 |
| |
| This site requires new users to accept that a small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk after requesting a new account. Thank you. |
| Moderated by: chrisbet, | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ric
|
Greetings, My wife and I are in Alaska visiting our son. I have been taking pictures, I am trying to be discriminating in my picture taking. I'm have taken some pictures of Mt Mckinley and the other peaks from Talkeetna. There is some haze near the mountains, but for this time of year, it's really pretty good. I am a little concerned about not being able to see the peaks as clear as I want to once downloaded. I am able to do okay with Lightroom. I am wondering if picking up a polorized filter would help. We're heading down to Seward tomorrow and there is a camera shop along the way in Anchorage that has one, but it is kind of pricey. I am willing to do it if it will help. I have no experience with this type of filter and was looking for some advice. Thank you in advance for your help, Ric |
|||||||||
Robert
|
It's one of the few filters which can be worthwhile with digital, It should help although it may not completely eliminate the haze. Be sure to get a circular polariser not a linear, linear is said to upset the AF. Good polarisers are expensive. I just checked B&H site for a 67mm circular Polarising filter their prices range from $34 to over $250 with what I would call good ones in the $150-180 range. If you have the opportunity try a couple of different makes. Look for a window with reflections and focus on that, with a good polariser the reflections should disappear when you rotate the filter. I tried about 6 when I got mine and the difference between makes is astounding. I think mine is a B+W. Having said all that sometimes it is nice to see the diminishing haze effect as successive ranges of hills or mountains recede into the mist. It's an effect I try to get sometimes. If done right it can add depth to an image, it can help to have a nice foreground. |
|||||||||
Ric
|
Thank you, Robert. I will keep this in mind when I go into town today. Ric |
|||||||||
Ed Matusik
|
Just keep in mind Ric, that a polarizer is really a special version of a neutral density filter. You will lose some light intensity when you apply it. Having spent quite a bit of time in Alaska, I can tell you that unless you have a fast lens and a noise-free high ISO camera, you can miss (or foul up) shots if you have a polarizer in place. Just keep that in mind. - EdM |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Good point Ed, the filter may be marked with it's exposure rating, I think X2 is normal? So turn the Exposure comp up by +1 stop and watch the histogram. As an aside if you use two ND filters they can act as a variable ND filter by rotating just one of the filters. |
|||||||||
Ed Matusik
|
As a P.S., I use my circular polarizer (a Tiffen) whenever I can. It's great for fall foliage shots, because it eliminates a good portion of the reflected sunlight from the leaves and consequently lets more of the colors be seen. Same with the sky colors. There were times shooting the Kodiak brown bears when the conditions would have permitted, I wished I had one mounted, but the speed of the action wouldn't let me stop shooting and screw one in place. I'd definetly get one even if you don't use it on your Alaska trip. Post some photos when you get back, and good luck and good shooting. - EdM |
|||||||||
Squarerigger
|
Robert wrote:Good point Ed, the filter may be marked with it's exposure rating, I think X2 is normal? So turn the Exposure comp up by +1 stop and watch the histogram. Since the filter is attached to the lens, wouldn't the camera's exposure system compensate for this x1 or x2? Or do you just know it may compensate too much and you want to add some exposure? |
|||||||||
Robert
|
In theory, but I find it's often necessary to compensate up to 1 stop. I would expect this to be one of those situations, ALWAYS check the histogram, at least for the first few exposures and as the light changes. I generally take an exposure of grass or even my hand when I start a photo session to check the exposure. |
|||||||||
Squarerigger
|
Robert wrote:In theory, but I find it's often necessary to compensate up to 1 stop. I would expect this to be one of those situations, ALWAYS check the histogram, at least for the first few exposures and as the light changes. Thanks Robert. Over time, I have become a real fan of the histogram. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
To me it's the greatest invention of the DSLR, apart from free film of course! |
|||||||||
Ric
|
Thanks for the tip Ed. I have a 2.8, 17X50. I get good pictures with it, but I have a D200, so no high ISO. If the weather holds, we hope to go on a whale watching boat (my wife loves whales). If it's cloudy out, I may not be able to use the filter effectively. If the camera shop will let me, I'll see if I can get a feel for what my camera will do for me. Beutiful picture by the way. Regards, Ric |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Not sure a polariser will do much for haze. But it will reduce reflections and light scatter that tend to soften the image, reducing contrast. A polariser will put back punch into foliage as well as doing all the other stuff we commonly expect. Its worth sticking one on the front because you can always rotate it 'off' when you dont need to polarise and win back some of the exp loss. |
