If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Red Shot gives you wiiiiiiings
Ok, I shot it with my pentax k1000. I have recently gotten some
filters, so this was with a sky filter and a polarizing filter. The film was 200spd. SO a few questions. Was there any use to having the polarizing filter on? I noticed that it changes water and sky, but doesn't seem to do much else. I had thought it would vastly eliminate glare, but perhaps I am expecting too much? Anyone think that the neon gets affected by the polarizer? It should just be a little dimmer no? Also, what, exactly, is the sky filter doing? I had been told to use it, if for no other reason then to protect the actual lense mounted on the camera. I also have a red b&w contrast filter, but haven't used that, should i expect dramatic results with that? Now, i've been having some issues. I took a bunch of photos with this setup (minus the polarizer) indoors, using 200 speed film. They came out terrible (der) wtf was I even bothering for right? Well I had thought that, as long as the light meter is 'balanced' in the middle of the scale, that there was enough light to get a picture. Apparently not. So if one is using, not 200 but say 400 speed film, and is in lower light than prefered, should one try to get the light meter to swing more torwards the '+' side by mucking with the apeture and shutter speed? Or is that just dumd? I noticed that a lot of people are including their apeture (f-stops) on their submissions, my question is, why? Apeture is controlling how wide the shutter opens no? so its more or less a function of how much light reaches the film right? So i don't understand the relevance (obviously, this means I don't fully understand that apeture is used for). And I recall someone saying something about changing depth of focus via altering apeture, whats that all about? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"R.Schenck" wrote in message om... Ok, I shot it with my pentax k1000. I have recently gotten some filters, so this was with a sky filter and a polarizing filter. The film was 200spd. SO a few questions. Was there any use to having the polarizing filter on? I noticed that it changes water and sky, but doesn't seem to do much else. I had thought it would vastly eliminate glare, but perhaps I am expecting too much? Anyone think that the neon gets affected by the polarizer? It should just be a little dimmer no? The polarizer will have no effect on non-polarized light except for an overall darkening (requiring more exposure). For the most part the only polarized light is from the sky (mostly 90 deg. from the sun) and from specular reflections, particularly off water, glass, and pavement. In your case, exposing for the sign caused the sky to be overexposed enough that even with the polarizer it was still beyond the range of your film. So you probably would have been better off without the polarizer in this case. -Kevin |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
R.Schenck choreographed a chorus line of high-kicking electrons to spell
out: Ok, I shot it with my pentax k1000. I have recently gotten some filters, so this was with a sky filter and a polarizing filter. The film was 200spd. SO a few questions. Was there any use to having the polarizing filter on? I noticed that it changes water and sky, but doesn't seem to do much else. I had thought it would vastly eliminate glare, but perhaps I am expecting too much? Anyone think that the neon gets affected by the polarizer? It should just be a little dimmer no? Kevin N. covered this part fairly well... Also, what, exactly, is the sky filter doing? I had been told to use it, if for no other reason then to protect the actual lense mounted on the camera. It might not do very much at all. They might block UV, and the usual "sky" filter has a slightly pink cast to remove some of the bluish "haze" from shots outdoors. Here's a technical overview and a good place to start: http://www.photo.net/equipment/filters/ . As a small note, stacking filters is often not a good idea because of vignetting and flare risks. I also have a red b&w contrast filter, but haven't used that, should i expect dramatic results with that? Well, for color it'll turn everything red. Results in B&W will be higher contrast for certain colors, such as green or blue. Now, i've been having some issues. I took a bunch of photos with this setup (minus the polarizer) indoors, using 200 speed film. They came out terrible (der) wtf was I even bothering for right? Well I had thought that, as long as the light meter is 'balanced' in the middle of the scale, that there was enough light to get a picture. Apparently not. So if one is using, not 200 but say 400 speed film, and is in lower light than prefered, should one try to get