PDA

View Full Version : A thread of images from very high altitudes



Heroique
17-Aug-2014, 16:09
How high did you get?

What I mean, of course, is how many feet your shot is above sea level. :cool:

And what did you capture "way down there" – or "way out there"?

Please share stories about your ascent, the geography we see, and any practical tips about your elevated shots – such as lens and film choices, filtration, and exposure.

-----
This high bluff w/ a castle-like parapet around its edge is about 9,500 feet high, but the valley floor is already 5,000 feet high. Down there is the Beaverhead River (near Dillon, Montana), one of the most distant sources of the Missouri/Mississippi Rivers. I chose a green filter to darken the eastern sky. Some day I'll return and put something in the heavens, like storm clouds, a sunrise, forest fire smoke, or a crescent moon. ;^)

120067

Tachi 4x5
Schneider 150mm/9 g-claron (w/ Lee green filter)
Ilford FP4+ (in Rodinal 1:50)
Epson 4990/Epson Scan

Maris Rusis
17-Aug-2014, 18:06
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3925/14929922516_9b523e4e4c_b.jpg
Stone and Tree, Kangaroo Ridge.

Gelatin-silver photograph on Ultrafine Silver Eagle VC FB photographic paper, image size 24.6cm X 19.5cm, from a 8x10 Fomapan 100 negative exposed in a Tachihara 810HD triple extension field view camera fitted with a Wollensak 159mm f9.5 lens. Titled, signed, and stamped verso.

Australia is a very old continent and has been worn down nearly flat by millions of years of erosion. Stone and Tree, Kangaroo Ridge was exposed at an altitude of 1850 metres (about 6070 feet) and that's nearly as high as things get here. The tree line is only another 50 metres up. Australia's highest point is Mt Kosciuszko at 2228m or 7310 feet and that's just along the road from where I stood for this photograph. Right now it's winter and this spot is under 10 feet of snow.

SMBooth
17-Aug-2014, 20:13
Your image has my feet itching for the snow to met and get into the Highplains.

Jay M. Packer
17-Aug-2014, 21:44
120102

Thor Peak and Pinnacle Ridge, from Mt. Irvine, (~ 13,000 ft.)
Eastern Sierra, California
4x5 FP4+, 300mm Nikkor, #12 and polarizing filters

Hugo Zhang
17-Aug-2014, 21:53
From Mt. Everest base camp. 16,900 feet.

analoguey
18-Aug-2014, 06:31
Really only 16k? Thought Everest base camp would be higher.
Himalayas are a gorgeous location! Have shots of higher locations(on land) but none on 4x5.
@Heroique, You can get to 18k+ ft by road. ;-)

Heroique
18-Aug-2014, 08:01
Dramatic and fun shots so far.

(Everyone, please watch your step...)

All high altitude shots, literal or perceptive, are welcome!

Struan Gray
18-Aug-2014, 08:07
Really only 16k? Thought Everest base camp would be higher.

Hugo's photographs show the North Face, and standard base camp on that side is a little lower than the Nepalese one.

My mountaineering and LF photography never overlapped. My knees don't thank me for much, but for that at least they give a smidgen of thanks.

Jim Cole
18-Aug-2014, 08:50
Inner Basin, San Francisco Peaks, autumn, ~9800 feet, 4x5 Fuji Acros in Rodinal

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3918/14773046338_92310e4bcf_o.jpg

Jim Cole
18-Aug-2014, 09:00
Here's one more form 11,500-12,000 feet in Colorado. Yankee Boy Basin. 4x5 Velvia 50.

I don't think I've photographed anything with large format much higher than this.

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5582/14773156378_94bbebce5a_o.jpg

Will Whitaker
18-Aug-2014, 11:48
Oh, you mean "high elevation"....
"High Altitude" implies aerial, as in from an airplane, etc.

Jerry Bodine
18-Aug-2014, 12:11
Oh, you mean "high elevation"....
"High Altitude" implies aerial, as in from an airplane, etc.

