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 Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment People 
Thread started 11 Aug 2008 (Monday) 20:12
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

PHOTOS: Tombstone, Arizona

 
Maxxum5
Senior Member
345 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2008
     
Aug 11, 2008 20:12 |  #1

Ok - So "technically" this is my first PEOPLE post requesting for C & C. What I discovered this past weekend, is that I need better lenses, or a new camera. Keep in mind, these photos are taken with the Konica-Minolta Maxxum 5d and I had the stock 70-300mm lens at f/5.6 with a TIFFEN UV and CIRC POLARIZING Filter on the lens. I don't think it would have made much a difference in blocking light, but to go from f/5.6 to a f/2.8, do I increase the ISO to say, 400? 800? Or, bump up the EV one stop? Two stops? I am still learning the light aspect. Help me understand how to compensate for f/5.6 lenses....

What do you think? All are 100% straight from the camera. JPG format. No editing or Photochops. Some would look fantastic in Black & White while others would look great in SEPIA. I do not have Photoshop at this time.

Comments, please.....

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://img.photobucket​.com …aliasid98498/PI​CT1930.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO


PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://img.photobucket​.com …aliasid98498/PI​CT1919.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO


PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://img.photobucket​.com …aliasid98498/PI​CT1947.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO


PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://img.photobucket​.com …aliasid98498/PI​CT1949.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO


PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://img.photobucket​.com …aliasid98498/PI​CT1956.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO


PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://img.photobucket​.com …aliasid98498/PI​CT1969.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO


PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://img.photobucket​.com …aliasid98498/PI​CT1979.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO


PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://img.photobucket​.com …aliasid98498/PI​CT1996.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Maxxum5
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
345 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2008
     
Aug 11, 2008 20:13 |  #2

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://img.photobucket​.com …aliasid98498/PI​CT2027.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO


PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://img.photobucket​.com …aliasid98498/PI​CT2126.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO


PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://img.photobucket​.com …aliasid98498/PI​CT2128.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO


PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://img.photobucket​.com …aliasid98498/PI​CT2135.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO


PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://img.photobucket​.com …aliasid98498/PI​CT2138.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO


PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://img.photobucket​.com …aliasid98498/PI​CT2183.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Naturalist
Adrift on a lonely vast sea
Avatar
5,367 posts
Gallery: 93 photos
Likes: 751
Joined May 2007
Location: Tallgrass prairies of northwest Minnesota
     
Aug 11, 2008 20:24 |  #3

Many of these would look good in B&W or sepia, obviously.

I am curious as to why you stacked the filters. Many of the images looked "fogged" like you were shooting through smoke/haze or the lens was cold?

Poses and characters look great!


Doug
My Gear List
http://www.douglasbrow​nsr.com (external link)
Entered: 2-16-84 Passed: 5-22-84 Raised: 6-19-84

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DDCSD
GIVIN' GOOD KARMA
Avatar
13,313 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jun 2007
Location: South Dakota
     
Aug 11, 2008 20:30 |  #4

First, you should take the filters off of the lens. The CPL really doesn't do anything for you and the Tiffen UV filter likely caused the washed out look that you are seeing in many of your images.

The CPL also reduced the amount of light entering the camera, causing you to use slower shutter speeds. It seems on many of your seemingly out of focus or "soft" images suffer from slow shutter speeds, according to your EXIF data.

In the bright sunlight, or when using flash, the f/5.6 lens won't hinder you at all. The only time that you really need a "faster" lens is if you are shooting in very low light. Not having the CPL on the lens would have made up the difference between a f/5.6 and f/2.8 lens.

F/5.6 to f/2.8 is two stops of light, so going from ISO 100 to ISO 400 would have the same effect (amount of light let in) as going to an f/2.8 lens. It will affect other aspects of the image, but the amount of light let in would be equal. Again though, that is not really a factor in these examples with bright daylight.

You have some great shots with great composition. I think this is the most important thing, since you can learn the technical aspects of photography pretty easily, but having an eye for a good shot and good composition is best when it comes naturally.


Derek
Bucketman Karma Fund
https://photography-on-the.net …php?p=9903477#p​ost9903477
POTN FF L2 MadTown Birds


Full Gear List & Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DDCSD
GIVIN' GOOD KARMA
Avatar
13,313 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jun 2007
Location: South Dakota
     
Aug 11, 2008 20:34 |  #5

You did a great job for the harsh daylight you had in these shots. I highly recommend the National Geographic Photography Field Guides. they area what I started on 8 years ago when I started with SLR's. They are a bit dated and don't cover a lot about digital photography, but photography is still photography, and the books cover the basice very well and explain them in understandable terms. I still read mine.

This is the one I started with:
http://www.amazon.com …oks&qid=1218504​817&sr=8-3 (external link)

Whole series:
http://www.amazon.com …guide+photograp​hy&x=0&y=0 (external link)


Derek
Bucketman Karma Fund
https://photography-on-the.net …php?p=9903477#p​ost9903477
POTN FF L2 MadTown Birds


Full Gear List & Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Maxxum5
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
345 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2008
     
Aug 11, 2008 20:46 |  #6

Naturalist wrote in post #6089630 (external link)
Many of these would look good in B&W or sepia, obviously.

I am curious as to why you stacked the filters. Many of the images looked "fogged" like you were shooting through smoke/haze or the lens was cold?

Poses and characters look great!

