[mattb123]

I've taken my D on some easy xc ski trails to get to where I wanted to shoot but have never taken it very deep into the backcountry. I might for the right shoot but it take some effort and I might need someone to help carry things.

[stevebrot]

Yeah, very similar to what they say to do with the bride's dress in wedding photography. The metering has to be right, and the details distinct, it can't just be a white blob.

Yep...craft wins the day when things get tough.


Steve

[Canada_Rockies]

My snow technique is quite simple. Set the camera to MANUAL exposure. If you don't your exposures will be all over the map as more and less dark objects are in the frame. Meter the snow, just the snow. Start at +2 stops and check the detail. Adjust between 2 and 1.5 stops. It depends on just how "sparkly" the snow is. Once you have the snow taped, the rest is simply post processing to bring the blue and other colours into line.

[ddbarchitect]

But you won't see definition if you've got glare from the snow, DDB ... that's what the CPL deals with.

Here is a gallery with many shots of skiers in a competition:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/108142377@N08/albums/72157662914431864/page8

Every shot has definition in the snow, and I didn't use a polarizer. Any shot that has "glare" could be dealt with by better post processing. A polarizer would likely have made the shadows even darker and harder to lift in post.

---------- Post added 03-02-2016 at 10:00 AM ----------

Sure, Alex, but that's a composition issue.

Actually, it is an issue caused by the choice of filters. The gradient in the sky looks completely unnatural in the mentioned picture.

[clackers]

Here is a gallery with many shots of skiers in a competition:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/108142377@N08/albums/72157662914431864/page8

Every shot has definition in the snow, and I didn't use a polarizer. Any shot that has "glare" could be dealt with by better post processing. A polarizer would likely have made the shadows even darker and harder to lift in post.

They're really good, David - great action shots, too - but they're mostly back or side-lit to avoid glare. Just like you avoid an ultra wide angle shot of the sky near the sun with a CPL because of the directionality.


BTW, actual glare in post processing is too difficult to cope with. There is no data to recover in fully blown white pixels, you're better off using a CPL and recovering from the shadows in post e.g. the exposing to the right strategy.

[wildman]

But how do they do it?

I don't know how "they" do it but I do know how I would.

One single properly exposed RAW shot spot metered on the highlights exposed ETTR and normalized in Photoshop - done.
If that wouldn't give me the results I want, after PP, then I would accept the fact that I'm shooting beyond the limits of the sensor's DR and live with that.
It's only a damn camera not a miracle after all.

[AlexBW]

But how do they do it?

I came across this ad for gear Profoto from Photolife Magazine Feb/March 2016. This may be how they do it (see photo).

I'm a newbie photographer, but I think that unless you're going on a trip only for the photos and staging every shot, and want to be part of the group towards a common destination, you'll have to go for pragmatic choices and work as best as you can with them. A DSLR with one lens is already a heavy beast in the vertical-world of mountaineering.
Here's are two more mountain shots, the first one was without a CirPol when there was mostly thin clouds, the second without on a day with mostly bluebird. I think both worked out ok.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[stevebrot]

I came across this ad for gear Profoto from Photolife Magazine Feb/March 2016. This may be how they do it (see photo).

I was going to suggest the same, but thought better of it. A large reflector would also work and double for spontaneous hang gliding too.


Steve

[wildman]

I came across this ad for gear Profoto from Photolife Magazine

And even with this little jpg you can still squeeze some additional DR with a bit of PP let alone with a RAW file.

[emalvick]

With regard to taking one photo and making it work when you have a challenging situation such as snow, I want to address some of the PP issues. I find that sometimes the RAW software is not enough when you've done everything else in your power to make a great shot. LR is great and can do a lot of stuff, but it isn't perfect, and it can be much more useful to be able to use layers and other software features that you can't get out of LR and other raw software.

Specifically, I find myself trying a couple of things using Photoshop or even HDR software, even if I only have one source image. I focus on potentially multiple processes of the same image focusing on the extremes of my dynamic range (much like I would if I was bracketing for HDR). I can then use luminosity masks and more to blend the two images together and still get a realistic result. It just takes a bit of work. I often have to do that when I am shooting directly into the sun. Another key is just accepting that something like the sun is going to be over-exposed, but not letting anything with detail get over-exposed. I find that as long as I'm working from the same original RAW file and multiple derived images from it, the composites never look like composites and they look better than I might have gotten from LR alone.