[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?

"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

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

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

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.

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.--

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

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

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

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.--