[Closed] DSLR Question

Try manual mode. Set your ISO to 100 and aperture to F8 or 11. Then adjust your shutter speed, the brighter it is the faster it will have to be. Play around and you will figure it out.

You should be able to get the results you want without a CP or ND filter.

Having said that CP will give you richer colours/darker blue sky/Better cloud definition. It will also go some way to removing reflections should you wish to do so.

ND filter will reduce the light going into the lens but I can't see why would not be able to do this just using the camera settings.

(EDIT pardon the repeat of seavers, we were typing at the same time)

Could be all sorts of things. Do you have an example, with your camera settings? ISO too high, shutter speed to slow, aperture too large...

A grad filter might be the answer if there's a really bright sky and dark ground, but you should be able to get going with good exposure. Also, shooting in raw will allow you to pull back the bright spots and push up the dark spots, assuming they're not blown/crushed. As I said, an example of your problem would enable folk to identify if there's something wildly amiss in the first instance...

I don't think a grad filter is going to sort out bright skies in daytime - it's just too bright for them to make a difference! A polariser certainly makes a difference. I think I shot this one with a polariser:

[url= https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7547/15880245466_04a0b9d367_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7547/15880245466_04a0b9d367_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/qchpHC ]California and Yosemite-13.jpg[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/gingerfox/ ]Kit Carruthers[/url], on Flickr

But as above, you want to have a low ISO, and high shutter and/or f number. You don't need a tripod for daytime photos in bright light, only once shutter speeds are low in low light/night or you're using something like a 10-stop ND filter for long exposures.

Tripod-wise, this was my first tripod: http://www.amazon.co.uk/CamLink-Camlink-TP2500-Tripod/dp/B000TCSMUO/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1437090075&sr=8-4&keywords=camlink+tripod

Bought for about £35 at the time from Jessops. Had very few problems with it, although now use something a little more sophisticated (and smaller, and lighter), but at £10 on Amazon you'll not go far wrong!

https://flic.kr/p/pgTmMB this is my very first one last year. Trying to make the sky and plane stand out a bit better.
So basically low iso 100/200 F8 or above and fast shutter speed.

What will a CP and ND filter do for me. Hoping to get some decent scenary shots in Rhodes.

If you don't want to use full manual, just try adjusting the exposure compensation. ie set it to -1 stop.
That will help avoid blown out sky. It may make the foreground a bit dark, but you can brighten that in Photoshop etc afterwards.

Also for sunny days, usually best to keep the sun behind you.

Haven't got Photoshop. Is it needed?

Trying to make the sky and plane stand out a bit better.

Well, these are a bit different. To be honest, there's not a great deal you can do differently with your camera, which leaves you with playing around in post (crop some of the surplus, distracting background out, maybe add a little vignette to darken the edges and draw the eye in; use a brush to up the exposure/whites on the plane; use a grad tool to bring the sky down). The overall exposure is about right, though you may get away with pushing it up a little. The white balance is too cool on the Thomas Cook (1737). A physical ND grad would leave you with, probably, the tail being 'sliced' off by the lower exposure. Personally, I'd rather make adjustments in post than work with the physical constraints of a graduated filter.

As Craig said, shooting into the sun is always going to give you problems. Not just from a compositional exposure point of view, but your colour and contrast will suffer badly from the reflected light in the lens.

Haven't got Photoshop. Is it needed?

I'd say so, though Lightroom is more of a developing tool. Here's a very quick redux of one of your shots. Could have been much nicer if I'd had a raw file instead of a 3MB JPEG!

[IMG] [/IMG]

[IMG] [/IMG]

PS you've an oil/dust spot on your sensor. Right side, about 1/4 of the way down at the edge.

Pardon if all that is a bit rushed, it's a bit late here.

I think the problem with above is I was trying to capture the sun setting and also the plane had just landed.
Very first image. Shot in jpeg, I'll try some more when I get chance. Shoot in Raw now.

