Thanks for the links. I've never seen either one of those. The second on looks interesting but I don't think I fully understand how to operate.
Gene51 wrote:
Except when you use a very wide angle lens, and you are very close to elements in the foreground. You will get moderate to extreme extension distortion - which is a type of perspective distortion - people get "horse faces." Also stuff at the edges and corners suffer from volume anamorphosis - or widening deformation, making round objects egg-shaped, and thin people looking like they put on 30 lbs. It's not a perspective issue per se, but fairly unique to very wide and ultrawide angle lenses.
Except when you use a very wide angle lens, and yo... (
show quote)
Thanks Gene. I appreciate those comments coming from you especially. As it is I think I have a pretty good feeling for how you go about your photography and I tend to follow in a similar direction. Add that to the fact that your pictures are stunning I pay particular attention to your posts.
Thanks again and continued success with your photography.
Thank for all the replies. I am impressed and very thankful for how many people have responded so quickly.
Well, I get that but another part of my question is whether or not different lens designs accent or diminish the compression feature. I don't know anything about lens design but I see from sales ads that some lenses have more and I think different types of glass components enclosed. So, from this, I think it is possible to have a 35mm lens with different designs and a different number of elements in the lens. If that is the case how much does that effect that compression of the image. In other words can two different telephoto lenses get different results as far as the compression of the image goes.
A few days ago I saw a two photographs taken of the same scene with two different lenses. One prime and one telephoto. What got my attention was that even though the subject in the foreground looked very similar in size the background seemed to moved forward in the photograph taken with the telephoto. I've seen this effect before in Macro photography using different focal lengths but I have never noticed it in an otherwise ordinary photograph. So my question is is that effect a part of a lenses design or is there something else going on? Thanks for your help in advance.
I'm an intermediate photographer and probably not even an advanced one. As it is now I've read tons of books, listened to a thousand hours of instructive videos and bought at least 5 five course on photography. I started as an absolute beginner about 3 years ago. I'm now at a point where I am buying instructional material that spends a lot time going over stuff I already know. What's next? What books or other instructive material would help me get to the next level. I'm already studying books on art but I don't know if I have the best ones for photography. Please advise?
Ricker wrote:
Aaaah, the presenter simply said that a polarizing filter would certainly keeps the lens glass protected from dust, debris and water and would be much better than a plastic UV filter, which he considered worse than a polarizing filter because almost all UV filters have terrible optical qualities. He also stressed that the polarizing filters for camera lenses vary a lot in optical properties and he recommended buying only a very high quality polarizer. I bought a Zeiss circular polarizer and it is indeed optically excellent, but it cost over $150 for 72mm diameter. Best regards, Ricker
Aaaah, the presenter simply said that a polarizing... (
show quote)
You sort answered my question by accident. I'd rather damage a less expensive UV filter than the Zeiss Polarizer but in truth I don't put anything on my lenses for protection other than a lens hood which is really cheap.
Ricker wrote:
Do many of you folks leave a polarizing filter on continuously?
I recently watched a YouTube video about polarizer and it was recommended to leave the polarizing filter on all the time.
Any thoughts on this idea?
Did they give a reason for that?
I sold my Cokin filter system and bought a Formatt Hitech system which is much better and not that expensive. Both the holder and the filters themselves are better in my opinion.
The Breakthrough fiters are interesting but I have never tried one.
Marumi for me. I've owned a B+W Kaeserman but liked Marumi better and sold the B&W.
My failing with GIMP was personal. I thought it was a great piece of software but as a beginner to both photography and post processing software it was a real hill to climb for me to learn it and I just gave up and switched to Lightroom and then added Photoshop both of which have tons more support for someone learning then does GIMP.
brokeweb wrote:
I may get some boos from the gallery:
I use manual lenses so I normally shoot Aperture priority. Depending on the light, I preset my ISO accordingly. Low for sunny days, mid for overcast days, high for dark. My camera handles dark with high ISO very well. It also depends if I'm shooting on a tripod or not. I check my shutter speed and adjust accordingly with my exposure compensation. I generally like to shoot at 1/100 sec or higher. That's my goal. I will preset all of my settings before I start shooting. As long as the light is the same, I do not have to worry. I like manual lenses because I set my aperture to f/8 or f/11 which is usually the sharpest. I usually shoot and sell still life's as stock for Adobe Stock so most of my work, I use a tripod and a remote shutter release. Most of my shots are dark with a single source light , usually a candle, so I'm not concerned about shutter speed but for dark shots on a tripod, I use the lowest ISO my camera will go.
I also shoot pound puppies for the PSPCA here in Philly,
http://rsmithdigital.com/?p=1888 , using a manual zoom lens (Nikon 35-200mm 1:3.5-4.6). It's a very nice lens for shooting running dogs because the focus ring and zoom ring are the same so i can focus and zoom simultaneously.
http://www.rsmithdigital.comhttps://500px.com/smith722/marketplaceI may get some boos from the gallery: br br I use... (
show quote)
Thanks or sending the links. I enjoy your pictures but especailly the "painted" ones.
Brian
I like the Expodisc. It's simple, fast an affordable.
I usually set my White Balance manually but there are usually presets on every camera. Things like, Daylight, Evening, Shade, Night, Incandescent, Fluorescent and such. If am are shooting in mixed light with a mix of incandescent, candlelight and florescent for example it sometimes works for me to set the camera Daylight and shoot. You'll till need ot go over it in Elements but you might be a little closer than Auto White Balance.
As some others have suggested you can shoot with your WB adjusted to create a desirable color cast as well. It's your choice.
I don't want to discourage you but shooting weddings is best left to pros. That a very competitive type of photography with very high standards in my opinion. If money is an issue for your friends maybe you and someone else with more experience can work together.
You are probably going to need at least some off camera flash as well.
Either way best of luck.
burkphoto wrote:
What's wrong with kittens? They're insanely cute!
Your comment is equally cute!