Photography - Technique and Equipment considerations

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Looks like your biggest difficulty - especially without a flash - is the contrast between the inner darkness and outer light which caused the overexposure.

First of all - why no flash? Will the monks not allow it or something? Or haven't you got one?

Second - why not wait until dusk when the light outside is dimmer? Especially if a few interior lights or candles could be lit? Would that be a possibility?

Yeah, the extreme lighting contrast was what I meant. This camera is a cast-off from a pro photographer, and she sent it without a flash. I thought about waiting until dusk or even going in early morning, depending on where the sun would be. They have morning and evening chanting, though, so I'd have to check on the times. They do have a couple of interior lights (fluorescent) and candles. That might be enough. I was just hoping for some tips on f-stop and shutter speed, etc. I remember once reading that it's possible to take a few shots at different exposure settings (bracketing) and then overlay them in Photoshop, but I've never tried it.

That was my next suggestion - but I've never tried it either!

The best suggestion I can come up with is to flood the interior with light - either using a flash or fixed lights - and combine that with low-light conditions outside. You can use photoshop or similar to brighten the shadows as well. I would say that the main thing to do is to avoid overexposure of the outside - as that can't be corrected at all.

[FBM]

That was my next suggestion - but I've never tried it either!

The best suggestion I can come up with is to flood the interior with light - either using a flash or fixed lights - and combine that with low-light conditions outside. You can use photoshop or similar to brighten the shadows as well. I would say that the main thing to do is to avoid overexposure of the outside - as that can't be corrected at all.

I think I'll try every combination I can muster, including bracketing. It just occurred to me that today is Sunday, though. Sunday isn't a special day in Buddhism, but it's still the weekend, so it may be crowded. I'll go have a look, but I may have to wait till tomorow. Thanks for the input.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

That was my next suggestion - but I've never tried it either!

The best suggestion I can come up with is to flood the interior with light - either using a flash or fixed lights - and combine that with low-light conditions outside. You can use photoshop or similar to brighten the shadows as well. I would say that the main thing to do is to avoid overexposure of the outside - as that can't be corrected at all.

I think I'll try every combination I can muster, including bracketing. It just occurred to me that today is Sunday, though. Sunday isn't a special day in Buddhism, but it's still the weekend, so it may be crowded. I'll go have a look, but I may have to wait till tomorow. Thanks for the input.

You're welcome. But I don't really know anything more than you do. CJ will probably tell you that everything I said is bollocks - you should listen to him!

[CJ]

Looks like your biggest difficulty - especially without a flash - is the contrast between the inner darkness and outer light which caused the overexposure.

First of all - why no flash? Will the monks not allow it or something? Or haven't you got one?

Second - why not wait until dusk when the light outside is dimmer? Especially if a few interior lights or candles could be lit? Would that be a possibility?

Yeah, the extreme lighting contrast was what I meant. This camera is a cast-off from a pro photographer, and she sent it without a flash. I thought about waiting until dusk or even going in early morning, depending on where the sun would be. They have morning and evening chanting, though, so I'd have to check on the times. They do have a couple of interior lights (fluorescent) and candles. That might be enough. I was just hoping for some tips on f-stop and shutter speed, etc. I remember once reading that it's possible to take a few shots at different exposure settings (bracketing) and then overlay them in Photoshop, but I've never tried it.

If you can keep the camera still between exposures, tripod or table and bluetac, you can take multiple exposures in succession (keep the aperture constant and small f16 and vary the shutter speed) and then cut and paste the door out of one frame into the other. That would probably do it.

[FBM]

If you can keep the camera still between exposures, tripod or table and bluetac, you can take multiple exposures in succession (keep the aperture constant and small f16 and vary the shutter speed) and then cut and paste the door out of one frame into the other. That would probably do it.

Ah! I knew I could count on you! It was raining all day today. Maybe tomorrow or Monday will be clear, but it is the monsoons now.

XCL
Oh, and I found out that today was Saturday, not Sunday.

[CJ]

Polarising filter.

First what it does.

First shot with filter fitted and adjusted for minimum effect.



Second shot with filter fitted and adjusted for maximum effect.



Notice how much more contrast there is in the sky. In addition the contrast between sky and grass has been reduced.

If one takes landscape photographs a Polarising filter is an essential addition to your kit bag. There are two types of filter Linear and Circular, if your camera has auto-focus you need to use a Circular Polariser.

To use it stand so the sun is to your left or right, focus on the scene and then rotate the filter to get the desired effect. It could not be simpler.

[FBM]

I guess I wasted my money on the UV filters, then.

Speaking of wasting money, I just got a 2X Teleconverter for the Sigma lens. I read up and had a good idea of what I'd be sacrificing in terms of clarity (and 2 f-stops) but I was pleasantly surprised at the results of the test shots I took a few minutes ago. I used a tripod, of course, and the only thing I've done to this photo is change it from TIFF to JPEG and resize it:

http://api.photoshop.com/home_dbb96af8e ... 640fc7e59b[/imgc]

Of course, not all of them were this good. My pulse is a limiting factor as is the wind and the natural vibration of this 14-story apt. bldg. I wonder if there are tripods that can absorb such vibration? This was taken from the 8th floor, across a couple of rice paddies, at full zoom. OS was on. 1/60, f11, ISO 200.

[CJ]

No a UV or skylight filter is compulsory to protect the front element of your expensive lens, not a waste of money at all. What is OS? Tripods are only as good as what you stand them on and their own weight/construction. So that picture was at 400mm X 2 X 1.5 so 1,200mm equivalent, that is quite impressive.

There is a pretty horrific blue cast on that picture. It can be removed in Photoshop via Enhance > Adjust Colour > Colour Cast then follow the instructions by clicking the 'eye dropper' on an area in the image that should be white or black. You often have to hunt around to find the right pixel to get the adjustment right.

