 Poster: A snowHead
|
So now that the pretty white stuff is arriving, how do we get those glorious vistas, funny momemts, apres atmopshere, etc. captured on film? (or CCD's)
What are everyones top photo tips?
Pete
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
What photo gear do you have?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
If you want dramatic photos of a single skier, lie down on the snow and get them to turn a little bit above you. You'll get a lot of blue sky background, maybe some snow kicking up (unless they can carve beautifully) and the angle is very flattering to most skiers. Makes you look great even if you're only doing 4 miles per fortnight. Tip stolen from a professional snapper in Serre Che a few years back. I still have my photo - framed. 
Tip 2 - if using DV mini tapes they are very prone to sticking on the drum if there is any condensation. If you take your camera from somewhere warm and damp (inside your jacket) give it time to cool down before attempting to use it. But keeping the batteries as warm as possible is a good idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
CCD's will have no problems with snow though camera bateries are vunerable to the cold so keep them warm, digital pics will however almost certainly need colour/exposure balance on the computer.
Film cameras should be over exposed to take account of all the extra reflected light from the snow otherwise the snow will appear grey
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I personally use Tesco Value single use throw away job, I find the photo quality quite fantastic - and the flash usually provides a handy beacon when trying to locate friends in the dark! and they bounce - hence why I use a £3 camera instead of a £300 one 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
For close-up skiing shots (especially off-piste): Compose your shot and then lob snowball to show the skier where you want them to turn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was about to make a pun on lobbing snowball only to find it was snowball suggesting lobbing snowball. What are you a masochist? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Damn, I've been found out. Should have suggested lobbing someone else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
DGO ~ 'digital pics will however almost certainly need colour/exposure balance on the computer'.
Not quite sure I'd agree with this. In my experience shots taken in programe mode are perfectly ok when viewed on a pc (mainly bright and sunny). I have tried overexposing etc but found that using normal mode is fine. Night shots can be interesting when taken in different modes and exposures too, thats the advantage of digital.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowskisnow,
i've got a P120 sony digital
Pete
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
For Photos I use slide film especially if its sunny the colour saturation on slide film is great and they print well. I have not tried digital cameras in the snow but I only got a cheap canon one so I don't know about quality for digital I shall try this year but I'm sure a little bit of editing in photoshop will solve any problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| hobbiteater wrote: |
| i've got a P120 sony digital |
That helps solve the first problem,to get the killer shot,you need to take loads.So,make sure you have enough memory(card/stick?)Edit out the definite rubbish at end of day.Normal exposures(auto)are normally OK,but,if you do get odd exposures,experiment!Lying down on the snow is a good one,often very dramatic but,please do it on the edge of piste  Watch the sun and the shadows.If you're skiings up to it,sideways on can be a nice action shot.Dont viewfind-just point and take a few-then edit.Then do it all over again because you missed everybody  As has been said,batteries can be a problem,so keep well insulated(but watch for condensation).But No1 is the most important IMHO,loads of shots.You're almost certain of a few good one's.Post up the results and make us all jealous 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If using interchangable lenses, attach yer polarising filter! Bluer the sky, the whiter the white!!!
Vistas of snowy moutains - usually look better when there's a bit of shadow to help definition. Midday sun is too bright and haze has set in = washes out colour. Mountain vistas are best photographed as the sun's coming in from your side - ideal time tends to be mid morning, or later afternoon before the sun starts setting.
Apres - make sure the flash is on, and get in close - nothing worse than enormous black backgrounds surrounding pale faces!!!
Action shots - keep yr batteries warm!!!!!!!!! If you're worried the batteries in your camera will die in the cold, then carry a spare set inside your jacket close to your body so they can stay warm in your body heat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
I agree with Nadenoodlee, I find that using a digital camera for stationary shots is fine, but with a cheap disposable just press the button and it takes an instant picture. Try getting the action shot with a plume of snow flying the clicker eventually releases once the skier / rider is halfway through another two turns!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Digital cameras don't seem to be able to deal with moving subjects I haven't looked at expensive ones but the cheaper ones sub £200 don't seem to have a pre focus or pre meter facility so don't react the instant the shutter is pressed, My SLR allows this so you can set the shot up "rehearse" so you can get light and focus right and the do the shoot for real with the camera set up so the shutter fires instantly. Unless you spend loads of money auto focus has never been super quick. I do a lot of photography at grand prix and you would never get a shot with autofocus cameras.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Learn to ski backwards (easy in a backwards snowplough). You'll get much better shots of fellow-skiers than you would standing at the side of the piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Don't - if the snow is good enough to photograph - it's good enough to ski.......