Yeah noticed that Mark turned into a bigger black splodge. Got my mate clean it he is more delicate than me.

One thing I'm finding difficult is I don't use my camera often enough. Have the 18-55 kit lens, 55-250 telephoto lens which replaced the Sigma used on above photo. And a 50mm lens. Struggle to get out and shoot as I'm uninspired.

Struggle to get out and shoot as I'm uninspired.

I'd recommend putting the 50mm on and going for a wander around town. Give yourself a mini-project, like 'capture something old' or think of a story you'd like to tell in pictures. What would you want to get from photography?

A circular polarizer will reduce reflections in non-metallic objects (and will reduce the exposure slightly) but it won't change the contrast between sky and land. If you want to do that you either need an ND grad or do it in post-production. If you use an ND grad you'll need a filter system so you can adjust it's vertical position, and you'll probably need several "darknesses" of filter for different levels of light. The 18-55mm kit lens is probably front focusing so that will cause a problem with both the ND grad and polarizer too.

Your best option is probably to shoot in RAW and do it in post-production. It's easier to get detail out of shadows than highlights so it's best to expose for the sky and bring the foreground back. If you don't have Photoshop you should be able to use Digital Photo Professional that came with the camera.

It might also be worth checking out High Dynamic Range (HDR) photography - a lot of the stuff online is overdone and grey looking but it is possible to get more natural looking results...

but it won't change the contrast between sky and land

The sky isn't polarised so will always look the same brightness regardless of the polarisers orientation (it's always going to block out a fair amount of the light). The ground is polarised so you can align the filter to allow almost all the light through.

If you don't want to use full manual, just try adjusting the exposure compensation. ie set it to -1 stop.
That will help avoid blown out sky. It may make the foreground a bit dark, but you can brighten that in Photoshop etc afterwards.

Also for sunny days, usually best to keep the sun behind you.

^ +1

First think that hit me when I saw yr plane pic was that hazy low light that was coming from the side of the shot.

A polarizer may reduce the glare on your subjects, and often make them stand out more. I have a circular polariser which has proven very useful at airshows (telephoto) as I can"t always be sure of finding a shooting location with the sun behind me, but it does reduce the light entering the lens so be sure to setup for speed. Wide-angle use of a polariser is a whole different ball game.

*edit nowadays I shoot mostly compact for landscapes, and, as someone mentioned - 'HDR', if used sensitively, can be your friend for challenging situations. Does yr DSLR have that function?

On the subject of Rhodes - for good pictures you will need to get up early as the sky gets very dusty and flat quite quickly. I've got very few landscape pictures in Greece that I'm happy with. Mostly sunsets and sunrises. Also there is always a bloody electric wire in the way.

yes it will.

The sky isn't polarised so will always look the same brightness regardless of the polarisers orientation (it's always going to block out a fair amount of the light). The ground is polarised so you can align the filter to allow almost all the light through.

A polariser will have most effect on the sky at 90 degrees to the sun. And the effect can be massive.

Mmmmmmm you can get good results using a polarizer but the conditions do need to be right. If you have a wide-angle lens you have to be careful the effect is evenly spread (using one on my 10-22mm is.....interesting), but they're great for getting reflections out of water.

Think I'm going to have to eat my hat on the contrast between land and sky thing though....grrrr
"polarizers will make skies appear deeper blue, will reduce glare and reflections off of water and other surfaces, and will reduce the contrast between land and sky."

[url= http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-lens-filters.htm ]http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-lens-filters.htm[/url]

I think the problem with above is I was trying to capture the sun setting and also the plane had just landed

Tough subject as you have a moving subject and a substantial contrast between exposure requirements for land/subject and sky.

