charcoal_happy

<p>Does a polarizer help to reduce the dynamic range?</p>

<p>I know it's meant to increase saturation and reduce glare, but does it also make a good ND filter?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Personally I don't really care as with digital it is pretty cheap.<br /> ...<br /> I'm not sure I understand the post. What's the point? Who cares how many shots you take?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It may be cheap money-wise but it's <strong>very time consuming</strong> to go through thousands of shots and try to post process hundreds of them. I want to drastically reduce the time behind a computer. 1 hour max per documentary.</p>

<p>In film, you could choose between different kinds of film to produce a specific effect whereas in digital you have to do it all by yourself. Film's tonal range was also more forgiving exposure-wise. One stop overexposure was OK whereas in digital even 1/3rd of a stop in the wrong direction can ruin a pîc.</p>

<p>This got me wondering: is analogue better for outdoor shots in harsh sun (that is, in HDR environment)?</p>

<p>When traveling, I have to discipline myself in order not to take too many pictures. Usually, I know what will make a good picture before reaching for the camera. Nevertheless, I make many more shots than I will keep. My keep ratio is 1/10. I'd like to slim it down to 1/2. In the end, what you need is just a handful of pictures to make an album with a storyline.</p>

<p>How do you avoid taking mediocre images and how do you focus on the better shots? How do you work a storyline into your shots?</p>

<p>Do you create some kind of storyboard or assignment for yourself? Would you like to share these?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Nice, Colin :)</p>

<p>About lightening the shadows, I use "fill light" in CR but the effect I get is much worse than what you show here.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>On my recent trips I have been confronted with the huge dynamic range of direct sun and the impossibility of my camera to compress that range (5dmkii). Twisting the files in photoshop and camera raw doesn't yield natural results.<br>

<br /> In direct sun, I try to shoot with the sun in the back but that's not always possible. A landscape doesn't change places and coming back at another time is rarely possible. Waiting for clouds to conceal the sun is not possible either when there are no clouds. I usually expose for the highlights, when necessary underexposing the image by a stop or two, and lifting the shadows in post. The details are there but the image looks flat, kinda like an HDR picture.</p>

<p>I'm sure everyone has faced the harsh sun. How do you guys resolve this issue?</p>

<p>On a broader topic, am I sentenced to making HDR images, resolving to direct flash or should I consider analogue film? Out of curiosity, which digital cameras offer the best DR? How many stops at iso 100, iso 400 and iso 1600?</p>

<p>I try to avoid carryign too much stuff. On my next trip, I will try packing one of these sets:<br /> - either one lens and one flash<br />- or one lens and a tripod<br />- or two lenses (no flash, no tripod)</p>

<p> </p>

<b>Moderator's note: Moved from Travel forum because it's a question about exposure not specific to travel.</b>

<p>Hey William, great cheat cards! But how do I use them?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As for your participation in this forum, you seem unwilling to listen/read/study, and you expect all of us to spoon-feed you information on the terms and conditions that you impose on us. (Why we should do this for you is a mystery to me.)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because you're all so very kind :D Sarah, I'm listening now. And thanks for the input everyone.</p>

<p>As much as I want to respect everyone's comments, if you haven't owned this lens and used it on the same camera as I do, the value of your advice is questionable.</p>

<p>As a photographer, I don't care much how sharp the lens is in the centre. The lens should be sharp in the mid frame because that's where most subjects are placed. Not dead center, not in the far corner but somewhere inbetween. Michael, that crop is awesome but the photographic value of the full image is zero ;)</p>

<p>Anyone who's read my opening post carefully, should have noticed that I'm not questioning the lens as much as my own technique. The shallow dof might be causing the problem I have. I'd like to talk about how you decide<em> on the fly</em> (i.e. during a real shoot, not behind your desk) which aperture provides the proper dof.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone and have a nice weekend! I'll read your comments next week.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I can't recall the link I used but someone has pre-printable charts that are very handy. They also give guidance to how far away the camera should be from the target.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That would be great.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How about TWO full stops (f/2.8)?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How about NOT getting an 1.4 lens when you need to shoot it at 2.8 exclusively.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I had a 35/1.4 L that was demonstrably soft at a wider range of apertures than yours, Charcoal. Rather than use MFA (on my 5DII), I replaced the lens with another copy, which is very sharp at all apertures.<br>

I would try MFA, and if that doesn't improve matters, send it in to Canon for realignment. Or you can do what I did: sell it and pick up another.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can't see what is sharp and what's not with MF, even with EF-S. What you need for proper MF is a split screen and there's none available for the 5Dmkii.</p>