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Roy Hockley wrote: |
| Try getting the action shot with a plume of snow flying |
Like this or this or even this ? (All at Chamonix)
As I said above, set up the shot first (including focus). The skier doesn't have to have a long run-up: one turn, perhaps, at most, before the one being photographed at a spot you have nominated. That was how these ones of me were done. (But unfortunately the light wasn't good that day).
Those were taken with a conventional camera and with a motor drive (8 photos/sec) which gives you a much better chance of a good action shot (but of course they are expensive). The first 2 were 1/4sec apart, from a set of 6 of the same turn.
I don't yet have a digital camera but I assume you can do something similar much more cheaply on those (?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
The funniest shots come from Mini DV film although they still lack someting in quality:
Chromosome impersonation
and another old git
A 3 hour battery takes about 20-30 mins of film in Januray temperatures even keeping the battery in the coat (The camera stays in the pack)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Big, big, big tip: If using a 35mm camera, get a 100 speed film rather than a 200 or 400 speed. It makes all the difference to the definition of the snow and the pictures don't come out all yellowy either.
It really does make a huge difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why would anyone want to film the front end of their skis?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowball, continuous mode. It takes 4 (or more, depending on camera) pictures in a second. Aim to take it skightly before you think you need to and one or more of the images will be great. The better your camera though, the less time between shutter depress and image capture. Even now more and more cheaper ones are getting better at it.
Sometimes you don't even need to do that. The bloke in the lower middle of the picture (not someone I knew) was doing that with every turn and I wanted to him to look like he was moving. Had to get it just right timing though or I'd have missed the cable car. You might wonder why I bothered he's that small, but the picture is greatly reduced in size for the web.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
Skanky, that's a fantastic photo!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
skanky, Have you got a link to the original size photo, as this one is a liitle blurred when set as my desktop background 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
That is a great picture Skanky, where is it taken? Looks like somewhere i'd like to go 
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
Yes, good photoskanky, but obviously I was talking about close-up shots.
I've got to get a digital camera very soon, but primarily for my work. In order to get enough defenition for my slide projections and blow-ups I'm probably going to have to spend around £1,000 (you have to spend so much more for just a little more defenition than the usual). For large blow-ups you really still need a conventional camera (and they are much cheaper), but I am alarmed that Kodak have given up making their carrousel projectors (the standard professional item in the past).
On digital cameras an SLR has the big advantage that I can still use all my old Nikon lenses but this also puts the price up.
The choice seems to be the Nikon D70 (6 million pixels, which is rather low) or the older Fuji which scans twice and interpolates another 6million between the others, making in effect 12 million. (but that's over £1,000). And both these have the disadvantage that they reduce the picture size by a factor of 1.6 (ie a 50mm lens becomes, in effect, a 50 x 1.6 = 80mm lens).
If I want to get beyond this to a camera without this problem I have to go up to the Kodak at about £3,000 (13.9 million pixels).
I don't know if I can really afford that, so perhaps for very high defenition and (more important) wider angle shots I'll have to stick with my current camera.
Any other ideas?
(Obviously I'm not going to take it skiing)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dan, thanks.
Frosty the Snowman, Seriously? I have one at home. I'll have a look and see if I've got one here. I'll PM you if you really want it.
The_Mac_Daddy, Flims/Laax/Falera in Switzerland. It's from Crap Sogn Gion, and that's the cable car from Murschetg.
snowball, yeah, I don't have any close-ups to hand. I don't have many at all though as I use a small Casio, Exilim (sp?) camera as I don't trust myself not to damage my decent(ish) one by falling over. However, my other camera I've used as I said to take (unofficial) football pictures which have come out decently enough (for the type of camera and lens), and after a bit of practice, I've not missed the action through delayed shutters.
