 Poster: A snowHead
|
Megamum, The solution to flat light is simple, head for the trees continue on down find bar with log fire and ample supplies of Vin Chaud.
Never forget it is called a ski holiday. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Yoda, phew .... annoyed me to hell and back too 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
What was the title before it was changed?
Edit: Ah, I see it was "are" not "is". OK.
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Tue 5-10-10 10:10; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
laundryman, Nope, I ski in poor conditions because of the cost of the holiday and if I wasn't to do so I wouldn't ski sometimes, but give me a blue sky sunshine day any day of the week out of preference and enjoyability - its not enjoyable to ski over what I can't see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Megamum, there are varying degrees of flat light. I get the impression from your posts that you're talking about a complete white-out, where it's so bad you can't see anything at all. I've been in those conditions and it isn't pretty, or even safe to ski. What everyone else is talking about, I think, is where you can see perfectly well (trees, mountains, other people etc), it's just that the contours of the slope are ill defined. There is a world of difference between the two extremes. I've learned to enjoy the challenge of flat light, of relaxing and reacting to unexpected bumps and drops. I agree that in a complete white-out the only recourse is to go all Italian and cry "lunch".
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Tue 5-10-10 9:32; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Megamum, you do something you don't enjoy because of money you've already spent and can't get back?
Why not look on the experience positively: as an opportunity to gauge you progress (difficult to do for yourself on a moderate, corduroy slope in blue-sky conditions) and to improve balance and reactions? Flat light is not the same as whiteout conditions. Practising in flat light may one day help you if you find yourself in a real whiteout.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Megamum, flat light on the piste, where you have a reasonable expectation of no major dangers, ain't too bad. Try flat light offpiste (not in a forest), now that's tough. Last season BobinCH, his brother, me and a friend were on the Toula glacier at Hellbronner when flat light descended and we almost literally had to ski on each other's tails, at c. 2 mph.
It's been said before but really, when you find an easy empty piste get a spotter and try to ski with your eyes closed. Knowing you can do it will help a lot in flat light conditions - in fact when I get REALLY disoriented in flat light I close my eyes for a couple of turns, as the brain at least registers that there's no visual info coming in and switches attention to other feedback.
EDIT: I really mean whiteout above. Flat light is even easier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
get a whistle too 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
horizon, spot on. A few years ago I had an afternoon of 1-2-1 tuition in Tignes. Shocking conditions, the light was as flat as a pancake, and it was snowing heavily. I was bitching about the conditions but my instructor refused to stop, saying that I'd get more out of a lesson in bad conditions that good. He was right. After checking that I was "up for it", he set off down steep red and blacks, with no discernible drop in pace, just making sure I was keeping up. The confidence I gained in not just being able to ski in bad conditions, but actually improving gave me as much confidence as any other lesson I've ever had.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rayscoops, and have the leading person carry a cow bell
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Megamum, in which case, I think you have been using the term "flat light" slightly differently to most people. To me it means conditions where you miss the odd lump, roller, drop-off, occasionally the edge of the piste, etc - but still know which way is up and the overall lie of the land.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
horizon, I have been caught in the same conditions. Cloud came over the mountain and engulfed us, ending what had been a blue sky morning. Its the only time I have been truly scared in the last 10 years. I was on a board so couldn't stop and didn't dare go fast as I couldn't any contours. I changed to my Oakley HI yellow lenses but it was too dark and flat even for these. Terrifying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Quote: |
To me it means conditions where you miss the odd lump, roller, drop-off, occasionally the edge of the piste, etc - but still know which way is up and the overall lie of the land.
|
Absolutely. Two totally different things. though some people call it a "white out" as soon as it's misty and visibility is poor. In those conditions, skiing on pistes down in the trees is ideal, as the trees demarcate the edge and give you a clear sense of what is up and what is down. In a true white out trees are an absolute menace as you won't see them till you hit them. A true white out, where you get separated from companions who were right beside you a minute ago, and can't tell which way is up, is pretty impossible IMHO. And not that common. flat light, however, is very common - you're lucky if you don't get a day of flat light in a week's skiing. There are degrees of flatness though. sometimes the features on the ground are not well defined, sometimes damned great moguls can just disappear completely.
