[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kin0kin /img/forum/go_quote.gif What is unfortunate though is that the filters cost alot....

Sorry about your wallet

It gets amplified if you try to buy every filter known to man for each lens. That's why it pays to be selective in what filters you get. At least the first filters that you don't really need anymore are color correction filters: as color adjustment is very quick and easy in Photoshop. Polarizers and UVs especially, starlights, or diffusers are more selective and each have their place. Polarizers are the main filters that are still essential even with the joys of Photoshop

 

[kin0kin]

I dont usually use my UVs unless it's a harsh condition. They take away the Tamron's natural warmness, which I like alot, and makes the lens more blueish. I might even sell off all my UV filters since I've replaced them all with CPLs now. I also picked up an ND8 for my 17-50mm just for Niagara

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kin0kin /img/forum/go_quote.gif I also picked up an ND8 for my 17-50mm just for Niagara

Sorry about your wallet again

On a side note: Actually....with mention of HDR in here, I did some looking to see what digital cameras do to offer true HDR imagery. I notice my Canon 5D offers 16bit raw: with 3D animation, HDR formats go to 32bit. So I assume that digital cameras now are getting more sophisticated in being able to record highlights: they're still not detailed enough to get into full blown 32bit HD though (at least my mere Canon 5D: wonder if any uber expensive ones do...maybe the digital film cameras LucasFilm uses: they were the ones to come up with a universal 32bit format, OpenEXR, afterall

). This article explains it well, and how to bring out tonal range in more limited formats:

http://www.cybergrain.com/tech/hdr/

Also, for finding out more about exposure, check out books written by Ansel Adams: a great photographer who developed ways of refining tonal range of film:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...e_system.shtml

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kin0kin /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just gotta make sure that the lens doesn't rotate at all. Lucky for me, all my lenses doesn't rotate when focusing except the prime. What is unfortunate though is that the filters cost alot....

Are you bringing a tripod to Niagra?

Rotating shouldn't be a problem even handheld.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif I notice my Canon 5D offers 16bit raw: with 3D animation, HDR formats go to 32bit. So I assume that digital cameras now are getting more sophisticated in being able to record highlights: they're still not detailed enough to get into full blown 32bit HD though

It's limited by the A/D convertors. 16bit and 32bit are mere containers and are good for editing precision. Realistically, we're not even close to acheiving 16bit. It's the same as audio. We have 24bit files for editing but no DAC can actually achieve 24bit. Even if you could, there is no output device which can playback just like our monitors are somewhat limited. Even if you could, to calibrate it to be able to playback dynamic range of 24bit audio file would be like the space shuttle taking off next to you.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's limited by the A/D convertors. 16bit and 32bit are mere containers and are good for editing precision. Realistically, we're not even close to acheiving 16bit. It's the same as audio. We have 24bit files for editing but no DAC can actually achieve 24bit. Even if you could, there is no output device which can playback just like our monitors are somewhat limited. Even if you could, to calibrate it to be able to playback dynamic range of 24bit audio file would be like the space shuttle taking off next to you.

Curious....have you seen one of these expensive HDR monitors?

I would assume where it would count most is if you have a scene that has a huge contrast in gamma (ie having a light source right in the image). Right now they're $60k a peice, so it's going to be a while before 32bit is consumer. 32 bit is certainly more important for post processing. In 3D it's essential so that the computer can realistically compute lightmaps: the main reason why it was invented to begin with.

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif Curious....have you seen one of these expensive HDR monitors?

Nope havn't seen one. But just like I wouldn't want to stand near the space shuttle, I wouldn't want to look at a lightbulb or the sun

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Nope havn't seen one. But just like I wouldn't want to stand near the space shuttle, I wouldn't want to look at a lightbulb or the sun

LOL; well it would be a cool experience looking at the sun on a HDR screen: for the few seconds that you have your sight

 

[Mr_Penut]

make sure you go to the canadian side of the falls, it's MUCH nicer

 

[dinoadventures]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hermitt /img/forum/go_quote.gif Please correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the assumption that a Circular Polarizer 'was' for autofocus/rotating lenses as the polarization is not linear.

it's not linear in the sense that it is variable with rotation but i think what he meant was that if the front of the lens rotates and you have a CPL mounted, your CPL will rotate with it and you will have to adjust it again.