I have a mate who uses a digital for his football photos (he's one of the official photographers at Lincoln City). Not sure what he uses, but I can ask him. He uses digital as he (a) doesn't need anything too big and (b) at a footy game he can take hundreds of pictures the majority of which will not be used, so he just doesn't want to go through film like that (he archives all the pictures on DVD anyway). His stuff is on teh official site and sometimes in the programmes.
Finally, I have read about some people who never print their pictures out, but use a large plasma screen to view them from DVD, which seems like a decent (if expensive) idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
You certainly pay more for high resolution, though in my experience it's the lens quality that's worth paying for. Obviously depends what you're using it for. Where would you need 13.9 million pixels?
I keep seing people using the D70, must be a reliable tool. I suppose you just use 28 or 35mm instead of 50mm. Have you used a perspective control lens?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
snowball, as it's work tool it's all tax deductable
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
MartinH
But what about times (which are frequent) when I would normally use a wide angle lens (eg to photograph one of my instalations in a small room).
A news photographer doesn't need alot of pixels. I am an artist. A 20" x 30" blowup at 150 dpi (half the print industry standard) would be that number of pixels (I think, I haven't double checked it). I once did a 40' x 60". However I also often project an image at around !0ft accross, but in a context where people go up close to look at details (and often where I don't want obvious pixels).
However I won't need this sort of thing very often and perhaps I'll settle for the Nikon and use an ordinary camera on those occasions.
Quite often I need to edit slides on photoshop and have them remade into slides. Metro who do most of this for London professionals do it at 2,000dpi (ie 6 million dots) - I'm told some places do 12 million, but the quality of work is usually lower and nothing is gained - so in those cases we are already down to the Nikon resolution.
Dan 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
snowball (or anyone) - wide angled lens..........what are they useful for???
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
getting more in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| MartinH wrote: |
. Where would you need 13.9 million pixels?
|
As Snowball's application shows, when you are trying to achieve the same ultimate resolution as film. I read somewhere that a standard 35mm colour film frame has a resolution equivalent to at least 18 million pixels.
Incidentally, based on this value for 35mm format, just imagine what the equivalent value must be for the professional larger film format e.g Hasselblads etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Alastair Pink, Not all films are the same, there's a big difference between a standard 400 and 100ASA, never mind high definition microfilm.
What you're photographing makes a difference too, line drawings need higher resolution than a blotchy painting.
In an ideal world it would be nice to use resolution beyond that which the eye can distinguish.
snowball, I know more about sound recording. Analogue systems can potentially be closer to live sound, though recording medium interference is a problem, as is every other stage of processing. Whichever option you take, putting good quality microphones in the right places is paramount.
This is similar to film. If lighting and film processing works out just right, you end up with great results. Starting off with a digital image allows easy adjustments, though you still need a good eye to make it look natural. I could be wrong but I tend to think the lens/filters/lighting is like the microphone/accoustics, so getting that right is most important.
The problems start when you make adjustments. The 16 bit 44.1khz standard used on CDs is barely enough for publication and quite inadequate for mixing and digital effects.
Every time you use a filter in Photoshop, the image is slightly degraded. High resolution reduces the damage but doesn't eliminate it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Alastair Pink wrote: |
| MartinH wrote: |
. Where would you need 13.9 million pixels?
|
As Snowball's application shows, when you are trying to achieve the same ultimate resolution as film. I read somewhere that a standard 35mm colour film frame has a resolution equivalent to at least 18 million pixels.
Incidentally, based on this value for 35mm format, just imagine what the equivalent value must be for the professional larger film format e.g Hasselblads etc. |
Beyond a certain point, pixels only matter for blowing up photos really, really large. You can find 3 megapixel cameras that give much better photos than 6 megapixel cameras. You really shouldn't go below 3 megapixels if you want decent shots, but when you start to get over 6 megapixels, and especially when you get into the teens, then it's just pointless.
I'm new here by the way, great forums.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More good stuff, WTFH. Worth waiting for the downloads. I've recently bought a 3.2 Mp Casio Exilim but I generally use it at much lower resolution than that. Bought it mainly for small size and because I had some BA vouchers to cash in and it was available on the plane. Smashed up the LCD and dented the back in a fall off my MTB recently (it was in my shirt back pocket). Local dealer fixed it in 3 working days and at a sensible price.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
my gf and pops do not fit into this category 
