Jump to content

Fall Colors Trip


socalguy_socalguy

Recommended Posts

<p>Hello, I just joined the forum. I am a beginner. I would like to have some advice regarding a Fall Color viewing trip that is coming up shortly.</p>

<p>Camera/Lenses:<br>

DSLR (10MP) and film SLR (35mm). <br>

Just got a 10-20mm lens. Other lenses I have are 50mm/f1.8 (x1.4 for digital), 28-80mm (x1.4 for digital), 70-300mm (x1.4 for digital)</p>

<p>I would like to take some good pictures of Fall color, and ideally, get a few shots worthy of making enlargements (and hang on my wall, lofty goal I know).</p>

<p>Ok, here is where I need advice:</p>

<p>1. Should I use the film SLR or is the DSLR 10 MP going to be enough for enlargements?<br>

2. If film, should I go for 100 speed if it's sunny? I have always used 400 speed before. I guess with 100, the enlargements would come out better if the picture is sharp. What film would work best?<br>

3. When I'm shooting scenery using the wide angle lens, should I use a Circular Polarizer filter or just UV filter for Fall colors?</p>

<p>Thanks, your response will be of great help.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>You could always take both, but honestly, between film and relatively new DSLR there's not a lot, technically speaking, to differentiate. Which do you like better?<br /><br />If you choose the film camera, when you're in good light the good 100 films are best for nailing the color. Ektar and Reala (appaently recently un-discontinued, or so I hear) would be my top choices, or a slide film if you're into that kind of thing.</p>

<p>With a CPL filter on a very wide lens, the potential problem is that the angle is so wide the polarization affects different areas of sky differently and you get this weird effect of differing brightness across the shot. Try it out before you go and see if it's a problem for you. Also, with a lens that wide, you probably need to remove the UV before adding the CPL because stacked filters will interfere with corners. (I always do that anyway - filters can contribute to optical flaws and I don't want to mess up hundreds of dollars worth of Nikon glass with tens of dollars worth of unneeded filter.)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>1. Should I use the film SLR or is the DSLR 10 MP going to be enough for enlargements?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's alright. Unless you plan to blow up on 3x2 m (and even then, 10 MP are enough)</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> 2. If film, should I go for 100 speed if it's sunny? I have always used 400 speed before. I guess with 100, the enlargements would come out better if the picture is sharp. What film would work best?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You should use the film that brings you the desired results. Provided you carry a tripod, any good 100ISO takes you a long way.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> 3. When I'm shooting scenery using the wide angle lens, should I use a Circular Polarizer filter or just UV filter for Fall colors?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Do you know what exactly a polarizer does? If you want crisp colours against a really deep blue sky with light from the side, a polarizer does the trick. If you have glare from the rain, the same.<br>

Forget your UV. Never need it.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I would recommend the digicam over film, but the recommendation has nothing to do with which would yield the best photos. Rather it has to do with the fact that with your digital body, you can examine the histogram onsite to help you gauge whether you have the exposure nailed. With a film body, you might bradket the hell out of a shot, but film is far too expesnive to routinely bracket ever shot +/- 3 or more frames. <br>

I agree with the caution about using a polo on a wide lens. Uneven sky tones detract from an image. On the other hand, if shooting tight with a normal or tele lens, nothing can replace a polo (yes, I know you can replicate the effect in PS, but easier to shoot it in camera) if there is any moisture (or other glare) on the leaves or if there is a body of water in the frame.. But even in cases where I use a polo, I avoid cranking the effect up to max if there is blue sky visible in the frame; I find that ink blue/black skies are just too unnatural. I think we all fell in love with the ability to turn midday sky into deep sea blue when we first discovered polo's, but to my taste, judiscious use of the effect (read "less is often more") is often more effective.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Monica - I have honestly never actually done it in PS. But I have seen numerous comments, blogs and tutorials on how. Do they work? Beats me. That is why I always use the polo when shooting. I know what I am getting with an actual polarizer instead of a virtual one.</p>

<p>I am sure there are PS gurus here who can give you more detailed advice.</p>

<p>In the meantime, here is two of the tute's that I have seen:</p>

<p><a href="http://photoshoptutorials.ws/photoshop-tutorials/photo-effects/polarizing-filter.html">http://photoshoptutorials.ws/photoshop-tutorials/photo-effects/polarizing-filter.html</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.photoshopuser.com/members/tutorials/mimicking-a-polarizing-filter.html">http://www.photoshopuser.com/members/tutorials/mimicking-a-polarizing-filter.html</a></p>