|||||||||
jk
|
Robert wrote: In theory, but I find it's often necessary to compensate up to 1 stop. I would expect this to be one of those situations, ALWAYS check the histogram, at least for the first few exposures and as the light changes.I agree with Eric that I'm not sure that a polarizer will do much to get rid of haze. It might d a little due to its polarisaton if the water in the air is causing so scatter. If you use a Linear polarizer LPL then you need to look at the image and check histogram. If you use a Circular polarizer CPL the camera metering should take care of the exposure. That said if I use a polariser I usually dial out my EV compensation (normally -0.7 or -0.3EV) and set to 0 so effectively I am doing what Robert is suggesting. BTW: The Histogram from a JPG shows how the camera captured the image. The histogram form a RAW file shows a the histogram as if a JPG was captured so the with RAW the histogram whilst being useful is not absolute. |
|||||||||
blackfox
|
your actually bringing up a point there jk that i can't quite get my head around even after a year on nikons ,yes i under normal circumstances have to dial in -0.3 or -0.7 ev to get my shots right and it always works ??? the other day the wife was using my d200 and i set the camera up for her but the son who is a canon man decided to play with her settings and changed it to +0.7 .****ing up a lot of her pics .why the difference between the two brands ?? |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Designed by different people from totally different factories. Not unexpected. As I mentioned before I generally take a test exposure or two and check the histo until I am happy. The AE is easily fooled and each subject/location has it's own needs. I would do that with any camera, especially if the images are particularly important. On one of my first trips to the London botanic gardens photographing flowers I blew out a small white flower which I particularly wanted, it only flowers for a week or so, I haven't caught it in flower since.  If anything the main part of the image is under exposed but the flower is blown. I should have bracketed like crazy. You live and learn, especially that highlights can NOT be recovered from digital. This was D1 with 60 f2.8 Micro. All my other images that day were fine. Attachment: Screen Shot 2012-07-23 at 10.20.26.jpg (Downloaded 33 times) |
|||||||||
richw
|
Robert wrote:Designed by different people from totally different factories. Not unexpected. it found 50% grey beautifully on all the stones! |
|||||||||
Ric
|
Well, I decided against the filter for now. I was able to do some pretty good editing with LR to somewhat neutralize the haze. What I should have done though is thought more about rain gear for my camera. Went on a boat tour from Seward on Satuday (great trip by the way). It was misting pretty hard and both the camera and I were soaked. Everything is okay, so no damage done. Got some pretty good pictures of humback whales; would have been nice to have a longer lens than 300 though. I appreciate all the advice, it was very helpful. It's been a learning expericence on this trip, but I'm having a lot of fun too. Regards, Ric |
|||||||||
Ed Matusik
|
Whales are tough subjects to capture in a still image. When they sound, you never know where they'll surface. Yeah, rain and Alaska are inseparable, especially along the coastal areas. There are plenty of rain covers for DSLR's out there, but we just purchased some soft camo fabric and my wife sewed a couple of covers (not unlike a toaster cover for our respective cameras. They don't look very pretty, but they're easy to get on and off. And, if your sitting waiting for a photo op, you can just uncover the camera back and the front of the lens and let everything else protected. Still hope you post some pictures though. - EdM |
|||||||||
Ric
|
Ed, Your right about the rain! I got lulled into a false sense of security the first three days up here. Nothing but sunshine. Our son said it was the three nicest day they had of here so far. On the whales, I got some decent shots, but between the rain and the boat bouncing around, it made things interesting. There were some Orcas around also, the fish eating variety, but to be honest, they were very fast and very hard to get a good shot of. I will post some shots when I get back home. All my shots have been in Raw format, so I'll have to figure out how to produce a JPEG image for posting. Again, thanks for the advice, it was helpful, Ric |
|||||||||
jk
|
Ric, Try using FastStone Browser to output to JPG. http://www.fastone.org It will do a reasonable but not great conversion. Dont forget to copy to your PC first dont edit on the card!! |
|||||||||
Ed Matusik
|
Ric wrote: Ed,Didn't you say you have Lightroom in an earlier post? If so, you can resize and export to JPEG into a new folder for web posting. You can also place your watermark (name, copyright, etc.) on the exported file. - EdM |
|||||||||
Current theme is Blue
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondsl.uk Thank you. |