 

[Davesrose]

note about linear vs circular polarizers: noticed that it's dependant on metering system too: really old cameras needed linear to get proper metering (pre 1970s). SLRs use split beam metering, which aparently does better with circular (unfortunate that they're more expensive

):

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...larizers.shtml

 

[dinoadventures]

old metering systems measured light, not exposure. this was up until the 80's, i think.pre 1970's, rangefinders were the thing so you'd have to compensate for filtering anyway.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dinoadventures /img/forum/go_quote.gif old metering systems measured light, not exposure. this was up until the 80's, i think.pre 1970's, rangefinders were the thing so you'd have to compensate for filtering anyway.

that confused me as exposure is the amount of light the film/sensor recieves

So I just googled and found this informative website. Current light meters are reflected-light meters: so they're taking in light rays that are not just direct. Would make sense that a linear filter would screw those values around. The other type is incident-light meter: measures the amount of light on the scene. Since it's not measuring what the camera is recieving, then I would assume that's why linear works for that.

warning...techno stuff ahead!!!
Quote:

HOW EXPOSURE METERS WORK The kind of meter you have determines not only how it measures light, but how you should use it. There are two basic kinds of meters: reflected-light (they measure the light reflecting from a scene) and incident-light (they measure the light falling onto a scene). Each type has its advantages and its disadvantages. Some meters have accessories that enable you to use them to read either reflected light or incident light. Reflected-light meters that read a wide angle of view are also called averaging meters. They account for most of the reflected-light meters in use, including those built into cameras. Another type of reflected-light meter, the spot meter, is designed to take readings from only a small part of the scene. Meter-Reading Area Virtually all in-camera meters are the reflected type--they measure the average brightness of the light within the lens' field of view. As you look through the lens of a 35 mm SLR camera, you can see what the meter sees. Change the lens and you change the area being metered. Most handheld meters are also reflected-light meters. Many photographers prefer reflected-light meters because they can use them to take light readings from the camera position. To take a light reading with a handheld reflected-light exposure meter, you usually stand at the camera position and aim the meter at your subject. To use an incident-light meter, on the other hand, you usually position the meter as near the subject as possible, in the same light that is illuminating the subject, and aim the meter back at the camera (unless the meter instruction book recommends a different technique). A spot meter has a unique and helpful feature--an extremely narrow angle of coverage. Instead of measuring the brightness of an entire scene, a spot meter measures the brightness of a small area or "spot" within the scene, usually only a few degrees or less. Handheld spot meters have a built-in viewing lens so you can see precisely what part of a scene you're metering. As you'll see, this feature can be very helpful. Most through-the-lens SLR camera meters are the averaging type, reading the entire picture area. Many read the entire area but are biased for the central part of the viewfinder. The center has the greatest influence over the exposure reading, although the remaining picture area still has some effect on exposure. Other cameras can be switched to modes similar in principle to spot meters; they read only a small segment of the scene. With the advent of advanced electronics, it is possible to make several spot readings that are automatically integrated for optimum exposure. Another type of system offers multi-pattern metering. Also called matrix or segmented metering, these systems work by dividing the viewing area into a set pattern or grid of several segments. The meter reads each segment and makes a comparative analysis of things like subject size and the brightness of each zone. The camera compares this data with programmed information it contains to calculate exposure. This type of metering system can adjust automatically for backlighting, snow and other unusual scenes to give better exposure. Check your camera manual for specific instructions and information about the area of coverage fore your camera's meter. How Exposure Meters "See" Both reflected-light and incident-light meters are made to "see" the world as a medium gray. The assumption is that most subjects, most of the time, are of average tone and reflectance. So long as there is an even distribution of light and dark subjects in the scene, correct exposure is usually as easy as pointing the meter or camera at the scene and using the reading you get. But the real world does not always present subjects to you in such a straightforward way. For example, with either a reflected-light meter or an incident-light meter, if the main subject is very dark or very light, the indicated exposure will make the subject appear as a medium tone in the picture. The result will be incorrect exposure unless you apply your own judgement to the information the meter gives you.

http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/...f9/index.shtml

 

[kin0kin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr_Penut /img/forum/go_quote.gif make sure you go to the canadian side of the falls, it's MUCH nicer

Oh yeah, I'm from Canada anyways

 

[Hermitt]

I usually keep my Olympus set to spot metering, but if the shot doesn't turn out exposed correctly, i'll try metering on something other than the subject. Like those shots I posted of Yosemite Falls, I had to meter on the trees as not to blow out the bright white water of the falls. I forget which post they are in, but they are a few pages back

Looks like i need to get my shi*t ready soon because my yearly camping trip to Yosemite is the first week in May this year

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hermitt /img/forum/go_quote.gif Looks like i need to get my shi*t ready soon because my yearly camping trip to Yosemite is the first week in May this year

Hope you have plenty of memory and batteries

I'm going out to Montana on business trip in July....I'm actually looking more forward at bringing my camera along. I might even have to break down and get one of those 70-200mm zooms by then

RE metering: I've noticed that the auto settings for WB and evaluative metering on my Canon 5D is inconsistant. For flash and sunny outdoor it seems to work well, but indoor, low level light, I find I have to spot and adjust the color temperature quite a bit. Gosh it's so cool that you can adjust all of that manually....so much cooler then film based photography