I spent four days skiing in a mix of fog and flat light in La Rosiere once. The chalet ski guide we were with (a very good skier) assured us all it would improve our skiing and gave us quiet "hints and tips" because he couldn't be seen. He was dead right, it did improve our skiing, but I'd happily have swapped that weather for a week of sun. The funny thing was the reaction of the two kids. Usual bumptious lads - "come on mum, you're so slow" but as soon as the mist came down they stuck to me like sh*t to a blanket, suddenly aware that they hadn't been paying the slightest attention to where we were.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
laundryman, No, I understand the difference - it was the science which leads to 'proper' flat light that I was intersted in the type you described as:
| Quote: |
To me it means conditions where you miss the odd lump, roller, drop-off, occasionally the edge of the piste, etc - but still know which way is up and the overall lie of the land.
|
I then kind of railroaded my own thread into general conditions where you can't see - the more 'white out' and foggy scenarios, where I do tend to find that if you can just about in front of you the lie of the piste can often still be seen which in the proper 'flat light' it can't be which is kind of interesting. (Although you can of course get both together which isn't choice!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
(Although you can of course get both together which isn't choice!)
|
I don't quite understand this. In a proper white out (as opposed to a spot of fog) you can't see much beyond the end of your skis so by definition you most certainly can't see the lie of the piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| pam w wrote: |
| Two totally different things. |
Yep - you're right.
In a broad sense;
Flat light is the reduction of interpretability caused by the increase in one section of the colour spectrum.
A white out would be the obscuring of features through the blocking of reflection.
This said you can normally get some of both at the same time.
So, you’re in a cloud and the light is reflecting off the water droplets more in the blue than other “bits” but at the same time the water droplets themselves are blocking your view – the same can be seen in falling snow, rain, etc.
Oh and just to throw something else into to the mix 
Older people can see better in flat light than younger people
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Tue 5-10-10 14:10; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Wayne wrote: |
| the question was right before it was changed - it should be "are" not "is" as there are a number of different reasons for flat light |
No. In modern usage, "physics" is a singular word, that encompasses all the phenomena of which we've been speaking. Scattering is not a "physic" and neither is reflection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
edited due to being a thread drift 
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Tue 5-10-10 14:09; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
What is the physics behind the seemingly unstoppable force that causes the drift of any thread to discussions of the finer, often arcane points of grammar?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wayne, I am not complaining, far from it, the grammar stuff is often far more amusing than the topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Megamum, From a grammar point of view, both ends of an argument would have an opinion, all be it different ones. From a physics point of view, any opinion would by reason of its existence alter the very thing the opinion/s were being expressed about. From a quantum physics point of view, you could hold both opinions and none at the same time.
As for the lack of shadows not being relevant, and the non existence of gravity...
...I did hear that the US military were working on a shielding that reduces the effects of gravity and if I can only get hold of some intend to put it on the bottom of my ski boots.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Older people can see better in flat light than younger pe
|
Not so; we've just learnt not to panic. When you're struggling with arthritic hips, hot flushes, a smeary combination of goggles and indispensable specs, the need to stop and go to the loo all the time, forgetting what you've done with your hanky or which piste leads to your hotel, a little flat light really isn't a big deal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
pam w,
I'll second that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| jbob wrote: |
| From a physics point of view, any opinion would by reason of its existence alter the very thing the opinion/s were being expressed about. |
Depends on how big opinions are 
| pam w wrote: |
| Quote: |
Older people can see better in flat light than younger pe
|
Not so; we've just learnt not to panic. . |
Hmmmm - what I was talking about was the yellow tingeing of the lenses at the front of your eye as you get older
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think this is an absolutely brilliant question.
Some of it is no doubt about shadow, contrast, total light available etc etc. But not all of it by a long chalk. BTW I don't mind flat light or fog, I think it is good exercise for relaxing and reacting to what your legs rather than your eyes tell you.
but I also like skiing at night with a headtorch, and I am sure the light available then is even less although contrast may be more- but I suspect many people would be less spooked by night than very flat light.