the light meter to swing more torwards the '+' side by mucking with the apeture and shutter speed? Or is that just dumd? What was "terrible?" Too dark, grainy...? Generally you do want the meter to be balanced, but that also depends on what the meter is pointing at. Another link: http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/The_Grey_Card.html I noticed that a lot of people are including their apeture (f-stops) on their submissions, my question is, why? Apeture is controlling how wide the shutter opens no? so its more or less a function of how much light reaches the film right? So i don't understand the relevance (obviously, this means I don't fully understand that apeture is used for). And I recall someone saying something about changing depth of focus via altering apeture, whats that all about? Aperture and shutter speed (and ISO) determine exposure and all are directly related: Raise one and lower another. Aperture also affects depth of field... http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glos...f_Field_01.htm It's a start! As far as your photo for Red, I'd suggest cropping more tightly on the sign; the various supporting structures on the left are distracting to me. -- ______________A L L D O N E ! B Y E B Y E !_________________ | __ "The Internet is where lunatics are | (__ * _ _ _ _ internetworked worldwide at the speed of light. | __)|| | |(_)| \ *This* is progress?" --J. Shinal |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
R.Schenck choreographed a chorus line of high-kicking electrons to spell
out: Ok, I shot it with my pentax k1000. I have recently gotten some filters, so this was with a sky filter and a polarizing filter. The film was 200spd. SO a few questions. Was there any use to having the polarizing filter on? I noticed that it changes water and sky, but doesn't seem to do much else. I had thought it would vastly eliminate glare, but perhaps I am expecting too much? Anyone think that the neon gets affected by the polarizer? It should just be a little dimmer no? Kevin N. covered this part fairly well... Also, what, exactly, is the sky filter doing? I had been told to use it, if for no other reason then to protect the actual lense mounted on the camera. It might not do very much at all. They might block UV, and the usual "sky" filter has a slightly pink cast to remove some of the bluish "haze" from shots outdoors. Here's a technical overview and a good place to start: http://www.photo.net/equipment/filters/ . As a small note, stacking filters is often not a good idea because of vignetting and flare risks. I also have a red b&w contrast filter, but haven't used that, should i expect dramatic results with that? Well, for color it'll turn everything red. Results in B&W will be higher contrast for certain colors, such as green or blue. Now, i've been having some issues. I took a bunch of photos with this setup (minus the polarizer) indoors, using 200 speed film. They came out terrible (der) wtf was I even bothering for right? Well I had thought that, as long as the light meter is 'balanced' in the middle of the scale, that there was enough light to get a picture. Apparently not. So if one is using, not 200 but say 400 speed film, and is in lower light than prefered, should one try to get the light meter to swing more torwards the '+' side by mucking with the apeture and shutter speed? Or is that just dumd? What was "terrible?" Too dark, grainy...? Generally you do want the meter to be balanced, but that also depends on what the meter is pointing at. Another link: http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/The_Grey_Card.html I noticed that a lot of people are including their apeture (f-stops) on their submissions, my question is, why? Apeture is controlling how wide the shutter opens no? so its more or less a function of how much light reaches the film right? So i don't understand the relevance (obviously, this means I don't fully understand that apeture is used for). And I recall someone saying something about changing depth of focus via altering apeture, whats that all about? Aperture and shutter speed (and ISO) determine exposure and all are directly related: Raise one and lower another. Aperture also affects depth of field... http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glos...f_Field_01.htm It's a start! As far as your photo for Red, I'd suggest cropping more tightly on the sign; the various supporting structures on the left are distracting to me. -- ______________A L L D O N E ! B Y E B Y E !_________________ | __ "The Internet is where lunatics are | (__ * _ _ _ _ internetworked worldwide at the speed of light. | __)|| | |(_)| \ *This* is progress?" --J. Shinal |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
S Lee wrote in message ...
