walkhighlands

Share your personal walking route experiences in Scotland, and comment on other peoples' reports.
Warning Please note that hillwalking when there is snow lying requires an ice-axe, crampons and the knowledge, experience and skill to use them correctly. Summer routes may not be viable or appropriate in winter. See winter information on our skills and safety pages for more information.

Ben Venue

Ben Venue


Postby rockhopper » Sat Oct 02, 2010 11:47 pm

Grahams included on this walk: Ben Venue

Date walked: 02/03/1986

Distance: 11 km

Ascent: 812m

Register or Login
free to be able to rate and comment on reports (as well as access 1:25000 mapping).

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
Attachments
Ben Venue summit view (almost moonlike).JPG
User avatar
rockhopper
 
Posts: 6693
Munros:282   Corbetts:218
Grahams:65   Donalds:89
Sub 2000:9   Hewitts:2
Wainwrights:3   Islands:19
Joined: Jun 1, 2009
Location: Glasgow

Re: Ben Venue

Postby rockhopper » Mon Oct 25, 2010 11:07 pm

Please note that this report is more for my own record keeping information.
User avatar
rockhopper
 
Posts: 6693
Munros:282   Corbetts:218
Grahams:65   Donalds:89
Sub 2000:9   Hewitts:2
Wainwrights:3   Islands:19
Joined: Jun 1, 2009
Location: Glasgow

Re: Ben Venue

Postby kinley » Mon Oct 25, 2010 11:26 pm

8) :D

Nice day

You haven't aged a day :D
kinley
 

Re: Ben Venue

Postby rockhopper » Tue Oct 26, 2010 12:09 am

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:
User avatar
rockhopper
 
Posts: 6693
Munros:282   Corbetts:218
Grahams:65   Donalds:89
Sub 2000:9   Hewitts:2
Wainwrights:3   Islands:19
Joined: Jun 1, 2009
Location: Glasgow

Re: Ben Venue

Postby malky_c » Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:13 pm

Nice photos - wish I could get my scanner to reproduce things that well. Could put up loads more retrospective reports then. 8)
User avatar
malky_c
 
Posts: 6040
Munros:282   Corbetts:222
Grahams:219   Donalds:74
Sub 2000:279   Hewitts:268
Wainwrights:122   Islands:38
Joined: Nov 22, 2009
Location: Glasgow/Inverness

Re: Ben Venue

Postby rockhopper » Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:30 pm

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:
User avatar
rockhopper
 
Posts: 6693
Munros:282   Corbetts:218
Grahams:65   Donalds:89
Sub 2000:9   Hewitts:2
Wainwrights:3   Islands:19
Joined: Jun 1, 2009
Location: Glasgow

Re: Ben Venue

Postby malky_c » Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:20 am

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
User avatar
malky_c
 
Posts: 6040
Munros:282   Corbetts:222
Grahams:219   Donalds:74
Sub 2000:279   Hewitts:268
Wainwrights:122   Islands:38
Joined: Nov 22, 2009
Location: Glasgow/Inverness

Re: Ben Venue

Postby Jockstar » Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:29 am

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:
User avatar
Jockstar
Munro compleatist
 
Posts: 432
Munros:53   Corbetts:6
Grahams:1   Donalds:1
Sub 2000:5   
Joined: Aug 6, 2010
Location: Kinnesswood

Re: Ben Venue

Postby mountain coward » Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:33 am

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?
mountain coward
 

Re: Ben Venue

Postby rockhopper » Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:32 pm

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
User avatar
rockhopper
 
Posts: 6693
Munros:282   Corbetts:218
Grahams:65   Donalds:89
Sub 2000:9   Hewitts:2
Wainwrights:3   Islands:19
Joined: Jun 1, 2009
Location: Glasgow

Re: Ben Venue

Postby kinley » Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:46 pm

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 :)
kinley
 

Re: Ben Venue

Postby rockhopper » Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:47 pm

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)
User avatar
rockhopper
 
Posts: 6693
Munros:282   Corbetts:218
Grahams:65   Donalds:89
Sub 2000:9   Hewitts:2
Wainwrights:3   Islands:19
Joined: Jun 1, 2009
Location: Glasgow

Re: Ben Venue

Postby malky_c » Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:13 pm

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.
User avatar
malky_c
 
Posts: 6040
Munros:282   Corbetts:222
Grahams:219   Donalds:74
Sub 2000:279   Hewitts:268
Wainwrights:122   Islands:38
Joined: Nov 22, 2009
Location: Glasgow/Inverness

Register or Login
free to be able to rate and comment on reports (as well as access 1:25000 mapping).




Walkhighlands community forum is advert free


Your generosity keeps this site running.
Can you help support Walkhighlands and the online community by donating by direct debit?



Return to Walk reports - Scotland

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: alanandcarolann, fmyles, kennymck001, MunroboyMark and 75 guests