Some of this surely goes - as mentioned above - to the way we perceive and judge distances and contours. So many optical illusions are based on perceptual short cuts which probably have some evolutionary use. I guess we just aren't evolved to ski in flat light. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
| Some of it is no doubt about shadow, contrast, total light available etc etc. But not all of it by a long chalk. |
What makes you so certain? I can see that the type of illusion that you refer to might play a part, but I see no particular reason to believe that physics can't explain the great majority of the effect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
stoatsbrother,
| Quote: |
I think this is an absolutely brilliant question.
|
I think, like you, that skiing by torchlight, whilst showing very little of the piste would possibly cast more in the way of shadows on it, thereby perhaps showing the lie of the land easier than flat light. Also, I think your eyes would do the 'night' thing and within minutes adjust to make best use of any light that was around, possibly from the moon, stars etc.). I've never skied without light, i.e. black as pitch on a dark cloudy night miles from anywhere, but I have done floodlit skiing (in 10" of fresh powder on top of a bashed piste - the most fabulous time I've ever had skiing ). The floodlights were just adequate enough to illuminate all the piste - the operative word being 'just', but the light they cast certainly didn't result in flat light conditions as there were lots of shadows to use. I enjoyed that
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
laundryman, Because virtually everything we do visually involves perceptual tricks and shortcuts. Read the stuff by the late great Richard Gregory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
stoatsbrother, the lower the contrast, the less well you're going to perceive - whatever the hard-wired pattern recognition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
laundryman, agreed... but I suspect there is more to it than that in the way we range things
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
just examine how certain goggles work better that others in flat light and you will get the answer what causes flat light 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
stoatsbrother, I'm much happier with 'suspecting'.
I know our brains use all kinds of heuristics to make sense out of scenes - and that when heuristics go wrong, they can go horribly wrong. With visual interpretation I suspect (but may be wrong) that failure of a heuristic causes parts of scenes of certain types to be misinterpreted, not that there be a generalised reduction in perception. As one negotiates a piste in flat light, the background and foreground features of the landscape might change quite substantially, yet many may be missed throughout as we slide by.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
There is no doubt that the flat light is easier to deal with on a narrower piste with trees down the side as you can still get clues to the slope from the lie of the vegetation. One of the first and possibly the worst experiences I had with pure flat light was on the piste above and to one side of the knife and fork in VT - the area where the piste opens out really wide and there were no visual clues to be easily seen. I did the 'which way is up' thing at that point and found it rather disconcerting.
Would the same flat light conditions result in an un-defined piste if the snow was a uniform colour other than white - say red, orange or blue?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Also, I think your eyes would do the 'night' thing and within minutes adjust to make best use of any light that was around
|
not with a headtorch they wouldn't - you'd need to ski without a torch, or with a red light, to make the most of your night vision. And if you were out relying on night vision you'd have to be very careful to protect your eyes from white light - that's why navigators on boats at night use red lights to look at their charts.
OTOH I only discovered on that SH North Wales mountain navigation day how brilliant head torches are. We ended up walking in the pitch dark down beside a water course on very rough ground - I'd never realised how good even a cheap head torch was. To hell with night vision (anyway, it was raining, so there wasn't a lot of light) - give me a nice bright torch!
I've disliked floodlit skiing when I've done it, but I do like the idea of skiing with a headtorch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pam w, That would explain why my new headtorch has a red light setting. I bought an Energiser one and I've been very pleased with it.
I think you may have to pick the conditions to do the floodlit skiing in. After a good dump of powder snow onto the piste, unbashed, on an evening with further light snow falling and well wrapped up for the cold it was really one of the most magical experiences I've had. I've only done it the once, and it will take some beating as an experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
laundryman, I think you are locating perception at a different level from me. I'd see it after visual processing - a description of conscious awareness of a pattern. Where as you seem to be locating it at the level of detection by the eyes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pam w, not necessarily - I have tried skiing with and without lights. It depends on the light.
When I go night MTBing in the woods once a week I use fairly powerful lights (about 800 lumens the set - although one of my mates rides with 4000) and these effect adaptation a lot. Skiing you need less powerful lights and unless you get some muppet shining their light at your eyes and this is less of an issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
a real possibility!! (I think several folks on here mentioned one particular day in Les Arcs last year - yes, I was out in that one 
) The flat light where I can still see around me is just a challenge - its the not being able to see the skier 2m in front of you that I'm not keen on - at all!!