R.Schenck choreographed a chorus line of high-kicking electrons to spell out: hey, I did all that? Cool! snip Kevin N. covered this part fairly well... Yes he did, and thanks to him too. It might not do very much at all. They might block UV, and the usual "sky" filter has a slightly pink cast to remove some of the bluish "haze" from shots outdoors. Here's a technical overview and a good place to start: http://www.photo.net/equipment/filters/ . As a small note, stacking filters is often not a good idea because of vignetting and flare risks. Oh. I'll have to keep that in mind. I have a flexible funnel sort of thing on the end of it, and I thought that would result in vignetting more than anything, but so far no problems. I also have a red b&w contrast filter, but haven't used that, should i expect dramatic results with that? Well, for color it'll turn everything red. Results in B&W will be higher contrast for certain colors, such as green or blue. So a definite for landscape photos then. Now, i've been having some issues. I took a bunch of photos with this setup (minus the polarizer) indoors, using 200 speed film. They came out terrible snip What was "terrible?" Super dark, just the barest shade of people in it. I would think that some of that could be corrected for in the development process, but this was really too much. snip Another link: http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/The_Grey_Card.html Excellent, thanks. The one below too. Aperture also affects depth of field... http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glos...f_Field_01.htm It's a start! As far as your photo for Red, I'd suggest cropping more tightly on the sign; the various supporting structures on the left are distracting to me. Thanks, I had thought I cropped too much for the shoot-in in the first place, I think I should've taken a little more time with it, at lest had the top of the sign showing more, took that kinda close. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
R.Schenck wrote:
Ok, I shot it with my pentax k1000. I have recently gotten some filters, so this was with a sky filter and a polarizing filter. The film was 200spd. First off, the shot seems underexposed. Yes under. The 'grey' in the white areas of the sign attest tot his. Negative film right? More exposure and the whites would have been whiter and colors brigheter. (Never be afraid of overexposing negative film by a stop or so). SO a few questions. Was there any use to having the polarizing filter on? I noticed that it changes water and sky, but doesn't seem to do much else. I had thought it would vastly eliminate glare, but perhaps I am expecting too much? Anyone think that the neon gets affected by the polarizer? It should just be a little dimmer no? A pol is effective in reducing haze and glare esp. when the light source is at a perpendicular to the lens axis. For artificial lights it can enhance (or reduce) their reflections... but can only reduce the direct path light, not enhance it. Also, what, exactly, is the sky filter doing? I had been told to use it, if for no other reason then to protect the actual lense mounted on the camera. It is doing SFA. But if you believe it is protecting your lenses then it is doing no damage ... other than increasing the chance of vignetting when shooting wide-angle and wide open, esp. with the polarizer stacked on it. I also have a red b&w contrast filter, but haven't used that, should i expect dramatic results with that? In B&W yes. (Well in color too! Everything will turn red or black...) red in B&W is a strong contrast filter for daylight shots... really makes the sky dark on the print and the clouds stand out... Now, i've been having some issues. I took a bunch of photos with this setup (minus the polarizer) indoors, using 200 speed film. They came out terrible (der) wtf was I even bothering for right? Well I had thought that, as long as the light meter is 'balanced' in the middle of the scale, that there was enough light to get a picture. Apparently not. So if one is using, not 200 but say 400 speed film, and is in lower light than prefered, should one try to get the light meter to swing more torwards the '+' side by mucking with the apeture and shutter speed? Or is that just dumd? Learn about the meter. The first thing about the meter is it thinks the whole world is a rather dull looking grey. So if you point it at something white, it believes that that "grey" must be in very bright light ... so underexposure occurs. Likewise if you point at something black it believes that that grey does not have much light so overexp. occurs... purchase an 18% grey card and you will learn about this very quickly. I noticed that a lot of people are including their apeture (f-stops) on their submissions, my question is, why? Apeture is controlling how wide the shutter opens no? so its more or less a function of how much light reaches the film right? So i don't understand the relevance (obviously, this means I don't fully understand that apeture is used for). And I recall someone saying something about changing depth of focus via altering