|
whaam posted:What is everyone using for ND/grad setups? I've got a Hoya screw-on ND16 and some cokin P series grads but have been looking for a grad ND in the 100 x 150mm range to be a bit more versatile on the horizon position, the problem is all I see is these Lee kits that start around $500 just for the adapter and 2 filters. I have this kit. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/387434-REG/Cokin_CH250_Graduated_Neutral_Density_Filter.html Plus a few other filters I picked up, but mostly I just use the GND filters.
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 00:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 08:49 |
|
|
I am rocking some cheapo 77mm Kenko ND8 filter. I got it before I left on a trip and have not replaced it, the coating has chipped off in a few spots...
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 02:45
|
|
|
whaam posted:What is everyone using for ND/grad setups? I've got a Hoya screw-on ND16 and some cokin P series grads but have been looking for a grad ND in the 100 x 150mm range to be a bit more versatile on the horizon position, the problem is all I see is these Lee kits that start around $500 just for the adapter and 2 filters. Buy them second hand. Lee and Singh-Ray both make very nice filters. Lee has been having production problems now for quite some time, so they can be difficult to come by. What I took to Hawaii were two Singh-Rays, a three-stop Daryl Benson reverse grad, and a three-stop soft grad. The soft grad was used.. once? And even then it was 'topped out', as in I was shooting through the densest part of the gradient, and still not doing its job. Perhaps if it were four stops, or else just a hard transition, it would have been more useful. The reverse ND grad, however, was used at every* sunset and sunrise (*that I can recall). I hand-held the filters in front of the lens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 16:28
|
|
|
I have a very similar setup to Leviathor... I bought a bunch of used stuff off eBay because the nicer filters that I wanted cost so much and I didn't know if I would enjoy using them (I do). I got a Cokin P holder, a 3-Stop Daryl Benson Reverse ND Grad, and a 3-Stop Galen Rowell ND Grad (both made by Singh-Ray) off eBay. I used the Cokin holder once and realized that I missed having access to my old circular polarizer, so I bought a Cokin sprocket'ed polarizer. I also have the B+W ND110, but in 77mm format... now I wish I had the Cokin-P version. The ND110 is so awesome. It takes some getting used to, but the results are amazing. I would like to get an ~ND8 to go along with it, for days that are overcast where the ND110 is overkill. The Daryl Benson I haven't used too much yet, because I haven't shot many sunrises/sunsets and it's really meant for that. I did use it in Yellowstone on top of the normal ND Grad for exxxtra ND action. The Galen Rowell (the normal ND grad) I really enjoyed using in Yellowstone. I did notice that a hard-edged grad would have been more helpful in a few situations. The Cokin polarizer works just as well as my old normal circular polarizer. I think the skies may be more even when shooting super-wide, which isn't surprising since my old polarizer was a bargain-brand anyway. My next purchase will absolutely be the Singh-Ray Gold-N-Blue sprocket'ed polarizer... I've had it on my eBay watchlist for a few months and it seems like NOBODY sells them used. Eventually (probably before my next big vacation), I'll suck it up and buy a new one. Gambl0r fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Feb 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 00:57
|
|
|
Gambl0r posted:
I was impressed with the gold-n-blue polarizer myself, but all of those SR are crazy expensive new and I've had zero luck with ebay. The filter I want and need the most is a 150mm+ long GND or reverse GND. The standard Cokin P size I have doesn't have enough glass to set the horizon anywhere but the center of the shot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 01:44
|
|
|
whaam posted:I was impressed with the gold-n-blue polarizer myself, but all of those SR are crazy expensive new and I've had zero luck with ebay. The filter I want and need the most is a 150mm+ long GND or reverse GND. The standard Cokin P size I have doesn't have enough glass to set the horizon anywhere but the center of the shot. I hadn't even mounted the Cokin holder on my 5D since buying it a few months ago and you got me worried there for a minute that somehow the filters would not be usable now that I've gone full frame. But even on FF with my widest lens (17mm) I can get a standard P size filter's center line to the top and bottom of the frame. Are you shooting medium format or something?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 01:59
|
|
|
Gambl0r posted:I hadn't even mounted the Cokin holder on my 5D since buying it a few months ago and you got me worried there for a minute that somehow the filters would not be usable now that I've gone full frame. But even on FF with my widest lens (17mm) I can get a standard P size filter's center line to the top and bottom of the frame. Are you shooting medium format or something? 10mm at the widest, if I move the center line of the cokin GND to the top 1/3rd of the frame I can see the edge of the glass in the bottom 1/3rd. (full frame equiv would be 16mm on this sensor I think)
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 02:03
|
|
|
whaam posted:10mm at the widest, if I move the center line of the cokin GND to the top 1/3rd of the frame I can see the edge of the glass in the bottom 1/3rd. (full frame equiv would be 16mm on this sensor I think) Interesting! All the shots I've taken with these filters so far have been with my 40D, and many of them with the 10-22mm. The length of the filters didn't bother me, but what did was the vignetting I would get from the holder (even the slimmer holder with only 2 filter slots) at the widest focal lengths, so that probably prevented me from shooting wide enough where the length of the filter would be a problem. I don't own the camera or lens anymore to be able to test it out. I knew I would get the vignetting when I bought this stuff off eBay, but I saw that the 4x6 and larger filters are so much more expensive, I knew I would not be able to afford to buy a number of them. But, the P-size can be used on a lens that wide if you don't mind some limitations. I guess it's a trade off for the relatively lower price 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 02:17
