Login with Facebook
 ADVANCED
Your BEST Climbing Photographs
View Latest Posts in This Forum or All Forums
   Page 2 of 3.  <<First   <Prev   1  2  3   Next>   Last>>
Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
 
 
By sthomas
Apr 10, 2013


Pretty sure it was shot on one of the lower end Nikon DSLR's.

Things to consider:

1. Be in Greece
2. Don't be strong enough to avoid falling.

FLAG
By John M Ross
From Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Apr 10, 2013
sport rout'n in tahoe
sport rout'n in tahoe

FLAG
By ArizonaB-Rad
Apr 10, 2013
5.11c slab at jtree. one of my favorites
5.11c slab at jtree. one of my favorites

FLAG
By J1.
From Boulder, Colorado
Apr 10, 2013
Towliee
Chasm Lake, RMNP
Chasm Lake, RMNP


Cirque of Towers taken from Deep Lake, Wind River Range, WY
Cirque of Towers taken from Deep Lake, Wind River Range, WY


Queens Way, Apache Peak, Indian Peas Wilderness
Queens Way, Apache Peak, Indian Peas Wilderness


Camera Used- Canon Power Shot SX 150IS

FLAG
By Dylan Evans
From Boulder, Colorado
Apr 10, 2013
rockandice.com/photo-camp-cont...

Check out some awesome photos here, and (I hate to self-promote, but) vote for mine!

FLAG
By Jon C. Sullivan
From Boulder, CO
Apr 10, 2013
approach to the Grand
Nice shots Jason! Im heading to shelf road this weekend if you want in...

FLAG
By Dylan Weldin
From Austin, Texas
Apr 10, 2013
Summit of my first tower, the Rectory via Fine Jade
Love the Chasm Lake lighting and the timing in Greece! Keep 'em coming (and keep informing about your kit!)

one of Durango's sexiest angles
one of Durango's sexiest angles

Kit: same Olympus pointer-shooter as earlier

FLAG
By Dylan Weldin
From Austin, Texas
Apr 10, 2013
Summit of my first tower, the Rectory via Fine Jade
Jason Kim wrote:
Questions that really, only you can answer, Dylan. No one knows the conditions you will be shooting in, how you will treat your gear, etc. Since it sounds like you have some fairly legit climbing goals in mind, I'd say that spending the extra money on a lightweight body, weather sealing, etc. will all come in handy, and might be justified if you've got a hookup with Nikon. In my experience, having spent many days in the backcountry in adverse conditions, there are only two things that will keep your camera gear in good operating condition: be as careful as you can and hope for some luck. Water, dust, etc. will eventually find their way into your gear, sealed or not. If it were me, and I was planning to invest in a new rig with the primary goal of making publish-worthy images during climbing trips, I'd buy a used version of a newer compact DSLR and a used zoom that covers something in the range of 22-100 mm (adjust for cropped sensor). Since the likelihood of damaging your gear beyond repair is very real, I wouldn't bother spending the money on new equipment, or an expensive body. Hopefully it will last you a season or two, and it won't be too painful to replace it after you smash your camera against a rock. Kinesis (kgear.com/store/) makes some nice accessories, including harness/strap systems that you might find useful. I use some of their stuff on extended backpacking trips when I'm carrying a ton of gear.


Jason,

Thank you so much for your informed, civil, constructive, and thoughtful responses! Good advice and coherent logic are attributes found few and far between on the pages of Mountain Project, and I (and hopefully everyone else) appreciates valuable contributions such as your own.

Despite the lack of sealing, I think the weight savings the Nikon D3200 affords combined with the palatable price tag (and the previously mentioned point of inheriting nice glass!) put it ahead of the pack in the race for the best entry-level DSLR. If I stumble across a deal on a used one then hoorah!

Thank you also for the carry-system recommendations! I've always been concerned with straps failing and dropping essentials into the depths and fishers of hungry desert towers... I'll be sure to invest appropriately.

Cheers,
-Dylan Weldin


One for the road:
The golden hour on top of my first hungry tower.  She only ate one #1 link cam this day.  Didn't like the taste and spat it out on rappel :)
The golden hour on top of my first hungry tower. She only ate one #1 link cam this day. Didn't like the taste and spat it out on rappel :)

Climbers clearly visible on the Rectory summit after smiling our way up Fine Jade

FLAG
 
By Jason Kim
From Encinitas, CA
Apr 10, 2013
Descending Cox Col (Bear Creek Spire). Photo by Ryan Slaybaugh. <br />
You're welcome, and likewise. You know what works well for me - I carry a very lightweight silnylon dry bag (I think it weighs a couple of ounces) and if it starts to rain or it's really dusty, I just shove the camera inside. I don't like carrying a dedicated camera bag because they tend to be bulky/heavy, and as you mentioned before, you need to have your gear out and ready to use at a moment's notice. You can use a jacket or whatever gear you're already carrying for padding, if you really need it. Be creative, and don't worry about getting some scratches on the body.