apeture, whats that all about? exposure = film_senitivity X exposure_time X light the aperture controls the last variable (light). Each stop of aperture allows half as much (or twice as much) light to reach the film. For a given film speed, 1/125 f/5.6 is the same as 1/250 f/4 (exposure wise) ... this is the principle of "exposure reciprocity", a basic concept you must learn in order to begin to control your exposures. Note that when you point your camera at a white wall that the exposure needle shows a different speed than when, in the same light, you point it at a dark sofa. Yet there is only one correct exposure in that light ... get a grey card to find out .... it, in the same light will give you a correct exposure reading (although from that you can bias either way for specific effects). Cheers, Alan -- -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
R.Schenck choreographed a chorus line of high-kicking electrons to spell
out: S Lee wrote in message ... R.Schenck choreographed a chorus line of high-kicking electrons to spell out: hey, I did all that? Cool! good place to start: http://www.photo.net/equipment/filters/ . As a small note, stacking filters is often not a good idea because of vignetting and flare risks. Oh. I'll have to keep that in mind. I have a flexible funnel sort of thing on the end of it, and I thought that would result in vignetting more than anything, but so far no problems. The vignetting from multiple screw-on filters occurs more typically at wide angles. I also have a red b&w contrast filter, but haven't used that, should i expect dramatic results with that? Well, for color it'll turn everything red. Results in B&W will be higher contrast for certain colors, such as green or blue. So a definite for landscape photos then. Helpful certainly... Now, i've been having some issues. I took a bunch of photos with this setup (minus the polarizer) indoors, using 200 speed film. They came out terrible snip What was "terrible?" Super dark, just the barest shade of people in it. I would think that some of that could be corrected for in the development process, but this was really too much. No flash? -- ______________A L L D O N E ! B Y E B Y E !_________________ | __ "The Internet is where lunatics are | (__ * _ _ _ _ internetworked worldwide at the speed of light. | __)|| | |(_)| \ *This* is progress?" --J. Shinal |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
R.Schenck choreographed a chorus line of high-kicking electrons to spell
out: S Lee wrote in message ... R.Schenck choreographed a chorus line of high-kicking electrons to spell out: hey, I did all that? Cool! good place to start: http://www.photo.net/equipment/filters/ . As a small note, stacking filters is often not a good idea because of vignetting and flare risks. Oh. I'll have to keep that in mind. I have a flexible funnel sort of thing on the end of it, and I thought that would result in vignetting more than anything, but so far no problems. The vignetting from multiple screw-on filters occurs more typically at wide angles. I also have a red b&w contrast filter, but haven't used that, should i expect dramatic results with that? Well, for color it'll turn everything red. Results in B&W will be higher contrast for certain colors, such as green or blue. So a definite for landscape photos then. Helpful certainly... Now, i've been having some issues. I took a bunch of photos with this setup (minus the polarizer) indoors, using 200 speed film. They came out terrible snip What was "terrible?" Super dark, just the barest shade of people in it. I would think that some of that could be corrected for in the development process, but this was really too much. No flash? -- ______________A L L D O N E ! B Y E B Y E !_________________ | __ "The Internet is where lunatics are | (__ * _ _ _ _ internetworked worldwide at the speed of light. | __)|| | |(_)| \ *This* is progress?" --J. Shinal |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Alan Browne writes: In B&W yes. (Well in color too! Everything will turn red or black...) red in B&W is a strong contrast filter for daylight shots... really makes the sky dark on the print and the clouds stand out... In my experience it also darkens grass and foliage, so use with care. -- http://www.petezilla.co.uk |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Chant wrote:
In article , Alan Browne writes: In B&W yes. (Well in color too! Everything will turn red or black...) red in B&W is a strong contrast filter for daylight shots... really makes the sky dark on the print and the clouds stand out... In my experience it also darkens grass and foliage, so use with care. It's been about 3 years since the last time I used my red filter... and at that on C-41 B&W (ugh). Cheers, Alan -- -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[SI] XXXV (old stuff) Alan's comments | Alan Browne | 35mm Photo Equipment | 150 | September 4th 04 07:01 PM |
[SI] Heat - my comments | Alan Browne | 35mm Photo Equipment | 7 | September 3rd 04 05:08 PM |
[SI] Heat - my shot | Alan Browne | 35mm Photo Equipment | 13 | September 1st 04 02:34 PM |