Reading mode: Light Dark

Snow Photography advice needed

Go to last post
--

A split second in the real world passes by us so fast never to be had or seen again.my Job is to capture that split second and to make it into something we can all cherish forever.

please look at some of my pic at http://www.jasonandersonphoto.com the front page and the second one has many of snow pics . i always use fill flash and also usually use a polarizer which makes the sky nice and rich blue. any other ? e-mail me if you like . also any comments on my pics are appreciated. good luck just shoot like crazy you will learn what works best after many many of shots.





JasonAnderson
 
Debbie, please tell me you're joking about having the 70-200 2.8 around your neck while snowboarding...

I can't stress how incredibly bad an idea that is on so many levels lol....

Photography and snowboarding do not mix simultaneously... gah I shudder at the thought of being on my board with my gear on...
Sierasong1 said:
Todd,
Last winter I had just got my camera and decided I would take it
snowboarding with me. At the time, all I had was the ?-300mm lousy
kit lens. (its in a box now) I tucked it in my jacket and off I
went. I got some fun pics, but not real great quality. Now I have
the 70-200 f2.8 and I plan to do the same thing this year. It will
be entertaining as this lens is heavier and bigger. Its a double
edge sword, I look like I have a huge chest :-), on the other hand
if I wipe out and land chest first it will be "good night Irene"
all my ribs will be broken! What we will do for pictures...
Debbie
'critiques are welcome..and needed.'
Click to expand...
--
http://www.meucciphotographic.com
 
cross over at -40. In other words, -40C = -40F so that's a good point of reference. -49F? Double ouch!

Those gloves with the fingertips exposed but with the ability to completely cover the fingers like a mitten (see photo a few posts back) are great for this sort of thing. You have the dexterity there when you need it but can keep the fingers covered when you're not actually shooting. Sticking your hands into your coat between shots is nice too :)

From the OP's post, I get the idea that he was actually more interested in winter safety advice than photographic advice. If that's the case, you might want to talk with some of the local ski patrol guys or other outdoor fanatics. Those folks will very likely be interested in helping you out and will have lots of good advice, and particular advice for the exact area you'll be visiting. Winter mountaineering is nothing to take lightly.

I think the main point about taking photos with a lot of snow in the frame is to realize that the meter in your camera will try to make the average brightness of the metered area show up as "average". Snow is white (not average), so if snow dominates the metered area, you'll end up underexposing the shots and the snow will be grey and the people will be too dark too.

So you need to either dial in some positive exposure compensation or shoot in manual with settings determined by metering off of a truly average subject. You can just put the camera in the partial metering mode and put the metering circle on a person's face or something like that to get a meter reading. As others have said, don't worry too much about blowing out the snow. Meter to get the actual subjects of the shots properly exposed.

I would highly recommend shooting in M with settings determined by partial metering of actual people's faces or a grey card at the time of the shoot. You should experiment with this ahead of time and see what works out. As clouds come and go, you'll have to adjust and that's where a gray card might come in handy too.

With the distances you'll probably need to be from the subjects, a flash probably won't do you any good. But if you are in close, it might be handy. Again, you should experiment a bit ahead of time.

Don't worry too much if the histograms show that there are a lot of pixels at the right side of the graph. That's the snow - and it is white, after all :)

I wish we had a tool that would let you move a small "probe" around the photo and which would show you the histogram for just that small area. That way you could check out the exposure for just a person's face, for example.

--
Jim H.
 
I'd recommend shooting RAW, but then you lose a lot of your burst capability which would be very handy for this type of shooting. It's a darn shame, though, because RAW would be (as it always is) quite helpful.

--
Jim H.
 
If you compensate for the bright reflective light of the snow by increasing exposure the subjects should not be underexposed, they come out very dark when you don't increase exposure because the light meter underexposes due to all of the reflected light.
 
Todd,

I'll admit it isnt the brightest thing to do..but there isnt really any other wayt to get fun pics of the kids boarding. I am pretty decent on the board and just am careful with the camera around my neck. Its under the jacket so its not flopping around. I just have to figure out how to put my pod under my jacket. :-O
I will get better pics this year with the 70-200 f2.8. :-)

Here is a few from last year with the lousy kit lens, polarizer and little knowlege of PS. (I live 10 min from the mountain.)
Debbie

The picture of concentration



a work buddy



'critiques are welcome..and needed.'
 