<p>Note that while you may be able to replicate the color effects of a polo, not sure there is a satisfactory way to kill the shine on wet leaves, etc. Which of course is really the most useful benefit to a polo.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"......., though personally I prefer to shoot only correct exposures. Saves time."</p>

<p>I agree wholeheartedly, and in my film days, I only bracketed in situations where I knew that the lighting was going to be tricky. But Andrew, you and I are apparently experienced enough to determine when bracketing may be wise. In the OP's case, he admits to being a beginner and if you are not experienced in exposing for film, then bracketing can be a life saver. I recall when I was first beginning to shoot, I was too often disappointed by bad exposures (due to my inexperience) and I relied heavily on bracketing not only to get the a useable exposure, but to learn what I needed to do. O would take notes on exposure setting and then compare the chromes to the setting to allow me to learn what needed to be done. Invaluable teaching tool. You can read books forever on the subject, but seeing an over and underexposed image of a shot you took is probably still the best way to learn. After years of shooting, I began to understand what to do the first time in backlit, overly contrasty, shadowy, etc situations and did not often have to waste time (and money) bracketing. But even after I was well skilled in gauging exposure, if I knew that an exposure was going to difficult, I did occasionally bracket - right up to my last Velvia image shot 6 years ago.</p>

<p>And yes - for fall color on film - for my tastes - NOTHING matched Velvia (the original 50). I wholeheartedly agree.</p>

<p>This was my last film shot (Velvia) taken in October 2005. No PS - just got "lucky" with the framing, the exposure and that time of year. One of the few times I found myself in eaxactly the right spot at exactly the right time with exactly the right gear.</p>

<img src="http://www.usefilm.com/images/2/6/1/1/2611/668466-large.jpg" alt="WV autumn" />

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Eric, a polo does not only add some blue, but takes away glare, reflections etc., and makes mirroring windscreens transparent. How would you ever do that in PS? There is no function I know of, neither in PS nor in some plugins that are on the market that would be able to simulate that particular filter.<br>

Personally, I believe that the only filters you need to carry most of the time are a polo, and some ND grads... and that PS is not a photo tool, but your camera is. Guess I'm sliding more and more into OT mode now...</p>

<p>Love you pic, by the way.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>You don't really need grads but they can be very helpful, less fuss with Photoshop. <br>

I have read articles to simulate a CPOL but I don't believe them. I also don't think you can emulate a intensifying filter either but Photoshop has more control cos a "I" filter will improve all the frame than selections with PS. *Some people don't like that - like Thom Hogan*. </p>

<p>I think if you go digital, CPOL is the only filter you need and maybe straight ND (not grads) to get slow waterfalls / streams etc if you are into that stuff, if not just the CPOL. Grads can be done with Photoshop but more messy. Personally I prefer to use grads cos I only have 1 file and not 2 files to do. Personally again I prefer to use Photoshop to blend images, I don't like to use HDR software - be it Photomatix or Photoshop because of the ghosting. </p>

<p>If you are shooting film you would need more filters, maybe even warming filters if you are shooting slide film that is you want the end result on the film, ie., you are not scanning the film and photoshopping it. Negative film does not need warming filters cos the scanner software needs to "encode" it, to convert the brown film into a visible working photo. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Wow, you people are really helpful! I came back to take a look, and lots of great suggestions already, thanks!</p>

<p>Eric, that picture kicks ass, great work. I will get the Velvia and try it.</p>

<p>Ok so the general feedback here is go with Digital, not a problem making pictures with 10 MP, great.</p>

<p>Andrew and Eric, you guys are right on. I went out today to test out my wide angle lens and the polarizer...disappointing results in some of the pictures. There is often a darker shade of blue in one part of the sky. As you have said, I guess the polarization affects different portions of the sky differently. (Have only used UV before, never had this issue.)<br>

Monica, have you seen this too? What is your trick get around this?</p>

<p>The main problem is, when looking at the picture in the display, this (uneven sky color) is not apparent.<br>

