Any photographers in here?

[rjmhotrod]

hey... i NEED feedback on my images. that's the only way i can know what i'm doing right or wrong. and yeah, i definitely need to get more practice on panning the camera.

I have never used any filters on my lenses. although i think i am going to buy a UV filter and a polarizer to experiment with. i have read that you need to adjust your polarizer according to angle of the sun. since i'm panning to catch these cars, i'm essentially changing the angle through the motion. so i'm not sure if a polarizer would work that well? i could be wrong. the unprocessed pics are a little washed out because of the sunlight, but photoshop will definitely help.

have you used filters (warming, softening, uv, polarizer)? which brand is good?

I have one filter that was given to me but I've never used. It's an older HOYA star filter. I could see using it on certain shots for a very specific effect. But definitely not one I would use frequently. I'm in the same boat as you, thinking of the UV / polarizer filters, but haven't made the jump yet because I don't know which brands are good. As you may or may not know, I am a freelance audio mixer working in television field production. The camera man I work with has some nice filters for his video cameras and I've seen the difference they can make. I'll find out what brand they are the next time I see him (should be tomorrow).

As far as needing to adjust the filters for the angle of the sun, don't know. I remember seeing something about having to adjust the filters on certain lenses (mainly the consumer lenses) and that the L series lenses did it automatically. I don't know though. That might be more for orientation of the filters while zooming/focusing.

 

[rjmhotrod]

Correction - I do have a Canon UV/Haze filter on my kit lens. LOL - I never take it off so I forgot that I have it. But I don't use that lens as often as I do my 50mm prime. I've never taken any A/B shots for that filter. Maybe I should do that sometime soon and report back.

 

[altspace]

I personally use a Quantaray circular polarizer.

 

[ChopstickHero]

I personally use a Quantaray circular polarizer.

do you leave it on your camera all the time? how does it attach? i always use my lens hood and if i get a polarizer, i would have to fumble with it just to adjust it.

 

[rjmhotrod]

From what I've gathered after talking to my cameraman and reading some online and whatnot, it seems that alot (if not all) of the inexpensive brands of filters use a method of sandwiching a piece of colored gel or the like between two pieces of optical glass or high quality plastic. Generally speaking this method does not produce as a high quality optics as does a single piece of glass with the colorings in it. Also you may want to stay away from multicoated filters as they are evidently notorious for being very hard to clean. It makes sense to have the highest quality filter in front of a nice lens. Just like a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link, what's the use of having a $1000+ piece of glass with a $10 high quality plastic in front of it. Evidently much of the expensive German manufacturers (such as B&W, made by Schneider) are worth their pricetags if you are using expensive lenses. I don't think I'd purchase one for a kit lens, but if I had an L series lens I would definitely consider it.

I just discovered that the filter that I thought was a star filter (that's what they told me) is actually a Linear Polarizer with rotating ring. I had never even pulled it out of the box until just now (because honestly I didn't care about having a star filter). It is the Hoya brand so it uses this sandwiching technique referred to above. Not sure yet if it's multicoated. I'll play around with it some, but remember it will be on my kit lens so I'm not sure if I will see the differences that I would with a higher quality lens.

Also if you are worried about the polarizer being a pain with shooting drifting and what not where the angle of the sun would change just remember this. You won't be any worse off by using it (assuming it's a good quality filter) and you'll probably get many shots with the benefits of having the polarizer. In other words, it wouldn't be a bad investment to get a high quality polarizer.

 

[thepepperman]

Chops from what I understand you don't have to adjust a circular polarizing filter, as it helps to reduce overall glare throughout the picture frame. Linear/gradient type filters need to be adjusted so their effect is noticed in specific areas of the frame, but that's something I'm not ready for yet. I'm considering getting the circular polarizing filter to help out with shots on sunny days.

I noticed with a couple of the shots that as you said, the background is a little blown out. I think its because you were using spot metering - I'm sure it was your intention, and it works well, to properly expose the image of the cars. But it then overexposes the background. And its so hard to quickly check what the image really looks like on the LCD on sunny days. But as I looked through your pictures I was thinking it would probably work best spot metered with 1/3-1/2 stop less exposure, or full matrix-metered with 1/3-1/2 stop more exposure. This would darken the cars a little but bring out more colour in the background.

