PHOTOS: Tombstone, Arizona

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.....

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

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!

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.

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

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

Naturalist wrote in post #6089630
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......

DDCSD wrote in post #6089656
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.

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

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.

most look hazy or oof on my end.

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

Maxxum5 wrote in post #6089786
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.

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!

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.