<p>Ugh, replacing a lens is not what I'm looking forward to. Nothing guarantees the next copy will be better. The never-ending quest for the perfect copy is an expensive route. Realignment doesn't come free either.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Wide open, your 24-70 is at f/2.8, vs. f/1.4 for your 35. That's not a fair comparison. How do they compare when they're both at f/2.8?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The one is a zoom, the other a prime. That's not fair either. The prime is great at 2.8 but when you buy an expensive 1.4 lens, I expect more than mediocre IQ at 1.4 - 2.0.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I trust you realize all lenses are at their softest at their largest and smallest apertures, and they are at their sharpest somewhere in the middle. Right?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes I realize that. However, the zoom is better wide open than the prime stopped down a full stop. It might have to do with proper dof calculation rather than lens error.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What do you shoot and what sort of distances are you shooting from?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Events and people at close (not macro close) to medium distances. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Did you calibrate your lens to your cam via microfocus adjustment?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. How did you calibrate yours? How do you properly calibrate?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>An EF-S screen is only interesting if you manually focus; but that can still introduce errors, depending on your technique.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What is the proper technique for manual focusing?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Put up some pix with supporting information and then we can have a discussion.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'll do that next week. In the meantime, I'm happy to hear about proper technique for focusing, calibration and dof calculation.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I got this wonderful lens but it's only wonderful at 2.8-5.6. Beyond that, it behaves like every other lens. In fact, it's worse wide open than my 24-70L wide open. Even at 2.0 the images are noticeably soft.<br>

<br /> I'm not a pixel peeper but the IQ is such that I'm inclined not to use this lens at apertures wider than 2.8.<br>

<br /> I corrected focus (set to -10 on a 5DmkII), I got an EF-S screen, I select single AF points... to no avail. Images are still soft at 1.4-2.0. The EF-S screen is of no help and the focus points on a 5DmkII are too close together to be helpful.<br>

<br /> Perhaps it's not a focus or lens issue but a depth of field issue. Unfortunately, there's no dof scale in the viewfinder and the only way to measure proper dof is to carry a tape measure, or ask some veterans for advice ;)</p>

<p>What else can I try?<br /> How do you guys handle the 35L and how do you estimate proper dof ?</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>Not that the picture is bad, but what's so special about it? One could take the same picture with a 5dmkii or even with a crop camera.</p>

<p>It's not the camera that makes this picture, it's the backdrop, the lighting, the make up and the models. Deep dof, low dynamic range, plenty of light, still subject... none of the 5dmkiii's new features come into play.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For reportage you will really miss the versatilty of the 24-70 if you part with it. I'll not part with my 35L but there are many times I wish I also had the 24-70L.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why exactly?<br /> I'm not one of those guys who has a hit ratio of 20 / 1. I carefully shoot with premeditation.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>do you have anything wider than 24mm?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, why. Never needed it. 24mm is wide enough and usually wider than what I like.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>adding the 35/1.4 for lowlight interior group shots</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Group shots at 1.4 you say?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you are into portraits, I would not want to be missing the 135/2.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I thought people were shooting portraits with 70-200mm.</p>

<p>I'm getting a 35L lens and am wondering whether to replace the 24-70L and 135L with a 70-200L 2.8. I'd end up with just the 35L and 70-200L 2.8.</p>

<p>Each of these lenses is great but carrying two is less trouble than carrying three. However, the 70-200L 2.8 is a whole lot bigger than what I've been using so far. </p>

<p>Anyone made the same move?</p>

<p>PS: camera is 5Dmkii. What I shoot: reportage and portraits.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Only a few shots really work at f1.4.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What does work at 1.4 ?</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"What is the native resolution of slide, 35mm film, medium format etc?"</em><br /> Google {MTF kodachrome}, {MTF velvia}, etc. etc.. and you will find 44,000 hits, most of them being on-topic.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why can't you give a straight answer? If "google" is your answer, I guess you don't have a clue.</p>

<p>44 000 hits of which 99% are trash. I only need one good reply.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Charcoal, there are entire books devoted to optical system characterization and major sections of them are typically devoted to such measurements.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What I'm looking for is the point where a lens or sensor outresolves the other.<br /> LP/mm used to be common information but I don't see companies publishing these figures anymore.</p>

<p>What is the native resolution of slide, 35mm film, medium format etc?</p>

<p>I'm getting my hands on a 35L. First test shots at f/1.4-2 show some blur. </p>

<p>How do you nail focus with this lens? I have a precision focus screen installed on a 5dmkii but it's of little help.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Another <a href="http://dajli.com/potn/sample1.jpg">example</a>: how has this one been edited?</p>

<p>I like <a href="http://www.nightanddayphoto.ca/misc/forumpics/POTN/Sig30Samples/125059_8358.jpg">this one</a> too. Sepia toning or something more subtle?</p>

<p>Thanks and well done!</p>

<p>How do you make efx 1 - 3 ?</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>my guess is that you are either trying to steer traffic to their website or, perhaps, you really are looking for a free or DIY alternative. Please clarify.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I tried a few actions and don't like them. What I'm looking for is the logic behind getting this vintage look. I can make my own actions once I understand the magic behind the plug-ins.<br>

High contrast, low saturation, warm tones: that's what my eyes see. But there is more to it. I cannot grasp what exactly. First guess is working the RGB curves separately. But how, to which extent, in which combination...?</p>

<p>What's the magic behind this look?</p>

<p><a href="http://paintthemoon.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/VelvetRetroTutorial-Pic-802x600.jpg">example 1</a><br /> <a href="http://paintthemoon.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/VelvetRetrox2.jpg">example 2</a></p>

<p>Any free actions available for PS cs5 or CR cs5 in windows?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I generally don't believe in rumors. Has anything official been published about a possible 35mm 1.4 v2?</p>

<p> </p>