Good L series wide angle?

[IPT]

I am not familiar with the capabilities of Elements, so I don't know what it's capabiliites are. You may be able to pick up the last version of PS CS3 now that 4 is out (?).

ND filters are mostly used graduated to balance light differences as in the above scene. The solid ones? Well, there have been times that even shooting at ISO 50, with a polarizer, and at F22 that I could not get a shutter speed of less than 1/8th of a second. You can't always just get a really slow shutter speed (depends on the light and situation at hand). Often I may want a second or more exposure to really get a silky look to flowing water. Thus a ND filter of several stops (though to be honest I lost mine a long time ago and haven't really missed it except on the rare occasion).

People will argue about quality of filters needed. I've used the cheap Cokin filters and been fine with the results. One could argue that if you're spending a grand on a lens it doesn;t pay to put cheep filters in front of it. I can't really debate that point. Since I've been using better lens I've also generally stop using any filters. My Polarizer was like $75 (Tiffen I believe). You (I am pretty sure) want a "circular Polarizer" as it affects how the light enters and if it's not that type may mess with your cameras metering (at least that's the way it used to be). You will want to confirm that infomation though.

 

[t5Nitro]

? haha. Well since I understood like a sentence out of both posts, should I just pop on a polarizer and go for deeper colors? And making the water that silky smooth look (which I want, also) use a ND? Whatever you meant by stops of the filters beats me. And if you told me I wouldn't know which to buy anyway. :lol:

 

[IPT]

LOL - Doug posted as I was writting my response.

Doug - I am assuming you're stating that it would be impossible to get the forground and background properly exposed in one frame correct?

We differ on technique here. He likes to use the split ND filters. I used too, but have found that I often lose some details that way in forground intems that rise into the background areas. I now prefer to blend two properly exposed images (one for foreground and one for background) together in PS. I feel I get much better control of what is image parts are held back or not that that way.

Many ways to achompish the same goal. Either works. Blending requires more post processing but to me the result is worth it.

Doug - what brand of Polarizer are you using? Is that stuff still accurate about needing a circular polarizer?

 

[IPT]

Sorry T5 - A polarizer WILL enhance colors if you are in a bright situation, there is a haze, or you are trying to darken the sky (and are at approx a 90 degree angle to the sun). "Yes", in many cases it will increase color saturation. If there was one filter I would (and do use) that would be it.

Yes, if you want to have blurred water I would get a 2 and also maybe a 5 stop ND filter (not graduated, solid. "Stops just means it will hold back 2 or 5 stops of light forcing you to use a longer shutter speed (or larger aperture))). Personally I would be comfortable buying a lesser brand (Cokin), but that is just me. I've had images published using this brand so the quality is at the least good enough.

As Doug pointed out though - one could argue buying the best you can get. Question is, how often as you are going to use it and is the marginal increase in qaulity enough for you to cough up the extra $? Your choice there.

 

[BlueCorn]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13909102#post13909102 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by IPT
Doug - I am assuming you're stating that it would be impossible to get the forground and background properly exposed in one frame correct?

Si!

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13909102#post13909102 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by IPT
Doug - what brand of Polarizer are you using? Is that stuff still accurate about needing a circular polarizer?

Since I shoot almost exclusively nature/landscape I have one on almost all of the time. I have two so I don't have to switch when I switch lenses. On my 24-70 I use a Heliopan and on my 100-400 I use a B+W. I usually, but not always, avoid using a polarizer on my 17-40 on any shot that includes sky. On a wide lens, you'll get a varied amount of polarization across the sky resulting in a dark blue "blob."

It's also important to adjust the polarizer. Just having it on the lens isn't enough. Make sure that you give it a twist to get the effect that you're after.

My Gold-N-Blue polarizer and all of my split-grads are Singh-Ray. I also have a B+W 10 stop but that's not something I use often.

Yes. Digital requires a circular polarizer. Old style linear polarizers mess with your autofocus and metering. Virtually everything that you see for sale will be circular these days.

 

[t5Nitro]

I guess showing is better than telling. The place with the water has more areas obviously with a little more flowing water which would be cool to do the "silk" look. So a 2 or a 5 ND filter for that. Ok.

So, as far as color goes, I put the CD into my computer quick and just did a quick increase of saturation just to see what happened. It did work pretty well. Again I'm sure I could get better shots if I used my tripod. Next summer I want to go back here and use the tripod with a better setting.

