Pix Posted August 19, 2007 Report Share Posted August 19, 2007 Hi, just bought a polarizing filter for my digital camera. It's been a while I've been thinking of one, especially since I see the results in Pug's pictures Well I was hopeless, as I own a Canon Powershot A95, and I thought that filters won't fit to that kind of camera. In fact it seems there are adapters. That's good news. And inexpensive (surely not a good quality level, hopefully good enough for my watch shots). Have a look : http://cgi.ebay.com/UV-Polarizer-Lens-Kit-...oQQcmdZViewItem I have a question though : the kit includes an adapter, a 52mm UV Filter and a 52mm Linear Polarizing Filter. Which one should I use to have the reflections disappear, and what's the difference indeed ? Thx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephane Posted August 19, 2007 Report Share Posted August 19, 2007 Pix, The link is broken. PUG: I wouldn't mind to know about that filter either Cheers Stephane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pix Posted August 19, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2007 Fixed. Here a more complete search : http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?s...op=1&fsoo=1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vric Posted August 19, 2007 Report Share Posted August 19, 2007 (edited) I have a question though : the kit includes an adapter, a 52mm UV Filter and a 52mm Linear Polarizing Filter. Which one should I use to have the reflections disappear, and what's the difference indeed ? Polarizing filter.. the UV is simply a protective one (aka useless) Don't forget, you will have to add more lighting to your picture (or have a longer exposition) since the Polarizing filter will cost about 2-3 stop. Polarizing filter eliminate reflection from angle (not strait). You can adjust the effect with the ring on the filter.. you will have to look closely to your LCD or do some test and error shot before getting the best shot. Since the Polarizing is a dark filter, it will also darken your picture, so, as I said, you will need more light or open your aperture / shutter time, You NEED a tripod if you shot indoor with this. Edited August 19, 2007 by vric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted August 19, 2007 Report Share Posted August 19, 2007 A polarising filter is a godsend to a watch photographer. However, I've not used mine for months seeing as it's been mislaid in my house. The only time I've used a UV filter was as a lens protector. My polariser is a Hoya. See the white notch? That's important and you'll find out when you get it. If I find my filter in time, I'll write a tutorial for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pix Posted August 19, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2007 So this whitespot might be the direction of the light ? Currently I already shoot with longer exposure times, I am about to order a tripod too. Right now I'm using some CDs to place my camera, which explain the always same kind of views (front). I want to change that. I'm always giving the priority to the aperture (F8) in order to have the sharpest shots. Also I use ISO50 conditions. What do you think about it ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted August 19, 2007 Report Share Posted August 19, 2007 I'm always giving the priority to the aperture (F8) in order to have the sharpest shots. Also I use ISO50 conditions. What do you think about it ? The white spot is the polarisation of the light. Lowest ISO possible, yes. As for higher f-stops for better clarity, sometimes you don't want more clarity. I shoot in either f8, f2.8 or somewhere in between. Compare the first (f2. pic with the second (f8). I'd choose f2.8 here so the background didn't interfere too much. However, the astute will notice I took both pictures and chose afterwards. f2.8 f8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pix Posted August 19, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2007 Sure, I don't use any specialist vocable While shooting without background, I'll go on with F8. I found the 2.8 to be more adapted for lumeshots however. Indeed I'm limited to 15s exposure length. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephane Posted August 19, 2007 Report Share Posted August 19, 2007 I have a lot to learn !!! Please continue to post I am doing everything in FULL AUTO MODE except the lume shots of course. Pug, your initial tutorial made me buy a tripod which I allways use, and a light tent (which I don't use). What I allways do is use the timer too and step back as indicated. I sincerely think that explaning in simple words (f8/f2.8 is better than pro photographer terms) is the next step ... Cheers Stephane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vric Posted August 19, 2007 Report Share Posted August 19, 2007 I always shoot at bigges F too (F8 for my Canon, F22 for my Nikon) If I want the background to be blurred, I do it in post production Also, I use Hoya Macro lens, which are WONDERFULL for insane closeup, but eat DOF like crazy. It's why I use a very hi aperture Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vric Posted August 19, 2007 Report Share Posted August 19, 2007 (edited) I sincerely think that explaning in simple words (f8/f2.8 is better than pro photographer terms) is the next