So, should I skip the polarizer when using the wide angle and just use UV?<br>

If not, I guess the only other solution is to take multiple shots and pray one of them will work out? Not a problem for digital I know, but this brings me to my next question:</p>

<p>I read somewhere that RAW is the format to use when using the DSLR. OK, so on a 2GB card, I get only 166 pictures. I was out for 3 hours today and filled up the card. So, do I actually need to use RAW, if not, what would you suggest? (Currently use ScanDisk Ultra II, my camera is a Nikon D80, if that info is relevant.) Could I use an SDHC card?</p>

<p>Yes, I just learned about bracketing, am taking a class in B&W Film photography. I try to shoot manual almost exclusively with variations of stops on the higher and lower sides, hoping one of them will give the desired results. Have no idea how to work with the histograms though, will have to read up.</p>

<p>Ok another question, I use Picasa to look at the digital pictures and to modify them if needed. But Picasa has crashed my computer several times (Yes, I'm a PC, thinking of getting a Mac ;). What program should I use, is there anything else you'll recommend?</p>

<p>Ray, should I use Neutral Density instead of UV, I know amazon has 0.3, 0.6, 0.9 - which one do you think would be appropriate for someone at my level? And what is grad, sorry I am still getting used to the terms.</p>

<p>Thank you all for the solid feedback!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If in doubt, skip the CPL with the ultrawide. The differential sky problem is part of the nature of the thing, you can't reliably work around it. WRT the SD cards, your D80 can take SDHC. You should definitely have more than 2GB, and shoot raw. Last time I went on a trip with a DSLR I had something like 60GB of cards with me.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"So, do I actually need to use RAW, if not, what would you suggest?"<br>

Raw is the only way to go for landscape (and to my mind, all other photography as well). Answer to your question is simple. Buy a bigger card. Actually, you should have more than one card. Cards can fail and if you are out in the field with only one card and it fails (or gets filled), you are out of luck.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks Andrew and Eric for the input, will plan accordingly.</p>

<p>One more question: Just out of curiosity, I loaded the 10-20mm DX lens on the film camera. At 10mm I indeed see a ring around the frame corners, I guess because the sensor on the film camera is bigger. But at ~ 15mm, I can see the entire frame clearly through the view-finder in the film camera.</p>

<p>I have not developed the film yet, but does this mean I'm good for using this lens at 15mm and up for the film camera?</p>

<p>And, since there is the 1.5 crop factor, is the 15mm DX lens actually acting as a 10mm lens for the film camera? Sorry if this is too trivial of a question.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Oh - and as far as histograms, it is a vital part of the digital body. Even if you are relatively inexperienced in judging exposures, learning how to read a histogram (which is not very hard to do) will improve your photos in leaps and bounds. Just read up on what a histo does and then take your camaera out in the yard, shoot with it and read the histograms. Run a series of shots bracketing exposure and equate what you see on the histogram to what you see in the image. After while, you will begin to uderstand what happens in certain siutations and will then be better able to judge more types of conditions and what setting are required.<br>

Here are some old tutorials on histograms that I used way back when I began shooting digital. I found them quite good. Read them and any others that you can find and when you think you have it in your head, try it out in the yard. You do not want to try your first attempts at utilizing histo's during an important shoot. Learn when mistakes don't matter.<br>

start with these: <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/Histogram_01.htm">http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/Histogram_01.htm</a><br>

or<br>

<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-histograms.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-histograms.shtml</a><br>

or<br>

<a href="http://www.photoxels.com/tutorial_histogram.html">http://www.photoxels.com/tutorial_histogram.html</a></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>One more question: Just out of curiosity, I loaded the 10-20mm DX lens on the film camera. At 10mm I indeed see a ring around the frame corners, I guess because the sensor on the film camera is bigger. But at ~ 15mm, I can see the entire frame clearly through the view-finder in the film camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The lens is NOT made for a film camera. On the contrary, you might damage your mirror if you try to shoot with that lens on, as the bajonet ring goes deeper into the cam. That's why you see edges.</p>

<p>The uneven blue is a result of a real wide angle. It tends to go more blue in the middle and fall off on the sides, but the pola effect also depends on the angle of sun to the object of desire. Alas, that question has been answered by a previous post. Oh, and get some cards! I never shoot jpg until I'm forced to, and don't ask me how many cards I carry around, in particular when going abroad.</p>

