TR: Beacons Today

Discussion in 'General Fitness' started by Paul Saunders, Dec 19, 2004.



  1. Darren G

    Darren G Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, pvs1
    @wildwales.fsnet.co.uk says...
    > Snow, sun.
    >


    beats the cloud & fog I had last week!

    --
    Darren
     
  2. Phil Cook

    Phil Cook Guest

    On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 22:01:26 -0000, Paul Saunders wrote:

    >Snow, sun.


    Where's the &*#$*#& pictures then?

    Lovely and cold here in London. Went for a stroll in Hyde Park under
    clear skies this evening. Didn't have my camera with me, :-|
    --
    Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"
     
  3. "Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote

    > Snow, sun.
    >



    Plenty of sun too in the Buttermere valley on Sunday.
    Spent a bit of time down by the lake where the Buttermere oak was in
    photogenic mood then went for a mass ascent of Latrigg with the
    family.
    Some pics here http://tony-simpkins.fotopic.net/c372841.html

    Tony Simpkins
     
  4. theo

    theo Guest

  5. InvadeR

    InvadeR Guest

  6. Phil Cook wrote:

    >> Snow, sun.

    >
    > Where's the &*#$*#& pictures then?


    I forgot to mention shattered! It was knackering walking through all
    that deep snow! Probably averaging 6 inches deep but often a foot or so
    around Llyn y Fan Fawr. In fact there were very deep drifts on the
    eastern edge of the lake, which I stumbled waist deep into on two
    occasions (trying to get closer to the edge for photos).

    Anyway, a pretty normal shot of Fan Brycheiniog to set the scene;
    http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/lyff/0412190009.jpg

    Figure in a landscape. Does it really make the pic?
    http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/lyff/0412190021.jpg

    Spring. Arty shot with a pretentious title. I've corrected the blue
    cast so that the snow actually looks white.
    http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/lyff/0412190023.jpg

    First shot with the 10-22 and first time up to my waist in snow getting
    it. I've never been able to include these boulders and the ridge in the
    same shot before, yet there's nothing terribly obvious about how wide
    the lens is, which is a good thing IMO.
    http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/lyff/0412190038.jpg

    Wind blown snow at sunset, looking east.
    http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/lyff/0412190046.jpg

    Llyn y Fan Fawr at twilight.
    http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/lyff/0412190071.jpg

    Snow covered rocks.
    http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/lyff/0412190079.jpg

    Frozen pond. First stars starting to appear. 30 seconds. Flare from
    moon at the top of the pic.
    http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/lyff/0412190081.jpg

    The night sky, featuring Ursa Major. Fully dark now, first moonlit
    shot. Some exposures were as long as 8 minutes, but this one was only
    30 seconds, in order to stop the stars from creating trails
    (underexposed then brightened).
    http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/lyff/0412190082.jpg

    Lake reflection. 2 minute exposure.
    http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/lyff/0412190087.jpg

    Lake outflow. 4 minute exposure. As mentioned elsewhere, I've applied
    no processing to this pic. If I had, it would look more like the
    previous shot. Note the straight line in the sky on the left hand side
    of the sky - probably a satellite. Pity about all the footprints in the
    shot which have ruined it, nothing I could do about them, other than not
    take the shot.
    http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/lyff/0412190088.jpg

    Ended up with soaked trousers because of all the deep snow, I really
    should have worn overtrousers. Socks got soaked through my boots too.
    Didn't bother me too much because there was hardly any wind and I didn't
    feel cold whilst moving, but still, I'd probably have stayed longer if
    I'd managed to keep dry. Not pleasant standing around in the snow in
    wet trousers waiting for very long exposures to complete.

    Paul
    --
    http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
     
  7. theo

    theo Guest

    "Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
    news:[email protected]
    > Phil Cook wrote:
    >
    >>> Snow, sun.

    >>
    >> Where's the &*#$*#& pictures then?

    >
    > I forgot to mention shattered! It was knackering walking through all
    > that deep snow! Probably averaging 6 inches deep but often a foot or so
    > around Llyn y Fan Fawr. In fact there were very deep drifts on the
    > eastern edge of the lake, which I stumbled waist deep into on two
    > occasions (trying to get closer to the edge for photos).


