Drew,
I'm sorry my asking you how you managed to carry two weeks worth of food and film supplies descended into "a not very nice place". Certainly wasn't intended. I take people as they come until I find out otherwise through a position of knowledge.
Graham
I'm probably on the thin side of an average sized bloke!! Think 5'7'' and 126 lb (173 cm, 60 Kg), runner build, which I do. The camera gear comes in 8-9 Kg, camping kit 4-5 kg then the backpack itself weighs a bit but I don't mind that for it's ability to carry weight. I use a Lowe Alpine Cerro Torre 65-85, got a nice front-opening pocket.Originally Posted by CreationBear
Assuming you've got about 20 lbs left of camera gear (tripod/camera/holders/lenses etc.) and 2-3 lbs of food per day, that strikes me as a bog standard load-out for a weekend afield if you're an average-sized bloke. (The old rule of thumb is that pack weight shouldn't be more than a third your bodyweight.) Of course, if your plans include yomping through the Cairngorms or Snowdonia in winter, that changes things considerably...)
https://lowealpine.com/eu/cerro-torre-65-85#
Don't worry, Graham. Stuff happens. Some people get annoyed because I don't post images. But my old Mac is disconnected, and all the new computer stuff, including the cell phones, belong to my wife; and she needs this for her profession, so doesn't want me doing any image work with it. I'll eventually set up a parallel system of my own, and have recently completed a very deluxe copystand with DLSR as well MF film options, already all calibrated, for sake of copying actual b&w or color prints for marketing purposes. But since I don't do any kind of digital photography or printing per se, all of it being darkroom product, web projects are not a high priority. I took down my old website a while back; it was geared to the much slower speeds of earlier web days, with smaller image files. I'm 5'7 myself, but around 210 lbs. Repetitive heavy pack usage builds up a lot of shoulder and back muscle. When I began backpacking, I too was around 125.
Excellent, you ought to be able to do Pen y Fan at a lope, then--just tell the squaddies from the Regiment to make way.
BTW, I quite enjoy your photos from Snowdonia--I've only kicked around the Marches a bit (and managed to get hypothermic on an otherwise lovely May day whilst fishing the Usk) but haven't made it up into your bigger country.
Graham, my hiking partner last month used the same model of Lowell pack. Like most internal frame packs, it requires a little digging to get to certain things. The first really good internal frame was an expensive big thing marketed by North Face and made in this very city. My nephew worked at the main store for awhile earning college money; and they financed several of his expeditions afterwards, including the first ascent of the incredible face of Escudo, the most difficult wall in South America, right across a valley from the real Cerro Torre in Patagonia. That crazy 20-day escapade was published in the Sept '95 issue of Climbing magazine, and I think it's still is on the web too. But when he first got one of those early top-loading internal frame packs, he accompanied me on one of my usual "death marches" as he called them, across 13,000 ft difficult off-trail passes for about 10 ten days without a break. He had packed his stuff with respect to how long we were out, with later needed supplies deeper down in the pack than frequently needed things. He complained about all the weight. Halfway through the trip, he got to the bottom and found a 10 lb Duraflame fireplace log stuffed down there. That didn't amuse him. I replied, what if we need a campfire? - when we were right in the middle of a grove of pine trees. The next day I left most of my gear at the camp, took my Sinar up a peak, and arrived back after dark. When I finally crawled into my sleeping bag, it was stuffed full of pine cones!
The most weight I’d ever schlepped consistently was as a canoe guide (Boundary Waters, Minn.) in the mid 1970’s, while in my early twenties. The canoe on my shoulders plus a Duluth pack would equal 200lbs. Stupid stuff as my heel tendons began to separate by the early Fall, with a very long and painful recovery.
Hiking/photo backpacks from then into my mid forties would be in the 35 to 60 pound range, depending.
Now, at age 64, forty pounds is plenty…and I try to go less if I possibly can so long as there are no real compromises.
I continue to hike/backpack frequently, mostly in NH’s White Mountains, and consider myself to be in decent shape for my age and 6’1”/190lb frame…but to haul 75lbs. up mountains at this point is (completely!) out of the question. Then again, here in the east we’ve got rocky climbs of 1,500 ft. elevation gain per mile…so there is that.
At any rate, to answer the question…I’ve been having good luck with Bruce’s RPT system (latest iteration, adapted from a Kelty P-3), plus his Cascade (5x7) film holders, internal camera/lens cases, etc. Very well conceived for good logistics when laid out on the ground and nicely suspended. I also have an older L.L. Beans “Guides Frame” with lower shelf - which is great for bungy-ing my Pelican case, tripod, etc. to, although more often than not lately I go out with the RPT.
For sheer comfort and balance, however, nothing quite beats my Deuter backpack, and I sometimes think of cannibalizing this so that the compartment and access layout is closer to that of the RPT’s. Hmmm…not likely!