Quite possible the stacking lenses "fogged" it? I actually see a difference with the CIRC POLARIZER. IT cuts through the glare on sunglasses as well as helps eliminate sheen on the faces glow. It really does....It also helps eliminate the glare off windows too. If anything, I woul dtake off the UV. But I thought these filters were useful? Am I NOT supposed to stack them, or am I supposed to compensate with them on? The Filter book says 3/4 a stop for the CIRC Polarizer and no change fo rthe UV filter. I am wondering if teh stacked lenses are making that much of a difference......




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Maxxum5
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
345 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2008
     
Aug 11, 2008 20:50 |  #7

DDCSD wrote in post #6089656 (external link)
First, you should take the filters off of the lens. The CPL really doesn't do anything for you and the Tiffen UV filter likely caused the washed out look that you are seeing in many of your images.

The CPL also reduced the amount of light entering the camera, causing you to use slower shutter speeds. It seems on many of your seemingly out of focus or "soft" images suffer from slow shutter speeds, according to your EXIF data.

In the bright sunlight, or when using flash, the f/5.6 lens won't hinder you at all. The only time that you really need a "faster" lens is if you are shooting in very low light. Not having the CPL on the lens would have made up the difference between a f/5.6 and f/2.8 lens.

F/5.6 to f/2.8 is two stops of light, so going from ISO 100 to ISO 400 would have the same effect (amount of light let in) as going to an f/2.8 lens. It will affect other aspects of the image, but the amount of light let in would be equal. Again though, that is not really a factor in these examples with bright daylight.

You have some great shots with great composition. I think this is the most important thing, since you can learn the technical aspects of photography pretty easily, but having an eye for a good shot and good composition is best when it comes naturally.

Thankls you Sir. I am going to do a TEST and take a pic with teh filters STACKED, then remove one by one to see the difference. Then, use only ONE to see the variance from UV or CIRC POLARIZER. I think my UV is the outside lens so..I guess it is field testing time..... Thanks fo rthe info! I will start with simple pic, then bump up to ISO 400, then 800. Stay tuned...Thanks.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Naturalist
Adrift on a lonely vast sea
Avatar
5,367 posts
Gallery: 93 photos
Likes: 751
Joined May 2007
Location: Tallgrass prairies of northwest Minnesota
     
Aug 11, 2008 20:53 |  #8

Your camera meters through the lens so filter compensation is not necessary - it takes care of that when it is reading the light.


Doug
My Gear List
http://www.douglasbrow​nsr.com (external link)
Entered: 2-16-84 Passed: 5-22-84 Raised: 6-19-84

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Naturalist
Adrift on a lonely vast sea
Avatar
5,367 posts
Gallery: 93 photos
Likes: 751
Joined May 2007
Location: Tallgrass prairies of northwest Minnesota
     
Aug 11, 2008 20:55 as a reply to  @ Maxxum5's post |  #9

When you're in bright sun like I see in these images, you really do not need ISO 400.

Definitely to an image quality test. Mount your camera on a tripod and shoot the same subject with and without filters. You will probably be surprised at the outcome.


Doug
My Gear List
http://www.douglasbrow​nsr.com (external link)
Entered: 2-16-84 Passed: 5-22-84 Raised: 6-19-84

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
azpix
Goldmember
Avatar
3,335 posts
Likes: 19
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Chandler, Arizona USA
     
Aug 11, 2008 21:05 |  #10

most look hazy or oof on my end.

imho, you don't need a UV filter, ever.


Gear- 7d, 24-70L, sigma 70-200, Sigma 120-400, canon 50 1.4, Canon 100 2.0,sigma 10-20 and a DJI Mavic Pro Drone

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DDCSD
GIVIN' GOOD KARMA
Avatar
13,313 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jun 2007
Location: South Dakota
     
Aug 11, 2008 21:07 |  #11

Maxxum5 wrote in post #6089786 (external link)
Thankls you Sir. I am going to do a TEST and take a pic with teh filters STACKED, then remove one by one to see the difference. Then, use only ONE to see the variance from UV or CIRC POLARIZER. I think my UV is the outside lens so..I guess it is field testing time..... Thanks fo rthe info! I will start with simple pic, then bump up to ISO 400, then 800. Stay tuned...Thanks.

The reason that some of the images were hazy and other were not is the camera's relation to the sun. when the camera is pointed at the sun, you'll get some lens flare that will reduce the quality of the image. The filters will make this much worse. Try your tests with the lens pointed towards the sun and not towards the sun.


Derek
Bucketman Karma Fund
https://photography-on-the.net …php?p=9903477#p​ost9903477
POTN FF L2 MadTown Birds


Full Gear List & Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Naturalist
Adrift on a lonely vast sea
Avatar
5,367 posts
Gallery: 93 photos
Likes: 751
Joined May 2007
Location: Tallgrass prairies of northwest Minnesota
     
Aug 11, 2008 21:09 |  #12

Good observation Derek!

I shoot without filters (unless I desire a particular ND or CP effect) and ALWAYS with a hood and this is why!


Doug
My Gear List
http://www.douglasbrow​nsr.com (external link)
Entered: 2-16-84 Passed: 5-22-84 Raised: 6-19-84

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OneEyedJack
Senior Member
608 posts
Joined May 2007
     
Aug 12, 2008 04:31 |  #13

only time i would use a uv filter is to protect my glass if im shooting in a dirty or wet environment. i use it on all my beach shots so i dont get mist or sand on my glass.


flickr (external link)

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

3,797 views & 0 likes for this thread
PHOTOS: Tombstone, Arizona
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment People 
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 dm19dm
1728 guests, 313 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.