If I was that fussed about bagging the shot I would probably go with one of these two methods:

1 Expose for the plane, then take a second frame exposing for the sunset (ideally without the plane) then composite the two frames in Photoshop

2. Shoot the scene in one frame using exposure comp and then in Ps make a mask for the plane/ground and use a levels adjustment layer to get the balance right for each. Shoot in RAW. I'd use aperture (nearly always do) or shutter priority and centre-weighted average metering ymmv

*afterthought - Funny things sunsets, I often find that the sunset/sky itself is the better focal point and the foreground/land is better in shadow/silhouette, yet other times the actually light/reflected light [/i]from[i] the setting sun lends a quality to the land/subject which puts exposure/focus concerns there rather than the sky so much, (as long as the sky isn't completely blownout)

Got me thinking about a grad filter, but moving subjects with a grad filter usually a no-no

The sky isn't polarised so will always look the same brightness regardless of the polarisers orientation (it's always going to block out a fair amount of the light). The ground is polarised so you can align the filter to allow almost all the light through.

Ooh. This is a bit backwards. The sky is full of scattered light (i.e reflected from bits of dust etc) so it is polarised, in lots of directions, so the filter will stop the parts of the light appropriately polarised, as mentioned above, predominantly at 90 degrees to the sun. You can easily check this out through your viewfinder v

Shoot RAW if it's an option on your camera or otherwise bracket your shots: under expose -1 stop, expose correctly and over expose +1 stop. Then assemble in post with photoshop / lightroom etc...

This will give you cleanest 'pro' result.

If you can shoot RAW you're set yet still try and expose for the medium grey tone within the frame. You will still require a computer + Lightroom / Photoshop type software to turn it into a final design. Rely on the histogram rather than the preview image o the back of the camera. It's very easy to practice and repeat, just step outside and move the camera about whilst seeing the differences in the histogram. The end result may look flat and bit dull in camera but will pop with far more pixel information once you get it on your computer for editing.

🙂

I'll have a bash then when we get some decent weather. I need to get out and use it more. I just find myself stuck for inspiration.
Got the 50mm lensand enjoy the bokeh effect. The 55-250 is for Manchester Airport aircraft shots.

And kit lens landscapes usually. Want to take it out on the mtb with me but scared of smashing it up.

It's quite normal not to get an accurate exposure on both sky and land, because they're really two different things and require different exposures. Which is why filters have always been traditionally used in landscape photography. Nowadays, you can also get away with a a bit of Photoshop. Either by applying a graduated filter effect in Photoshop, or taking two photos at different exposures and merging them. Shooting in RAW will help, giving greater control over exposures in Photoshop.

Take a few photos w different exposures. Choose the one which JUST avoids having blown out highlights. Adjust the "shadows" or equivalent slider in your software of choice. Job done, in most cases.

I don't think a grad filter is going to sort out bright skies in daytime - it's just too bright for them to make a difference! A polariser certainly makes a difference. I think I shot this one with a polariser:

Now I'll start this by saying my experience is in video not stills work. I sometimes use a linear polariser and a 0.9 ND grad. That combo really sorts out bright skies!
I've tried a 1.2 ND grad but found that just a bit dark

I also use camera setups to help sometimes as well. Can you change the gamma response on a dslr??

My version, no filters needed. (ND would be tough with a moving subject and I don't think a polariser would help those shots)

1. Shoot RAW
2. Expose so the brightest part isn't over exposed
3. Develop RAW in Lightroom (try it free for a month see how it goes)
3a lift the shadows with the "shadows slider" or
3b use the exposure slider to get the plane correct. Get the sky back with the virtual neutral density filter.

Here is my standard dynamic range shot using this method (3b)

As shot

[url= https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7396/11313267243_0fb902487f_k.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7396/11313267243_0fb902487f_k.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/ieHscM ]dynamic range RAW (1 of 1)[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/john_clinch/ ]John Clinch[/url], on Flickr

Post processed

[url= https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2839/11277350895_dc59f32333_k.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2839/11277350895_dc59f32333_k.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/ibxnwp ]Barton Hills 2[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/john_clinch/ ]John Clinch[/url], on Flickr

jpg post processed

[url= https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7405/11313209076_fb39099f88_k.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7405/11313209076_fb39099f88_k.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/ieH9UU ]dynamic range jpg (1 of 1)[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/john_clinch/ ]John Clinch[/url], on Flickr

jpg post processed

Essentially unusable.