Here is the result I used the right hand end of the white building.



You cant get rid of the neutral 'greyness' that is simply an effect of the large amount of mucky air the light is passing through.

[FBM]

No a UV or skylight filter is compulsory to protect the front element of your expensive lens, not a waste of money at all. What is OS? Tripods are only as good as what you stand them on and their own weight/construction. So that picture was at 400mm X 2 X 1.5 so 1,200mm equivalent, that is quite impressive.

Can I use a polarizing filter in conjunction with the UV filter? Also, why the last 1.5? I was thinking it was just 400 x 2...OS is Optical Stabilizer.

Another shot from the 8th floor to the playground directly below, but much less than full zoom:

http://api.photoshop.com/home_dbb96af8e ... 868ced5e04[/imgc]

[FBM]

No a UV or skylight filter is compulsory to protect the front element of your expensive lens, not a waste of money at all. What is OS? Tripods are only as good as what you stand them on and their own weight/construction. So that picture was at 400mm X 2 X 1.5 so 1,200mm equivalent, that is quite impressive.

There is a pretty horrific blue cast on that picture. It can be removed in Photoshop via Enhance > Adjust Colour > Colour Cast then follow the instructions by clicking the 'eye dropper' on an area in the image that should be white or black. You often have to hunt around to find the right pixel to get the adjustment right...

You cant get rid of the neutral 'greyness' that is simply an effect of the large amount of mucky air the light is passing through.

Yeah, I found that adjustment tool a while back. I didn't want to do anything to this test photo, though. It's incredibly humid here these days, and almost constantly overcast. This is the rainy season. I hope that's the cause of the blue cast. I hope I didn't screw up my sensor when I did that work on it...

[CJ]

Can I use a polarizing filter in conjunction with the UV filter? Also, why the last 1.5? I was thinking it was just 400 x 2...OS is Optical Stabilizer.

One can use both filters but there is no need to, as the UV filter has very little effect anyway.

The extra 1.5 come from the fact that the APS-c sized digital sensor in your camera is physically smaller than a frame of 35mm film. The angle of view is narrower for the sensor than the film. This has the effect of multiplying the focal length of the lens by the ratio of the sensor size to the film size, which in this case is 1.5. This has no effect on aperture calculations. This is why your 28-80mm standard lens isn't really up to snuff for landscape work as it is effectively a 42-120mm a normal to short telephoto, this is why your next lens should be something with a 16 to 18 mm short end. If you have grown up with film all this stuff makes sense but if one starts as you have with limited film experience these pitfalls start to catch one out.

[CJ]

No a UV or skylight filter is compulsory to protect the front element of your expensive lens, not a waste of money at all. What is OS? Tripods are only as good as what you stand them on and their own weight/construction. So that picture was at 400mm X 2 X 1.5 so 1,200mm equivalent, that is quite impressive.

There is a pretty horrific blue cast on that picture. It can be removed in Photoshop via Enhance > Adjust Colour > Colour Cast then follow the instructions by clicking the 'eye dropper' on an area in the image that should be white or black. You often have to hunt around to find the right pixel to get the adjustment right...

You cant get rid of the neutral 'greyness' that is simply an effect of the large amount of mucky air the light is passing through.

Yeah, I found that adjustment tool a while back. I didn't want to do anything to this test photo, though. It's incredibly humid here these days, and almost constantly overcast. This is the rainy season. I hope that's the cause of the blue cast. I hope I didn't screw up my sensor when I did that work on it...

It's highly unlikely that anything you did to your sensor would cause a cast like that. Just take your short telephoto and take a close shot mostly dark with a small patch of white so the white would burn out. If there is a cast in the burned out area there is something up with the sensor.

[CJ]

Also check how you have your White Balance set up on the camera and experiment to see how the different setting effect the image.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

No a UV or skylight filter is compulsory to protect the front element of your expensive lens, not a waste of money at all. What is OS? Tripods are only as good as what you stand them on and their own weight/construction. So that picture was at 400mm X 2 X 1.5 so 1,200mm equivalent, that is quite impressive.

There is a pretty horrific blue cast on that picture. It can be removed in Photoshop via Enhance > Adjust Colour > Colour Cast then follow the instructions by clicking the 'eye dropper' on an area in the image that should be white or black. You often have to hunt around to find the right pixel to get the adjustment right...

You cant get rid of the neutral 'greyness' that is simply an effect of the large amount of mucky air the light is passing through.

Yeah, I found that adjustment tool a while back. I didn't want to do anything to this test photo, though. It's incredibly humid here these days, and almost constantly overcast. This is the rainy season. I hope that's the cause of the blue cast. I hope I didn't screw up my sensor when I did that work on it...

It's highly unlikely that anything you did to your sensor would cause a cast like that. Just take your short telephoto and take a close shot mostly dark with a small patch of white so the white would burn out. If there is a cast in the burned out area there is something up with the sensor.

I have been noticing a blue cast on your pictures for a long while, FBM. Since long before you took the camera to bits. There is always a look about them like a TV where the red gun's playing up - the red areas look magenta. I put it down to you converting the pics to other formats, or messing around with them in photoshop or something, so I never mentioned it before.

[FBM]

It's highly unlikely that anything you did to your sensor would cause a cast like that. Just take your short telephoto and take a close shot mostly dark with a small patch of white so the white would burn out. If there is a cast in the burned out area there is something up with the sensor.

Good idea! I still have some daylight left...

And now I understand the extra 1.5.

I did take your earlier advice about getting a 16~18mm short-end lens and got the Nikon DX AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm 1:35-5.6G with VR. You were right, of course. It solved a shitload of problems that I had with the 28-80. At the risk of being redundant: