Page 1 of 1

Ben Venue

PostPosted: Sat Oct 02, 2010 11:47 pm
by rockhopper
Some very old pics here (Pentax MX with 35mm film) :lol:

We first attempted Ben Venue in mid February 1986 but shortly after leaving the trees we got stuck in white out conditions and decided to turn back. It seemed a far better idea than to go on further and get into difficulty.

Start of white out on first failed attempt on Ben Venue.JPG


Our second attempt was two weeks later on Sunday 2 March 1986. The weather was the complete opposite to the attempt two weeks before.

The early morning sun was rising as we approached our start point with ice on the loch.

Frozen loch on approach to ben Venue start point.JPG


Some snow on the route up but not too much.

Ben Venue ascent.JPG


Nice views down over Loch Achray and Loch Venachar.

View down Loch Achray and Loch Venachar.JPG


Other views from the top.

Ben Venue summit (me on the right).JPG


Ben Venue view from summit.JPG

Re: Ben Venue

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 11:07 pm
by rockhopper
Please note that this report is more for my own record keeping information.

Re: Ben Venue

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 11:26 pm
by kinley
8) :D

Nice day

You haven't aged a day :D

Re: Ben Venue

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 12:09 am
by rockhopper
they tell me that 50 is the new 30 - if that's the case then I'm not much older now than I was then :? :?

or, I wish I were what I was when I wished I was what I am....... :lol: :lol:

Re: Ben Venue

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:13 pm
by malky_c
Nice photos - wish I could get my scanner to reproduce things that well. Could put up loads more retrospective reports then. 8)

Re: Ben Venue

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:30 pm
by rockhopper
malky - ours is a fairly basic epson scanner/printer/copier. I tend to scan in 4 photos at a time as that's A4 size then open the jpeg in MS Paint so that I can cut out, rotate and downsize individual pictures. I'm doing it more for my own records and as a way of preserving old photos (haven't a clue where the negatives are)
I've just noticed some blue blobs which must've happened when I scanned them in so if you see any odd lochans, you'll know what they are :lol:

Re: Ben Venue

PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:20 am
by malky_c
I've actually just re-scanned a load with my new scanner. They are a bit better than the previous ones. I suppose a lot of it comes down to whether you can see the original prints - I can look at mine and the scans look inferior. On the other hand, I can't see your originals, so I can just appreciate what you've put up. :D

Re: Ben Venue

PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:29 am
by Jockstar
great thing technology !!!! What about having a new site with ' all our yesterdays' theme with silly clothes and Fyfe Robertson doing the commentary ? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Re: Ben Venue

PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:33 am
by mountain coward
malky_c wrote:I've actually just re-scanned a load with my new scanner. They are a bit better than the previous ones. I suppose a lot of it comes down to whether you can see the original prints - I can look at mine and the scans look inferior. On the other hand, I can't see your originals, so I can just appreciate what you've put up. :D


Those pics make those Skye Munros look a truly horrible place to me! What I really want to know is: if it has been decided that the In Pinn is a mountain (which I still don't agree it is - to me it's just a rock flake on the side of a mountain) and therefore has to be a Munro and would-be compleatists have to reach the top of it - then why don't they have to climb up that little block on the top of it?

Isn't Kings Chimney a subterranean climb Malky? I thought if I ever had to do a climb, that kind would appeal more to me as you can wedge yourself in if you slip can't you?

Re: Ben Venue

PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:32 pm
by rockhopper
malky - some nice photos there in your scanned images. I think they bring out even more the imposing character of the hills and I like the one titled Walking out of Coire Lagan. Digital photos can sometime appear flat in comparison.

I guess I'm a bit old school - I used to like using 35mm print and slide film (fujicolour 100asa had a great warmth to it and for depth of colour I don't think you could beat kodachrome 25 or 64asa providing there was enough light !). Just can't seem to get the same sort of colours and textures from a digital camera (suppose I should get a better one maybe as I'm probably not comparing like with like) :D

Re: Ben Venue

PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:46 pm
by kinley
You guys using film scanners or flatbeds?

Scanning photos seems to give a lot of image degradation.

I got a fairly cheap film scanner to record my parents' slides and film from a bit back. Better results.

Analogue images do carry a lot more data - but digital is just so easy - and image quality is comparable for most uses :)

Re: Ben Venue

PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:47 pm
by rockhopper
Afraid to say it's a flatbed scanner - haven't a clue where the negatives are. Also, I'm pretty sure I have slides...... somewhere..........as perhaps oddly I used to take my Pentax MX for slides and and a Ricoh (I think - long time ago - which took the Pentax lenses) for prints.

Wholly agree on the digital point - it's just that I can't seem to get the same quality even using fully manual settings (which are a lot more hassle on the digital camera than my MX ever was and it had a mechanical shutter and could work if necessary without batteries as they only powered the meter).

I guess I need to get a better digital camera and better lenses as I'm comparing a 35mm manual SLR with a 10x optical zoomed fixed lens digital camera..................hey ho, guess you get what you pay for :lol:

or maybe I'm the proverbial bad workman who needs more practice.......... 8)

Re: Ben Venue

PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:13 pm
by malky_c
Cheers for the advice Kinley - flatbed for me too, as I've never gone out of my way to buy anything specifically for this purpose. Might look into it, as I've got stacks of prints (with negatives) lying around. Mind you lots of them are a bit rubbish.

I'd agree that film/slide probably tops digital. In fact I was a bit of a luddite, as I had just got a lovely new Pentax SLR when digital media started to become really popular (about 2000). So I insisted that prints were better, and carried on like that for another 5 years or so.

Thing is though, I get loads more good digital photos just by the sheer volume I take. That day out on the Cuillin was an exception - typically I would take half a dozen, maybe a dozen shots max on a day out. Now I take about 100 (I'm sure others take loads more), so I nearly always get a useable set of photos.

Mind you, if you're good (rather than just a happy snapper like me) you can probably get 10 decent photos in a dozen.