Kinesis makes some nice quick release clips that attach to your backpack straps, and I use these to keep the camera at chest level. It takes some getting used to, and it sucks at times, but it works much better than storing everything inside a bulkier pack that is hard to access. When called for, I also use a big fanny pack (dork factor alert) which is actually really convenient.

I swear, fanny packs are the bomb. It is a shame that they look so awful. I had a neon yellow T&C fanny when I was a kid. I miss that thing.

If you do much in the rain/snow, you can buy silica dessicant packs in bulk for pretty cheap, and these are very useful in damp or humid conditions. You can even recharge them in an oven, so they last a long time.

And finally, if you're doing much in conditions below freezing, those small chemical hand warmers can be used to keep your batteries warm. I've had fully charged batteries die in a matter of minutes, if it's really cold out. You need 2 or 3 and then you can rotate them as they die (warm them up and they spring to life like a zombie).

FLAG
By knowbuddy
Apr 10, 2013
A
La Corsa De Gallo
La Corsa De Gallo

I didn't take this but I'm in it. And you can't get here by car or plane, only packraft or foot.

FLAG
By RyanJames
Apr 10, 2013
Photo by Aaron Lavinsky
Amazing Arizonan stone!!!
Yeah, baby!
Yeah, baby!

FLAG
By Eric Rich
From Durham, NC
Apr 12, 2013
near the summit of Yanapaccha (17,913ft) in the Cordillera Blanca of Peru
Yannapaccha, Peru <br />Point and shoot, Nikon Coolpix unknown model.
Yannapaccha, Peru
Point and shoot, Nikon Coolpix unknown model.

FLAG
By Ryan Kempf
From Boulder, CO
Apr 12, 2013
Ryan on the Sharks Fin wishing he was on Mt. Whiteny.
Mo Flo Than Go
Mo Flo Than Go

Not BEST photo ever, but shows what you can do on the cheap.

Equipment-Iphone 3G. Not bad for a camera that also plays music.

FLAG
By fossana
From Bishop, CA
Apr 12, 2013
downclimb off the First Flatiron <br />photo by TooTallTim
I'm too lazy to haul around a DSLR. I think my POSs do OK with the right lighting/settings. These were taken with a Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5 or Fuji F80-EXR.

Cathedral Traverse from Cathedral Peak, Tuolumne Meadows
Cathedral Traverse from Cathedral Peak, Tuolumne Meadows


John D on our Icarus lunch break, Eldorado Canyon
John D on our Icarus lunch break, Eldorado Canyon


Mike C on our Evolution Traverse recon, High Sierra
Mike C on our Evolution Traverse recon, High Sierra

FLAG
By GMBurns
Apr 12, 2013
Climbing at Morro Anhangava in Southern Brasil. <br /> <br />(photo by Isa Vellozo)
Ramblin' Rose - South Platte


Entrance to the Gorge in El Chorro, Spain


Near the start of Epi

FLAG
By Dylan Weldin
From Austin, Texas
Apr 12, 2013
Summit of my first tower, the Rectory via Fine Jade
RyanJames wrote:
Amazing Arizonan stone!!!


Ahh yes! Ewe know that I love the Stronghold!

Rapping off the Whale
Rapping off the Whale

FLAG
 
By Tavis Ricksecker
From Bishop, ca
Apr 13, 2013
Church of the Lost and Found, Left. Summer 2013





FLAG
By AWinters
Administrator
From NH
Apr 17, 2013
Red-tail Hawk, Buttermilks
Boone
Boone

Tahoe
Tahoe

Bishop
Bishop


Nikon D70

FLAG
By alexjamesmayers
From hayward, ca
Apr 17, 2013
Dont think about the runout.
Dont think about the runout.