<blockquote></blockquote>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Eric, thanks a lot for the histogram articles, will take a look, I think this will help me improve.</p>

<p>The 10-20mm lens (sigma) did not quite work out by the way, returning it. The images are not sharp, and I did use a tripod. Any suggestions on other (wide angle or other) lenses that I can use for this trip?</p>

<p>Thanks Monica, and yes, I'll get some cards soon.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If you have a Nikon, I'd say 12-24... (and pack your big chequebook...). For Canon, I was happier with their own 10-22 than with the Sigma equivalent, albeit I did not like the extreme distortion and sold it eventually.</p>

<p>Is there no 16-35 or something like that? Unless you insist on the 10mm - I currently favour shooting panoramic instead, if I want an angle like that.</p>

<p>Not sharp? Which aperture did you pick? For landscape, you may need to rev up and use something between 11 and 22. And did you flip the mirror up in advance to eliminate shaking? Was it a windy day? Maybe it's a matter of putting a counterweight on your tripod, too, although with short lenses, the problem is not so evident.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>When I shoot landscapes I use f/11 usually with a tripod, lowest ISO to get more stuff in focus.</p>

<p>Re: your question to me. UV filters and Neutral Density are 2 completely different things. UV might be ok to take the haze out as I understand it for usual shooting might not be needed, unless you are in high altitudes.<br /> <br /> Neutral Density filters should "NEVER" be used as a UV filter because you might get handshake blur even with just the 0.3 filter. ND filters is for special effects, for landscapes it means using a tripod and using long shutter speeds like 1 or 3 seconds and more to get that creamy water effect (with your gorgous fall autumn color leaves). If you didn't use a ND filter long shutter speeds will just blow out the whites in your photo. When I do landscapes I tend to use a 4 or 6 stop filter, when you select f/11 or f/16 you can lengthen the shutter speed even more or add a polariser for another 1 or 2 stops longer. FYI: 0.3 is equiv. to 1 stop.</p>

<p>You can use a weaker ND filter if you just want to slow the camera slightly down so you can use that lens at 2.8 or 1.4 like when you are photographing people or subjects and want the background creamed out into a bokeh blur. Or slow the camera down so you can use Flash Sync. Many cams, don't have fast sync flash - that's generally reserved for the pro model cameras.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Wait a minute, DX lenses are invasive and damage lenses on film cameras? That's news to me. I do it all the time. The mount ring isn't any different, and FX digitals have DX crop mode because you can mount DX lenses on them.</p>

<p>Socalguy, some of the DX lenses can be used on film with minimal loss. It depends on zoom and how far away you're focused. Sometimes you don't notice in the finder but there's a bit of corner darkening and poor corner sharpness.</p>

<p>A 10-20 lens is a 10-20 lens - the DX label just means smaller image circle. On a DX camera a 10-20 lens has the same field of view as a 15-30 lens on a film camera, but if you put it on the film camera it's still a 10-20 and that's pretty darn wide.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Monika, I looked at the Nikon wide angles, it's a bit above my price range. I was hoping to spend ~$500, so still deciding on that.</p>

<p>Ray, thank you for the information on how to use the ND filters, appreciate your taking the time to write down some great tips for me. I have previously used longer shutter times to have that smooth effect, will try our an ND so I can improve on that, I look forward to trying it out.</p>

<p>Andrew, thanks for the insight regarding DX. Your explanation about what happens when using a DX lens on a film camera is consistent with what I was observing. I guess at close to 10mm, the view is so wide that the filter or the lens hood become obstructions? Is that what's going on? At higher than 15mm however (15-20mm), it is just a kick-ass wide-angle lens and I see only slight darkenings around the corners.</p>

<p>I still need to decide about the wide angle - do you'll know any other wide angle lens in the $500 range that'll give good results? Should I just take another shot at a sigma in case I received a bad one, or just bite the bullet and get a 10-24mm Nikon. That is like $800 though, is it wise to get a second hand one from amazon?</p>

<p>Thanks for all the help.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I couldn't hope to explain the optics, but it's not the lens hood, it's that the lens glass is a certain size and it's designed to project a certain circle and the size of that does change as you zoom. It has to do with the cone of the image projecting through the focal point - move the focal point away from the lens and the base of the cone grows. That's very simplistic, but it's the gist of it.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...