A day at the NY International Auto Show

Spent a delightful day at the Javits center Friday.

Camera: Canon Rebel t3i
Lens: 18-55 Kit lens, UV Filter, ND .9 Filter, 55-250 lens as well.

I alternated use of each lens and filter depending on lighting etc.


I've exceeded my uploads on Flickr so I will upload the rest Monday hopefully!

Constructive criticism, advice or tips is always appreciated since I am new to this! Every image was shot RAW and edited a bit.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/rawmeatmedia/8​604180882/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/rawmeatmedia/8​604182842/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/rawmeatmedia/8​604150952/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/rawmeatmedia/8​602988425/

Meteterranean wrote in post #15772837
I've exceeded my uploads on Flickr

That's not the only thing you've exceeded. I'm sure Frank will be in shortly.

96whiteknight wrote in post #15773041
That's not the only thing you've exceeded. I'm sure Frank will be in shortly.

Hmmmm...Is this a good or bad thing? haha

Meteterranean wrote in post #15773091
Hmmmm...Is this a good or bad thing? haha

Better have a read of the rules. https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=74718

I'll take the audi!!

OH.....

I'm an idiot.

thanks!

http://www.flickr.com …/rawmeatmedia/8​610750320/

Any recommendations OTHER than getting a real fish eye lens for a "clearer" picture? I'm assuming work in PS?

Not sure how a UV or a 3 stop ND filter helps here, as the ND would only increase your shutter time/increase your ISO. A circular polarizer would help get rid of reflections on the cars and windows, but with both of your lenses, you have rotating front elements, making them a pain to use with a CP.

Backgrounds seem almost too dark for a lot of the photos.

Wish I could go this year, but looks like I will have to wait until the boys are older and I can take them for a "kids free mom day".

lilkngster wrote in post #15779172
Not sure how a UV or a 3 stop ND filter helps here, as the ND would only increase your shutter time/increase your ISO. A circular polarizer would help get rid of reflections on the cars and windows, but with both of your lenses, you have rotating front elements, making them a pain to use with a CP.

Backgrounds seem almost too dark for a lot of the photos.

Wish I could go this year, but looks like I will have to wait until the boys are older and I can take them for a "kids free mom day".

Well that puts the filters into perspective. I haven't even tried to snap photos without the UV filter yet....

With certain pictures I wanted more or less to focus on the car rather than the background but I presume a detailed and better lit background would make for a better picture.

Thanks for the advice. It would be crazy going with toddlers because you end up chasing them and making sure they don't sit in $2 million cars rather than enjoying the show haha.

Saw a little kid about 3 years old sneak through and sit inside the Mclaren.

UV filter wont do much for you, if anything will cause some internal relfections between the front glass and the filter, especially with the cheaper ones. You can go outside when its pretty dark, to one of the parks, and shoot something with mostly dark and a few sources of bright light with and without, and you may see the difference. I usually had a stance greenish glare showing up somewhere with the filter on.

ND for the most part is to slow the shutter down, but there are other uses, like using a wide open aperture in daylight. This is not going to work indoors for you, if anything, 3 stops could take you from good handholding to such a slow shutter that you can now introduce motion artifiact, i.e. keeping same ISO and aperture, shutter speed could go from 1/200 sec to 1/25 second.

CP in your pics would kill alot of the reflections of white light you see. red camero pic, you would get better red on the hood and passenger door with less reflections and a more homogenous tinted look to the windshied. you lenses are limited because they rotate when focusing, making usage of a CP filter harder, but doable.

lilkngster wrote in post #15779675
UV filter wont do much for you, if anything will cause some internal relfections between the front glass and the filter, especially with the cheaper ones. You can go outside when its pretty dark, to one of the parks, and shoot something with mostly dark and a few sources of bright light with and without, and you may see the difference. I usually had a stance greenish glare showing up somewhere with the filter on.

ND for the most part is to slow the shutter down, but there are other uses, like using a wide open aperture in daylight. This is not going to work indoors for you, if anything, 3 stops could take you from good handholding to such a slow shutter that you can now introduce motion artifiact, i.e. keeping same ISO and aperture, shutter speed could go from 1/200 sec to 1/25 second.

CP in your pics would kill alot of the reflections of white light you see. red camero pic, you would get better red on the hood and passenger door with less reflections and a more homogenous tinted look to the windshied. you lenses are limited because they rotate when focusing, making usage of a CP filter harder, but doable.

Wow. Will try this eventually, hopefully this week. I was always afraid of scratching the lens itself but I want to see the contrast of the two.

