Photo tips for Antarctica?

Doug McDonald <mcdonald.DeleteThis@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>I do note that there really has to be a moisture gradient
>if you are wearing clothing in very cold (and hence dry)
>weather.

If there is, you are in trouble. A moisture gradient
indicates you either have or shortly will have
conditions that lead to condensation. Condensation will
very quickly destroy the insulation quality of whatever
you are wearing to stay warm. At that point your time
is limited before hypothermia becomes the problem.
(Hence if you are out by the wood shed splitting
firewood, it isn't a problem, but if the closest warmth
is via a zodiac that is not schedule to pick you up for
5 hours...)

The idea is to *avoid* any moisture gradient, by
allowing the air to move at least enough to maintain the
same level of moisture at all points across the
temperature gradient that exists between the inside and
outside of your clothing. In that way condensation is
avoided.

>I've never been to Antarctica. Someday I will go.
>
>But I've been in sub zero-F (-30F) arctic conditions on high
>mountains, in SE Alaska, and elsewhere. I've been in the arctic itself
>twice on long (two week) river rafting camping trips, including
>one that ended with me camped 25 feet from the Arctic ocean,
>but these were merely ordinary cold at worst, and T-shirt weather
>sometimes.
>
>I wore what the outfitters suggested ... multiple layers of fleece,
>or a down expedition parka and pants, as appropriate, plus
>rain gear, if we expected to cross 32 F, and never had any problem myself.
>I've been on day trips where it was 35F and raining for two hours
>at beginning and end of a hike, and -30F on top of a peak. That's
>fleece layer conditions.

You wore what they gave you, which is a very smart thing
to do. Did you discuss why they gave you what they did
with anyone who actually made the decision about what
they had available? Tour guides generally don't know a
thing about it, but on technical expeditions the guides
might indeed be experts.

>I only had problems with photo gear once ... at -50 F in Yellowstone,
>with a fully mechanical camera (a Minolta SRT 101) and that was
>caused by extremely stiff film which prevented reloading
>unless I warmed the film. I just kept the camera under
>the top layer of clothing.
>
>I very strongly suspect that the OP would be well advised to
>simply carry the cold weather clothing suggested by his tour
>company. Dead or unhappy customers are not good for business.

That is absolutely correct. But his question was what
to do about the camera. That requires something a
little different, because the tour company probably is
not going to supply anything, good bad or indifferent.

>What do to with a camera is on-topic here.

So why didn't you discuss that?

What he needs is a couple of boxes, one with medium
sized ziplock bags large enough to hold his lenses, the
other box should have "kitchen" sized trash bags.

In addition, when they hand out "cold weather clothing",
it is essential to get a proper fit, which means it
should easily be roomy enough to stuff a full sized DSLR
inside. That is true even if you don't have a camera,
because that is the "proper" fit to keep warm anyway!

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.DeleteThis@apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username DeleteThis @qwest.net> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> That's a typo. It should say a *moisture* gradient
>> can be fatal.
>> Sorry you didn't notice the obvious.
>
>{warm moist body, temp=A} {insulation} {cold, temp=B}
>
>If temperature A not equal temperature B there is a
>"moisture" gradient, especially considering winter
>conditions (anywhere).

Go back to high school Roger. Or quicker, go read the
articles that I posted explaining it.

The magic is air circulation. Dry air... no moisture
gradient.

>If you spin your way out of this one, there is a job
>in Washington for you.

You haven't got a clue, but just like that Energizer
Bunny with a battery, you brainlessly keep right on
going.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd DeleteThis @apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username DeleteThis @qwest.net> wrote:
>> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>> Chris Malcolm <cam DeleteThis @holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>> If it was trapped there wouldn't be a gradient. What
>>>> causes the gradient is the *movement* of the water vapour.
>>> If it *isn't* trapped, there can be no gradient, and it
>>> is insufficient movement that causes a gradient. (I.e.,
>>> you have it exactly backwards, again.)
>>> If there is sufficient air movement, the vapor is
>>> equally dispersed. If movement is impeded, a gradient
>>> can form.
>>>
>>> a temperature gradient can be fatal.
>> Well, I guess we are all dead
>
> That's a typo. It should say a *moisture* gradient
> can be fatal.
>
> Sorry you didn't notice the obvious.