Post processed

What a difference. Those shots are a nice example of the difference in processing potential of raw and JPG.

There is a far simpler technique if you don't want to faff about with raw processing.

Point the camera mostly at the sky, half press the button so it meters for the sky, then whilst keeping it half pressed move the camera to get more ground in and take the picture.

This won't do the same as the raw processing but it might allow you to get what you want. It only takes a second to do. It's the same as exposure compensation but quicker.

Well managed to get blue skies and various sunset shots. Using manual mode. But they need touching up with post processing as above. Nowdo I get Lightroom or elements. Bearing in mind I'm a beginner?

Two very different things. I'd wager Lightroom will be what you're looking for.

An aside.

Am really jealous of peoples' ability on this thread. 🙂

Well managed to get blue skies and various sunset shots. Using manual mode. But they need touching up with post processing as above. Nowdo I get Lightroom or elements. Bearing in mind I'm a beginner?

Try both for free for a month

But IMHO its lightroom if you shoot RAW. Worth it as it allows selective adjustments in RAW conversion.

There is a far simpler technique if you don't want to faff about with raw processing.

You're just metering for the sky. The foreground is still going to be underexposed, so you'll still have to "faff" around with processing.

It's the same as exposure compensation but quicker.

In a way, but not really. EC will alway under/over-exposed to a specific value. Spot metering is going to be (probably) different every time.

Now do I get Lightroom or elements. Bearing in mind I'm a beginner?

I'd say Lightroom. It's a dedicated digital darkroom for developing photographs. Elements/Photoshop is an image editing software for putting high heels on badgers etc.. Yes, PS has the tools to do what LR does, but LR is, essentially, much simpler and has a workflow intuitive to photo development. It's also a very, very good system for storing and cataloging your files/photos.

You're just metering for the sky. The foreground is still going to be underexposed

Yes, but this may be the desired effect. The op didn't specify whether or not he wanted to keep detail in both the sky and landscape. Just giving him and easy thing to try to see if it works for him.

I'll go for Lightroom then. Need to replace the screen on my HTC m8 but that can wait and completely off topic.

Any links to the free trial?

It's just spot metering. You described spot metering as though it is the same as EC, which it isn't.

The op didn't specify whether or not he wanted to keep detail in both the sky and landscape.

He did. He wanted to use a graduated ND to bring down the highlights in the sky while keeping other subject matter, like the foreground or things in it, like airplanes, adequately exposed.

Trying to make the sky and plane stand out a bit better.

Any links to the free trial?

https://creative.adobe.com/products/download/lightroom?promoid=KSPGB

It's just spot metering.

If you want to have a pedant fest then no, it's not spot metering at all, that is a different thing. But my contribution is made so enjoy your picture taking and I will see you on the next thread 🙂

The sky is full of scattered light (i.e reflected from bits of dust etc) so it is polarised, in lots of directions,

If we're being really pedantic then all electromagnetic radiation (inc light) is polarised. Whether or not a specific polarising filter makes much difference will depend on the relative variation of the polarisation and what affect the filtering has.

Polarising filters are a bit hit and miss ime. It was brilliant back in the days of film, but only a subtle impact on my digital cam.

@molgrips. Out of interest are you using circular polarising filters on your digital cams or the ones from you film days.

Film filters were linear polarised and do not work on digital.

I find I get really strong results with my polarising filters.

Yes ff. I had an extra comma in there.

I find I get really strong results with my polarising filters.