Before:

After saturation increase:

Then another shot (yes no tripod again):

Especially that haze there is really apparent. Those were all taken with the 28-135mm kit lens.

 

[IPT]

Not sure that water is moving fast enough or rough enough to get a blurr effect (at least not at that focal range). If you zoomed in on the faster moving stuff maybe.

From a quick look I think a Polarizer will defiantely help the color saturation of those pictures. That's where I'd start. Don't worry about the ND filters yet.

 

[t5Nitro]

That's just a small area of it. At the beginning of it there are rock structures like the one seen in the picture and rapids go thru it.

I will grab a polarizer then. Alright, thanks for the tips, again.

Oh, I've also read on some articles that using a lens at wide open normally isn't best, that most have better quality when you get into the midrange of it? Is this true? I'll stop shooting at 28 (or probably more than 11 after my wide angle lens) if I can get better quality.

 

[BlueCorn]

That depends on the lens. Generally when someone says "wide open" they're talking about aperture, not focal length. Most lenses will be at their sharpest somewhere in the middle of their aperture range. For most lenses, that sweet spot is around f/8-11. You should also avoid going much above f/16 as diffraction can make your images soft as well.

 

[IPT]

^ like the man said

 

[t5Nitro]

Ok, good to know. Lately, when using a tripod, I've been using f11.

Thanks.

 

[IPT]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13909842#post13909842 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by t5Nitro
Ok, good to know. Lately, when using a tripod, I've been using f11.

Thanks.

Tripod? From the man that wasn't into using one? Good deal I'll bet you like the sharper images.

 

[t5Nitro]

Well, so far I've only used it on tank shots, since my coral shots before were HORRIBLE! Yes, they are much better, except still dark compared to what most people have. Color is great and the sharpness rocks, but they're too dark. I could bump the ISO up and see what happens.

I should stop looking at BH though before I push the button on 4 grand. :lol: Gitzo, 5DII, L lenses, flash, etc...

Someday...

What I've noticed on my tripod since using it more is that when you tilt the camera on its side, it seems like it always loosens up and then falls forward. As far as sitting upright it's fine.

 

[BlueCorn]

:lol: - It's not hard to do. I've got over $1K in filters alone.

If your tripod has a removable head you could improve it by replacing just the head with something like a Manfrotto 486RC2. It's cheap, light and pretty stable.

 

[IPT]

Dude - I so remember the days of flopping cameras and slipping ballheads. I had to aim a few inches high because I knew it'd droop down after I locked it in Check out that ballhead Doug mentioned. It could make a big difference for you on the frustration level (though I am not familiar with it).

You could bump the ISO up to brighten the images. Also, since your on the tripod (and have the tank pumps off so there is no polyp motion?) you could also just use a longer shutter speed.

If your getting a lot of noise try "neat image" (.com). It removes noise, and it's free. I forgot about it but saw it mentioned in another thread. It does a great job.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

Neat image has my endorsement.

 

[t5Nitro]

It's not the whole head doing it. It's the quick release area. Like the camera loosens on it and then flops down when I have it sideways etc.

It should be alright for what I do anyway.

Neat image? Thanks. I will have to try that out since I have a really cool shot I took lately (with tripod); it just needs to lose the grain from low light and high ISO.

 

[IPT]

T5 - I gotta ask, is that cat's eyes for real?

 

[t5Nitro]

Yes, I entered it in the Drs. Foster and Smith photo contest a few months ago for the cat entry. One of the professional photographers around my area said he thought it would win. It didn't place even top 15. So leads me to believe that it's a biased contest or the fact the cat's eyes look like that.

It says specifically no major editing. One would be changing colors.

She's a lynx ragdoll. Cost like $1500 at the time.

We call her Ms. Priss because she, at the time that we had the male, never let you touch her fur. If you did she'd blast off and go wash it. It's cool... her fur is something no other cat I've found feels like. Probably because she grooms it so much.
Real name: Dixie.

Here's a few more:

When she was younger she used to have those tassels or whatever you want to call them on the tips of her ears like real lynx. It was pretty cool.

She's a blue-eyed lynx ragdoll.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

Haha I've often pondered how much PP was put into that photograph as well. Beautiful shot at any rate.