What's gone wrong.

swiftflo

swiftflo

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,336
Name
Peter
Edit My Images
Yes
This is a shot I recently took and hopefully one of you will be able to tell me where I went wrong.
Camera Nikon D700+24mm-85mm Nikon lens+UV filter+Hoya polarizing filter,f6.3 at 1/250, exposure compensation -0.3.


_PMS0016 by swiftflo, on Flickr

I know it is underexposed, but when I took a similar shot with my 50mm 2.8D lens+UV filter+polarizing filter it was okay.
 
I'm not sure what you're asking for. The camera has done its job and exposed the scene correctly (as it sees things) without blowing any highlights.

If you want a different effect then you have to take greater control; either by applying the correct amount of EC (not sure why you applied a negative amount) or by shooting in manual.

Which ever you choose, given the scene, either the sky and river will be blown or the trees and field will be under.
 
Not sure why you used a UV and a polariser either. That's just asking for trouble and will reduce image quality quite drastically.
Use one or the other, not both.
 
DemiLion said:
I'm not sure what you're asking for. The camera has done its job and exposed the scene correctly (as it sees things) without blowing any highlights.

If you want a different effect then you have to take greater control; either by applying the correct amount of EC (not sure why you applied a negative amount) or by shooting in manual.

Which ever you choose, given the scene, either the sky and river will be blown or the trees and field will be under.
Click to expand...

I used -0.3 EC because normally thats the result I like, I have never had a shot underexposed like that before. I was using AP priority for the shot.

As a matter of interest how would you have set up the camera for the shot.
 
TCR4x4 said:
Not sure why you used a UV and a polariser either. That's just asking for trouble and will reduce image quality quite drastically.
Use one or the other, not both.
Click to expand...

Newby error. I did not think the UV filter being clear would make a difference - "Lesson learnt".
 
The EXIF suggests the camera was metering for the whole scene. The camera is going to try to get a balanced exposure overall. It looks like it was a bright day so in order to avoid blowing the sky out the camera has upped the shutter speed making the greens look darker. Not sure why it didn't do it with your other lens though if everything else was the same - may have metered differently during that shot?

I think i may have been tempted to try spot metering the foreground with a second expose for the sky if it had blown out.
 
Just looks like a bright day, the sky is exposed you're are always going to have underexposure on the land. Try some ND grads
 
swiftflo said:
This is a shot I recently took and hopefully one of you will be able to tell me where I went wrong.
Camera Nikon D700+24mm-85mm Nikon lens+UV filter+Hoya polarizing filter,f6.3 at 1/250, exposure compensation -0.3.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/73026297@N06/7992014803/
_PMS0016 by swiftflo, on Flickr

I know it is underexposed, but when I took a similar shot with my 50mm 2.8D lens+UV filter+polarizing filter it was okay.
Click to expand...

Let me start by repeating what the others have said. Why are you using an u.v.filrter with a polarizing filter? Stacking filters should be a last resort and stacking a u.v. filter just should not be done. There is no benefit that I can think of.

What is it that you do not like about this pic? It seems to be a typical exposure with the sky exposed correctly and the foreground under exposed to keep the balance. The only thing I can think of is using a graduated filter to even the scene out. This way you could bring some light into the foreground with out blowing the highlights in the sky.

Other than that I would say don't expect to much out of a Nikon. Haha (just joking) I couldn't resist....
 
swiftflo said:
I used -0.3 EC because normally thats the result I like, I have never had a shot underexposed like that before. I was using AP priority for the shot.

As a matter of interest how would you have set up the camera for the shot.
Click to expand...

I'd probably shoot exactly what you've ended up with and add fill light in PP. The only other way is to HDR the scene because of the dynamic range...


...or find a better place to shoot from where you can balance the light.
 
rjbell said:
Just looks like a bright day, the sky is exposed you're are always going to have underexposure on the land. Try some ND grads
Click to expand...

Good suggestion but nd grads are also going to darken the trees on the left side that are level with the sky. How about taking two pics one exposed for sky and one for the foreground then combining the two in photoshop
 
Looks OK to me. Camera meter has done its job properly as far as I can see.
Can you show us the shot with the other lens?
 