Likewise. In fact you could argue that polarisers are the ONLY filters it makes any sense to use on digital. Hit and miss they ain't - the laws of physics being what they are 🙂

Wouldn't be without mine. I do like to pack a few nd grads as well when shooting landscape but can't afford any decent ones for the system I inherited off my dad.

Dbg yes circular polarisers for digital.. Had an effect, just nit as good as I was hoping.

The effect of the filters is only muted on DSLRs by their lower dynamic range. As most seem to use post production to overcome this it doesn't really matter. A DSLR minus software is as bad as one without a tripod or lens hood.
For me a polariser is a basic tool as I spent 20yrs shooting water sports in sunny locations. They really are an essential and for most should be the first after you buy a skylight for every lens to save the front element.

...after you buy a skylight for every lens to save the front element.

Run away! Run away!!! What about the distortions and aberrations from the bound-to-be-impure skylight and the trapped light and the reflections and the mist and light...oh shit, not the skylight filter debate!!!! I heard that the internet almost sank once because of the collective consternation from somebody asking: 'Skylight Filter: why bother?'.

Run away! Run away!!

+1

Why would I want to shove a £30 piece of trash on the end of a £1k+ lens?

You should use good quality neutral clear filters to protect your objectifs.

For information there is a special software (for advanced users) for most Canon DSLR called Magic Lantern that can do high dynamic range with a single shot, this is called Dual ISO.

Sorry if my english is bad.

You should use good quality neutral clear filters to protect your objectifs.

If you mean lens then that's what the lens hood it for, plus you get zero distortion from it.

I'm old school and shoot a lot in dusty, wet and salty conditions. I know what I'd rather replace, a decent quality filter rather than a lens front element. I'm not talking fingerprints, I'm talking on a beach in force five winds shooting kitesurfing or windsurfing. If you have a less threatening environment then feel to do what is appropriate. I certainly would. But it is interesting how quickly things get muddy.

If you mean lens then that's what the lens hood it for, plus you get zero distortion from it

This. + a million.

on a beach in force five winds shooting kitesurfing or windsurfing

That's not the same as recommending automatically buying a filter for every len you own.

What about the distortions and aberrations from the bound-to-be-impure skylight

Well it's undetectable on my camera and lenses, so no biggie for me. Except shooting indoors with a light bulb in the shot, then I got a reflection in the shot.

You really don't need to worry about this stuff anything like as much as the internet nerdies tell you to. A cheap filter won't completely trash your shots. However a lens hood also protects fairly well.. But they also can hinder putting your camera in some bags so.. Meh.

Well it's undetectable on my camera and lenses, so no biggie for me. Except shooting indoors with a light bulb in the shot, then I got a reflection in the shot.

I was being ironic!!!! I honestly thought the tone of my post was obvious. How come you didn't oppugn the 'sinking of the internet'?

All that aside, I have a Sony a6000 and have just bought some Zeiss glass. Now I'd don't know but can anyone tell me the difference (i.e. what they are for) between polarising and UV filters?

http://www.zeiss.co.uk/camera-lenses/en_gb/camera_lenses/accessories.html

Thanks in advance 🙂

Polariser is an adjustable filter that reduces/removes reflections.
UV filter is a piece of clear* glass that you can put on the front of your lens to cover the glass under it. It may or may not affect the quality of the image your camera obtains. You may or may not be able to perceive the change in quality that may or may not occur.

*cue debate

The lens itself (being made of glass) with most likely filter out most of the UV-B and UV-C, so the UV filter is probably coated to absorb UV-A which normal glass is transparent to and the sensor will respond to.

Joining the pedant bandwagon, I should probably point out that the 1100D doesn't actually have spot metering, so it'll probably be centre-weighted or evaluative.

If you're using AF, when you point your camera to the skies and half press the shutter you'll re-focus on the sky as well as taking an exposure reading. Either use manual, or point it to the sky and hold down the * button to lock the exposure then recompose....

Polarizers are great for cleaning up wet reflections but a bit fiddly.

