Author Topic: It's Spring - Calendar Shots (Read 10593 times)

ChallengerHK · « **Reply #45 on:** July 17, 2012 - 08:14:22 AM »

What Goody said

Here are last year's words on the subject:

No Photoshopping to change the nature of the shot.
o This refers to things like putting your car with the Eiffel Tower or similar tricks. If you want a shot of your car at the Eiffel Tower, ship it to Paris and take the shot
o You can correct brightness, contrast and color cast. (Don�t worry too much about this, though. Your friendly neighborhood calendar team will also be paying attention to this. On the other hand, the better your shot looks for voting, the more votes it�s likely to get.)

When I first started helping with the calendar the rules said something like "No photoshopping", period. I added the rest of this to help people understand what did and did not constitute photoshopping, as the term is used in the slang sense.

Another way to look at it, and the way I look at it, is this: don't do anything that a person working in a chemical darkroom couldn't do with film and paper. Traditional photographers were always, on every shot, changing their printing to adjust contrast, brightness and color cast to get an optimum result.

ViperMan · « **Reply #46 on:** July 17, 2012 - 08:21:21 AM »

I gotcha - sounds good.

My camera too takes .RAW images and is a 14.1 megapixel camera. I've been saving my .RAW files in the hopes that someday, I'll know what to do with them.

I have .RAW images of the pictures I posted earlier, as well as several others that we took from the same trip. I'll post a few more later when I have the chance.

GoodysGotaCuda · « **Reply #47 on:** July 17, 2012 - 09:29:33 AM »

Quote from: ViperMan on July 17, 2012 - 08:21:21 AM

I gotcha - sounds good.

My camera too takes .RAW images and is a 14.1 megapixel camera. I've been saving my .RAW files in the hopes that someday, I'll know what to do with them.

I have .RAW images of the pictures I posted earlier, as well as several others that we took from the same trip. I'll post a few more later when I have the chance.

Cool, I've had good luck working with the 18mp .RAWs my Canon kicks out, unfortunately they are huge files. I have just made a dent in the Terabyte hard drive in my iMac

I use Lightroom 4 for PP on my raw files, it's much quicker and easier to use than photoshop and is also made by Adobe.

CUDA JAS · « **Reply #48 on:** July 17, 2012 - 09:08:21 PM »

Quote from: GoodysGotaCuda on July 17, 2012 - 09:29:33 AM

Cool, I've had good luck working with the 18mp .RAWs my Canon kicks out, unfortunately they are huge files. I have just made a dent in the Terabyte hard drive in my iMac

I use Lightroom 4 for PP on my raw files, it's much quicker and easier to use than photoshop and is also made by Adobe.

These filters you mention, are they the onse that go on the lenses, or are they applied in the post processing???

My wife has a nice cannon SLR, and has a few UV filters fro the lenses...wondoring if there are others I can get her???

Jason

ChallengerHK · « **Reply #49 on:** July 17, 2012 - 09:57:30 PM »

Quote from: CUDA JAS on July 17, 2012 - 09:08:21 PM

These filters you mention, are they the onse that go on the lenses, or are they applied in the post processing???

My wife has a nice cannon SLR, and has a few UV filters fro the lenses...wondoring if there are others I can get her???

Jason

They can be physical filters fitted on a lens, or filters within Photoshop, or a series of settings changed using Photoshop.

UV filters are good for cutting long-distance haze, and for protecting the front element of a lens. For cutting down reflections, making colors more intense, and getting blue skies with white clouds use polarizing filters (if you're shooting in color). Goody mentioned circular polarizers earlier; these are used if you have auto-focus and the front of the lens, where the filter threads on the lens, rotates during focusing. They're more expensive, or at least they were the last time I bought one, so if the front of the lens doesn't turn when focusing you can get a linear polarizer cheaper.

GoodysGotaCuda · « **Reply #50 on:** July 17, 2012 - 11:11:01 PM »

Actually the circular polarizing filter has nothing to do with autofocus, you can manually focus using a circular polarizing filter. Mine was about $20 from Best Buy and screws on the end of my lens. After fitted to the lens, the outer ring with the filter rotates freely from the rest of the lens and is rotated to where the desired glares are hidden from the shot.