{warm moist body, temp=A} {insulation} {cold, temp=B}

If temperature A not equal temperature B there is a
"moisture" gradient, especially considering winter
conditions (anywhere).

If you spin your way out of this one, there is a job
in Washington for you.

Roger
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

I do note that there really has to be a moisture gradient
if you are wearing clothing in very cold (and hence dry)
weather.

I've never been to Antarctica. Someday I will go.

But I've been in sub zero-F (-30F) arctic conditions on high
mountains, in SE Alaska, and elsewhere. I've been in the arctic itself
twice on long (two week) river rafting camping trips, including
one that ended with me camped 25 feet from the Arctic ocean,
but these were merely ordinary cold at worst, and T-shirt weather
sometimes.

I wore what the outfitters suggested ... multiple layers of fleece,
or a down expedition parka and pants, as appropriate, plus
rain gear, if we expected to cross 32 F, and never had any problem myself.
I've been on day trips where it was 35F and raining for two hours
at beginning and end of a hike, and -30F on top of a peak. That's
fleece layer conditions.

I only had problems with photo gear once ... at -50 F in Yellowstone,
with a fully mechanical camera (a Minolta SRT 101) and that was
caused by extremely stiff film which prevented reloading
unless I warmed the film. I just kept the camera under
the top layer of clothing.

I very strongly suspect that the OP would be well advised to
simply carry the cold weather clothing suggested by his tour
company. Dead or unhappy customers are not good for business.

What do to with a camera is on-topic here.

Doug McDonald
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

On Nov 5, 5:00 pm, fl....TakeThisOut@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
> acl <achilleaslazari....TakeThisOut@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >On Nov 5, 3:17 pm, fl....TakeThisOut@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
> >> acl <achilleaslazari....TakeThisOut@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> >But I do about vapour pressures,
> >> >no matter how much you argue against it...
>
> >> The discussion was about Arctic clothing. If you don't
> >> know anything about it, how can you apply whatever it is
> >> you think you know about vapor pressures?
>
> >I applied it to nothing. You started going on about vapour pressure,
> >not me.
>
> Right about you applied it to nothing! Your entire discussion
> has been worthless.
>
> Wrong about who started going on about vapor pressure.

Heh, all the posts are available for anybody to read.

>
> >> Regardless, it was pretty obvious that your
> >> understanding of vapor pressure is somewhat limited too.
>
> >Then point out the mistake.
>
> I already did, and you responded by avoiding the issue.

No. You did not point out what I misunderstand wrt vapour pressure.
Not arctic clothing, which I did not mention, but vapour pressure,
which a) you keep claiming I misunderstand, b) you introduced to the
discussion, as is evidenced by the earlier posts.

>
> End of conversation, unless you can come up with something
> that is useful and with some significance.
>
> --
> Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl....TakeThisOut@apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 03:56:27 -0800, acl <achilleaslazarides DeleteThis @yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On Nov 4, 11:40 pm, fl... DeleteThis @apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>> Chris Malcolm <c... DeleteThis @holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> >The point, as I'm sure you realise, is
>> >that clothing which doesn't address these special problems won't keep
>> >you alive in those temperatures. And my specific point is that *any*
>> >kind of clothing which does address those special problems will
>> >necessarily have a moisture gradient as well as a temperature gradient
>> >after having been worn for a while.
>>
>> You are describing something unrelated to temperature.
>> It's relative humidity that makes that type of situation
>> significant. It might be likely that where *you* live,
>> that it is important. But at higher latitudes it is
>> not, and the concept it implies can in fact get you into
>> trouble.
>>
>>
>> >I think we may be talking at cross purposes here. When I say "moisture
>> >gradient" I'm talking about the water vapour content of the air, I'm
>> >not talking about actual wet liquid water. It's the water vapour
>> >content that causes condensation on cold surfaces, which is what
>>
>> (Actually, the words you are looking for would be "vapor
>> pressure", but I'll stay away from the level of
>> technicality to avoid further confusion. But if you
>> want to understand this topic, that is the term to do a
>> search on.)
>>
>
>The vapour pressure is the pressure at which one obtains coexistence
>between two phases at a given temperature. It depends on the
>temperature (and other relevant state variables, if not gas-liquid)
>only. [I am assuming a flat interface for simplicity]. So if you're
>going to claim that "vapour pressure" is the relevant concept, you'll
>also have to claim that there is a temperature gradient, we have
>thermodynamic and mechanical equilibrium, and therefore there is a
>gradient in the pressure (following that of the temperature). Claiming
>that will reveal a physical intuition that is less than spectacular,
>of course, but it is at least consistent with the meaning of "vapour
>pressure".
>
>But wait! Above you say that temperature isn't important! And below,
>you seem to imply that equilibrium is needed (presumably with one's
>body and the outside keeping the temperature gradient there)! I'm
>confused!
>
>Do you actually know what equilibrium pressure is? If I was marking an
>exam where the student said what you did, I admit I'd conclude "no"
>and give him a round zero... But I have no doubt the whole thing will
>now be turned around to how it is I who don't know, etc.
>
>
>>
>> >If it was trapped there wouldn't be a gradient. What
>> >causes the gradient is the *movement* of the water vapour.
>>
>> If it *isn't* trapped, there can be no gradient, and it
>> is insufficient movement that causes a gradient. (I.e.,
>> you have it exactly backwards, again.)
>>
>> If there is sufficient air movement, the vapor is
>> equally dispersed. If movement is impeded, a gradient
>> can form. If it is impeded enough, a significant
>> gradient forms, and that commonly results in ice
>> *forming* *in* *the* *insulation*, which quickly reduces
>> the quality of the insulation to zero.
>>

Remind me to take none of you along on a cold-weather photo expedition. By the
time you sort out what fibers provide the proper moisture gradient, how many
layers to wear, under which layer is the proper one to warm the camera, the
vapor pressure of sea-water vs. fresh-water from perspiration, and dew-point
condensation factors with relative humidities .... I'll already be on another
continent at any temperature from -50 C to +40 C with my excellent P&S cameras
taking another 10,000 photos, all bases covered just by tucking it in a
protective pocket between photos, or no pocket if not necessary.

Newbies take note: this is how much they have to analyze things if they want to
use DSLRs, just to make sure they are still usable in any normal earth climate,
before they even venture outside. Add in the time it takes them to change lenses
to properly frame each shot too, as well as whole photo sessions ruined by
unnoticed dust on their sensors, and you might as well kiss any photography
career goodbye from all those missed and ruined shots.

Yes, you can keep your DSLRs. Thanks for proving to me again why I made the
right choices when I moved from analog photography to digital.
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

Paul J Gans <gans.DeleteThis@panix.com> wrote:
>In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems ASAAR <caught.DeleteThis@22.com> wrote:
>>On 4 Nov 2007 20:26:52 GMT, Chris Malcolm wrote:
>
>>>> Not exactly "very serious cold", eh?
>>>
>>> You're giving a good impression of someone more concerned
>>> with having an argument than making sense.
>
>> Why, that's almost a truism! But we all know that your icy logic
>>is unlikely to chill or still our fiery Floyd's sound and fury.
>
>Tastes vary. I've always found Floyd's advice useful. And
>nothing in my (very short) experience in the far north goes
>against anything he's said.

Thank you for the pleasant commentary!

But, you've been there! A distinction which a few
others can't differentiate from armchair experience.

As you well know, I'm saying things which are well known
to those who live here! We all deal with these issues
on a daily basis, while our two "experts" above never
have.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.DeleteThis@apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

Doug McDonald <mcdonald DeleteThis @SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> Doug McDonald <mcdonald DeleteThis @SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>> I do note that there really has to be a moisture gradient
>>> if you are wearing clothing in very cold (and hence dry)
>>> weather.
>> If there is, you are in trouble. A moisture gradient
>> indicates you either have or shortly will have
>> conditions that lead to condensation. Condensation will
>> very quickly destroy the insulation quality of whatever
>> you are wearing to stay warm. The idea is to *avoid*
>> any moisture gradient,
>
>There HAS to be a moisture gradient.