To get all those action shots of your kids, it's the only way to go. I know that not only can the camera be seriously damaged but if you really luck out you can get badly injured too, but to get those shots one takes risks...
From Kitzbuehel last year:



My daughter slowing down to give me a visit



My son barreling through the Alm



Half-piping



Jump

Another problem- Ski runs can be long and if you don't ski or board yourself, you usually have a long, long walk up or downhill to get the shots you want...

Greetings from Austria
Peter
 
Jim, thanks for all of your photographic advice! But you shouldn't worry too much (not that you are), you're posting to an Eagle Scout with over a month of my life spent in snow caves... HAHA. I've got the cold weather gear and clothing, from wool to Goretex to Columbia Polar Fleece. My main concern was for the exposure and whatnot.

One question though... about the C to F calculation... 0* C is 32*f... so what you're saying is between 0 and -40C, the farenheit moves -72*?

Is that right?

http://www.meucciphotographic.com
 
No. 1 degree unit in C is 1.8 degree units in F. The conversion is:

C = (F - 32) / 1.8
F = (C * 1.8) + 32

But, the poster that claimed -45C in Montreal is exagerating a bit. -20C (-4F) with periods of -30C (-22F) would be more accurate. This isn't taking the wind chill into account though.

--
...Mike
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Trying to work my way up to rank amateur

PBase Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/mikealex
PhotoSIG: http://www.photosig.com/go/users/view?id=176063

 
Each Celsius degree is 1.8 times the "size" of a Fahrenheit degree.

There is both a scale and and offset at work here.

The zero points are not at the same point (0 C = 32 F). And the "sizes" of the steps are unequal (1 degree C = 1.8 degrees F).

So you have to do the old Y = MX + B thing (slope intercept formula).

To convert F to C, you do:

(F - 32) / 1.8 = C

To convert C to F, you do:

(C X 1.8) + 32 = F

I always remember that -40 C = -40 F and that 20 C = 68 F.

I remember the -40/-40 thing because it's the crossover point. I remember the 20 / 68 thing because of so many years developing black and white film and staring at a thermometer that had both Celsius and Fahrenheit markings :)

--
Jim H.
 
Ok so what you're saying is that Mr. Fahrenheit designed his system with a 1.8 Crop factor ;)
JimH said:
Each Celsius degree is 1.8 times the "size" of a Fahrenheit degree.

There is both a scale and and offset at work here.

The zero points are not at the same point (0 C = 32 F). And the
"sizes" of the steps are unequal (1 degree C = 1.8 degrees F).

So you have to do the old Y = MX + B thing (slope intercept formula).

To convert F to C, you do:

(F - 32) / 1.8 = C

To convert C to F, you do:

(C X 1.8) + 32 = F

I always remember that -40 C = -40 F and that 20 C = 68 F.

I remember the -40/-40 thing because it's the crossover point. I
remember the 20 / 68 thing because of so many years developing
black and white film and staring at a thermometer that had both
Celsius and Fahrenheit markings :)

--
Jim H.
Click to expand...
--
http://www.meucciphotographic.com
 
Mike Alexander said:
But, the poster that claimed -45C in Montreal is exagerating a bit.
-20C (-4F) with periods of -30C (-22F) would be more accurate. This
isn't taking the wind chill into account though.
Click to expand...
You'd be surprised, Mike. Early last year, the temperatures fell all the way to -37C, with windchill pushing it upto -45C - it stayed like that for about 2-3 weeks. My toes and fingers will tell you more about that :D Then the temperatures suddenly "rose" to -20C and stayed there for about 3 more months, and everybody thought we had such a mild winter :D

Early this year the temperatures fell down to -39C (without windchill factor), but didn't stay there for too long. We were back to -20C in no time.

-Ashutosh
http://rajekar.ca
http://www.photo.net/photos/asr
 
not saying you believe this but its funny how many people believe windchill affects their car starting or makes your camera colder.
Ashutosh Rajekar said:
Ashutosh Rajekar said:
But, the poster that claimed -45C in Montreal is exagerating a bit.
-20C (-4F) with periods of -30C (-22F) would be more accurate. This
isn't taking the wind chill into account though.
Click to expand...
You'd be surprised, Mike. Early last year, the temperatures fell
all the way to -37C, with windchill pushing it upto -45C - it
stayed like that for about 2-3 weeks. My toes and fingers will tell
you more about that :D Then the temperatures suddenly "rose" to
-20C and stayed there for about 3 more months, and everybody
thought we had such a mild winter :D

Early this year the temperatures fell down to -39C (without
windchill factor), but didn't stay there for too long. We were back
to -20C in no time.

-Ashutosh
http://rajekar.ca
http://www.photo.net/photos/asr
Click to expand...
--
http://www.raegoul.org
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top