Photography - Technique and Equipment considerations

[aznxscorpion517]

No a UV or skylight filter is compulsory to protect the front element of your expensive lens, not a waste of money at all.

Not compulsory.

I used to agree with you. Now I disagree and agree with the camp that I have insurance and why would you want to put a "cheap" bit of glass in front of my £1,100 lens, Kinda defeats the purpose of buying an expensive bit of lens.

I've read that opinion before and it's kinda hard to argue with. I'm going to do some testing (if it ever stops raining) with and without the UV filter and then zoom in and see if there's any difference at the pixel level.

If you buy quality filters from say B+W or the higher priced Hoya filters there should be no visual difference. If you ask me, even a 1% degradation is image sharpness is better than risking scratches on the objective lens (front lens) element, which was already stated as very expensive. The fact the the lens was so sharp to begin with negates any quality degradation from the filter. And that is IF there is any quality degradation, which my research has shown none. You can easily replace $50 (USA) good quality filters but a $600-$1500 (USA) lens isn't as easy. I saved up for months to buy my $600+ Canon EF 200mm F/2.8L. That thing is my baby and I would not want it to be damaged. The more you have to clean your objective lens the more likely you are wearing down the coatings on it. If you only ever clean your replaceable UV filter, then the coatings are left untouched.

In the end, it doesn't matter too much as lenses are built very well these days and coatings are durable as well. Also small scratches will not be noticable in your photos as they will be way out of focus. Good lenses will last years. But any amount of wear on your lenses WILL shoot down it's resale value if you plan on selling later on. I think it comes down to personal preference. I am personally not a big risk taker and I'm not all that wealthy to buy new equipment so my lenses are probably safer in the long run with UV filters. I only use multi-coated filters, usually from B+W.

[aznxscorpion517]

I personally use the Sigma 105mm EX F/2.8 Macro lens with Sigma's EM-140DG Macro Flash and Kenko extension tubes for more magnification when doing macro work.

Every review I have read says the Canon 100mm F/2.8 Macro comes out on top with the Sigma 105mm and Tamron 90mm about on par. I'd say you'd be fine either way as they are all very nice lenses with great results. However, the Sigma and Tamron macros are known for disappointing AF focus ability. It won't be a problem as AF is not used for macro anyway, but if you plan on using it for portraits or something else you might want to consider this attribute of the lenses. I like manual focusing most of the time anyway so it didn't bother me. That and how much lower in price the Sigma and Tamron are.

Note that Canon is releasing or just released a new EF 100mm F/2.8L IS Macro lens. It retails at over $1000 US though but it looks like it'll be very impressive.

If any of you remember Darren from RD.net, I had a long exchange with him about macro lenses and after my suggestions he acquired the Tamron 90mm and was very happy with it's performance.

Has the issues of focusing for macro ever come up? Any macro photography should know how difficult it can be at times, especially when it is dark and when shooting for over 1:1 life size ratio images.

[FBM]

If you buy quality filters from say B+W or the higher priced Hoya filters...I only use multi-coated filters, usually from B+W.

Good advice. I think it would take a lot of cleaning to degrade the objective's coating to the point that it interfered with image quality, probably longer than the lifetime of the lens. Anyway, CJ has convinced me that trying to go the cheap route is self-defeating in the long run, as you usually wind up buying the higer-price/higher-quality equipment after becoming disappointed with the cheap version. My lenses are either Sigma or Nikon, and I get the matching filter when I buy.

(I never got around to doing that with/without UV filter experiment, by the way. My attention span i

[aznxscorpion517]

Sorry I didn't reply to your post sooner, I've been playing with my camera.

These are the three pics, the first two that I posted earlier in the thread plus the one that I adjusted as you suggested.

Original

I'd personally pull back on the sharpening even more. I usually never sharpen an image twice and more than a 1px (sometimes but rarely 2px) radius and never more than 100% strength. If it gets high the image starts to look oversharpened and artificial. This is for Photoshop. It might be different in other apps. What happens when the settings go too extreme is that artifacts and weird halos may start appearing. Some people like that look but if you don't then keep this in mind.