ChallengerHK · « **Reply #51 on:** July 18, 2012 - 07:51:24 AM »

Going to have to disagree with you on this one, Goody. From Ritz Camera website:

"A Circular Polarizer is necessary for use with auto focus cameras. Standard (or linear) polarizers can cause under exposed and out of focus pictures when used on an automatic focus camera. A polarizing filter will decrease reflections and glare from glass, water and other reflective surfaces. It can dramatically increase contrast and color saturation for sharp, vividly colored pictures."

Also, my last circular polarizer was $125, and it's considered a cheapie. A high quality circular polarizer clocks in at about $400, if I remember correctly. Those prices were for a 82mm thread, which is pretty big. At $20, what you bought may not be optical glass.

GoodysGotaCuda · « **Reply #52 on:** July 18, 2012 - 09:44:12 AM »

Quote from: ChallengerHK on July 18, 2012 - 07:51:24 AM

Going to have to disagree with you on this one, Goody. From Ritz Camera website:

"A Circular Polarizer is necessary for use with auto focus cameras. Standard (or linear) polarizers can cause under exposed and out of focus pictures when used on an automatic focus camera. A polarizing filter will decrease reflections and glare from glass, water and other reflective surfaces. It can dramatically increase contrast and color saturation for sharp, vividly colored pictures."

Also, my last circular polarizer was $125, and it's considered a cheapie. A high quality circular polarizer clocks in at about $400, if I remember correctly. Those prices were for a 82mm thread, which is pretty big. At $20, what you bought may not be optical glass.

High-quality optical glass
Ensures sturdy construction.

Improves contrast and color saturation
In blue skies and white clouds.

Polarizing lens filter
Removes unwanted reflections from nonmetallic surfaces, such as glass and water.

Rotate mount
To control the effect.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Rocketfish%26%23153%3B+-+58mm+Circular+Polarizer/1035076.p;jsessionid=7C941580BDD0B8B52A6132D06F90A053.bbolsp-app03-72?id=1218212155938&skuId=1035076&st=rocketfish%20polarizer&cp=1&lp=1

There are absolutely better quality filters out there, substantially. However what I have is absolutely a "circular polarizing filter" and works well enough for me..for the money. It cut through water glare fine on my trip, cuts glare off paint/glass on cars, gives more blue skys...not sure what else I could ask for, for $20.

ChallengerHK · « **Reply #53 on:** July 18, 2012 - 07:02:25 PM »

Goody,

You're correct that any polarizer is adjusted by spinning the element. The issues with a circular polarizer, vis-a-vis a linear polarizer are, as I said, issues involving whether the front element of the camera lens rotates as it autofocuses. With such a camera/lens combo, you could set the polarizer, but if you reframed the shot to focus on something closer or farther away, you would change the polarizer setting if you were using a linear polarizer. Circular polarizers get around this limitation by having several polarization layers, some which behave linearly, and others which negate the effect of a rating lens element. Because they have multiple polarizing elements, circular polarizers are more expensive, hence the reason I suggested getting a linear polarizer if they would work.

As for the $20 Best Buy filter...it probably works just fine. As I said, my filters are more expensive, but they're probably larger filters covering more area, and I'm selling shots, so I want a reasonably good filter. I personally wouldn't use a Best Buy filter any more than I'd put used oil in my car, but the odds are that they're adequate.

Author Topic: It's Spring - Calendar Shots (Read 10593 times)

ChallengerHK

Re: It's Spring - Calendar Shots

ViperMan

Re: It's Spring - Calendar Shots

GoodysGotaCuda

Re: It's Spring - Calendar Shots

CUDA JAS

Re: It's Spring - Calendar Shots

ChallengerHK

Re: It's Spring - Calendar Shots

GoodysGotaCuda

Re: It's Spring - Calendar Shots

ChallengerHK

Re: It's Spring - Calendar Shots

GoodysGotaCuda

Re: It's Spring - Calendar Shots

ChallengerHK

Re: It's Spring - Calendar Shots