The ones where the foreground and background are balanced (posted on TOProtege) look great though!

 

[rjmhotrod]

Chops from what I understand you don't have to adjust a circular polarizing filter, as it helps to reduce overall glare throughout the picture frame. Linear/gradient type filters need to be adjusted so their effect is noticed in specific areas of the frame, but that's something I'm not ready for yet. I'm considering getting the circular polarizing filter to help out with shots on sunny days.

I noticed with a couple of the shots that as you said, the background is a little blown out. I think its because you were using spot metering - I'm sure it was your intention, and it works well, to properly expose the image of the cars. But it then overexposes the background. And its so hard to quickly check what the image really looks like on the LCD on sunny days. But as I looked through your pictures I was thinking it would probably work best spot metered with 1/3-1/2 stop less exposure, or full matrix-metered with 1/3-1/2 stop more exposure. This would darken the cars a little but bring out more colour in the background.

The ones where the foreground and background are balanced (posted on TOProtege) look great though!

Great info, pepper. thanks for posting this - it helps clarify some things for me. IIRC, most polarized sunglasses use a linear polarizer. That's why when I move my head the glare changes. Same concept with these filters.

I don't understand spot and matrix metering yet. I need to spend some more time in the manual. Once I do, what you are saying will probably make a lot more sense. Thanks for at least pointing us in the right direction.

 

[BeNegative]

Circular polarized filter just filters out the extra sun light from what I last remembered. For some reason, I didn't want to get it. I forget what my ex-co-worker told me about that. He was the professional advisor on techincal stuff on the camera. He moved on to a better department now as a supervisor.

 

[thepepperman]

Great info, pepper. thanks for posting this - it helps clarify some things for me. IIRC, most polarized sunglasses use a linear polarizer. That's why when I move my head the glare changes. Same concept with these filters.

I don't understand spot and matrix metering yet. I need to spend some more time in the manual. Once I do, what you are saying will probably make a lot more sense. Thanks for at least pointing us in the right direction.

I'll go by the official names: Evaluative metering (what I called matrix metering) is the default setting. This uses most of the viewfinder and sets a proper exposure based on what the camera believes is the subject (partially based on what focus point was used to achieve focus).

Partial metering (what I called spot metering): uses the very centre 9% of the viewfinder to set the exposure. This is good when you have a lot of backlighting. I've been using this setting a lot so I know what subject I'm using to expose the picture.

Centre-weighted average metering: The exposure is weighted at the centre but averaged with the entire scene in the viewfinder. After re-reading this section of the manual I think I may switch to this instead of partial metering as it is closer to what I had intended to get from the setting.

 

[ChopstickHero]

hey guys, thanks for the info on the polarizer. i am definitely interested in getting one to see what it can do for my photos. also want to pick up a thin UV filter. I sometimes notice for landscape shots, there is a haze that is present. i can get rid of it in Photoshop, but i rather get rid of it using the filter.

As for the metering modes, i honestly have not played with it enough to tell the difference. i will experiment with more settings next time and report my results. but thanks for that info pepperman.

 

[altspace]

Random money shot!

 

[NVP5White]

hey guys, thanks for the info on the polarizer. i am definitely interested in getting one to see what it can do for my photos. also want to pick up a thin UV filter. I sometimes notice for landscape shots, there is a haze that is present. i can get rid of it in Photoshop, but i rather get rid of it using the filter.

As for the metering modes...

The circular polarizer WILL need to be adjusted for each picture you take. The polarizer works by selectivly fitering light waves (as well already know). The adjustment comes from the need to select which waves of light to filter. Do you want to remove glare from a windshield? Or darken the blue sky in a landscape picture? Or increase overall contrast of an image? This adjustment proceess is made much more tedious if the front element of your lens rotate during focusing. Most "kit" lenses and other less expensive lenses will have rotating front elements. This means you'll have to readjust the filter every time you refocus!