No there does not. Why do you say that? Is your body
pouring with liquid all the time? If so, stay away from
cold temperatures!

>The key, as you
>are explaing sort of, is to avoid one that is steep
>on the outer part. You need to keep the relative
>humidity below the condensation point at all points.
>This is doable in most cases; there are cases where you
>are doing heavy exertion for long periods and it fails.
>When that happens you want, and usually get, failure
>at the outer most layer, if done properly.

I've worked outside for literally days in a row at
temperatures colder than -35C, including extended
periods of heavy exertion, and did *not* experience
either a significant moisture gradient, nor any failure
of the insulation due to condensation. Well designed
clothing is of course the secret, as is being careful to
ration the exertion to the amount of air circulation
and/or knowing when to simply remove clothing if there
is not enough air circulation.

To put it mildly, you are simply wrong. Indeed, there
are people here who spend *every* day outside doing
heavy work of one kind or another, and they do not
experience what you say... with one little exception.

Most people here work with "Bunny Boots" on if they are
out all day. Bunny boots use a trapped air space for
insulation, and a very good vapor barrier inside that,
to provide waterproof and yet warm footwear. Typically
though, at the end of a day, the inside of such boots
will in fact be somewhat moist! (Actually, changing
socks twice a day is a good idea.) If the term Bunny
Boot is not familiar, do a google search...


>>> I wore what the outfitters suggested ... multiple layers of fleece,
>>> or a down expedition parka and pants, as appropriate, plus
>>> rain gear, if we expected to cross 32 F, and never had any problem myself.
>>> I've been on day trips where it was 35F and raining for two hours
>>> at beginning and end of a hike, and -30F on top of a peak. That's
>>> fleece layer conditions.
>> You wore what they gave you, which is a very smart
>> thing
>> to do. Did you discuss why they gave you what they did
>> with anyone who actually made the decision about what
>> they had available? Tour guides generally don't know a
>> thing about it, but on technical expeditions the guides
>> might indeed be experts.
>
>They didn't supply it, I just brought all I own.

You specified that you wore what they suggested.
Whether you bought it or they handed it to you, they
gave you the specifics and it was their expertise not
yours.

>These folks
>are experts. Ever met Mike Speaks? Kelly Kalafatich? You probably have.

Nope. Why would I? A quick Google search shows that
both are quite talented river guides; however, Kelly
Kalafatich rarely if ever comes to Alaska during the
winter, and Mike Speaks lives about 650 miles south of
me, well into the tropics...

Speaks is indeed listed as living in Alaska though and
apparently does enjoy cross country skiing, so he would
be very knowledgeable.

>> What he needs is a couple of boxes, one with medium
>> sized ziplock bags large enough to hold his lenses, the
>> other box should have "kitchen" sized trash bags.
>
>I recommend "dry bags" as used by the river rafters. These
>are waterproof (don't "breathe"), are easy to carry
>(have handles), and are easier to open and shut than
>ziplocks.

I'm sorry, I didn't explain it in detail and you don't
have enough experience to catch the significance.

The kitchen bags are large enough to use for two
purposes. One is the obvious, wrapping the camera up
when going from a cold environment to a warm
environment. But it has another use that is exceedingly
important too. About the time that zodiac leaves the
group stranded for several hours on the beach and heads
back to the ship, is the same time the drizzle and mist
begin. That's when everyone starts learning how to
protect their cameras from moisture and perhaps still
get a few pictures. The best way to do it is to wrap
the camera in a *large* plastic bag, about the size of a
handy dandy kitchen trash bag! Better than an umbrella,
just as good as a commercial rain cover, and far more
versatile than either. Also disposable, cheap and easy
to have several on hand; which is useful because putting
a couple holes in the sides for you hands will make the
useless for anything else, but very nice for use as a
rain cover while shooting.