For your bird image I would resize the original first and then introduce sharpening...because different sized images will give different results. For smaller resized images, I NEVER give more than a 1px radius and never more than 50% strength. For 600px wide images I usually only use 1px radius and 25% strength. I don't ever over do it because, again, it can easily introduce halo artifacts which in my opinion look unnatural and artificial. Anyone who uses Photoshop will automatically know what was done.

[aznxscorpion517]

If you buy quality filters from say B+W or the higher priced Hoya filters...I only use multi-coated filters, usually from B+W.

Good advice. I think it would take a lot of cleaning to degrade the objective's coating to the point that it interfered with image quality, probably longer than the lifetime of the lens. Anyway, CJ has convinced me that trying to go the cheap route is self-defeating in the long run, as you usually wind up buying the higer-price/higher-quality equipment after becoming disappointed with the cheap version. My lenses are either Sigma or Nikon, and I get the matching filter when I buy.

(I never got around to doing that with/without UV filter experiment, by the way. My attention span i

Yes, modern lenses are very durable and have good coatings. I just personally like to keep things untouched. I have never touched the objective lens of my 200mm prime lens. I have a very low risk attitude when it comes to electronics with my "shit will happen" philosophy.

I definitely agree about not going the cheap route. I was disappointed with the quality of the Sigma 70-300mm APO and bought a real macro lens, the Sigma 105mm. The APO is a good decent lens for the price but my standards are quite high so I have put the APO aside and have replaced it with my Canon 200mm F/2.8L (which is MASTERFUL) for telephoto purposes and the Sigma 105mm for macro.

[BrettA]

Anyone know much about underwater photography? Housings for D-SLRs vary and I'm likely gonna get one for my Nikon D90 (being the smallest DSLR I have - Ikelite $1400; Aquatina $1700; Patima $1800; Sea&Sea $2900 est.; Subal $3100?), and while I've done some many moons ago with a Calypso - the forerunner to the Nikonos - I'm way dated. In fact, it'd be awesome if Nikon came out with a digital Nikonos, but that's have to be within ~6 months to be of use and I haven't even heard rumors yet. I'll likely post on some dive sites if I don't get answers, but hoped someone here might know something. (I've already picked out a camcorder.)

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Anyone know much about underwater photography? Housings for D-SLRs vary and I'm likely gonna get one for my Nikon D90 (being the smallest DSLR I have - Ikelite $1400; Aquatina $1700; Patima $1800; Sea&Sea $2900 est.; Subal $3100?), and while I've done some many moons ago with a Calypso - the forerunner to the Nikonos - I'm way dated. In fact, it'd be awesome if Nikon came out with a digital Nikonos, but that's have to be within ~6 months to be of use and I haven't even heard rumors yet. I'll likely post on some dive sites if I don't get answers, but hoped someone here might know something. (I've already picked out a camcorder.)

I'd go with a polythene bag and some elastic bands - much cheaper.

[BrettA]

I'd go with a polythene bag and some elastic bands - much cheaper.

Great idea! Prolly more environmentally friendly than heavy plastic, steel or polycarb, too! Gee, makes me think I should consider paper bag, too!

[Taryn]

I'm going to a firework display tonight and I have never tried photographing fireworks before so any advice is welcome.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I'm going to a firework display tonight and I have never tried photographing fireworks before so any advice is welcome.

What kind of a camera do you have? If it is DLSR, playing around with the 'film speed' and aperture settings should allow you to vary the exposure for different effects - fast speed/short exposure for sharp sparks and slow/long exposure for a more blurred, surreal effect, sparkler trails, etc. Obviously a tripod is a must. Apart from that, I've not photographed fireworks much either but the most important thing is to post all your best shots here afterwards! Good luck.

[Taryn]

I'm going to a firework display tonight and I have never tried photographing fireworks before so any advice is welcome.

What kind of a camera do you have? If it is DLSR, playing around with the 'film speed' and aperture settings should allow you to vary the exposure for different effects - fast speed/short exposure for sharp sparks and slow/long exposure for a more blurred, surreal effect, sparkler trails, etc. Obviously a tripod is a must. Apart from that, I've not photographed fireworks much either but the most important thing is to post all your best shots here afterwards! Good luck.