    Inspiring pictures, Paul. Our weatherforecast gives a possibility of some
    snow in the near future. I'll try to make some decent snowpictures in my
    region.

    --
    Theo
    www.theosphotos.fotopic.net
     
  8. "Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote
    >
    > Figure in a landscape. Does it really make the pic?
    > http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/lyff/0412190021.jpg
    >


    Nope, but it adds a mite of interest to what would otherwise have been
    a dull picture.

    Figures wouldn't have made any of the other pictures either and,
    worse, would have been an intrusion.

    Nice pics lit by the Moon. Did you know the exposure to use or did you
    try several?

    Tony Simpkins
     
  9. SteveO

    SteveO Guest

    On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 05:05:25 -0000, "Paul Saunders"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Phil Cook wrote:
    >
    >>> Snow, sun.

    >>
    >> Where's the &*#$*#& pictures then?


    Yeah! Exactly!!

    >Anyway,


    ....ah, see I'm quick off the mark again ;-)

    Some interesting shots Paul, ranging from so-so (my ho, because of the
    flat light) to the superb - in the bracket I'd put the "after sunset"
    pics. This is my fave:

    >The night sky, featuring Ursa Major. Fully dark now, first moonlit
    >shot. Some exposures were as long as 8 minutes, but this one was only
    >30 seconds, in order to stop the stars from creating trails
    >(underexposed then brightened).
    >http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/lyff/0412190082.jpg


    The other shots are equally as inspiring for the light (huh? we are
    talking after sunset aren't we?? ;-) but the star-trails have an
    unbalancing effect (for me). If the pics were mine (I wish!!) I might
    clone out the linear star trails and leave the static points of
    light... but then I'd have to see how far from the "original" that
    took me before I'd be happy.

    Cold and conditions notwithstanding Paul, would you say it might have
    been practicable to take longer exposures to get to the situation
    where all of the stars were showing trails? (I think, for me, its the
    half-way house that's unbalancing the composition.)

    N1 Paul.




    SteveO
    --
    NE Climbers & walkers chat forum;
    http://www.thenmc.org.uk/phpBB2/index.php

    NMC website: http://www.thenmc.org.uk
     
  10. SteveO

    SteveO Guest

    On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 09:20:37 +0100, "theo" <[email protected]>
    wrote:


    >Inspiring pictures, Paul. Our weatherforecast gives a possibility of some
    >snow in the near future. I'll try to make some decent snowpictures in my
    >region.


    Kewl!


    Jhimmy... get yer wellies and camera oot over Crismass!
    (delegation,. y'see ;-)




    SteveO
    --
    NE Climbers & walkers chat forum;
    http://www.thenmc.org.uk/phpBB2/index.php

    NMC website: http://www.thenmc.org.uk
     
  11. Tony Simpkins wrote:

    >> Figure in a landscape. Does it really make the pic?
    >> http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/lyff/0412190021.jpg

    >
    > Nope, but it adds a mite of interest to what would otherwise have been
    > a dull picture.


    I think it's pretty dull anyway.

    > Figures wouldn't have made any of the other pictures either and,
    > worse, would have been an intrusion.


    Exactly my thoughts.

    > Nice pics lit by the Moon. Did you know the exposure to use or did you
    > try several?


    Yep, I tried several. That's the great thing about digital, being able
    to check the result afterwards (the histogram rather than the LCD, which
    is not a good guide - even underexposed pics looked good in the
    darkness).

    The tricky bit was getting the best compromise between the f-stop, film
    speed and exposure time. My last shot which was 4 minutes at f4 at ISO
    400 was probably the best exposure, but f4 limited the depth of field
    and ISO 400 added a bit of noise. Ideally I'd have preferred f8 at ISO
    100, but that would have required an hour long exposure!

    Fortunately the 10mm focal length gave such good depth of field that f4
    wasn't a problem, and ISO 400, although not quite as pure and noise free
    as ISO 100, is still very low in noise, so it was an acceptable
    compromise.

    Now if I'd been camping there I could have taken some far longer
    exposures and gone back to the tent to make a cup of tea whilst waiting
    for them to complete.

    The biggest problem I had was with focusing. Needless to say auto-focus
    didn't work in the dark, but worse, I couldn't even see well enough to
    focus manually. I tried shining a torch onto the foreground but
    auto-focus still wouldn't work and I still couldn't see well enough for
    manual focusing.

    I tried focusing on the moon to locate infinity [1], which was the only
    thing that auto-focus worked on, but after taking several long exposures
    I then zoomed in to find that they were all out of focus. Unable to
    focus manually I ended up simply setting the lens to infinity [1] and
    trusting to luck. Luckily the focus was fine, due in part to the huge
    depth of field of the 10mm lens.

    That's also why I'd have preferred to use smaller apertures. During
    many of my twilight shots I took the precaution of taking two version,
    one at optimum exposure, the other at a smaller aperture but slightly
    underexposed. In many cases the darker shot was sharper, due to the
    extra depth of field. Focusing is definitely a big problem with
    twilight/night shots.

    [1] As you may be aware, most lenses these days are designed to focus
    past infinity. The reason for this is that the focus point is affected
    by changes in temperature. I noticed that due to the cold weather,
    whenever I auto-focused on distant mountains, the focus point was set
    way past infinity, so I couldn't trust the focusing scale on the lens.
    However, it was definitely an advantage to have a focus scale on the
    lens, unlike the cheapy that came with the camera.

    With wide apertures, hyperfocal focusing is more important, and if you
    can't auto-focus or focus manually, the next best thing is to estimate
    the hyperfocal distance and set it on the lens. With the lens focusing
    way past the infinity mark on the lens due to the cold, I couldn't
    really trust the distance, but luckily setting it to infinity worked.
    In future I'd prefer smaller apertures and longer exposure times to get
    extra depth of field.

    Paul
    --
    http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
     
  12. SteveO wrote:

    > Some interesting shots Paul, ranging from so-so (my ho, because of the
    > flat light)


    It wasn't so much flat as "in the shadow of the mountain" - right place,
    wrong time (it's a morning location), but then of course shadow means
    flat. I had no idea it had snowed the night before else I'd have gone
    out earlier. I thought it had just rained, it didn't seem cold enough
    for snow on the mountains, and it was cloudy first thing in the morning
    anyway, so it didn't look like a good day was in prospect. Twas only by
    chance I noticed the snow on the distant hills when I nipped over to the
    shop at midday. Then it was a mad dash to get up there before it got
    dark, although I gradually realised that was probably when I'd get my
    best shots, so I had no expectation of getting home early.

    > to the superb - in the bracket I'd put the "after sunset"
    > pics.


    Yes, there's something special about twilight and night "light" isn't
    there? Snow of course is ideal subject matter. You really need bright
    high contrast subjects for true night shots.

    > This is my fave:
    >
    >> The night sky, featuring Ursa Major.


    Mine too.

    > The other shots are equally as inspiring for the light (huh? we are
    > talking after sunset aren't we?? ;-)


    Yep. Oh it's light alright, moonlight! Just over a half moon. A full
    moon would have been brighter but no moon probably wouldn't have
    produced very good results. Luckily the moon was well positioned, high
    in the sky, roughly SSE I think. Any later and the scene would have
    fallen into "moon shade".

    > but the star-trails have an
    > unbalancing effect (for me). If the pics were mine (I wish!!) I might
    > clone out the linear star trails and leave the static points of
    > light...


    Linear? Static? They're all moving! I presume you're talking about
    the lake reflection shot? It's easier to see that they're all moving in
    the full size image. You're obviously referring to the fact that the
    stars on the left are moving "faster" than the ones on the right.
    That's because the pole star is just above the right hand corner of the
    picture, and they're all rotating around the pole. Imagine a record
    spinning, the outside of the record moves faster than the inside.
    That's what's happening, longer star trails away from the pole. The
    different angles of the trails also gives away what a wide lens this is.

    > but then I'd have to see how far from the "original" that
    > took me before I'd be happy.


    But that would be "manipulation", wouldn't it? I rather like star
    trails anyway, that's one of the appealing things about night shots IMO.
    Perhaps they're not long enough to be impressive enough? So you prefer
    the normal looking stars, do you? I must say that I like that too, but
    without moonlit snow it would be hard to get the ground bright enough
    for a decent pic.

    > Cold and conditions notwithstanding Paul, would you say it might have
    > been practicable to take longer exposures to get to the situation
    > where all of the stars were showing trails?


