Petroleum Spirit

Low light at Godrevy, exposure blend of three images, right back at

you filter manufacturers.

Very nice.

Hey David, this is exquisite. I have offered up an article option to a couple of photo mags about how to blend multiple exposures. They aren't grabbing and maybe it's not good business. They rely on filter ads and that would go against the grain me thinks. Do you think it's in my head or is that a possibility? Anyway, I haven't used a grad filter in over 8 months and I have not seen the need in any situation. Your work is excellent as always!

Well I am sure its a little that way, but most magazines serve the public opinion, literally all HDR shots look oven baked but they are on the cover all the time. I would think that they are just busy, look at your proposal and think 'yes thats a good idea, now where was I', its nothing personal.

 

I think professing that one alternative is far better than the other gets a little close to the nerve. One of my last articles about using alternative lenses like Contax and Olympus was 'not to be a AF MF comparison' for exactly the point you identify (it would have been slightly embarassing for them if the crops were shown) Mark, just keep knocking, then knock louder then stand on a chair then get a megaphone, then a publicity stunt.... you get the idea, don't give in.

 

I havent used grads in a long time, the last one I went to use I accidently stood on and shattered. I have one out of four left, thats all scratched. Or I could go and spend £270 to achieve the same as I can do in 5secs with a quick blend. Or make up a grad shape if I like, a circular one, a diamond shape, anything I want.

 

This shot would defeat any grad user, rendering the rocks in the upper part without any tone in an attempt to control the sky. The only way to render the scene correctly is an exposure blend. Its this type of limitation that I cant abide in photography, its the 21st century for gods sake, can't we cut free for good?

David, I agree with you entirely. Amazing result.

Great shot as always David,

 

I hate to say it but I still use Grad's but only where there is a defined skyline and clear transition. A picture like this would be a complete disaster if you tried to use filters as you say. My set of unscratched LEE filters now only get used less than 1/2 of the time for landscapes and I am sure this will decline further over time.

 

How about use of a polarizer, I understand this is not compatible with the 14-24mm lens you use most of the time however do you see that this still has a place for those of us that can attach a filter?

 

Personally I have had some good and bad experiences with polarisers in his type of situation, sometimes it seems to create a banding in the sky where there are subtle transitions in tone, other times it gives great results with a more natural saturation of colors etc.

 

I do use a polarisers, I cant live without them just like the 6 and 10stop ND, but yes its a fiddly affair on the 14-24. I am sure the huge Heliopan could be fitted with some DIY, but I tend to find that the wider I go (ie 21mm or less) I dont like polarisers and the uneven sky tones they create anyway. If I want a polariser I just shoot the Olympus 24mm f2 and step back ever so slightly, or use the Canon 24mm TS-E. There was no polariser used in this shot Brendan, but I thought I would reiterate some thoughts.

 

Yes without an exposure blend your stuffed with a shot like this as with a lot of low light seascapes I attempt, but just like the Mac and PC debate, or Nikon / Canon, it has its disciples and heretics. I am just happy to get my head down and crack on with it.

Thanks David,

 

Sorry to use this as a Blog.

 

Have you looked at the new Canon TS-E lenses. I was thinking about the new 17mm which has the obvious down side of no filter attachments, however following your direction this should be no problem. My biggest concern is what will happen to the front lens element given I am at the sea almost every weekend. Canon do not comment on this however I expect if the lens is designed not to have anything in front of it, it would be logical not to have any coatings on the front of the glass. If this is the case then a quck wipe over each week would not be out of the question. Expect this is the same problem on the 14-24, what has been your experience?

I dont mind discussing it here, no problem.

 

Well I wouldnt worry about it, the 14-24 has a deeply recessed front element, the 17mm TS-E is probably easier to clean than the 14-24 and so far I have had no problems. The only thing I would say is that the lens is twice the price of the Nikon and as tilt and shift play little part at the coast I would perhaps avoid this lens, but its up to you. Architecturally I am sure it is superb, but you can get away with converging verticals at the coast. The 14-24 is very distortion free, only 14mm and 24mm show any signs of distorion and they are very controlled. Still I hope to get the 17mm for review very shortly so I can give some positive feedback I am sure. The 14-24 can be cleaned quickly and effectively using restraunt serviettes if it gets a splattering, these absorb the water and can be thrown away. Once home use use a lens wipe to get it super clean. I would say the 17mm TS-E will be the same.

Thanks David, looks like I should give both a try before buying.