I have a Nikon D90 with the 18-105 kit lens. I am taking my tripod and remote release and we are going to get there early to find a good position and get set up. I will try both short and long exposure but I think it's going to be a bit of a trial and error process as I haven't done it before. I promise to post some shots even if they are terrible and then hopefully somebody can tell me what I did wrong.
Thank you.

[BrettA]

I'm going to a firework display tonight and I have never tried photographing fireworks before so any advice is welcome.

What kind of a camera do you have? ... Good luck.

I have a Nikon D90 with the 18-105 kit lens. I am taking my tripod and remote release and we are going to get there early to find a good position and get set up. I will try both short and long exposure but I think it's going to be a bit of a trial and error process as I haven't done it before. I promise to post some shots even if they are terrible and then hopefully somebody can tell me what I did wrong.
Thank you.

Unfortunately, I've virtually never used my D90, but a quick look on the 'net yielded a max ISO of 400, though he points out there's no flat answer. Frankly, I'd hazard going to 800 should be fine and you might wanna try 1600 (or even beyond, to play), especially if you're willing to use anti-noise software later on. As it's a pretty slow lens, you might want to keep it wide open unless you've found it a bit soft in the past (i.e. in "normal" daylight shooting). Also as I'm sure (or strongly suspect at least) you know, using the back view screen will provide useful info and using the Histogram will likely be even better... try to make sure something's registering in the far right of the histogram, but never touching the right edge (and remember that very little will likely even register for this subject matter). You could also play with multiple exposures (in the Shooting Menu), though you can do the same with processing later on. Finally... again as I suspect you know, shoot in raw (.nef), as you're always throwing away tons of image data if you don't (you can always shoot 'Raw + Fine' if you don't usually use raw - that way you can even compare the two). Good luck!

Edit: Oh... And try video if you don't normally! After all, fireworks is motion to a large degree - it's a perfect time to try...

[Taryn]

Thanks Brett. I wish I had seen your post before I left, I forgot all about video, that would have been good. I could have taken both cameras and used one to video it.
I tried various settings, S from about 1/8 to 4 seconds, F 3.5 to 6.3 but stayed on ISO 600. The fireworks only lasted about 15 minutes so by the time I had started working out what to do, it was all over.
I'm not sure how to use all the info on the view screen yet..........and I really should have learned more about that by now. I just checked the shots on the camera and there's nothing at all on the right side of the histogram.
I haven't tried shooting raw yet but I intend to try it out soon.

This is the best one.

[BrettA]

Thanks Brett. I wish I had seen your post before I left, I forgot all about video, that would have been good. I could have taken both cameras and used one to video it.
I tried various settings, S from about 1/8 to 4 seconds, F 3.5 to 6.3 but stayed on ISO 600. The fireworks only lasted about 15 minutes so by the time I had started working out what to do, it was all over.
I'm not sure how to use all the info on the view screen yet..........and I really should have learned more about that by now. I just checked the shots on the camera and there's nothing at all on the right side of the histogram.
I haven't tried shooting raw yet but I intend to try it out soon.

This is the best one. [img Cut /img]

Tasty! You nailed it, methinks. Hmmm... I didn't think there'd be much on the right at all, but there should be a small blip as representative of the bright parts(?). Oh well...

[aznxscorpion517]

Thanks Brett. I wish I had seen your post before I left, I forgot all about video, that would have been good. I could have taken both cameras and used one to video it.
I tried various settings, S from about 1/8 to 4 seconds, F 3.5 to 6.3 but stayed on ISO 600. The fireworks only lasted about 15 minutes so by the time I had started working out what to do, it was all over.
I'm not sure how to use all the info on the view screen yet..........and I really should have learned more about that by now. I just checked the shots on the camera and there's nothing at all on the right side of the histogram.
I haven't tried shooting raw yet but I intend to try it out soon.

This is the best one.

That's a fine shot. A good way to get good photos of fireworks is to use the bulb function for your shutter. This way you can wait for the sparks to fly and then open the shutter. Wait until those sparks are over and then close the shutter again. This way you can get the whole "tracing" journey of the sparks for sure since you have more control of the exposure time. If the shutter is opened for too long the photo might be overexposed so stop down the aperture to f/8 or something like that. ISO you would probably keep at 400 or below to maintain image quality.