Non-essential travel is permitted only within your own local authority area.
You can travel upto 5 miles out of this area to begin exercise.
Click for details
by rockhopper » Sat Oct 02, 2010 11:47 pm
Grahams included on this walk: Ben Venue
Date walked: 02/03/1986
Distance: 11 km
Ascent: 812mRegister or Login free to be able to rate and comment on reports (as well as access 1:25000 mapping).
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.
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.
Some snow on the route up but not too much.
Nice views down over Loch Achray and Loch Venachar.
Other views from the top.
by rockhopper » Mon Oct 25, 2010 11:07 pm
by rockhopper » Tue Oct 26, 2010 12:09 am
or, I wish I were what I was when I wished I was what I am.......
by malky_c » Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:13 pm
by rockhopper » Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:30 pm
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
by malky_c » Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:20 am
by Jockstar » Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:29 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.
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
by rockhopper » Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:32 pm
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)
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
by rockhopper » Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:47 pm
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
or maybe I'm the proverbial bad workman who needs more practice..........
by malky_c » Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:13 pm
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.
Walkhighlands community forum is advert free
Can you help support Walkhighlands and the online community by donating by direct debit?