Your BEST Climbing Photographs

Boone
Tahoe
Bishop

Nikon D70

Dont think about the runout.

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!

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?/…

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/art…

Or this: wired.co.uk/magazine/archiv…

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:

web.stagram.com/p/398823036…

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.

What ever happened to "f8, and be there" ?

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?

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.

Jason Kim wrote: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.

Once you drop a modern camera or lens and need to replace it, that's about 2,500 images worth of film and processing (if you do it yourself).

I had a high end Fuji P&S I used to use for backpacking and canyoneering (took great pics). I had it double-bagged in dry bags and somehow it got wet and destroyed (now I have a small Pelican case for carrying camera gear whenever there's a lot of water around.). $250+ to replace it. If water got into my Nikkormat, I know I could take the lens apart (on my fixed lenses, haven't tried a zoom yet) and clean it and get it going again, and could scrounge around on Ebay or KEH for a perfectly functioning body for $60-$80. Try that with a DSLR. That's the main reason I got back into film... but I fell back in love with it.

Anyways, if necessary, I could definitely take high quality pictures even with this setup:

photojojo.com/store/awesome…

They're actually pretty sweet, I use that macro lens and the inversion setting on my iPhone to inspect negs. My brother's Droid Razr HD even has exposure compensation and white balance settings on-board. I'm sure you could take magazine quality pictures with that rig, actually...

Anyways, sorry to go all luddite. Photography is an art. Use whatever tools are easy to use and give you what you envision.

These are NOT my best photos, but I though it would be interesting to show the crazy capabilities of the iPhone and free editing apps, and what you can do on the fly with a minimalist attitude. These are not R&I magazine-quality but their effectiveness in inspiring friends rely on timing, as I will usually post these photos immediately after a session.

1. Red Rock Canyon - Stratocaster Wall

Camera: iPhone 5 Editing: Snapseed

2. Flagstaff Mountain - Hobo Cave
Camera: iPhone 5 Editing: Snapseed

3. Shelf Road - Contest Wall
Camera: iPhone 5 Editing: Snapseed

4. Carter Lake - Big Kahuna Roof
Camera: iPhone 5 Editing: Snapseed

Davis Stevenson wrote: Once you drop a modern camera or lens and need to replace it, that's about 2,500 images worth of film and processing (if you do it yourself).

To be fair, the price of the glass would be the same in either case. I suppose we need to compare bodies and then batteries/memory vs. film/processing. I call it a wash!

Davis Stevenson wrote: Photography is an art. Use whatever tools are easy to use and give you what you envision.

You hit the nail on the head!!

How about some more point and shoot action? Here are a couple of my favorites.

Camera: Sony DSC-H55

Longs Peak - Notch Couloir

Mount Valhalla - West Ridge

Mount Adams, Sangre De Cristos

PHOTOASSAULT!!!

/END PHOTOASSAULT...

Shaking out the pump on Carlsberg Column.
Doug leading the last pitch of Louise Falls
Doug leading the last pitch of Louise Falls

D70 + Nikkor 12-24mm f4 + RAW

My preference is for a super wide lens. You won't really push the limits of most sensors if you don't have good glass in front.

Jason Kim wrote: To be fair, the price of the glass would be the same in either case. I suppose we need to compare bodies and then batteries/memory vs. film/processing. I call it a wash! You hit the nail on the head!!

Not entirely sure about that, I just picked up a 50mm 1.4 (pre-AI... OLD/transitional bodies only without modification) for $80 and modified it myself. Same optics as the new stuff, for a few hundred less.

That's a tip for everyone, though, any of the higher-end prosumer bodies or pro bodies, it will meter and give aperture-priority with any Nikon glass. Check out KEH and eBay, as it takes about 10 minutes and a file to get any Nikon lens from before 1977 to fit a modern body with some auto functionality, and no modification for 85% of the lenses newer than that. It's a great way to get nice glass while you're just getting into it. With careful shopping my whole kit is up to only $350 (28mm, 50mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4, 100mm f/2.8, 135mm f/2.8, old 35mm-105 zoom). I usually cary the 28, 50, and 135, or the zoom and cheap 50 if I might break stuff.