|
|
|
Well the cokin GND worked out ok this morning, but it still is very limited at this length.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 14:32
|
|
|
Eugene.jpeg and Eugene2.jpeg 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2012 01:10
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2012 13:43
|
|
|
My favourite shot so far. Noticed that there was something wacky going on near the wind farms and there was loads of fog around them. End result; Misty Walney Windfarms by HezzyUK, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2012 19:27
|
|
|
That's really awesome. edit: vvv So is that! vote_no fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Feb 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2012 19:43
|
|
|
Treeeees, those useless treeeeees...
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 23:15
|
|
|
prukinski posted:Treeeees, those useless treeeeees... That is amazing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 08:30
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 23:20
|
|
|
That is wonderful because it looks almost horrific, like it's some sort of stain of some type of violence or like when people's images got burned into walls during a nuclear explosion
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 23:37
|
|
|
Some landscapes, 35mm: FH010025 by gronke, on Flickr  FH010020 by gronke, on Flickr  FH000004 by gronke, on Flickr  FH000003 by gronke, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2012 04:11
|
|
|
the posted:That is wonderful because it looks almost horrific, like it's some sort of stain of some type of violence or like when people's images got burned into walls during a nuclear explosion Hmm, to me this just looks like water or mold underneath a pipe on a concrete wall. I like these two the most. They have a nicer, balanced feel than the other too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2012 10:21
|
|
|
Hezzy posted:My favourite shot so far. Noticed that there was something wacky going on near the wind farms and there was loads of fog around them. End result; Pretty amazing ^ 
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2012 04:08
|
|
|
Tried my hand at some Landscape too yesterday, actually I tried drat near everything yesetday. Here's the ones that I think are salvageable. Please be brutal, I need to get better. No editing has been done, as I don't have any programs to do it, nor do I know how. DSC_0095 by DeanWill, on Flickr  DSC_0099 by DeanWill, on Flickr  DSC_0180 by DeanWill, on Flickr  DSC_0183 by DeanWill, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2012 04:11
|
|
|
You set 0099 to incandescent white balance, which means everything is bizarrely blue considering the light. I would say it's also a bit underexposed. Looks like there's a lot of gunk on the lens or sensor, especially noticeable in the last two. I'd also say your ISO is way too high for the scenes, ranging between 400 and 640 when it could easily have been at 100 or 200. The horizon on 0183 is slightly tilted to the right. 0180 is my favorite. edit: vvv You're asking the wrong guy about editing, I don't edit either. But with the last two you can probably just use the Photoshop clone stamp to pull off the major offenders. There's a post-processing thread in here I haven't had the chance to look at yet, but probably has some good answers. vote_no fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Feb 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2012 04:22
|
|
|
vote_no posted:You set 0099 to incandescent white balance, which means everything is bizarrely blue considering the light. I would say it's also a bit underexposed. Looks like there's a lot of gunk on the lens or sensor, especially noticeable in the last two. I'd also say your ISO is way too high for the scenes, ranging between 400 and 640 when it could easily have been at 100 or 200. The horizon on 0183 is slightly tilted to the right. 0180 is my favorite. Everything was on auto, so no idea why it would pick such high ISO. Is there a way to change it in processing? And yeah, at the end of the day it started to sprinkle a little. Once again, can I remove that with editing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2012 04:27
|
|
|
Arrgytehpirate posted:Everything was on auto, so no idea why it would pick such high ISO. Is there a way to change it in processing? And yeah, at the end of the day it started to sprinkle a little. Once again, can I remove that with editing? And that is why you need to take your camera off auto  You can't change the iso in post, but you can use noise reduction to reduce the amount of noise a high iso will induce. Lightroom has a pretty good noise reduction tool. Also, because you shot in auto, it's not in raw format so you can't fix the white balance after the fact. If you had shot in raw (on manual or av or tv or something) you can change the white balance to be correct.For editing, those should be pretty easily fixable in Photoshop with the clone or heal tool. Lightroom has a similar function but it's a bit clunkier to use, and I have no idea what Gimp has, but I'm sure it's got something similar.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2012 04:32
|
|
|
I went on a motorcycle ride with a friend this morning through the Royal National Park. We stopped somewhere in Stanwell Park for morning tea and the view was quite nice indeed.  My effort is so far from what everyone else is posting here, but I thought it was worth sharing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2012 06:17
|
|
|
X-Post from PAD
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2012 14:22
|
|
|
drat, I need to move closer to water. I absolutely love that sky transition.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2012 15:44
|
|
|
Cross-posting from SAD Sunset by alkanphel, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 01:19
|
|
|
Just some old ones I recently reprocessed.  