I've found myself standing on Portland Bill in a storm when the UV filter did a good job of protecting my lens from a mountain of brine so they can be useful at times, but mostly I leave it off.

In fact you could argue that polarisers are the ONLY filters it makes any sense to use on digital.

What about ND filters for long exposures?

What about ND filters for long exposures?

Used loads. The comment about "are the ONLY filters" is just nonsense.

What about ND filters for long exposures?

True 🙂

Backpedalling somewhat, a very long exposure *could* be achieved without a filter, whereas removing a specific polarisation cannot.

I was being ironic!!!!

D'oh.. but you'll forgive me for not noticing on a camera thread given the amount of bollocks they generate.. 🙂

Polariser is an adjustable filter that reduces/removes reflections.

That's not all it does - in bright sunlight it can really increase contrast when there's a lot of bright stuff around like rocks, water etc, and it makes the sky look way bluer and clouds cooler.

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

D'oh.. but you'll forgive me for not noticing on a camera thread given the amount of bollocks they generate..

Of course I will. No worries.

That's not all it does - in bright sunlight it can really increase contrast when there's a lot of bright stuff around like rocks, water etc, and it makes the sky look way bluer and clouds cooler.

Is that not achieved by filtering/removing reflections?

Not exactly. Reflected and scattered light are both eliminated in the same way, so at the same time as removing reflections you cut down on a lot of the light from the sky ie the blue stuff, which is why the sky looks darker blue and you get more contrast in the sky. Which looks cool.

However I do not understand exactly how it works because a) I didn't think the sun 's light was all polarized the same way anyway, and b) all the light we see objects by is reflected anyway so what the difference between that and the light being reflected from water is I don't know. Will have to look it up after lunch 🙂

We've flogged filters to death 😉 so I'll move on to tripods.

Don't waste your money buying something 'that'll do'.

Paying for what you get never rings more true with tripods and I'd strongly urge you to start the budget at £100.

A cheap noodly POS is going to flap around in the slightest breeze be very frustrating. So much so that you won't bother taking it out and thus defeating the point of buying one in the first place.

Also why would you plonk £X amount of expensive camera gear on a twig?

[/start internet willywaving with tripod pron]

This shot
https://flic.kr/p/r7zkRu
[img] [/img]

was taken in a howling gale. Camera was sat on [url= http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-gitzo-gt5542ls-series-5-6x-systematic-tripod/p1529766 ]one of these[/url], sheltered in a gun emplacement and weighted down and yet it still rocked about

[/end willywaving]

all the light we see objects by is reflected anyway so what the difference between that and the light being reflected from water is I don't know.

The clue is in the name of the filter.

OP - if you're feeling uninspired then perhaps find a good club to join, I found that has helped inspire me. At my one there is a mix of practical events, competitions, talks and social. Also, I have found going on courses has helped me develop technically. I was on a macro course last week and was really impressed with some of the images I captured!

The clue is in the name of the filter

The clue as to why light reflected from shiny surfaces is different to that reflected from matt ones? Really? Missed it 🙂

I'm going to deduce that the sun's light is polarised one way and a reflective surface reflects it all back in a consistent polarisation which is why you can filter it out.. But how come it works for scattered light too?

Re tripods, that is a lot of work for a casual snapper, and contrary to what the new golfers say it's not mandatory. Most important thing about landscape is being in the right place at the right time, but you can't buy that or read reviews about it so people like to waffle on about tripods instead 🙂

Important if you are serious, but don't get bogged down in gear.

However I do not understand exactly how it works because a) I didn't think the sun 's light was all polarized the same way anyway, and b) all the light we see objects by is reflected anyway so what the difference between that and the light being reflected from water is I don't know

I suspect the reflection off water doesn't reflect all of the light and is selective for light in a certain polarisation relative to the surface. If you got a perfect EM reflection, the a Pol filter wouldn't do much as you'd have little cohesion on Pol angle.