Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 16 Jun 2014 (Monday) 18:07
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Washed out shots outside-HELP!

 
WilsonFlyer
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
824 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 470
Joined Mar 2011
     
Jun 20, 2014 13:34 |  #46

Test

Deleted.

Got it on how to post a proper size. Thanks!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Bill ­ Boehme
Enjoy being spanked
Avatar
7,359 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 88
Joined Jan 2007
Location: DFW Metro-mess, Texas
     
Jun 20, 2014 16:54 as a reply to  @ WilsonFlyer's post |  #47

WilsonFlyer wrote in post #16983042 (external link)
.... To the person that commented about the 2.8@200 on the tower shot. That was a 70-200 2.8 II that I had rented for the week (I came home and bought a version 1 of that lens). I was playing with the settings and got lost in the fact that I didn't need 2.8 in that shot....

You might possibly have been referring to the following comment that I made.

Bill Boehme wrote in post #16982480 (external link)
... I looked at the shooting data and the last image is at f/2.8 and 200 mm FL so the depth of field would be very small. That would be another reason to get away from auto mode...

That lens is one of the most popular of the outstanding L lenses that Canon makes. I have the prior version and wish that I could afford the II version, but the price is considerably greater than when I bought the earlier version.

My comment was based on the reduced size of the images that I originally saw on Flickr which seemed slightly soft. I originally blamed it on shooting in ProgramAE with full 19 point auto focus where the camera selects where to focus as opposed to the user deciding where to focus. Subsequent to that, I discovered that I could access the full size images and then realized that the images were actually much sharper before Flicker resized them. The bottom line is that there is nothing wrong with the lens.

In general, it is desirable to have a great depth of field in landscape images, but there is nothing wrong with the depth of field that I saw in the first image because the main area of interest was tack sharp and everything else was sharp enough.

Regarding post processing, that is a very extensive subject. There are numerous books on the subject. Scott Kelby is one of the best known authors. One of his books is a seven step process of photo editing which is a good way to get started. The book is probably out of print, but there might be later books that are similar. One thing about Scott Kelby ... while he is a guru on the subject, his teaching style is, shall we say, "different". If you can tolerate his teaching style and work your way through the lessons, it is a great way to get up to speed with Photoshop/Camera Raw or Lightroom. My comments on based on CS3 seven years ago so things have changed and there are probably much better recommendations on what to read in 2014.


Atmospheric haze in images? Click for Tutorial to Reduce Atmospheric Haze with Photoshop.
Gear List .... Gallery: Woodturner Bill (external link)
Donate to Support POTN Operating Costs

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davesrose
Title Fairy still hasn't visited me!
4,183 posts
Likes: 694
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
     
Jun 20, 2014 17:20 as a reply to  @ Bill Boehme's post |  #48

DOF with landscapes also depends on your area of focus. Maximum DOF is most important if you're including extreme foreground and background. Granted if you do want to have extremes with foreground vs background, you'll also be using a wide angle lens (which has a larger DOF then a telephoto lens). A landscape with 200mm pretty much means you're shooting at infinity for something off in the distance. Many folks make the mistake of thinking your center of focus is the beginning of DOF: the full depth is about 1/3 being in front of your center of focus, 2/3rds being behind. Landscape photographers will use sites like this to help figure the most appropriate aperture:

http://www.dofmaster.c​om/dofjs.html (external link)


Canon 5D mk IV
EF 135mm 2.0L, EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 50mm 1.4, EF 100mm 2.8L Macro, EF 16-35mm 4L IS, Sigma 150-600mm C, 580EX, 600EX-RT, MeFoto Globetrotter tripod, grips, Black Rapid RS-7, CAMS plate and strap system, Lowepro Flipside 500 AW, and a few other things...
smugmug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
WilsonFlyer
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
824 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 470
Joined Mar 2011
     