TCR4x4 said:
Not sure why you used a UV and a polariser either. That's just asking for trouble and will reduce image quality quite drastically.
Use one or the other, not both.
Click to expand...

I didn't realise that using both together could have a large impact on images, does it really make a huge difference? (Only asking as I have both on, hoya uv filter and cokin polarizer on p system)
 
DemiLion said:
I'd probably shoot exactly what you've ended up with and add fill light in PP. The only other way is to HDR the scene because of the dynamic range...

...or find a better place to shoot from where you can balance the light.
Click to expand...

Actually I wouldn't say that's the only way. There is fill flash and as mentioned earlier graduated filters.
 
nickjohnwatson said:
I didn't realise that using both together could have a large impact on images, does it really make a huge difference? (Only asking as I have both on, hoya uv filter and cokin polarizer on p system)
Click to expand...

Yes is really does make a big difference. I have the cokin p system and I can say first hand that stacking with it is really awful. Now days u.v. filters are used for protection on a lens. They are not needed because the system already has protection against u.v. built in. bottom line is that the more layers of glass you have the greater potential for problems. So adding a u.v. filter (that's not needed) really doesn't make good sense.
 
shaylou said:
Actually I wouldn't say that's the only way. There is fill flash and as mentioned earlier graduated filters.
Click to expand...

Take a look at the scene.

A) how big is your budget for fill flash?

B) how are you going to grad the top right third and the river?
 
The camera has exposed for the large-ish area of sky, it'll pull back nicely in post process (just had a play) theres plenty of detail there.
 
It looks pretty much like the sort of exposure that you'd be aiming for straight out of camera. I'd maybe have considered exposing for the shadows a bit more with some positive exposure compensation and then pulling the sky back rather than the other way around. That said, it looks like you have a decent starting point here with little in the way of blocked shadows or blown highlights. Just needs a bit of shadow recover/fill light using the software of your choice.
 
You don't need the polariser - really - just leave it off and concentrate on other things.
They are the most over-rated item IMO and hardly ever do anything worthwhile with digital cameras.
 
4wd said:
You don't need the polariser - really - just leave it off and concentrate on other things.
They are the most over-rated item IMO and hardly ever do anything worthwhile with digital cameras.
Click to expand...

I dont agree with that statement at all, but in this case, it looks like the polariser actually hasnt been used properly, as there are still reflections in the water and the sky isnt particlarly blue.
Im hoping you meant to type UV filters are worthless as a polariser is actually one of the few filters that I think are essential for landscapes.
 
4wd said:
You don't need the polariser - really - just leave it off and concentrate on other things.
They are the most over-rated item IMO and hardly ever do anything worthwhile with digital cameras.
Click to expand...

If you really believe this, you're not using it properly. If you only ever buy one filter, make it a polariser.
 
4wd said:
You don't need the polariser - really - just leave it off and concentrate on other things.
They are the most over-rated item IMO and hardly ever do anything worthwhile with digital cameras.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree with this statement as well as a polariser makes a huge difference to images.
 
Wow - like all the comments.
HoppyUK and Nikonite - you both saye "not using the polarizer correctly", as it is a screw in type, how can I use it any differently.
There is a triangle on the rim which I took to be the top , looking through the filter I can see no difference which ever way you look through it.
 
Point it at your computer screen and turn it, you will then definitely see a difference!
Out in the field, do the same, you will see reflections disappear and you will see blue sky's go even darker blue.
This is all relative to the angle you are to the light source, 90degrees being the optimum.
 
4wd said:
You don't need the polariser - really - just leave it off and concentrate on other things.
They are the most over-rated item IMO and hardly ever do anything worthwhile with digital cameras.
Click to expand...

The polarizer is the most valuable filter one will use for landscape photography. If you did not see the value I would suggest trying it at the proper angles and or trying a better quality filter.
 
swiftflo said:
Wow - like all the comments.
HoppyUK and Nikonite - you both saye "not using the polarizer correctly", as it is a screw in type, how can I use it any differently.
There is a triangle on the rim which I took to be the top , looking through the filter I can see no difference which ever way you look through it.
Click to expand...