FLAG
By Davis Stevenson
From Flagstaff, Arizona
Apr 20, 2013
Following up a new route out in the Mojave Desert.  Info coming soon maybe?  Fun 5.10 hands and fingers.
Dylan,

It's not about the camera, it's about the photographer. User whatever gear is comfortable to use, and is streamlined. Most modern DSLRs are waaaay too cluttered to have any decent control over when you want to take control. I would actually recommend going over to KEH and picking up a quality used D40, D70, D100, or D200. A D40 70 or 100 can be had for under $150, a D200 (can use ANY Nikon glass 1977 and onward, and can meter with everything). Pair that with an 18-55mm and an 80-200mm VR series zoom. They are optically fantastic with minor distortion that is very easily and invisibly correctable in Photoshop or even GIMP. You can have a full D40, 70 or 100 kit for about $250, so when you bang it on some rocks and get it dirty, you don't care. Save the nice camera for less damaging activities. Megapixels are a myth. You can print 300 ppi prints from 6 mp cameras at 8x10 and need a microscope to see any pixelation. Keep in mind 1080p is only 2.1 MP, yet nobody has issues with blowing that up to 72". For a normal viewing distance, there is no limit to enlarging (the original quality of the composition and sharpness are what matters). 6 mp is also 3x 1080p, so if you're sharing here and on somewhere like Flickr, there's no reason to need more.

If you have hookups on Nikon, get yourself an older body and invest in glass! The lens has much more to do with image quality than the body.

If you get a D200, D300, etc, hop on over to KEH, Adorama, or B&H and pick up some Nikkor AI/AI-s glass. It will produce much better results at standard and telephoto lengths than the cheap modern lenses, and are of very burly construction. I have a 50mm f/1.8 that is all metal, opticaly superior to anythign brand new, and even better than the 50mm f/1.4 of that era, and only cost me $60. There are plenty of deals on 105 f/2.5s, 135s of various forms, and 200s. There are a heap of quality zooms as well. Pick a fixed lens that you want to work with and shoot. The faster lenses will help you compose, too, as they'll be much brighter in the finder than the lower end modern stuff. It will make you a better photographer. Put it in Aperture Priority Auto, compose and shoot. Leave white balance alone and fix it in post processing.

My other reccomendation is to abandon digital. Color rendition, white balance, and overall image quality on a quality film like Velvia is far superior to anything digital except MF digital. If you don't believe me, look at Ken Rockwell's page (also a great source for info about lenses). He shoots everything with Velvia 50 anymore. Scan them if you want, or have them enlarged. A quality 35mm print will enlarge just as well as anything digital. Shooting film will make you much more careful about compisition and make you think anyway.

Also, high quality all manual or AE Auto Nikon bodies are built like tanks, and run for years without changing batteries. You can also get fully functioning FE, FM, etc bodies for about 75 bucks.

If you're on the move, I find an AE Auto film body faster to shoot than a DSLR if you do anything other than auto, and you don't stop to look at the screen or fiddle. Just compose and click.

35mm is great for on the move. If you have a shot in mind and are doing fixed position, Medium Format is awesome. about 2.5x the film (645) area as 35mm, and has fantastic nuance. A Pentax or Mamiya 645 rig can be had for $300 or less.

Personally, Ever since I broke my nice digital 3 years ago Canyoneering, I have been shooting Ilford Delta 100 B&W. The texture rendition of quality B&W film is miles ahead of digital. Rock has amazing textures, B&W does textures well, it's a match made in heaven. I don't put any of that online as scanning is expensive and nobody is going to look at full resolution pictures anyway. Low res examples of quality B&W kill the image. B&W optically enlarged on fiber paper is a true beauty. Unfortunately, my darkroom has just been set back up today, and I have about 20 rolls of film to process...

My reccomendation is to shoot with any old camera until you figure out what you NEED. Most modern DSLRs are going to have WAY MORE THAN YOU NEED. EVER. Yes, for action an SLR wins hands down. figure out only the features you need, then look for a body that has those and nothing more. Personally AE Auto is the perfect balance between control of composition and ease, and it's essentially what I used on digital.




PS, to everyone else: Why the overuse of polarizers? The sky looks unnaturally dark in many images, and uneven skies can kill an otherwise fantastic image. A UV filter would be better advised in those situations to help keep color natural.

Anyways, have fun shooting!

FLAG
By Pete Bohler
Apr 20, 2013
I don't shoot much climbing, but I do shoot professionally. Here is a story I shot at the Ouray Ice Fest last year:

peterbohler.com/index.php?/sto...

It's all shot on a Canon 5D II, but I shoot the III now.

What are you hoping to do with your camera? Are you aspiring to shoot professionally, or do you just want to take great pictures and maybe enter a contest here and there? If you want to go pro, a larger investment makes sense. The Canon 7D is an amazing value, and the 6D should be pretty good as well. You can get a Canon 5D II at a big discount now that the III is out. I don't know a lot about the less expensive models, nor a lot about Nikon except that it is also very, very good. Sharing lenses, as noted, can be a big factor (if you live close to your grandpa).

