Longer lenses & mountain-top details?

[Heroique]

How often have you used a longer lens to capture a mountain-top detail?

Usually, I avoid the temptation for a couple of reasons. For one, the sky’s lower horizon is often hazy white – which I find unpleasing (if not distracting) when it fills the area behind my alpine subject. What’s more, I often have trouble finding something in the foreground to add a “near-far” appeal to this kind of shot.

Yet, here’s one image that comes close to working for me. :) It’s Mount Rainier – I’m looking north to the volcano’s south face. The sky is mostly blue down to the horizon, and the nearby ridge – with its autumn reds and coniferous greens – adds the “near” interest that my shots often lack.

As for Mount Rainier, its marbled appearance is what captured my fancy on this day.

Perhaps you have ideas, tips, hints, or examples of mountain-top scenery with longer lenses? I’d like to get better – and wish to know your secrets…

Tachi 4x5
Fuji A 240mm/9
Astia 100F
1/125 sec. @ f22
Level camera (w/ 20mm front rise)
Epson 4990

[Arne Croell]

I do use it occasionally. Its a different aesthetic than the near-far relationship. More about the two-dimensional patterns. Here is an example from Switzerland, the Fründenhorn in the Bernese Oberland in 2006.
Technikardan 4x5
Nikkor-T 720mm
red-orange Filter (B+W 041)

[Really Big Cameras]

Heroique,

I often use longer lenses to photograph the mountains here in the Pacific Northwest. The time of day and angle of the sun both make big differences and can help eliminate that hazy white horizon you refer to.

Forgive the poor quality scan, but here's an example of Mt. Hood shot with a 450mm Fujinon C using a 4x5 Canham DLC camera:

http://thalmann.com/images/47570.jpg

The distance from the camera to the summit of the mountain was about 7 linear miles. The trees in the foreground were on the opposite shore of a frozen lake approximately 1 mile from the camera position. You can't really see the separation between the trees and the mountain very well in the scan. It's much more apparent in a large print of the image.

Kerry Thalmann
Really Big Cameras (http://reallybigcameras.com)

[GPS]

I have constructed 2 cameras for this kind of pictures, one with a 800mm Nikon (6x12 roll film) and the other with a 600 Fujinon C (6x9 roll film). They are so stable (a self containing construction on 2 tripods) that they easily withstand even strong storm winds in mountains. I can take them out of their case and take pictures in less than 2 min.They allow me to take pictures of dramatic meteorology events in mountains and views that are not obtainable in a different way. The best acknowledgment I got was from a person that said - "where did you take that picture from? I've been living here for 20 years but I never saw anything like this point of view..." I didn't tell him the secret.
These cameras are for a different type of pictures, as Arne says, not to simulate the "normal" way of a view camera picture making.

[GPS]

Heroique,

I often use longer lenses to photograph the mountains here in the Pacific Northwest. The time of day and angle of the sun both make big differences and can help eliminate that hazy white horizon you refer to.

Forgive the poor quality scan, but here's an example of Mt. Hood shot with a 450mm Fujinon C using a 4x5 Canham DLC camera:

http://thalmann.com/images/47570.jpg

The distance from the camera to the summit of the mountain was about 7 linear miles. The trees in the foreground were on the opposite shore of a frozen lake approximately 1 mile from the camera position. You can't really see the separation between the trees and the mountain very well in the scan. It's much more apparent in a large print of the image.

Kerry Thalmann
Really Big Cameras (http://reallybigcameras.com)

By the way, a very nice orographic cloud over that mountain, Kerry!

[Allen in Montreal]

Arne and Kerry,
very nice pix!

[David Hedley]

I'd have called that a lenticular cloud - is that the same as an orographic cloud, and if not, what is the difference? (And I agree - marvellous picture).

[GPS]

I'd have called that a lenticular cloud - is that the same as an orographic cloud, and if not, what is the difference? (And I agree - marvellous picture).

Well David, you wouldn't be probably far away from truth (we cannot see the whole shape of this cloud, unfortunately). One doesn't exclude the other. Orographic is a designation of the cloud's origin while lenticular that of it's shape. Cheers.

[Heroique]

The preceding images – quite beautiful – are making me think differently about using longer lenses in mountain country. It’s a “different aesthetic” indeed.

Here’s the top of Mt. St. Helens with spits and spumes of steam, using a 240mm lens.

As I metered the scene, I wanted to capture as much detail as possible in the deepest shadows, lower left. I placed them slightly below zone 3. I suspected this would wash-out the rather hazy sky, against which the rising steam clouds would disappear.

But to my pleasant surprise, the sky above the volcano’s rim fell on zone 6 to 7. That left a slightly dark “back-drop” for the huffs-and-puffs. (With the haze, I’m curious if a polarizer or yellow filter would have helped me even more…)

Tachi 4x5
Fuji A 240mm/9
Level camera (10mm front fall)
1/30 sec. @ f/22
Tmax 100 (Tmax RS developer)
Epson 4990

[Rakesh Malik]

Wow, there are more folks on this forum living in the Pacific Northwest than I'd realized -- we ought to meet over coffee or something some day and reminisce -- and go out for some shooting :)

Anyway, back on subject...