    Absolutely. It just means waiting for a long time for each shot. I had
    a flask of hot tea with me so normally I wouldn't have minded waiting,
    but I forgot to bring a sit mat and my trousers and socks were soaked
    through, so it wasn't very pleasant standing around in those conditions.
    Next time I'll be better prepared.

    Paul
    --
    http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
     
  13. Phil Cook

    Phil Cook Guest

    On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 05:05:25 -0000, Paul Saunders wrote:

    >Frozen pond. First stars starting to appear. 30 seconds. Flare from
    >moon at the top of the pic.
    >http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/lyff/0412190081.jpg
    >
    >The night sky, featuring Ursa Major. Fully dark now, first moonlit
    >shot. Some exposures were as long as 8 minutes, but this one was only
    >30 seconds, in order to stop the stars from creating trails
    >(underexposed then brightened).
    >http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/lyff/0412190082.jpg
    >
    >Lake reflection. 2 minute exposure.
    >http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/lyff/0412190087.jpg
    >
    >Lake outflow. 4 minute exposure. As mentioned elsewhere, I've applied
    >no processing to this pic. If I had, it would look more like the
    >previous shot. Note the straight line in the sky on the left hand side
    >of the sky - probably a satellite. Pity about all the footprints in the
    >shot which have ruined it, nothing I could do about them, other than not
    >take the shot.
    >http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/lyff/0412190088.jpg


    Hey these are really great. Have you thought of blending two shots for
    these long exposures? One very long exposure for the land and one for
    sky that keeps the stars as points?

    As for footprints it depends on where they are, sometimes a few can
    add to a photo. It's nice to have the option of adding a few yourself
    but I admit there are rather too many by the Llyn.
    --
    Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"
     
  14. ste®

    ste® Guest

    "Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    | Phil Cook wrote:
    |
    | >> Snow, sun.
    | >
    | > Where's the &*#$*#& pictures then?
    |
    | I forgot to mention shattered! It was knackering walking through all
    | that deep snow! Probably averaging 6 inches deep but often a foot or so
    | around Llyn y Fan Fawr. In fact there were very deep drifts on the
    | eastern edge of the lake, which I stumbled waist deep into on two
    | occasions (trying to get closer to the edge for photos).

    Thanks for sharing the photos. I know you've not asked for comments but I
    guess I'll go through them anyway, as I know you would return the favour if
    the roles were reversed! ;-)


    | Anyway, a pretty normal shot of Fan Brycheiniog to set the scene;
    | http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/lyff/0412190009.jpg

    Well it sure does set the scene. Not had any snow yet around where I live,
    but it snowed for a few minutes yesterday lunch time. Woke up this morning
    to icy weather again, though there was some beautiful mist across some
    farmer's fields as we drove to work this morning, with a lovely pink sky as
    the sun was rising. If only I had the time to stop and take some photos...
    (must make sure I have some early starts during my xmas break...)


    | Figure in a landscape. Does it really make the pic?
    | http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/lyff/0412190021.jpg

    No, it's too small to make a difference in this photo IMO. However, I read
    the other thread where you were discussing this with someone else, and I
    agree with the other guy that people in his photos did make them. I guess
    it depends on the photo.


    | Spring. Arty shot with a pretentious title. I've corrected the blue
    | cast so that the snow actually looks white.
    | http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/lyff/0412190023.jpg

    Nice idea - try the same thing whilst looking across at a green farmer's
    field (the ones where there are walls seperating the fields), and you'll
    have a winner as I've seen loads of shots like that in calendars etc. I've
    got one in a book of mine (Photographs that sell and sell), so will email
    you a copy of it.


    | First shot with the 10-22 and first time up to my waist in snow getting
    | it. I've never been able to include these boulders and the ridge in the
    | same shot before, yet there's nothing terribly obvious about how wide
    | the lens is, which is a good thing IMO.
    | http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/lyff/0412190038.jpg

    Yes, I guess we can't appreciate how wide it is, not knowing the area. But
    I guess you're well pleased at the 'wideness' of your lens? After xmas,
    I'll be weighing up a Sigma 12-24 v Canon 10-22... (I'm sure the Canon will
    win, but I'd rather wait for LL to post their results, once he gets a new
    lens that is!)