Jun 20, 2014 19:45 |  #49

davesrose wrote in post #16984280 (external link)
DOF with landscapes also depends on your area of focus. Maximum DOF is most important if you're including extreme foreground and background. Granted if you do want to have extremes with foreground vs background, you'll also be using a wide angle lens (which has a larger DOF then a telephoto lens). A landscape with 200mm pretty much means you're shooting at infinity for something off in the distance. Many folks make the mistake of thinking your center of focus is the beginning of DOF: the full depth is about 1/3 being in front of your center of focus, 2/3rds being behind. Landscape photographers will use sites like this to help figure the most appropriate aperture:

http://www.dofmaster.c​om/dofjs.html (external link)

Great 411. I may have read that years ago but I had certainly forgotten. Thank you!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,668 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 6312
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Jun 20, 2014 20:00 |  #50

On the 70D, once you go to f11 and shoot about 30' out or more, a 30mm or wider will give you pretty much an infinite DOF. Just to give you a guidepost. :)


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
WilsonFlyer
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
824 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 470
Joined Mar 2011
     
Jun 20, 2014 20:10 |  #51

TeamSpeed wrote in post #16984483 (external link)
On the 70D, once you go to f11 and shoot about 30' out or more, a 30mm or wider will give you pretty much an infinite DOF. Just to give you a guidepost. :)

{Like}

Wow! The stuff you guys are willing to share with lowly me is amazing and I mean that. I just need to absorb all of this and LEARN from it. There's a lot more here than just the words. I'm getting it. Thanks for your help!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davesrose
Title Fairy still hasn't visited me!
4,183 posts
Likes: 694
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
     
Jun 20, 2014 21:06 |  #52

WilsonFlyer wrote in post #16984494 (external link)
{Like}

Wow! The stuff you guys are willing to share with lowly me is amazing and I mean that. I just need to absorb all of this and LEARN from it. There's a lot more here than just the words. I'm getting it. Thanks for your help!

It's our pleasure! The photos you've posted are absolutely great and well within exposure. Since your OP was asking about how washed out your photos are, I hope we've re-enforced the issue that your photos are actually spot on...from there on, it's just maybe adding a bit of PP to bump contrast.


Canon 5D mk IV
EF 135mm 2.0L, EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 50mm 1.4, EF 100mm 2.8L Macro, EF 16-35mm 4L IS, Sigma 150-600mm C, 580EX, 600EX-RT, MeFoto Globetrotter tripod, grips, Black Rapid RS-7, CAMS plate and strap system, Lowepro Flipside 500 AW, and a few other things...
smugmug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
grayline
Member
Avatar
247 posts
Likes: 19
Joined Dec 2013
Location: Newnan Georgia
     
Jun 20, 2014 23:28 |  #53

All I can think of is a polarizing Filter?


Gear List :EOS 70D ,Sigma 50mm 1.4,Tamron 18-270, Canon 18-55,Canon HFM31,Canon SX280HS,Olympus E-10 ,

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bill ­ Boehme
Enjoy being spanked
Avatar
7,359 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 88
Joined Jan 2007
Location: DFW Metro-mess, Texas
     
Jun 21, 2014 01:23 as a reply to  @ grayline's post |  #54

I meant to post a comment on polarizing filters. I have one for one of my lenses and haven't used it in years. Something very important to know about polarizing filters is that they are not the simple linear polarizes used back in the film days. The ones used on digital cameras are circular polarizing filters. The difference is that the circular polarizers have a quarter wave plate behind the linear polarizer. The significance of this is that the quarter wave plate creates circular polarized light at a narrow range of wavelengths at about the middle of the range of human vision. The polarization becomes increasingly elliptical as the color of the light moves further from the midpoint.

The effect that the photographer notices is that circular polarizers are less effective than linear polarizers with respect to the incident angle of the light as well as being somewhat dependent on color of the light. A circular polarizer is most effective when shooting with the camera aimed north or south when the sun is low in the sky. At noon, they are practically useless.