Here's a shot, forgive the poor color correction (I'm not very good at that yet), of Mount Saint Helens with a 500mm Nikkor T*ED. I took this during the magic hour from behind the Johnston Ridge Observatory this summer; we didn't end up hiking into the valley because the clouds filling the valley were so dense, and we wanted to be able to see the mountain :)

http://www.pbase.com/tamerlin/image/98904550

To see how dense the clouds were:
http://www.pbase.com/tamerlin/image/98980932

[QT Luong]

The best example of long-lens mountain photography I know is the work of Shiro Shirahata. He has produced 4x5 monographs of the Alps, Himalayas, Rockies, and Japanese mountains which are simply magnificent. The books are all out of print, but they are not too expensive considering the size and production values. "Nepal Himalaya" lists the focal lengths used, up to 600mm. You will not find washed out horizons in the photographs, made in general with very dramatic light.

[lostcoyote]

i don't use them all that often but on occasion, i find something worthwhile...

[al olson]

Wonderful image, Lostcoyote.

I like the geometry and the use of shadow to balance the dark sky. I would bet that the print is even more stunning than the digital image.

What lens and film were you using?

[lostcoyote]

thanks, and i don't quite remember. it was Tmax 100 tho and it may heve been either a 300 or 360mm lens.

mt. clarence king, sierras, shot from the western flank in gardiner basin.

[lostcoyote]

here's that shot as seen in google earth

[jvuokko]

I use longer lenses quite much. However I don't have scanned sample from 4x5 (MF examples can be seen at my web site).

I am bit suprised that 240mm is considered as a long lens at 4x5, for me it is almost normal lens. I am used to think 370mm and longer lenses as 'long lens'.

When photographing mountains, forests and almost any kind of landscapes, I use a lot of either end's of my lenses: The couple of widests and couple of longest.

With MF I have used 200mm, 300mm and 400mm lenses a lot. The 150mm I have used when I have had need for large depth of field.
When comparing those lenses to 4x5 LF, focal lenghts would be aprox. 460mm, 690mm and 900mm. The 150mm of MF would be 350mm.

Now my longest LF lens is 450mm nikkor which I consider a bit short in many cases.

[Rakesh Malik]

I am bit suprised that 240mm is considered as a long lens at 4x5, for me it is almost normal lens. I am used to think 370mm and longer lenses as 'long lens'.


Same for me. I almost treat my 300mm as a normal lens, since it's my most used lens on 4x5 :)



Now my longest LF lens is 450mm nikkor which I consider a bit short in many cases.


I get quite a bit of use from my Nikkor T*ED lens, in 500 and 720mm configurations. This weekend I photographed Mount Baker from Mount Constitution at 720 and 500mm. I haven't gotten the film developed yet, but I'm definitely looking forward to seeing it... but for an approximation, there's an image shot with my dSLR at http://tamerlin.blogspot.com. I used about a 210mm (105mm macro + 2x teleconverter) to get close to the field of view that I had with the 4x5 with the 500mm, and shot this so that I'd have something to share until I get the film developed and scanned and all that.

[Heroique]

The lessons here are helping me along in a new hiking season – especially tips about “time of day and angle of the sun.”

These granite spires rise near Hwy 20 in N. Washington (which recently re-opened), and it was worth a few falls in deep snow to arrive in time for this splash of early-morning light. :cool:

I knew the sun would be on my right shoulder, so I brought a linear polarizer to dramatize the sky. But I wish I’d remembered my .6 GND filter too.

Tachi 4x5
Fuji A 240mm/9
1/4 sec. @ f/16
Velvia-50 (refrigerated old version)
Neutral camera & front rise (w/ linear polarizer)
Epson 4990

[Jim Galli]

The problem with the longer lenses is of course heat waves rising from the earth and creating atmospheric turbulence. Our eyes don't see it (sometimes out here in the desert our eyes DO see it) but our lenses do. Just for fun, take some bright binoculars and sit in a spot where you can look out over a long flat distance from 1/2 hour before sunset until sunset. If you watch continuously on a good day you will see a 5 to 10 minute period where the "range worms" subside. We all talk about prime time, but to our lenses this is the true prime time. That 5 minute period is the only time the lens can achieve it's true resolution of a distant subject. What happens is during that short period the differential between the earths temperature and the atmospheric temperature merge and the waves stop. 5 - 10 minutes is usually all you get. This is the reason Bradford Washburn's (http://www.newsletterarchive.org/cache/0/0/0/1/8/a/6/7/812154.jpg) photos were so successful. Not that he only shot in that 5 minute period, but he was up and out of the wormy atmosphere looking down on the mountains he photographed from the air.

