Confused – aperture setting for landscape shots – f/11 or f/22 recommended? (Page 11): Imagemeister, thanks for your post. I've reached out to Satore again to ask how he dealt with...

Base_fiddle

imagemeister wrote:

I find his response very strange ! - It may be hard to argue - but I would !.....
.

Imagemeister, thanks for your post. I've reached out to Satore again to ask how he dealt with glares from ice and water and if he took sunrise or sunset pictures and how he approached those.

I agree with your sentiment...I'd rather try shots with and without fliters, especially those that have the greatest glares.

As I said to Bleirer, I need to practice and see the results. Then I will know if I need filters.

Thanks for your post.

Jose

Base_fiddle

[quote=Bill P]

photogeneralist wrote:

I'm not at all sure that any software could emulate a graduated neutral density filter, but it is possible that HDRs made from bracketed exposure plus some lightroom masking and exposure corrections on the composited HDR might might come close as far as pictorial impact (assumes a non moving subject for bracketing)

Just what I was thinking, a good place to try an HDR. Some cameras do that themselves.

Bill P, I've read about HDRs, but I doubt that I will be able to use a tripod in most situations, so I don't know that HDRs would work. I might investigate when I feel comfortable with all the other areas I'm tackling.

Jose

Base_fiddle

TriX wrote:

A skylight or 1A filter is a light magenta filter that was popular in the film era to counteract the blue tint that some color film showed when shot under a blue sky. Either it or a UV filter were the “standard” lens protective filter used on lenses for film cameras. On modern digital cameras, a clear filter would be the choice for protection as they are not typically sensitive to UV and the white balance can correct for any blue tint.

Trix, a very helpful comment. I appreciate understanding the differences and why they were in film days vs digital days. I've always used UV filters; now I will look into clear filters strictly for protection.

Excellent post and thanks,

Jose

bleirer

Base_fiddle wrote:

Trix, a very helpful comment. I appreciate understanding the differences and why they were in film days vs digital days. I've always used UV filters; now I will look into clear filters strictly for protection.

Excellent post and thanks,

Jose

If you have a quality uv filter there is no need to switch to a clear filter, the camera doesn't know it's not clear because it can't see the uv light that got filtered out anyway, if it's a cheapie, get a better one.

Base_fiddle

bleirer wrote:

If you have a quality uv filter there is no need to switch to a clear filter, the camera doesn't know it's not clear because it can't see the uv light that got filtered out anyway, if it's a cheapie, get a better one.

Bleirer, I have a good UV filter. Thanks for the clarification.

Jose

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

bleirer wrote:

If you have a quality uv filter there is no need to switch to a clear filter, the camera doesn't know it's not clear because it can't see the uv light that got filtered out anyway, if it's a cheapie, get a better one.

Good advice - thanks for the clarification.

Bill P

Joel Sartore was once a PJ for the newspaper in the town where I live. Although I never met him, I have heard nothing bad about him. He was considered to be a fine photographer and a kind gentle person.

To those who have already stated that a UV filter is unacceptable in any situation, Joel Sartore uses them. He is a Nat Geo photog and you aren't. So shut up.