Gary_Yngve

I tried to do this thing on TR, and I couldn't figure out where to go. After exerting a 5.11- effort, I got about 3-4 feet off the ground onto some thin edges but the face was blank above. There was another edge about a foot higher, though thinner than what I had been on. The next mediocre handhold seemed about 3 feet above what I could reach, and the next good handhold a foot higher. Anyone have any beta? We also cut some old slings about 20 ft to the left halfway up G-M p3. They were girdling a tree to the point that they were under tension by the tree.

doh, they're not as good as they were last year

identify color/maker and if it's not too much of a PITA, i'll get it back to you

Newsflash: Terrorist plot foiled. Suspects planned to stuff explosives up their asses. All people boarding aircraft in the next week must endure anal probe. Show up four hours early for flight. You may save time if you are prelubed.

Thanks. I was thinking about the ones around The Country.

I stumbled across a fixed 0.4 Camalot about 20 feet below the crux slab and a fixed handsize Cassin cam in the lieback below the summit block. Both cams have at least one lobe overcammed and have walked into the crack to the point where you can't operate the trigger with your hands. I worked on them for a minute on lead with only one nut tool and didn't make any progress. Oh yeah, I found a neutrino at the nice belay beneath the crux slab pitch. Aren't I the tough guy.

It's actually not a DPI issue. DPI is irrelevant for images on a display, as it's 72 by default. The difference between your file and my file is compression (75% vs 90+%). I'll have to look at my big pics to see what artifacts appear with 75% compression and decide from there (it's easy to add a quality parameter to convert). For some reason GIMP saved yours as 75%, whereas mine kept getting saved as 90+% because that's what the original camera settings were.

So you guys swapped keys and hiked out the other way as a traverse?

how are they now?

Mark, you're right that my filesizes are getting a little large (I'm on dialup at home too), though still much smaller than printing size. Though I imagine that we're among the minority. Maybe the solution can be to have a link at the top for thumbnails and big pics below for the fast majority (slow people should be able to click through while stuff are still loading). Try the link edited into the top of the first post...

UV filters aren't as important for digicams as film because the CCD is less responsive to UV than film is. Regarding polarizers: For making the sky bluer, a split filter works pretty well. But nothing can compare the power of a polarizer for knocking glare off of water, etc. Those cannot be done digitally. All of the P&Ses that I know of have light meters that are not integrated directly with the lens, so putting a polarizer on the lens would cause the image to be underexposed.

Better to save them large in your camera and keep the originals on your computer, and save a copy in smaller resolution for uploading to CC.com.

Right Trogdor, it's not hard to write a first-order diffeq incorporating damping m*(x';x") = (0,1;k1,k2)*(x;x') - (0,m*g) k1 can be solved for explicitly given static elongation, as k2=0 then. Once I solve for k1, I can solve for k2 afterward using the max impact force, though with only one point of data, it may not be very accurate. I suppose for the Joker, I'll have three points of data. I'll put it onto the queue and get back to yall in a week.

Ropes certainly aren't perfectly elastic, but I'm talking in the physics world of spherical cows. In the regime of climbing falls, the rope should behave pretty elastically -- that's the whole basis of the fall-factor. I'd use a higher-order model and simulate it if I couldn't solve it analytically, but the problem is I don't have the data to discover the system parameters. So I'm stuck assuming ropes are elastic.

It's really more like the top 1/2 of the ridge? summit 9200 notch 8200 base of lower ridge 66-6800 based on map? Doesn't Beckey pitch it out as like only 10 or so, whereas he weasels 18 out of the upper?