I really considered the ND to use while filming because of the rigs I use (steadicam etc) so that I could at least not have to worry about brightness control during the day. All the photos I have uploaded thus far do not have the ND filter applied.

Any specific brand for the CP? Tiffen seems to be decently priced on amazon.

Thank you so much for your words of advice!

96whiteknight wrote in post #15773041
That's not the only thing you've exceeded. I'm sure Frank will be in shortly.

Nah! I was busy putting on a few pounds over Easter!

funinmud wrote in post #15778992
Better have a read of the rules. https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=74718

I'll take the audi!!

Thanks!

Meteterranean wrote in post #15782680
Wow. Will try this eventually, hopefully this week. I was always afraid of scratching the lens itself but I want to see the contrast of the two.

I really considered the ND to use while filming because of the rigs I use (steadicam etc) so that I could at least not have to worry about brightness control during the day. All the photos I have uploaded thus far do not have the ND filter applied.

Any specific brand for the CP? Tiffen seems to be decently priced on amazon.

Thank you so much for your words of advice!

Sorry for the late reply. Theres a lot of advice on POTN re: circular polarizer filters, what to buy, size to buy, etc.

My two cents. You get what you pay for (amount of "polarization", amout of lost light, any color casts, i.e. everything is redder or bluer than normal, build quality. Tiffen is a very common first one which serious users will upgrade from. I have since moved to B+W and Marumi. If cost is a consideration and if I were doing this from the begining, you want to only get one and use step up rings for your lenses.

This means you should consider what lenses might be in your reasonable future. Your current lenses are 58mm. Your likely upgrades would be 15-85 (72mm), 17-85 ( 67mm), 17-55 (77mm), 70-200 f/4 (67mm), 70-200 f/2.8 (77mm), or one of the newer 82mm lenses. That way you can buy a single CP filter, i.e. 77mm and use step up rings to make up the difference with your smaller lenses, i.e. 58->77mm step up ring screws into your 18-55 so you can use a 77mm fitler.

your issue is that your front element rotates. If you look at your lens in a mirror and focus, you will see that the letters will rotate clockwise/counter clockwise. A cirular polarizer rotates on a ring so you can control the direction of polarization. With a rotating front element, once you set your polarizer, a change in focus will change your polarization, while any of the other lenses (more expensive ones) do not rotate while focusing, hence you can compose, set it, and focus/shoot.

if you got the tiffen, use it and you will see what I am talking about with the rotating front element. it is definitely workable, and can be more of a hassle. if/when you upgrade a lens you can consider getting a larger one.

if you did not get one, i think i have a 58mm tiffen in storage that I could donate to your cause.

lilkngster wrote in post #15805857
Sorry for the late reply. Theres a lot of advice on POTN re: circular polarizer filters, what to buy, size to buy, etc.

My two cents. You get what you pay for (amount of "polarization", amout of lost light, any color casts, i.e. everything is redder or bluer than normal, build quality. Tiffen is a very common first one which serious users will upgrade from. I have since moved to B+W and Marumi. If cost is a consideration and if I were doing this from the begining, you want to only get one and use step up rings for your lenses.

This means you should consider what lenses might be in your reasonable future. Your current lenses are 58mm. Your likely upgrades would be 15-85 (72mm), 17-85 ( 67mm), 17-55 (77mm), 70-200 f/4 (67mm), 70-200 f/2.8 (77mm), or one of the newer 82mm lenses. That way you can buy a single CP filter, i.e. 77mm and use step up rings to make up the difference with your smaller lenses, i.e. 58->77mm step up ring screws into your 18-55 so you can use a 77mm fitler.

your issue is that your front element rotates. If you look at your lens in a mirror and focus, you will see that the letters will rotate clockwise/counter clockwise. A cirular polarizer rotates on a ring so you can control the direction of polarization. With a rotating front element, once you set your polarizer, a change in focus will change your polarization, while any of the other lenses (more expensive ones) do not rotate while focusing, hence you can compose, set it, and focus/shoot.

if you got the tiffen, use it and you will see what I am talking about with the rotating front element. it is definitely workable, and can be more of a hassle. if/when you upgrade a lens you can consider getting a larger one.

if you did not get one, i think i have a 58mm tiffen in storage that I could donate to your cause.

Well I realized indoors that in certain light, the Tiffen does produce glare so when there isn't any wind or any debris flying around, I will be just using the lens as is versus using the filter.

Once I can fully grasp the idea of photography, I think I'll be ready to step up into a better lens.

When you mean larger lens, does that equate to a wider angle or just the width of the lens?