wei_xu

Looks like everyone is smiling. Everything on this Mark II is so nice, except a small dissapointment - only 3.9, not 5 or 6fps.

Thank you all for the answers. They are very helpful to me. Best regards.

I have 2 Hoya HMC UV filters and 2 Super HMC CP filters for my Canon lenses: 100-400mm, 24-105mm and 17-40mm. I

use UV filter for 100-400 and 24-105 to block UV light and protect the lenses, and CP filter for 24-105 and 17-40

to reduce glare. I have never stacked the UV filter with the CP filter. For the 24-105mm lens, I have used CP

and UV alternatively based on need.

 

Recently, I took a few shots of the west coast using 17-40mm/CP filter on a sunny day (~3pm, could not wait later

for better lighting) and found that the sea looked too blue or somewhat violet:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/7811165&size=lg (does it look fairly normal to you?)

 

I was using Fuji Sensia 100 film (will "upgrade" to DSLR soon - targeting at a Canon 5D II or equivalent) which

had never given me any trouble before. Most of my photos were shot with the same film, and here are some posted

on PN:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=783055 .

 

My questions are:

 

(1) How well does a CP filter filter the UV light?

 

(2) Is there any light transmission chart for a CP filter?

 

(3) Is stacking a CP and UV necessary or a bad idea?

 

(4) What would be the best practice you would suggest for the above lenses and filters?

 

Thanks for any advice.<div></div>

">> Obviously, it is suspicious if the 2/2 ratings are serious.<<

Same could be said for the 7/7 :)"

 

I agree with you, Giampiero, that's why I suggested deducting the highest and lowest ratings.

Mike, I don't think I was missing what you mentioned. That's why I said -- "To me, a low rating may mean the photo has room for improvement, or just simply the rater doesn't like it. I respect both high and low ratings." But a low rating far below the average does have multiple possibilities in what the rater real means. Thanks.

Thanks to all for the responses. Hope you can understand my English which is my second language.

 

I am an amateur photographer while working as an engineer in a company. I always appreciate those people who take time to view and rate/comment on my photos. I post photos for evaluation and critiques, and have learnt a lot from many constructive comments. That's why I like photo.net, the community for professional and amateur photographers. To me, a low rating may mean the photo has room for improvement, or just simply the rater doesn't like it. I respect both high and low ratings.

 

However, rating far below the average without comment may have high probability of not intending to evaluate but to "demote" or just downrate, and that is not what I would expect for anybody. Maybe, we have to live with it, but I do hope raters would be more serious and more constructive, at least show some respect to others.

 

I would suggest that an automatic ??removal of one highest and one lowest scores?? rating system (or a similar one) be used, like in some sports games, if appropriate. 10% top and bottom ratings of the total, rounded up to an integer, should be excluded from the average. Only when there are no less than 3 ratings, then will the photo have an average rating score. When there are 10 to 19 ratings, 1 highest and 1 lowest rating should be excluded from calculating the average; if there are 20 to 29 ratings, then 2 highest and 2 lowest ratings are to be excluded, and so on ??by this way, IMHO, the rating system may work even better.

 

For example, one of my photos received ratings as below:

 

2 2 1

 

4 4 2

 

5 5 1

 

6 5 2

 

6 6 1

 

7 5 1

 

7 6 1

 

7 7 1

 

the averages are O=4.90 and A=5.40. If 1 highest and 1 lowest ratings are removed, then the averages are O=5.00 and A=5.63. Obviously, it is suspicious if the 2/2 ratings are serious.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Regards,

 

Wei

I respect any scores, high or low, but rating far below others'

average without giving any comment really bothers me.