera...A Kodak DC3800. It's small and lightweight, but does not have an optical zoom...Something I wish it did have. But I was at the top end of my budget, and I wanted a small camera reather than a highly featured one.
