Photography in mountains above the tree line

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Andrew Nairn, Apr 17, 2004.

  1. Andrew Nairn

    Andrew Nairn Guest

    I am going for a mountaineering trip, high up. Snow, glaciers, rocks, big
    skies.

    I'll be using a Contax G1 with a 35mm lens.

    Should I take a UV filter?

    What film would do best? I use routinely 75% positives but negs are fine
    too. Quality and results are top priority.

    Thanks.
     
    Andrew Nairn, Apr 17, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Andrew Nairn

    Chris B Guest

    Have fun!
    Yes, although my experience is limited to the 3000-4000m range and I didn't
    take any experimental shots without my UV filter, I believe that it's best
    to have a filter as your shots may have a blue cast without them at high
    altitudes. Also, it'll help protect your lens, which is especially important
    when you're travelling about. Just remember to check your lenses & filters
    carefully when you reach high altitudes as moisture has a tendancy to appear
    when you get high up.

    Chris.
     
    Chris B, Apr 18, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Andrew Nairn

    Nick Zentena Guest


    Warming filter instead?

    Nick
     
    Nick Zentena, Apr 18, 2004
    #3
  4. Warming filter's. How high? 81-A and 81-B, in my vast mountaneering experience.

    QLP
     
    Quietlightphoto, Apr 18, 2004
    #4
  5. Andrew Nairn

    Andrew Nairn Guest

    3-4000m mainly.

    Which filter is better?

    Any opinion on film?

    Thanks,
     
    Andrew Nairn, Apr 18, 2004
    #5
  6. Andrew Nairn

    Bandicoot Guest

    The Kodak filter data book shows that the 81 series warming filters actually
    don't block nearly as much UV as a UV (L39) or Skylight (1a, 1b, etc.) does.
    (There are also special UV filters designed for aerial photography.)

    Based on this I've always felt that much as I might like the _idea_ of
    warming up a mountain scene (though often, I'd rather convey the cold and
    not warm it up) in pratice a UV filter is going to do a better job of
    preventing the film from going too far the other way. So far my results (up
    to about 20,000 ft) seem to bear this out.

    YMMV, of course, and you can always take one of each and see which you
    prefer.



    Peter
     
    Bandicoot, Apr 18, 2004
    #6
  7. I'd suggest a warming filter, like a skylight.

    You might also consider a polarizing filter.
     
    James Robinson, Apr 18, 2004
    #7
  8. Yes, and I would suggest going to a good photo shop and look at the
    variety of UV and UV-combination filters. There are quite a few, such
    as straight UV in different absorption percentages, skylight, haze,
    uv-warming filters. And there are a variety of brands, depending on
    the type of filter construction and materials, from cheap to
    expensive. They each have slightly different effects, but a straight
    UV filter is a must at higher elevations. You should be able to get
    one or more in the price range you want. Also consider a polarizing
    or polarizer-combination filter.

    Good luck.
     
    Scott M. Knowles, Apr 19, 2004
    #8
  9. Andrew Nairn

    Gregg Guest

    I assume you're shooting color, so also, cary a good quality polarizing
    filter.

    If B&W, definitely get medium yellow, orange and red filters
     
    Gregg, Apr 21, 2004
    #9
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.