Members Plink Floyd Posted February 2, 2012 Members Share Posted February 2, 2012 Originally Posted by Mediterranean If anybody can tell me the number 1 problem with the first 3 photos... I'm a werk, and this monitor is kind of crappy, but imo: They either need some fill flash to lighten the subjects, or They could have used something like this to get a blue sky like this If the sky is mostly clear and you don't want blue clouds, a graduated neutral density filter can help pop the foreground. My SLR bag is full of filter gizmos like that, but I can't be arsed with film any more. I just fix it ITB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Plink Floyd Posted February 2, 2012 Members Share Posted February 2, 2012 Also, if your digicam has exposure bracketing, you can always paste the best sky over the best foreground... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mediterranean Posted February 2, 2012 Author Members Share Posted February 2, 2012 Yes PF, that's exactly the problem I was referring to. Very good! Sky overexposed. Completely washed out in those photos But here's the pattern I noticed: it only happens when I zoom in. Then when I zoom out, the sky returns to its normal exposure [blue becomes visible again]. So telephoto [example: photo 1] = not a good sky And wide angle [example: last photo] = good sky The problem now is that no matter what you do, you always get the same results because if you lower the exposure to get a good sky, it will underexpose the horse. In other words, to get a well exposed horse, I had to sacrifice the sky, and vice versa. The camera does have exposure bracketing. Your idea of replacing the bad sky with the good one is very interesting, but you know much photoshop work is involved in that, right? lol As for the density filters, unfortunately the camera lens barrel's outer ring fell out [which is why I got it for cheap on eBay]. It's impossible to use filters because they screw into the ring that came out. I even sent it to Panasonic to see if they can fix it after I showed them a video recording of the problem. They told me to send it to them [which to me suggests they would be able to fix it], but guess what they ended up doing? they sent it directly to their exchange department which called me and told me I can have it exchanged with something else but with a fee of course. Unbelievable. When I bought the camera from eBay, it came with the loose ring. But I can't figure out a way to re-connect it. It would be fantastic if I could do that because I can then use filters. Thanks PF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mediterranean Posted February 2, 2012 Author Members Share Posted February 2, 2012 Here's the vid I recorded for them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Acid Hazard Posted February 2, 2012 Members Share Posted February 2, 2012 Originally Posted by Mediterranean Yes PF, that's exactly the problem I was referring to. Very good! Sky overexposed. Completely washed out in those photos But here's the pattern I noticed: it only happens when I zoom in. Then when I zoom out, the sky returns to its normal exposure [blue becomes visible again]. So telephoto [example: photo 1] = not a good sky And wide angle [example: last photo] = good sky The problem now is that no matter what you do, you always get the same results because if you lower the exposure to get a good sky, it will underexpose the horse. In other words, to get a well exposed horse, I had to sacrifice the sky, and vice versa. The camera does have exposure bracketing. Your idea of replacing the bad sky with the good one is very interesting, but you know much photoshop work is involved in that, right? lol As for the density filters, unfortunately the camera lens barrel's outer ring fell out [which is why I got it for cheap on eBay]. It's impossible to use filters because they screw into the ring that came out. I even sent it to Panasonic to see if they can fix it after I showed them a video recording of the problem. They told me to send it to them [which to me suggests they would be able to fix it], but guess what they ended up doing? they sent it directly to their exchange department which called me and told me I can have it exchanged with something else but with a fee of course. Unbelievable. When I bought the camera from eBay, it came with the loose ring. But I can't figure out a way to re-connect it. It would be fantastic if I could do that because I can then use filters. Thanks PF. Using a Polarizing Filter helps bring the blue sky out. Also, using Photoshop to overlay images after bracketing is actually pretty simple. Its like HDR lite =o] See this for easy steps: http://www.camera-enthusiast.com/for...tutorial.1012/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Acid Hazard Posted February 2, 2012 Members Share Posted February 2, 2012 Fuel by Computer Controlled, on Flickr Untitled by Computer Controlled, on Flickr Untitled by Computer Controlled, on Flickr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members gregwar Posted February 2, 2012 Members Share Posted February 2, 2012 lensbaby gashttp://www.lensbaby.com/lenses-composer-pro.