UV filters are great for protection of the front lens element, but not much else on digital SLRs. Film has sensetivity in the UV spectrum where digital does not. Scattered UV light does not create the haze typical in film images. The haze you see in a landscape picture is caused by visible light (not UV) and will not be effected by the UV filter.

Metering has come a long way in recent years. Matrix (evaluative) metering is by far the best mode for most digital images. This is because digital sensors do not have the same dynamic range as film. This means that over or under exposure can result in loss of detail. This is esspecially true on the high end where slight over exposure will quickly "blow-out" detail. Matrix metering helps eleiminate exposure issues using very advanced processing of the light in a scene. Center weighted and spot metering are good only if you can afford to throw away all detail except for the subject in the center of the image, because there is a strong possibility of over or under exposure. Personally, I use matrix metering 95% of the time with good success.

I'm fairly new to d-slr's having just purchased my D50 in May. The biggest improvement in the quality of my pictures (besides getting the new camera) was when I switched to shooting RAW. The RAW conversion process gives you much more flexability in controlling exposure and white balance. Since these changes occure on the actual sensor data and not a compressed (JPEG) data-set, the results are much improved. The one big downside is it increases the workflow time to process an image by about 30%. Worth it for me...

Ed S.

 

[RacerXGirl]

Random money shot!

Hey! While you're at it, print some up for me too.

 

[rjmhotrod]

The circular polarizer WILL need to be adjusted for each picture you take. The polarizer works by selectivly fitering light waves (as well already know). The adjustment comes from the need to select which waves of light to filter. Do you want to remove glare from a windshield? Or darken the blue sky in a landscape picture? Or increase overall contrast of an image? This adjustment proceess is made much more tedious if the front element of your lens rotate during focusing. Most "kit" lenses and other less expensive lenses will have rotating front elements. This means you'll have to readjust the filter every time you refocus!

UV filters are great for protection of the front lens element, but not much else on digital SLRs. Film has sensetivity in the UV spectrum where digital does not. Scattered UV light does not create the haze typical in film images. The haze you see in a landscape picture is caused by visible light (not UV) and will not be effected by the UV filter.

Metering has come a long way in recent years. Matrix (evaluative) metering is by far the best mode for most digital images. This is because digital sensors do not have the same dynamic range as film. This means that over or under exposure can result in loss of detail. This is esspecially true on the high end where slight over exposure will quickly "blow-out" detail. Matrix metering helps eleiminate exposure issues using very advanced processing of the light in a scene. Center weighted and spot metering are good only if you can afford to throw away all detail except for the subject in the center of the image, because there is a strong possibility of over or under exposure. Personally, I use matrix metering 95% of the time with good success.

I'm fairly new to d-slr's having just purchased my D50 in May. The biggest improvement in the quality of my pictures (besides getting the new camera) was when I switched to shooting RAW. The RAW conversion process gives you much more flexability in controlling exposure and white balance. Since these changes occure on the actual sensor data and not a compressed (JPEG) data-set, the results are much improved. The one big downside is it increases the workflow time to process an image by about 30%. Worth it for me...

Ed S.

More great info. Thanks a bunch.

 

[ChopstickHero]

The circular polarizer WILL need to be adjusted for each picture you take. The polarizer works by selectivly fitering light waves (as well already know). The adjustment comes from the need to select which waves of light to filter. Do you want to remove glare from a windshield? Or darken the blue sky in a landscape picture? Or increase overall contrast of an image? This adjustment proceess is made much more tedious if the front element of your lens rotate during focusing. Most "kit" lenses and other less expensive lenses will have rotating front elements. This means you'll have to readjust the filter every time you refocus!

UV filters are great for protection of the front lens element, but not much else on digital SLRs. Film has sensetivity in the UV spectrum where digital does not. Scattered UV light does not create the haze typical in film images. The haze you see in a landscape picture is caused by visible light (not UV) and will not be effected by the UV filter.

Metering has come a long way in recent years. Matrix (evaluative) metering is by far the best mode for most digital images. This is because digital sensors do not have the same dynamic range as film. This means that over or under exposure can result in loss of detail. This is esspecially true on the high end where slight over exposure will quickly "blow-out" detail. Matrix metering helps eleiminate exposure issues using very advanced processing of the light in a scene. Center weighted and spot metering are good only if you can afford to throw away all detail except for the subject in the center of the image, because there is a strong possibility of over or under exposure. Personally, I use matrix metering 95% of the time with good success.