    | Wind blown snow at sunset, looking east.
    | http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/lyff/0412190046.jpg

    Which reminds me, have you not been to the beach yet? :)


    | Llyn y Fan Fawr at twilight.
    | http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/lyff/0412190071.jpg

    Ahh, now this is where the shots start to step up a level, IMO.


    | Snow covered rocks.
    | http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/lyff/0412190079.jpg

    Nice composition, but quite cool.


    | Frozen pond. First stars starting to appear. 30 seconds. Flare from
    | moon at the top of the pic.
    | http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/lyff/0412190081.jpg

    I like the 'bluer' sky in this shot than the previous two shots. Is there a
    reason for this in the post prossing, or exposure of the shot, or did it
    just 'go like that' in real life?


    | The night sky, featuring Ursa Major. Fully dark now, first moonlit
    | shot. Some exposures were as long as 8 minutes, but this one was only
    | 30 seconds, in order to stop the stars from creating trails
    | (underexposed then brightened).
    | http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/lyff/0412190082.jpg

    Whoa, and now upto another level again, very nice. That sky is just great!
    I love these star shots...


    | Lake reflection. 2 minute exposure.
    | http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/lyff/0412190087.jpg

    Very nice, again. I like the way the star trails are just starting to form
    nicely, however, I'd have liked it even more if you'd have got the north
    star in there somewhere, so the full circle of trails was visible.


    | Lake outflow. 4 minute exposure. As mentioned elsewhere, I've applied
    | no processing to this pic. If I had, it would look more like the
    | previous shot. Note the straight line in the sky on the left hand side
    | of the sky - probably a satellite. Pity about all the footprints in the
    | shot which have ruined it, nothing I could do about them, other than not
    | take the shot.
    | http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/lyff/0412190088.jpg

    Very nice again, though I'm still looking out for this north star. Don't
    ask me why, but I guess this is just my personal 'thing' as it's a shot I
    want to and will take myself.


    | Ended up with soaked trousers because of all the deep snow, I really
    | should have worn overtrousers. Socks got soaked through my boots too.
    | Didn't bother me too much because there was hardly any wind and I didn't
    | feel cold whilst moving, but still, I'd probably have stayed longer if
    | I'd managed to keep dry. Not pleasant standing around in the snow in
    | wet trousers waiting for very long exposures to complete.

    I took a bin bag out with me the other day, to kneel on. I fancy getting
    one of those fold-away chairs, so long as they're not too heavy or bulky.
    I'll look into it, as I'd love to be able to sit down whilst composing shots
    on the tripod.


    | Paul

    Ste
     
  15. Judith

    Judith Guest

  16. W. D. Grey

    W. D. Grey Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, Paul Saunders
    <[email protected]> writes
    >Phil Cook wrote:
    >
    >>> Snow, sun.

    >>
    >> Where's the &*#$*#& pictures then?



    Excellent shots Paul, I particularly likes /38 46, and a few more
    lakeside ones but my fav is 82 - the first night shot.

    I look forward to giving my lens a work out.
    --
    Bill Grey
    http://www.billboy.co.uk
     
  17. W. D. Grey

    W. D. Grey Guest

    In article <[email protected]ews6.svr.pol.co.uk>, Tony Simpkins
    <[email protected]> writes
    >Nice pics lit by the Moon. Did you know the exposure to use or did you
    >try several?


    Try 20 secs (Aperture priority) at f 8 and check the histogram. Digital
    is so user friendly :)
    --
    Bill Grey
    http://www.billboy.co.uk
     
  18. W. D. Grey

    W. D. Grey Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, ste®
    <[email protected]> writes
    >Yes, I guess we can't appreciate how wide it is, not knowing the area. But
    >I guess you're well pleased at the 'wideness' of your lens? After xmas,
    >I'll be weighing up a Sigma 12-24 v Canon 10-22... (I'm sure the Canon will
    >win, but I'd rather wait for LL to post their results, once he gets a new
    >lens that is!)

    Have a look at this link

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-10-22mm-test.shtm
    --
    Bill Grey
    http://www.billboy.co.uk
     
  19. W. D. Grey

    W. D. Grey Guest

Loading...
Loading...