The full-frame DSLRs are all heavy and bulky, and you might not want to bring thousands of dollars of gear into the elements. They also don't make a lot of sense unless you are planning to spend your days rigging and shooting, not climbing. There are more and more high-end compact cameras out there, that shoot RAW and have manual controls. Increasingly, I think one of those makes sense for a lot of photographers...there's nothing inherently better about looking through the lens.

Here is a shoddy and biased list to get you started: adorama.com/alc/0008637/articl...

Or this: wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2...

Finally, it's not the camera, but the photographer. Image quality matters a lot less if the moment is stunning or the composition is perfect. Check out this photo Jimmy Chin took on his iphone:

eb.stagram.com/p/3988230365543...

FLAG
By Jason Kim
From Encinitas, CA
Apr 21, 2013
Descending Cox Col (Bear Creek Spire). Photo by Ryan Slaybaugh. <br />
Davis Stevenson wrote:
My other reccomendation is to abandon digital. Color rendition, white balance, and overall image quality on a quality film like Velvia is far superior to anything digital except MF digital. If you don't believe me, look at Ken Rockwell's page (also a great source for info about lenses). He shoots everything with Velvia 50 anymore. Scan them if you want, or have them enlarged. A quality 35mm print will enlarge just as well as anything digital. Shooting film will make you much more careful about compisition and make you think anyway.


You lost me at Ken Rockwell. Many modern DSRL's exceed the capabilities of 35 mm film. Some can equal or have surpassed medium format in some regards. One does, however, need to learn basic post processing to realize these capabilities. But anyone who is serious about photography will learn how to use Photoshop or the equivalent. White balance and 'color rendition' is no less an issue with digital than it is with film. In fact, it's much less an issue as long as you shoot RAW.

I agree that shooting film forces the new photographer to think about composition, exposure, etc. but there is equal, if not more value in being able to shoot hundreds or thousands of images (and review them the same day) with no weight or cost penalty. The brightness histogram is an excellent learning tool, as well. No need to scan. It goes on and on. As digital technology continues to improve, the arguments to 'learn on film' sound a bit like the crusty old veteran who believes the best way to learn to lead trad is to use only nuts and hexes. There is a nostalgic simplicity here that appeals to many of us, but most would probably agree that there are more efficient (and safer) ways to do it.

I should add that I totally agree with everything else in your post, though.

FLAG
By Tom-onator
From This Galaxy
Apr 21, 2013
Tom-onator
What ever happened to "f8, and be there" ?

FLAG
By Davis Stevenson
From Flagstaff, Arizona
Apr 21, 2013
Following up a new route out in the Mojave Desert.  Info coming soon maybe?  Fun 5.10 hands and fingers.
Jason Kim wrote:
I agree that shooting film forces the new photographer to think about composition, exposure, etc. but there is equal, if not more value in being able to shoot hundreds or thousands of images (and review them the same day) with no weight or cost penalty.


An old mentor of mine said once, regarding this about digital, is that 'a quality photo on digital happens by accident, where a quality photo on film happens on purpose'. Not really true, as after shooting film again for the last 4 years I would stop and think more than I used to.

If I ever shot professionally, I would most likely go to digital, as that is the expectation. However, until I start selling prints, I'll stick to making fantastic pictures on film, as I could replace the camera I take canyoneering (Nikkormat with a busted light meter, and a dusty 35mm-105mm zoom) for $75, and it can take a lot more abuse than a $1000+ DSLR body with comparable glass.

Anyways, with modern film and modern staining developers, I have yet to see a B&W digital photo that I liked better...


Does anyone else here still process and enlarge themselves?

FLAG
 
By Jason Kim
From Encinitas, CA
Apr 21, 2013
Descending Cox Col (Bear Creek Spire). Photo by Ryan Slaybaugh. <br />
I don't think there is necessarily an expectation to shoot digital, but there is an expectation for fast turn-around and a digital file, which makes film a poor choice for most professional applications, in this digital age. There are successful landscape photographers who continue to use medium and large format film, but the reasons are less about image quality and have more to do with marketing.

Certainly, we can agree that superb results can be achieved either way, and it's the person standing behind the camera that matters most! I pray digital technology never reaches a point where this ceases to be true. I will give up photography for another pursuit, if it does.

Once you factor in the cost of film and processing, I'm not so sure that using an old 35 mm body will save any money in the long run.

I process and enlarge myself, but I use an entirely digital workflow, LOL! It isn't easy, and mastery of the digital workflow/printing requires as much skill as developing and printing film, IMO.

FLAG


Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
Page 2 of 3.  <<First   <Prev   1  2  3   Next>   Last>>