If I were out just a week at a time, I think I could get down to 55 lbs with my 4x5 Ebony folder; but longer hikes are more relaxing and memorable, with better opportunities for sheer solitude. On day hikes I prefer the faster operation of my 4x5 Norma or 8x10 Phillips. I think I could be out three or four days with the 8x10 for around 70 lbs if I were extremely conservative shooting. It's those big film holders that add up weight and bulk fast. I use the 8x10 mainly just for day hiking, which generally includes a serious uphill/downhill workout. I do encounter experienced people much older than me, in their 80's, well back into the mountains on maintained trails at least, still doing well even if rather slow; but they're often accompanied by younger family members carrying most of the weight. One foot in front of another, that's the gist of it, as long as you can do it. My days of "death marches" are long over, although I've just come back from some really steep rough downhill sides of high passes - no place for a horse! - that left my shoulders throbbing for a few hours afterwards.
The content is not relevant, the post date (Sept. 9) is.
The past few days I've been printing 6x9 TMX100 frames from that last trip; and being a rather long outing, I wisely chose roll film backs rather than full 4x5 film. I wanted to get into the Winds while the wildflowers were still at their peak around timberline; and the display was indeed very impressive. But I took only 3 color shots. I was mainly interested in b&w for sake of an ongoing portfolio of the Winds. The mosquitoes had mostly died down by then. But from past experience, I knew that endemic horseflies can be atrocious even in late summer. They were. So I didn't want to set up a changing tent and have both hands occupied while they ate me alive. I got bitten enough anyway just operating a view camera. The other reason for the choice is that I wanted to home in on distant crags, yet do so with a very lightwt lens. For 6x9 film, the Nikkor 300M has the equivalent perspective as a 450 on full 4x5 and fills that application superbly. I also prefer the longer 6x9 aspect ratio. What I don't like is the greater difficulty focussing on a smaller image. Three years ago I had a mother moose suddenly come out of the willows and darn near run over my Ebony 4x5. It slightly jostled the front swing as the camera landed, and being almost sunset, I simply didn't have time to critically check edge focus susceptible to swing issues. The shots still came out great, but not as critically crisp on one extreme edge as I would ordinarily like. This year the same thing happened for another reason. I descended from the high plateau area way down into New Fork Park, and the constant hard downhill bouncing of the pack on the stretch what remains of the avalanched-out Palmer Trail managed to mess up one particular shot due to swing lock jarring. I was suspicious of that risk, so carefully reset the front swing once I was all the way down to a lovely campsite in a meadow, which was like having a still-pristine version Yosemite Valley all to yourself, surrounded by huge cliffs, and nobody else around. That camera correction held up back over the top of Porcupine Pass (incredible spot), and back down to the Green River, where moose abound. I had a Fuji 6X9 RF stashed in the car, as we left behind the backpack per se, and that came in handy taking shots of the River in the face of an advancing storm front, when I had to operate fast. The light in that area can be incredible.
Here is a backpack that I used for overnight trips for many years:
It's the Gregory Reality which was very popular among backpackers when it was first introduced. I believe that it was Backpacker's top pick back then. It was advertised for weekend excursions but I used it for numerous 1 week trips in the California mountains as well as a couple 10 day excursions without resupplying. I could cram 7 days of freeze-dried food, coffee, powdered milk, power bars, etc in the bear canister (mandatory here in California), along with down sleeping bag, socks, stove, toiletries, camera, lens, etc. For the 10 day excursions I used a waterproof sack and hung the first 3 days of food at night.
Initially the camera was the Pentax K1000 with 3 lens and no tripod but that rapidly changed to a Pentax 67II with three lens and a Manfrotto Carbon 441 tripod with Gitzo magnesium ballhead and a Toyo 45CF camera with 3 lens and either readyloads or cut film in holders with a Harrison Pup tent. Except for the trip in the picture I only carried one camera with me on any given outing except on this trip which was a 1 week backpack in Torre del Paine national park where I carried 2 cameras: the K1000 and P67II. Attached to the outside and wrapped in a green military poncho which serves as a rain cover and ground cover for the tent is a ¾ length air mattress (although short its thickness is a comfortable 1.5” and I place the pack at the end to make up for the length), the tripod and head is in the dark blue case, and the tent is in the black case, maps and compass is in the black case at the top of the pack and not shown are 2 1L water bottles in insulated cases on the front belt.
That was a great trip which, besides the many beautiful land and seascapes, resulted in several fortuitous social interactions one of which was in meeting the then current President of Chile Ricardo Lagos in Punta Arenas. Nowadays my days of humping heavy packs in the back-country are over. All such trips from now on are with a mule which brings me and my gear out to a predetermined base camp and brings me back at its conclusion.
Looks like the 2 rolls of 120 TMY-2 that I shot yesterday with the 67II w/the 400mm Takumar and 2x rear converter are now dry. I love the big negative size of the 67 and want to compare these with the two rolls that I shot last weekend with the Pentax 645NII w/ 400mm ED AF lens and 2x converter. A 400mm AF ED Nikon lens and TC200 2x converted is being delivered shortly and next weekend I will test it on the same subject to determine what format works best for this portfolio.
Thomas
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks