J2Ski Forum Posts and Replies by ise

Neiltoo wrote:"Foragonal" Thats a new one to me. Does anyone know the origin of this word, it doesn't appear in any dictionary that I've checked.

Could it be that its a corruption of 'forward' and 'diagonal' and it was made up by a bunch of trainers who take themselves way too seriously?

English is a fairly comprehensive language, if you can't explain what you are trying to get across without resorting to making up new words then perhaps its time for a change of career. )

yes, yes and obviously :D

let's save some derision for non-instructors who talk nonsense though :D

karen.488 wrote:I have V. little understanding of avalanche risk whatsoever. I ski verbier. We've had plenty of fresh snow. I hear terms like poorly bonded etc. Can anyone tell me in general terms what the avalanche risk is on itinery runs. i.e. chassoure, gentianes and valon d'arby, particularly in spring. I don't have any avalanche equipment and avoid vallon d'arby because I've heard it's unsafe. I know the risk varies from day to day but does anyone know specifically know about these runs?

no one can tell what avalanche risk for some future day.

However, for an itinerary, these are marked and patrolled runs, they're just not prepared. If they're open they're as safe as any other piste.

rossyhead wrote:Unfortunately ski instructors sometimes dont get that-prob more so the foreign ones?

I don't think so, this nonsense speak and use of made up words is a uniquely native-English speaking disease.

snowpack wrote:
Overall though, I think the point is here about the instruction and how somehow there's this idea that a ski instructor (?) has some unquestionable higher knowledge which mere mortals cannot ever begin to understand. And they will impart small amounts of this to you for large amounts of cash while you are on holiday.

i agree but it's not all ski instructors, only some and it's not surprising it's more common than with other skiers. There's any number of non-instructors who talk total nonsense though in an attempt to sound a bit technical, in fact they're worse in many way, they've got no excuse and the only possible effect is to exclude people.

daved wrote: don't you find that looking through a viewfinder that you are somehow more involved in the composition

personally yes, but I think it's all about target markets, I don't suppose most people compose their photo's really, looking at the results they don't seem to. If what they were looking at is in frame that's probably all the composition that's done.

There are many, many digital compact cameras that are bad, In fact it's harder to buy a good one now than it ever has been. Digital SLR's area a bit different and they're generally all good though.

Two of the problems with using the LCD as a viewfinder are that it kills the batteries and it's not possible to see in high light. That they show what you're focussed on being an advantage is a bit dubious really, the nature of the lens on the camera means as long as it focussed, which it tells you with an audible signal, that's good enough. The only reason it starts to be a problem is where the depth of field is so woeful that it becomes an issue and the fact is that it's rare any digital compact is reliable beyond f8 anyway.

There's an illusion of quality from features and pixel counts that works in the market but doesn't tell you anything about quality. At first sight in a store it all looks great, loads of cameras with loads of features. The reality is the features are software and have low marginal cost to implement while the optical quality of most cameras is going steadily down. The first Kodak 2 mega pixel I had 10 years ago still has some of the best optics of any digital camera I've had.

As I pointed out above, the advent of cheap, good DSLR's has rather killed the premium compact market. Small sensors and high pixel counts don't mix, much over 5 and certainly 8 mega pixels doesn't add quality and the manufacturers know this but they carry on anyway, the illusion of features sells more units than quality does. Which means for us cameras are disposable and for the manufacturer customers are.

The truth of this abundantly clear, you only have to look at facebook or flickr and see the photo's people are posting and they're utterly terrible. If they serve the purpose of getting a snap and reminding people of a good trip that's great but it shouldn't disguise how truly awful some of the photo's are. It's not surprising that people are increasingly using their phones, it's easy to produce the same quality.

The A1000 I bought is a good example, had I taken that on a trip and returned with the images it produces I'd have been devastated, as it is I've not posted to my own blog for weeks as I've yet to get a good photo from it.

Ian Wickham wrote:
I'm certainly glad I'm not the only person who struggled to understand, the good Instructors or teachers come to that, that I have come across are the one's who are able to simplfiy the message adding passion , interest and enthusiasm to the learning as I have said before I have always found female instructors to be the best.

You're not the only person, you might be one of a few who's confident enough to stand up and say it :lol:

As a digression, the economy probably wouldn't be in the mess it's in now if a few more people stood up earlier and said "this is all nonsense" :D

aharwood wrote: Their preparation for ski instructors is very intensive including a second language, local geology, flora and fauna etc so they are very knowledgable. They obviously have a grading system depending upon the level of the learner. 1st level can only teach beginners up to plough/braking turns, level 2 up to basic parallel...etc.

I think you're confusing ski instructor and the Austrian bergführer qualifications there, a lot of Austrian ski instructors may hold both though. The requirement to be an instructor in Austria or France, or Switzerland or Italy or the UK, is pretty much the same as there is an internationally agreed system for it. The entrance standard for any French mountaineering or skiing qualification is extremely high, way, way higher than any other country in fact. There might be a number of instructors in France who got their tickets some years ago and weren't assessed against some later requirements but that's the same for Austria or any other country. In fact, Austria was particularly bad at this, the days where pretty much anyone could tip up and teach aren't so very long ago.

What makes the real difference is the expectation of the clients, French clients tend to want someone to take them around the mountain and give a few tips and Germans tend to prefer the more regimented classes. When you see their client base on the slopes it's pretty obvious that outcomes don't vary hugely so it's just personal choice.