I'm processing the last 2 years of stuff I have had this week... Maybe I'll make some scans to proof to show off here (even though I usually hate to). Don't know if I have too many climbing pictures mixed in there, but I do know I have a couple rolls of canyoneering stuff.

EDIT: Can't wait to get all my old negs out of storage, too. Probably a few hundred I haven't seen in years. I know I definitely have plenty of good stuff in there.

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. I appreciate your desire to raise the stoke, and I will happily play along! Here's a shot of the moon and Jupiter over Mt. Hitchcock, as viewed from the west face of Mt. Whitney. Unfortunately, I don't really have any shots that involve bona fide climbing since it seems I'm always doing one or the other (it's damn hard to make nice photos while climbing). I do have some photos that climbers might appreciate, though. Canon 5D2, Canon 24-105L. Shot at very high ISO while bracing the tripod against my body to combat some fierce wind. Canon 5D2, Canon 17-40L. Sunrise from the summit of Haleakala, a standard tourist shot. Canon 5D2, Canon 17-40L. Lying in my tent at sunrise, and everything started to turn pink. I stuck my head outside the fly and saw this scene directly above. I have never moved so fast to get a shot set up. The light was gone less than a minute later.

Pretty good.
I also love the great outdoors. I like photography. But my parents wouldn't let me go to the adventure.

Hi all, thought I'd bring this thread full circle with some shots through the new glass!

I listened hard to the advice provided here and went Nikon to take advantage of family lenses... Chose the D5200 for its glove-approved operation, in-camera features, 60fps HD shooting, and gimmicky fold-out screen that has proved to come in handy.

I've been climbing and playing with the camera in KY, WV, NC, TX, AR, and TN and it's served all my needs with aplomb

Picture is worth...

Austin night climb

Summer-camper smearing. (Face blurred for privacy)

Some bridge in West Virginia...

Gorgeous in North Carolina's gorge

Sendin' Seneca's Sevens

Resting in the Red

Brrr in Big Bend

My senior, smiling. (Enchanted Rock, TX)

I also had the good fortune of finding time to carry a POS point-and-shoot on a 1000 mile bike tour up the Atlantic coast proving that timing, lighting, luck, and composition still work without needing to schlepp pounds of kit...

Blue Ridge sunrise, point and shoot (from my sleeping bag!)

Lincoln Memorial, Olympus point and assassinate, I mean shoot (too far? sorry...)

Dylan,

It all depends on what type of shooting you want to do,

My current setup is a Nikon D7000 with a Tamron 18-270mm lens.

My Photos

I enjoy the ability to get a range of shots without the need to switch lens in the field, but with that I am by no means an expert, a lot of photography (as it seems you are already aware) is dependent on the photographer themselves.

Don't get me wrong, I love all the options I have on my fancy Nikon, but I am nowhere near utilizing the full potential of that camera yet, I have seen superior photos taken on worse cameras, I have also taken some awesome shots.

Saying that, if you are going to make large prints (someone already addressed this point) then you'll want to watch the megapixels, and a DSLR is probably what you want. Depending on the shot you want, with a DSLR you will likely have to get into position, so if you have a zoom lens you could be on the ground or at the top of a pitch, if you have a wide angle you can get up on the face next to them.

If you're looking for getting some great shots to show to friends and family I would recommend one of those heavy duty, waterproof point and shoots.

What I've noticed make the biggest difference is white balance...its easy to overlook, and most cameras do a decent auto setting, but if you want to get those 'amazing shots' then take some time and learn how to do it well.

Also, I'd recommend a UV-0 filter for you lens so when you do accidently ream it into the face your $$ filter is scratched and not your $$$ lens.

Just my two cents.

EDIT: Also, from the initial photo from the cover of Rock and Ice magazine you posted it appears you really want to play with ISO, some smaller cameras have this feature, but watch the diameter of your lens and the aperture (f/stops), the higher the f/stop the less light allowed through the lens.

Again, I only state this because I wish someone had told me when I was starting out, but if you are well accustomed to this then someone else may find it useful.