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Acid Hazard Posted February 2, 2012 Members Share Posted February 2, 2012 Yeah, those Lens Babys are awesome! Too much for me atm though =o[ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mediterranean Posted February 2, 2012 Author Members Share Posted February 2, 2012 Originally Posted by Acid Hazard Using a Polarizing Filter helps bring the blue sky out. Also, using Photoshop to overlay images after bracketing is actually pretty simple. Its like HDR lite =o] See this for easy steps: http://www.camera-enthusiast.com/for...tutorial.1012/ Yes I know, but the ring on which those filters screw came off I did do some HDR before, using Photoshop. But I'll have to test HDR on photos where the sky meets the earth and see what happens. The problem in this case, of course, is having to rely on the computer to produce a good shot. Those are some fantastic shots, and the ones on your webpage too. You're an owl Do you use a dSLR? I forgot. Thank you for the link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Acid Hazard Posted February 2, 2012 Members Share Posted February 2, 2012 Yes, i use a Pentax K100D Super. But i also have a Pentax MX film camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members henryp Posted February 2, 2012 Members Share Posted February 2, 2012 Originally Posted by Mediterranean 2. Laying down a gazillion sheets of white paper isn't a good idea because the intersection between them [the edges] is clearly visible despite the intense light]. A huge white sheet or board is a must. Hence the joy of seamless background paper. Savage Paper has three standard widths -- 26", 53", 107" -- for almost any application. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members henryp Posted February 2, 2012 Members Share Posted February 2, 2012 FWIW the filter in Pink Floyd's post is Cokin's A122 or P122 Graduated B1 Blue Resin Filter. Cokin offers a relatively simple affordable system with easily interchangeable filters which, with adapters, can be used on lenses with different filter thread diameters. They offer grad grey too but some people report they're not entirely color-netutral. Also, Cokin filters are made of resin, not glass. That makes them less expensive and lighter but the surface is softer and more prone to being scratched. Tiffen is one company offering color-neutral glass grad-ND filters in Cokin's "P" size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mediterranean Posted February 3, 2012 Author Members Share Posted February 3, 2012 And this is that same aircraft at 18X optical from a different angle. The video also shows how far I was from the subject and what "18X" gets you. And some video test showing the problem I discussed above: I had to underexpose the shot to get a good sky, to the detriment of everything else [things were actually much brighter than what you see in the vid]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Plink Floyd Posted February 4, 2012 Members Share Posted February 4, 2012 Originally Posted by Mediterranean Your idea of replacing the bad sky with the good one is very interesting, but you know much photoshop work is involved in that, right? lol. This took two minutes. I admit, it's not perfect, but, good nuff, maybe? And, that sux about your filter ring. I've had pretty good success with this stuff... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mediterranean Posted February 4, 2012 Author Members Share Posted February 4, 2012 lol PF, excellent work. Very realistic!What I meant by "the amount of work involved" is doing that for each photo taken where a bright sky meets the earth. I will do a test with HDR and see how it comes out [see the limitation now? HDR means using a tripod. So that means everytime I want to take that kind of photo, I must use a tripod, grrrrr].Thanks for telling me about that glue product. I wish you lived nearby. Maybe you can fix it for me.I will take pictures and show you exactly how that loose ring screws onto the lens so that you can tell me what can be done [that video doesn't show everything]. It would be fantastic if either that or some kind of other remedy can be used to solve the problem so that I can buy and use filters to solve that specific problem of the sky.Here's a similar problem that also requires the use of a filter but which I can't solve because of the loose ring. I am making this video in remembrance of my uncle who passed away in December. He was an extraordinarily bright man [symbolized by the candle in the vid, whose light was put out].I have read that these vertical blue-ish streaks of light caused by the candle light can only be removed by using a certain type of filter [Neutral Density I believe. ND filters]. I haven't finished producing the video because filters cannot be attached to the lens because of that stupid ring that came loose.Look at the date when I started working on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Plink Floyd Posted February 4, 2012 Members Share Posted February 4, 2012 Huh. I've never really given any thought to reducing direct lens flare. Sometimes outdoors I'll use a snoot, but that won't fix your prob. ND filters just reduce the amount of light without affecting the hue. Maybe that's the ticket, idunno.Whenever I can get to town (infrequently, with my weird schedule) I try to stop by our local pro camera place and look through their Box-O-Used Crap. People trade in unwanted stuff which then sells for pennies on the dollar. I've picked up lots of things that I never would have thought about trying. It's like Goodwill for cam-nerds. That's how I got started with Cokin filters.Are you ever close to B & H Photo Video in Manhattan? I'll bet they have the biggest junk box in the country. You might find a Cokin type ND filter for cheap that you can just hold in front of your lens, to see how it works.Or be lazy and stay home: BHPhoto-UsedCrapOnline! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mediterranean Posted February 5, 2012 Author Members Share Posted February 5, 2012 Originally Posted by Plink Floyd Huh. I've never really given any thought to reducing direct lens flare. Sometimes outdoors I'll use a snoot, but that won't fix your prob. ND filters just reduce the amount of light without affecting the hue. Maybe that's the ticket, idunno. I practically spent the entire night last night looking for information on what kind of filter should be used to remove those blue-ish vertical streaks, in vain. I need the right technical term, a keyword. What is that artifact called in photographic terms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members carbon111 Posted February 5, 2012 Members Share Posted February 5, 2012 New shots from this evening at the local ferry dock. All shots: Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 lens on an EOS 5D mkII body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BonsoWonderDog Posted February 5, 2012 Members Share Posted February 5, 2012 Is your name James Maier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ElectricPuppy Posted February 5, 2012 Members Share Posted February 5, 2012 Originally Posted by BonsoWonderDog Is your name James Maier? Who takes the best photo pixs that's a sex machine to all the chicks? James Maier! Ya damn right. They say this cat James is a bad mutha-- shut yo mouth! But I'm talkin' about Maier! Then we can dig it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members carbon111 Posted February 5, 2012 Members Share Posted February 5, 2012 Originally Posted by BonsoWonderDog Is your name James Maier? Could be. Originally Posted by ElectricPuppy They say this cat James is a bad mutha-- shut yo mouth! But I'm talkin' about Maier! Then we can dig it! I can dig it. Jus' talkin' 'bout my DSLR... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Plink Floyd Posted February 5, 2012 Members Share Posted February 5, 2012 Oh great. Now I've got funky wah earwig syndrome. Nice pix though. Oh and Originally Posted by Mediterranean I need the right technical term, a keyword. What is that artifact called in photographic terms? Originally Posted by Plink Floyd Already Told You But You Didn't Listen LOL Huh. I've never really given any thought to reducing direct lens flare. There might not be anything you can do to eliminate flaring when you're pointing your cam right at a bright light source like that. Except fix it in post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Acid Hazard Posted February 5, 2012 Members Share Posted February 5, 2012 I want to redo these first two with my 28mm wide angle to get more of the middle structure in the shot. I didn't have it with me today. In the night by Computer Controlled, on Flickr From below by Computer Controlled, on Flickr Peek a Boo by Computer Controlled, on Flickr The Lonely Bench by Computer Controlled, on Flickr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mediterranean Posted February 6, 2012 Author Members Share Posted February 6, 2012 Originally Posted by carbon111 New shots from this evening at the local ferry dock. All shots: Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 lens on an EOS 5D mkII body. Like Al Pacino interjected in "Scent of a Woman", "wooohaaaaa" Full-frame sensor! The seascape shots are my favorite. You can make Hollywood-like films with that cam! Originally Posted by Acid Hazard I want to redo these first two with my 28mm wide angle to get more of the middle structure in the shot. I didn't have it with me today. Very nice architectural photography! The first two are interesting: on the nighttime one, the structure looks metallic. On the daytime one, it looks like cement/concrete. The third one is my favorite. Bottom to top. Nice angle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mediterranean Posted February 6, 2012 Author Members Share Posted February 6, 2012 Originally Posted by Plink Floyd There might not be anything you can do to eliminate flaring when you're pointing your cam right at a bright light source like that. Except fix it in post. I just realized that was shot with the Canon PowerShot [pictured as "product" previously on here] which has no manual controls in video mode. It came out much better with the Panasonic. So that solves the candle light problem. As for the flares on those daylight horse videos, I'll use the lens hood next time and see if that helps a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.