Let's assume a rope is modeled by an elastic spring. Let's neglect the force of gravity once the rope starts going tight. The most force in the system occurs when all the kinetic energy is absorbed and transferred into potential energy in the spring of the form .5ks^2. KE = PE mgy = .5ks^2 F = ks = sqrt(2kmgy) So assume we have a single rope. Under a load of 80kg, its maximum impact force is rated at f. As a twin rope, under a load of 80kg, its maximum impact force should be 2*(single rope fall with 40kg), which by the formula above, is 2*sqrt(40/80)*f = 1.4*f. As a double rope, under a load of 55kg and just one strand weighted, its force should be sqrt(55/80)*f = .83*f. Or another way of looking at it: if my double rope has impact force d, then tested as a single rope it should have force 1.2d and tested as twin ropes force 1.7d. Why does all this matter? It means that if my double rope is rated to 5 kN, as twins, it would be good at 8.5 kN. But where it doesn't make sense is with the Beal Joker. The Joker is advertised as: single: 8.2 double: 6 twin: 9.5 I don't get it. The numbers don't work out. Is the effect of gravity during the fall or second-order effects really that significant?

Rad, I placed two points of intermediate protection on the 1st pitch. Above the 1st intermediate ledge, and above the 2nd intermediate ledge. They're extended on slings, so that's why you can't see them well. I didn't place a piece for the bottom lieback because it just didn't seem useful. By the time I felt ready to place it (I was far enough off the deck for it to be useful), the difficulties were already over. For the higher ones, I'd rather just climb through the lieback (risking a ledge fall) and have the pro easily placed at the ledge (protecting the big fall, which happened from broken hold or rockfall or act of God).

vw4ever: If you're curious, the original photos for that: olyclimber: you're funny

16 hours. 6 approach, 4 on route, 1 chill time on top, 5 descent.

Q: What postprocessing did you do to get from here: to here? Why so much blue in the original? A: That's the camera's CCD response and its choice in white-balance. Some digicams have smarter algorithms than others and will choose a better white-balance. My opinion is that good ol' film can be more consistent regarding choosing a good/pleasing white-balance. To correct it, I do Image -> Adjustments -> Match Color -> Neutralize in Photoshop. It usually corrects by too much, but the vector direction is correct, so I use the slider to eyeball what's best. You can also look at the RGB values of sky/snow/rock and calibrate based on that (what do you want to be gray?). Another trick is to pump up saturation all the way. The image looks like crap, but it tells you what your subtle tints are. I'd prefer my images to have tints of several colors in them, not be all solid blue.

Quite understandable that you don't want to dick around with software. Turns out that if you overlap your images more, you won't be using the extremities (where the vignetting is strongest).

On your roof of CBR one, you can notice vignetting (the darker blue at the top about every third) where the seams have been joined but the overlap was small.

That's the nice thing about a strong zoom (or a zoom plus a crop). The background is a single element, as opposed to being JBerg plus valley plus sky. By having the other elements omitted, the message "Jberg is f'n huge" is that much stronger. Generally, my edits are: -crops to remove distracting elements -occasional heal/clone to fix bad flare, bug in sky, distracting element, etc. -tweak color balance, gamma, saturation -occasional digital split filter (blend of overexposed & underexposed images) Finally after those edits on the fullsize, I resize to smaller, using a good downsampler (that blurs things a little bit to avoid jaggies), and then I do a final sharpen (unsharp). On commandline (Imagemagick), it is: for i in *jpg; do convert -resize @400000 -unsharp 0x1+0.5 $i z$i; done The resize to 400000 pixels option is nice, as it behaves well regardless of orientation or aspect. I only do a 50% strength unsharp, as I've found that doing 100% strength can introduce halos or other ickiness.

Climb: Mt. Stuart-North Ridge (upper w/ Gendarme) Date of Climb: 7/30/2006 Trip Report: Aaron Zabriskie and I C2Ced NR Stuart on Saturday. It goes without saying that we need to head back next year to do the Complete C2C. In general I found the photography to be hard. Often we were climbing in the shade or in between too strong of a constrast. The lieback photo had to be made B&W to get rid of a bluish cast that wouldn't go away nicely otherwise. Does the Gendarme get light in the afternoon or closer to the solstice? We were on it around 11:30 AM. Pictures (if a photo has me (red backpack) in it, then credit is to Aaron, with a little postprocessing by me): Gear Notes: shoulda had ankle gaiters to keep the Cascadian out of my tennies coulda had less food/water -- friggin' cold on the ridge, and we were faster than we anticipated Approach Notes: Stuart Glacier was frozen in the morning and required crampons with the tennies

Hey Jens, you're not in Europe just yet!