Not so. Climbers/backpackers use altimeters to assist in routefinding, etc. If they were to use an elevation device, it'd be called an elevator (AKA a lift). :)

Struan Gray
18-Aug-2014, 12:31
I've never heard of Himalayan climbers suffering from "Elevation sickness" - sounds more like something architects suffer from.

Struan ('Has been high')

Richard M. Coda
18-Aug-2014, 13:37
After reading these I am embarrassed that I have never photographed (with a large format camera) higher than... 7214 ft.
Moonrise, Glacier Point, Yosemite, 1989, 4x5 Tri-X

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_OEwP0EHQqMk/STNNnVRmmmI/AAAAAAAAAME/UFUJrWD2c0w/s1600/Coda15_web.jpg

Heroique
27-Aug-2014, 11:15
After reading these I am embarrassed that I have never photographed (with a large format camera) higher than 7214 ft.

Perception is everything!

This is from the Olympic Mountain range (Wash. state) and only 5,000 feet or so.

Not too high. To be sure, the range itself is not high at all – its tallest mountain, Mount Olympus, doesn't even reach 8,000 feet. No wonder. These were never volcanic mountains, though they are still being formed by the action of subducting plates. It's a curious case of mountain building should you wish to look into it.

I’m looking Northeast across Puget Sound – the snowy peak out there is in a very different, and much higher range, the North Cascades. Volcanic indeed. That's Mount Baker, a volcano that spewed terrific clouds of steam back in the 1970's, which excited the children and worried the adults.

120646

Tachi 4x5
Schneider XL 110mm/5.6
A touch of forward lens tilt
Fuji Tungsten 64 (w/ 85b filter)
Epson 4990/Epson Scan

analoguey
28-Aug-2014, 05:02
Hugo's photographs show the North Face, and standard base camp on that side is a little lower than the Nepalese one.

My mountaineering and LF photography never overlapped. My knees don't thank me for much, but for that at least they give a smidgen of thanks.

Ah! Okay. I thought it was about 21k the base camps.

In the Northern Himalayas, we've lot of passes and roads around 16+k so seemed quite low.
I was with a bunch of people on that trip and even as I shot with my DSLR, they were quite exasperated to stop or even slow down for pictures that didnt include them. I hope to do it alone sometime soon - with a LF camera, if I can.


Perception is everything!

This is from the Olympic Mountain range (Wash. state) and only 5,000 feet or so.

120646

Tachi 4x5
Schneider XL 110mm/5.6
A touch of forward lens tilt
Fuji Tungsten 64 (w/ 85b filter)
Epson 4990/Epson Scan

Thats a nice snap.
And since we're at 5,000ft, my current city of residence is at 3,000ft... can I post some? ;-)

Heroique
28-Aug-2014, 10:24
That's a nice snap. And since we're at 5,000ft, my current city of residence is at 3,000ft ... Can I post some? ;-)

If they make the viewer feel high, I say go for it! :D

austin granger
30-Sep-2014, 08:56
I'd say this is at about 7,500 feet. That's not tremendously high I guess, but I did lug my camera up here, and it hurt, so I think I should get partial credit. :)

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2945/15215754530_4a438fcb7d_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/pbyHHm)Mount Hood from Cooper Spur (https://flic.kr/p/pbyHHm) by austin granger (https://www.flickr.com/people/60005435@N08/), on Flickr

austin granger
1-Oct-2014, 10:50
This is a little higher, around 8,500 feet, and near the end of the line on this side of Mount Hood, at least for mere mortals such as myself. People do climb from here, but it's a technical route, and much more dangerous than those on the west side. A lot of people have died above Cooper Spur.

The inscription on the rock was left by a Japanese climbing party in 1910. From my understanding, it reads:

Left side: Mie Ken Jin Ito (Person from Mie State, [Mr.] Ito)

Right side: Hiroshima Ken Jin (Person from Hiroshima State)

English portion:

July 17th 1910
Monument
[Mr.] S. Takahashi

There is nothing further known about these people.

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3929/15412315532_04cb6016c6_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/ptW9s9)Hiroshima Rock, Cooper Spur, Mount Hood (https://flic.kr/p/ptW9s9) by austin granger (https://www.flickr.com/people/60005435@N08/), on Flickr