> But, yes, the altitude blues can be a problem, and even with our
> diminutive and puny mountains here in the Southeast, where the highest
> peak is just over 6500 feet, I prefer the B+W KR3 to the paler and less
> effective 81A. But with digital, curing the Smoky Mountain blues is no
> problem in post processing. Apparently, at the 12,000-foot elevation of
> the Bolivian mountains where Richard is going, that's not possible, and a
> more potent filter, like an 81B, maybe even an 81C, might be in order.
>
> Walt
Until the last trip in March of this year, I've always relied on what the
Bolivians told me for the elevation, and sometimes they exaggerated a bit,
as we've been told in the past that we were over 15,000 feet. On this last
trip, I took a GPS, so got a bit more accurate readings on the elevation.
There was no where on the trip that it recorded 15,000 feet, but we did get
a bit over 14,800 once, and getting up above 14,000 was quite common.
Several of the places we stayed overnight were over 13,000. I find if it's
really early morning, the light is yellow enough to be okay, but once the
sun gets up much at all, you really need the filter. I've used both 81a and
81b, but for me the 81a is enough.
The highest peak around here is just across the border in Maine, Mt
Katahdin, at about one mile high. Where I live is less then 200 feet above
sea level, so for awhile I couldn't figure out what was wrong with the
pictures I brought back. I had asked several people over the years, but it
was on this list, perhaps from Moose, that I finally got the answer and the
remedy of using an 81a.
Wayne
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|