I'm fairly new to d-slr's having just purchased my D50 in May. The biggest improvement in the quality of my pictures (besides getting the new camera) was when I switched to shooting RAW. The RAW conversion process gives you much more flexability in controlling exposure and white balance. Since these changes occure on the actual sensor data and not a compressed (JPEG) data-set, the results are much improved. The one big downside is it increases the workflow time to process an image by about 30%. Worth it for me...

Ed S.

Great info, thanks for that!

Yes, I enjoy working in RAW mode as well. I can get my pictures looking how they should be when i'm using this workflow. however, with my new lens, there has been very little adjustment in terms of color, sharpness and saturation so far. i'm very impressed with this lens.

straight out of the camera. 1/1250 second, 55mm, f/3.2, 100 iso, IS on, daylight WB, handheld

100% crop of above. notice details, like the hair, lint and threading... this lens is SHARP. a little bit of CA on the white lettering, but that's at an acceptable level.

 

[NVP5White]

100% crop of above. notice details, like the hair, lint and threading... this lens is SHARP. a little bit of CA on the white lettering, but that's at an acceptable level.

The lens is great. I think you picked the right lens for a general walk-around lens. L-glass just isn't necessary unless you are going to use the lens 8 hours a day 5 days a week. Nikon has a VERY similar lens at the same price. I'm tempted to get it but I think I'm going to put my cash into the 70-200 2.8VR (Nikon's image stability feature).

BTW, I looked back at your drift pictures and they are very good. To increase the likelihood of getting a good shot, move the camera away from the subject and use a more powerful zoom. The smaller movement you have to make to follow the car will result in a smoother pan. Also, get a monopod if you dont already have one [its on my shopping list]. They too can be difficult to use at close range, but they work great to minimize unwanted motion while panning.

Not drifting...this shot is without cropping @70MM; I was only about 30ft from the cars, IIRC. I had to limit the exposure to 1/80 or faster to ensure a clean shot.

This shot was taken from a different location on the course. Since I was farther away I was able to make smaller, more controlled movements when following the cars. This shot is very sharp (notice the antenna) at 1/30.

 

[ChopstickHero]

thanks for those tips. i'm still getting the hang of panning. alot of my shots were taken at 55mm and i noticed that if they were closer, a faster shutter speed would've worked alot better. but i understand what you're saying by the smaller the movement, the smoother the pan.

i'm seriously looking into getting the 70-200 f/2.8 IS now. it's a big lens that gets amazing shots. i figure it's the equivalent as that nikon lens that you are talking about.

 

[NVP5White]

i'm seriously looking into getting the 70-200 f/2.8 IS now. it's a big lens that gets amazing shots. i figure it's the equivalent as that nikon lens that you are talking about.

Yeah, Nikon and Canon lens follow each other pretty closely on the higher-end models. The one big exception is the new 18-200VR that Nikon came out with this spring. It is getting rave reviews by mostly everyone as a great walk-around lens; something that stays on their cameras 99% of the time. The lens is reasonably priced, but I couldn't imagine having a lens that big on the camera ALL the time. It would just get in the way some times.

 

[ChopstickHero]

Yeah, Nikon and Canon lens follow each other pretty closely on the higher-end models. The one big exception is the new 18-200VR that Nikon came out with this spring. It is getting rave reviews by mostly everyone as a great walk-around lens; something that stays on their cameras 99% of the time. The lens is reasonably priced, but I couldn't imagine having a lens that big on the camera ALL the time. It would just get in the way some times.

wow, that's probably the most useful focal range anybody could really want. i google'd it and found that it's only f/3.5-5.6. Still though, a very useable piece of glass. Too bad there isn't such a thing as 10-300mm f/2.8 L IS ... that would be the ultimate, LOL.

 

[NVP5White]

Agree, 18-200 is killer, especially with the multiplication factor for digital sensors; the lens becomes a 27-300mm with stability control!