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 07:00
|
|
|
Trying to learn ND grads: _MG_7587 by Stealthdozer, on Flickr Got anxious on this outing; left too early and beat the evening light by a large margin and became tired and irritated screwed up the majority from this shoot.  _MG_6881 by Stealthdozer, on Flickr This on the other hand turned out better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 07:14
|
|
|
I'm heading out to Vegas for a convention in late march and I'll likely be renting a motorcycle to head out and test my new D800E. I haven't been much of a landscape photographer in the past and any advice for locations around the area would be welcome. I'm willing to head out bright and early to get some morning shots if needed. I was going to try and get to Valley of Fire at dawn or dusk specifically. This is the extent of my presentable ventures into landscape    Here's the only ones I've really processed.   I have a decent tripod and head and I intend on having the Nikon 24-70 2.8 lens. titanium fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Feb 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 21:25
|
|
|
I love road pictures. edit: vvv and those! vote_no fucked around with this message at 09:52 on Mar 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 21:44
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 09:44
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 04:01
|
|
|
Weeding through last fall's RAW files. I plan to head back down here for more shots near Sundance:
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2012 01:15
|
|
|
  Unfortunately the sky wasn't particularly interesting this morning. Got almost no colour aside from the initial golden glow as the sun emerged.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2012 04:34
|
|
|
I need some advice from the landscape crew. I'd like to be able to shoot photos in forests without tons of post processing, getting the photo to resemble what I saw in person. Usually the white balance is horribly, horribly wrong so it takes a lot of time to fine tune it for each shot. Also, shadow and highlights are always maxed out and require contrast/fill light adjustments. For example, today I saw this:  But when I get home, my shot right out of camera looks like this:  I fixed it, but applying those same settings to all the other photos from today does not work. The white balance needs to be adjusted in every shot. This is not usually the case when shooting other landscapes or naturally lit interiors, etc... forests just have always given me problems. Do you guys bring a grey card with you and set white balance in the field? Why is it that auto/cloudy/shade/sun or any other white balance preset is so horrible when shooting in the woods? Also, are there any specific things you keep in mind when shooting in these conditions when it comes to exposure?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 03:28
|
|
|
I dont have terribly too many nice landscapes, i tend to put too much rouge on the rocks and they just look tarty instead of sexy. I feel my photos need a subject to anchor the image, otherwise it feels meaningless and the eye drifts too much. Any pointers?       1200 wide  I have done some HDR landscapes to get the cloud effect, but aside from all the plebian audience who says theyre really good, i just think they're obvious and cheap.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 12:18
|
|
|
daemon posted:Love it, makes me yearn for summer. X-post from PAD.  
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 14:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 08:49 |
|
|
Gambl0r posted:I fixed it, but applying those same settings to all the other photos from today does not work. The white balance needs to be adjusted in every shot. This is not usually the case when shooting other landscapes or naturally lit interiors, etc... forests just have always given me problems. I just shoot with the WB set to cloud (it seems to produce the "least wrong" image) and fix everything at home, which basically means I've accepted that post processing is unavoidable. I guess you could improve the situation by bringing a grey card with you but that slows you down every time you want to take a new shot.. I find it easier to repair in the comfort of my home.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 15:39
|
|