step ... The F (aperture) is how big the lens will open to take the picture. The higher the number, the smaller it will open. What it's doing in picture is: - A low F (lets say 2.8 here since his Lumix is doing this, but you camera might have a 3.5 or even higher number as minimum) will open quite big and allow a lot of light to enter. This will produce a sharp picture for what is in focus, but not what is in front or on back of it. So, on his picture, you see the watch is clear, but the background is blur.. this is produced by a low F. - A hi F (lets say F8 for the example, but know that most DSRL can do F22 or even more !) will open quite smaller, allowing less light to enter. You picture will then be darker (you will have to adjust how long you take the picture.. lets say you are at 1/60 sec at F2.8, you might need 1/2 sec at F8 for the same picture). What a Big F will allow is getting a LOT of details in front and back of the subject in focus. So in the end, if you have to have maximum clarity all over your picture (the subject + background) you will use a big F number. If you wish to have the watch dial in focus, but the bracelet and background blurry, a very small F will do that. Finally, just keep in mind that you are playing with the Deep Of Field of your focus and the higher the number, more detail you will gain, but you will also need more light if you don't wish your picture to be darker. Hope I'm clear. Edited August 19, 2007 by vric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted August 19, 2007 Report Share Posted August 19, 2007 If I had an f1.2 lens, I'd use it. I love depth of field effects. Eddie Lee, for instance, uses very low f-stops on his pictures whereas TTK just shows off with his talent and f32. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pix Posted August 19, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2007 Post production is also a "must" for amateur photographers like me. It enables to change the contrast/luminosity/sharpness and many other parameters, then resize/reframe your shots. If you use a dedicated software like Photoshop, you may apply filters that will change your picture/part of it a lot, and make an average shot look just fine. I'm using it a lot, that's why I also shoot with maximum picture definition, in order to create "macros" afterwards, by just copy/pating a chosen part of the whole pic. The magic rubber in Photoshop is also a wonderful tool, that enables to make some details disappear in the smartest way. In my opinion, the less you notice the filters/effects, the better results. Here's one usage of the magic rubber, used at my humble amateurish level. I guess Pug has great pics of this kind. I especially remember of his Panerai Luminous Panties Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted August 19, 2007 Report Share Posted August 19, 2007 I never use Photoshop. Apart from on every wallpaper shot I've ever done. http://jearle.free.fr/images/article/photoshop/photoshop.mov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pix Posted August 19, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2007 I never use Photoshop. I can't believe you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted August 19, 2007 Report Share Posted August 19, 2007 Here's one usage of the magic rubber, used at my humble amateurish level. I guess Pug has great pics of this kind. I especially remember of his Panerai Luminous Panties I don't use the magic rubber. I primarily use the clone tool and blur/noise. Here's some examples of Photoshop: and a before/after: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephane Posted August 20, 2007 Report Share Posted August 20, 2007 Hope I'm clear. Tr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pix Posted August 20, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 20, 2007 St Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vric Posted August 20, 2007 Report Share Posted August 20, 2007 (edited) Tr Edited August 20, 2007 by vric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted August 20, 2007 Report Share Posted August 20, 2007 Reflex are nice, but there is also quite good "normal" digicam. Like my Panasonic Lumix FZ20. If I have enough light, it's an absolutely amazing camera. I still rate the Lumix as the best non-SLR, as long as you stay in low ISO settings and have enough light. I will get a Canon SLR at some point, but until then, I'll be happy with my Leica-lensed Panasonic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vric Posted August 20, 2007 Report Share Posted August 20, 2007 Like my Panasonic Lumix FZ20. If I have enough light, it's an absolutely amazing camera. Yes if light isn't a problem, else the Iso suck big time on the FZ20-FZ30 and FZ-50 I was considering getting this one too. VERY good lens, but it just felt bad in my big hands (handgrip and shutter position) so I got the Canon S3. (now I wish I had the S5 for the flash shoe) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephane Posted August 20, 2007 Report Share Posted August 20, 2007 Well, my camera is a Sony DSC - H2. I should read the instructions maybe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vric Posted August 20, 2007 Report Share Posted August 20, 2007 Yes, the H2 is a very capable camera. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.