And unlike the special dry bags you recommend, these
things are going to be available almost anywhere you go.
Even on board a cruise ship, 20 minutes before they put
you in the zodiac, it should be easy enough to locate a
few.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd DeleteThis @apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> Doug McDonald <mcdonald RemoveThis @SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>> I do note that there really has to be a moisture gradient
>> if you are wearing clothing in very cold (and hence dry)
>> weather.
>
> If there is, you are in trouble. A moisture gradient
> indicates you either have or shortly will have
> conditions that lead to condensation. Condensation will
> very quickly destroy the insulation quality of whatever
> you are wearing to stay warm.
>
> The idea is to *avoid* any moisture gradient,

There HAS to be a moisture gradient. The key, as you
are explaing sort of, is to avoid one that is steep
on the outer part. You need to keep the relative
humidity below the condensation point at all points.
This is doable in most cases; there are cases where you
are doing heavy exertion for long periods and it fails.
When that happens you want, and usually get, failure
at the outer most layer, if done properly.


>>
>> I wore what the outfitters suggested ... multiple layers of fleece,
>> or a down expedition parka and pants, as appropriate, plus
>> rain gear, if we expected to cross 32 F, and never had any problem myself.
>> I've been on day trips where it was 35F and raining for two hours
>> at beginning and end of a hike, and -30F on top of a peak. That's
>> fleece layer conditions.
>
> You wore what they gave you, which is a very smart thing
> to do. Did you discuss why they gave you what they did
> with anyone who actually made the decision about what
> they had available? Tour guides generally don't know a
> thing about it, but on technical expeditions the guides
> might indeed be experts.

They didn't supply it, I just brought all I own. These folks
are experts. Ever met Mike Speaks? Kelly Kalafatich? You probably have.

>
>> I only had problems with photo gear once ... at -50 F in Yellowstone,
>> with a fully mechanical camera (a Minolta SRT 101) and that was
>> caused by extremely stiff film which prevented reloading
>> unless I warmed the film. I just kept the camera under
>> the top layer of clothing.
>>
>> I very strongly suspect that the OP would be well advised to
>> simply carry the cold weather clothing suggested by his tour
>> company. Dead or unhappy customers are not good for business.
>
> That is absolutely correct. But his question was what
> to do about the camera.


> What he needs is a couple of boxes, one with medium
> sized ziplock bags large enough to hold his lenses, the
> other box should have "kitchen" sized trash bags.


I recommend "dry bags" as used by the river rafters. These
are waterproof (don't "breathe"), are easy to carry
(have handles), and are easier to open and shut than
ziplocks.

Doug
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

Allen <allen.RemoveThis@nothere.net> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
><snip>
>Floyd, When (or if) this brouhaha dies down I would like
>to see some of your photographs from the North Slope,
>especially any wildlife pictures you might have. I
>really can't imagine what that area is like, though if I
>had pursued the career for which I was educated
>(petroleum engineering) I might have gotten a chance to
>see it firsthand; instead I went into banking, with air
>conditioning and central heat as needed.

There are a few on my web page, though not generally any
of the really good ones. There is a small sampling of
snowy owl pictures, of which I actually have probably a
few thousands, including a couple that commonly are
described as "the best I've ever seen". But those are
not on my web page.

Hmmm... send me some email with "Barrow Pictures" in
the title.

The web page URL is listed below in the signature:

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.RemoveThis@apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems ASAAR <caught.RemoveThis@22.com> wrote:
>On 4 Nov 2007 20:26:52 GMT, Chris Malcolm wrote:

>>> Not exactly "very serious cold", eh?
>>
>> You're giving a good impression of someone more concerned
>> with having an argument than making sense.

> Why, that's almost a truism! But we all know that your icy logic
>is unlikely to chill or still our fiery Floyd's sound and fury.

Tastes vary. I've always found Floyd's advice useful. And
nothing in my (very short) experience in the far north goes
against anything he's said.

--
--- Paul J. Gans
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica?