Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Topic Date User

photo question 11-Aug-2004 At 2:03:38 PM Onsight

Message

Seems like you have a pretty good handle on it all Josh.

On 2/08/2004 Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>Why 400 ASA and not a better, slower, film?
>hoestly no reason in particular, im going down end of next week so ill
>test out some 50, 100, 200 in the same conditions and see what difference
>it makes... >>You must be [shooting/getting] some seriously fast action >eh?
>snowboarding, though in the way i read the sentece first time through-
>no im not
I asked because, exposure wise, I’ve never had toooo much problem shooting action in the snow (since it’s so bright) with slower films. If you need ultra fast shutter speeds AND small apertures then sure, you probably need the faster film, but do consider if you need it to be so fast. Personally I LOVE Velvia 50, and have recently started using the new Velvia 100 for climbing shots in dull light with good success (though not nearly as saturated). Just remember though that Velvia 50 is not really 50 at all, I rate it at 40, some might even rate it at 32. (And as climbers I’m sure we all could argue about that for hours…).

As gfdonc/Steve suggests, sticking a polarising filter on can deal with glare in the snow, but remember you then loose two stops so, possibly, you might be looking at a faster (less saturated) film again if you do that (catch 22?). Personally I try hard to avoid using filters – especially polarisers - because of the loss of sharpness (haven’t used a polariser for climbing photos for many years) though the snow is one place I might consider them. Most importantly, I reckon, think about the quality of the light you’re shooting in (direction and time of day).

>>I assume you're in manual mode; are you using spot metering too?
>yes and yes
Excellent, the best (only?) way to really take control. Steve makes a good point though and you might at times also get away with center-weighed or similar when shooting in snow - still being careful what you are metering of of course.

On 2/08/2004 gfdonc wrote:
>To determine the correct exposure, you can work with spot metering, but
>despite its usual applicability it is still a hit-and-miss affair until
>you've practised a lot because of the wide variation in what you are metering
>from, and some decisions in your head about what makes an "average".
Spot on Steve (excuse the pun)! I reckon it’s worth practicing and can be quite quick once you have a technique for it worked out. The “in your head” bit is about “pre-visualising” where you think the different tones in the scene should fall. Ansell Adams was THE master/forefather of this and it might be worth checking out his book on “The Zone System” if you haven’t already. Often in climbing shoots I pick out a bit of rock and decide/guess where it should fall in the tonal range, eg; hmmm that bit of bright orange Tiapan Wall rock looks about 2/3rds of a stop above mid-grey… so dial that in for it to come out 2/3rd’s “over exposed” - according to your light meter – and then point the spot meter around at other parts of the scene to see if it all makes “sense” – and make adjustments accordingly if something doesn’t. Or start w something you think might be mid-grey and go from there. Look at highlights and shadows too… Often something won’t make sense in the end and then you have to make a judgement call about what the most important parts of the scene are. Remember you’ve only got a bit over four stops from black shadows to white highlights, with mid grey sitting nicely in the middle.

Personally, Josh, I reckon it’s great that you’re psyched about film. Leaning how to shoot slide film in manual is THE way to take control and learn what’s going on (IMO). It’ll set you in good stead for the day digi becomes a compelling option for serious outdoors photography (assuming it will) – the way it already has for mainstream sports and news photography. Ultimately, it depends what you want from your photography and what it’ll be used for. Digi has it’s place for sure. Just before my last trip I bought a Nikon Coolpix 5400 (shoots 5 “mega pixels” which translates to ½ page magazine quality – or so, short videos, and has a wider lens than most digi’s – and hence is good for climbing) so that I could grab some spontaneous moments, particularly “lifestyle” stuff, that I mightn’t have tried to capture, or might have missed, with my film camera. But when you look at a digi pic on a monitor how do you know what you’ve got? You don’t really unless your monitor if properly calibrated etc etc. Probably OK if it’s just for the web or bubble-jet prints, bit more of a nightmare if it’s for print reproduction. Anyway, as someone said there’s something special about film. You know what you’ve got – you can see it there on the light box and it looks great. It’s a physical thing that you can always return to. Most climbing magazines around the world still far prefer film. For the time being at least I’m happy about that.

Have a good time in the snow.