Atmospheric haze in images? Click for Tutorial to Reduce Atmospheric Haze with Photoshop.
Gear List .... Gallery: Woodturner Bill (external link)
Donate to Support POTN Operating Costs

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 546
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Jun 21, 2014 02:25 |  #55

I have found that when it comes to enhancing "saturation" (or vibrancy), CPLs are fine if shooting jpegs for an "out of camera" effect, but if shooting Raw, CPLs can be pretty useless, unless you are 1) dealing with reflections or 2) wanting a "quick" 1-2-stop Neutral Density filter!!


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
WilsonFlyer
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
824 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 470
Joined Mar 2011
     
Jun 21, 2014 05:01 |  #56

grayline wrote in post #16984695 (external link)
All I can think of is a polarizing Filter?

See the first post in the thread. That's sort of what started all of this, albeit indirectly. :)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
WilsonFlyer
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
824 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 470
Joined Mar 2011
     
Jun 21, 2014 05:07 |  #57

Bill Boehme wrote in post #16984794 (external link)
I meant to post a comment on polarizing filters. I have one for one of my lenses and haven't used it in years. Something very important to know about polarizing filters is that they are not the simple linear polarizes used back in the film days. The ones used on digital cameras are circular polarizing filters. The difference is that the circular polarizers have a quarter wave plate behind the linear polarizer. The significance of this is that the quarter wave plate creates circular polarized light at a narrow range of wavelengths at about the middle of the range of human vision. The polarization becomes increasingly elliptical as the color of the light moves further from the midpoint.

The effect that the photographer notices is that circular polarizers are less effective than linear polarizers with respect to the incident angle of the light as well as being somewhat dependent on color of the light. A circular polarizer is most effective when shooting with the camera aimed north or south when the sun is low in the sky. At noon, they are practically useless.

Good stuff. I just figured they might be a lifesaver (in the beginning of the thread). They certainly were back in the film days, but you're right, they were different polarizers. Definitely different from the Hoya I just got this week.

I can still see where they may have a place, but I'm learning here that there are more (and maybe better) ways to skin a cat (as we say in the South). :)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bill ­ Boehme
Enjoy being spanked
Avatar
7,359 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 88
Joined Jan 2007
Location: DFW Metro-mess, Texas
     
Jun 21, 2014 10:20 as a reply to  @ WilsonFlyer's post |  #58

The good circular polarizing filters are complex in their designs and show little, if any, color shift, but are also very expensive. If you are interested in the technical details, you can do a web search on quarter wave plates and on circular polarizing filters. However, even the best circular polarizing filters aren't as effective as the old linear polarizing filters.


Atmospheric haze in images? Click for Tutorial to Reduce Atmospheric Haze with Photoshop.
Gear List .... Gallery: Woodturner Bill (external link)
Donate to Support POTN Operating Costs

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
placitasfish
Hatchling
3 posts
Joined Jul 2014
Location: New Mexico
     
Jul 05, 2014 20:07 |  #59

Last fall I bought a 60D to replace my Rebel XT. I am using (most of the time) the same Tamron 18-200 I was using on the Rebel. I am having much more trouble with severely washed out photos. I would say that 80-85% of the time I use the Program setting with AWB. A recent trip to Greece with all its white buildings and bright sky really brought out this problem. It is not an every shot problem, but often. These two photos were next to similar shots that came out much better.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
speedync
Goldmember
1,506 posts
Gallery: 108 photos
Likes: 946
Joined May 2011
Location: Geelong, Australia
     
Jul 05, 2014 20:26 |  #60

^^^^^^^^^^That's not a "problem" It's just the camera metering getting a bit confused, or not using the correct metering mode. Lots of light, or dark colours in the scene will do this. You can use exposure comp in P mode. Just recognise & learn when & where to use it. Different cameras seem to be more affected than others. My EOS M meters far better and more accurately than my 6D for instance.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

9,313 views & 0 likes for this thread
Washed out shots outside-HELP!
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is kazali
984 guests, 269 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.