[Blueberrydesk]

This is the reason Bradford Washburn's (http://www.newsletterarchive.org/cache/0/0/0/1/8/a/6/7/812154.jpg) photos were so successful.

That's quite a point and shoot he's holding there...:eek:

[GPS]

The problem with the longer lenses is of course heat waves rising from the earth and creating atmospheric turbulence.
...

That of course is valid for the hot weather - but long lenses have a very good time in cold weather, in high mountains already in Fall or then in the winter time during long periods of the day.
Also, what is bad for some pictures is excellent for the others - when different air layers high in the atmosphere start to move you can get some incredible meteorological effects with clouds, airplane contrails or even the Sun that make for very impressive pictures.

[Daniel_Buck]

The problem with the longer lenses is of course heat waves rising from the earth and creating atmospheric turbulence. Our eyes don't see it (sometimes out here in the desert our eyes DO see it) but our lenses do.

Indeed! I shoot sunsets sometimes with 800mm lens on a 35mm camera, and the distortion of the atmosphere is apparent.

[Jim Galli]

That of course is valid for the hot weather - but long lenses have a very good time in cold weather, in high mountains already in Fall or then in the winter time during long periods of the day.
Also, what is bad for some pictures is excellent for the others - when different air layers high in the atmosphere start to move you can get some incredible meteorological effects with clouds, airplane contrails or even the Sun that make for very impressive pictures.


Everybody loves those pictures standing in the center of a train track with a diesel locomotive bearing down on you a half mile away and it's all wavy and distorted. Sometimes is works for you and not against you.

[John Schneider]

I have constructed 2 cameras for this kind of pictures, one with a 800mm Nikon (6x12 roll film) and the other with a 600 Fujinon C (6x9 roll film). They are so stable (a self containing construction on 2 tripods) that they easily withstand even strong storm winds in mountains.

Would it be possible to post some pictures of these cameras? I'm really interested.

[jp]

I take a lot of photos from hill tops with my digital 35mm cameras for work using lenses from 105mm to 2000mm. We need panoramas online from all of our tower sites and potential sites so for future planning and research. Large format would be nice, but doesn't lend itself to the speed and digital results we need.

Here in Maine, we get lots of haze, probably pollution blown in from other parts of the country. Either infrared, or cold dry weather are good ways to get around that. Here is a photo comparing color and infrared detail.

http://www.f64.nu/gallery2007/view_photo.php?full=1&set_albumName=album73&id=ircomp

Haze is our #1 problem. If you can block such as with a red filter or film that isn't very sensitive to shorter wavelengths you'll be better off. Some days are better than others (winter is generally better, after rain is a little better, low humidity is better). We can't pick our days to visit sites sometimes.

Problem 2 is the shimmer/distortion from heat. It happens regardless of the season or temperature. I only see it's effect on 300+ mm lens photos. A good method to avoid this is to take photos when there is wind. Shooting parallel to the ground (or water) can also amplify the effect. If there is an altitude change between you and subject, it's a little less of an issue. When using mirror lenses (2000mm), this distortion is the biggest problem, even a bigger problem than using a cheap inferior russian junky lens. If this weren't a problem, and there was no haze, I can get photos where I can clearly identify each house in a neighborhood 30 miles away from a mountaintop.

The last problem is wind. You really need stability, and the wind can be annoying shooting from hilltop to hilltop. I try to get in the lee of a tower building, or near the woods if there are any trees. I also keep my arm atop the lens to dampen any wind caused vibrations.

I try to get photos in both color and IR. Color is nicer to look at, but IR is good for picking up detail you can't see in color photos and for overcoming haze. Skys can be nice in IR too.

[Stephen Willard]

I use long lenses quite often to create variety in my work. My first long lens was the Nikkor T convertible lenses 360mm, 500mm, and 720mm. I have recently purchased the Nikkor T convertible lenses 600mm, 800mm, and 1200mm. I have 12 lenses ranging from 75mm to 1200mm, and I use them all.

The two images below were shot with the 500mm lens configuration.

[GPS]

Would it be possible to post some pictures of these cameras? I'm really interested.

Thanks, John. PM sent.

[Drew Wiley]

There's a practical limit to how many lenses you can tote, so I generally carry a 360
Fuji A as my long lens for 4x5, and it's probably my most used lens besides 240 for
this format in the mtns. I found myself using the 450C considerably less (though I constantly use it for 8x10). The air is generally clean in the Sierras above 8500ft,
and especially up in the peaks. But I might back this kit up with medium format
(6x7) stored in the car with a 300 lens - nice for quick shots or very windy conditions.

[Brian Sims]

26515Here's one of the Burke Range from the Enchanted Valley. It was a bad exposure, but I keep a 16x20 hanging in my office so I can stand close to it and count the dozen or so waterfalls and dream about pounding the trail with a backpack full of gear, film and wine.