The triangle is just a reference point so you can repeat the same position exactly. It will usually be around the top for blue skies (or at the bottom, same difference).

Polarisers are all about angles. See this thread http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=428424
 
TCR4x4 said:
Point it at your computer screen and turn it, you will then definitely see a difference!
Out in the field, do the same, you will see reflections disappear and you will see blue sky's go even darker blue.
This is all relative to the angle you are to the light source, 90degrees being the optimum.
Click to expand...

Okay pointed the polarizer at the computer screen and yes could see the difference when I rotated it. When the white triangle was at the top the screen was clear,when the triangle was at the bottom the screen was black.
However when I fitted the filter to the camera, pointed at the sky and rotated it I could see no difference ?.
 
swiftflo said:
Okay pointed the polarizer at the computer screen and yes could see the difference when I rotated it. When the white triangle was at the top the screen was clear,when the triangle was at the bottom the screen was black.
However when I fitted the filter to the camera, pointed at the sky and rotated it I could see no difference ?.
Click to expand...

No, if the screen goes dark when the mark* is at the top, it will also go dark when it's at the bottom, with clear at 90 degrees in either direction.

A polariser will only darken blue sky, rotate for best effect, and be aware of your position in relation to the sun. See the link in post #27.

Edit: the mark is just a reference point so you can repeat the position. It's usually placed so it's around the top for blue skies, but the glass can shift around within the mount and sometimes move accidentally.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
No, if the screen goes dark when the mark* is at the top, it will also go dark when it's at the bottom, with clear at 90 degrees in either direction.

A polariser will only darken blue sky, rotate for best effect, and be aware of your position in relation to the sun. See the link in post #27.

Edit: the mark is just a reference point so you can repeat the position. It's usually placed so it's around the top for blue skies, but the glass can shift around within the mount and sometimes move accidentally.
Click to expand...

Thanks
 
Now that you are going forward with your filter there is one thing I would like to point out. When I first used mine I was having a hard time setting it up. I could not see any change as I turned it. What I ended up doing was pointing it towards a reflective service like water or if I didn't have that I would point it to the clouds in the sky and make my adjustment.
 
So I have just been reading all the answers and posts again, if I am right in my assumptions a Polarizing filter is no good unless the sun is coming from either side of the camera.
 
swiftflo said:
So I have just been reading all the answers and posts again, if I am right in my assumptions a Polarizing filter is no good unless the sun is coming from either side of the camera.
Click to expand...

No. Did you try the finger and thumb gun thing? That will tell you where the zone of max polarisation is, but the simplest way is just the rotate the filter and see what you get.

With a blue sky you'll mostly get something, ranging from dark navy blue to hardly noticeable. The only time you'll really get nothing is when the sun is low and you're shooting straight into the light, eg sunset. Again, try the gun trick and you'll see why ;)
 
HoppyUK said:
No. Did you try the finger and thumb gun thing? That will tell you where the zone of max polarisation is, but the simplest way is just the rotate the filter and see what you get.

With a blue sky you'll mostly get something, ranging from dark navy blue to hardly noticeable. The only time you'll really get nothing is when the sun is low and you're shooting straight into the light, eg sunset. Again, try the gun trick and you'll see why ;)
Click to expand...

Okay it's 17.00 hrs. Just tried the finger thumb trick and can see how that works.
Pointed the filter at the sun - rotated the filter - could see no difference.
Pointed the filter at a few clouds to the side of the sun - rotated the filter - could still not see any difference.

When I do the pointing at the computer screen as you have said earlier I can see a difference when the filter is rotated.

The filter by the way is the Hoya Pro.
 
Pointing it at the sun will do nothing.
It needs to be 90degrees to the sun, so face the sun and do a half turn. Try then.
 
swiftflo said:
Okay it's 17.00 hrs. Just tried the finger thumb trick and can see how that works.
Pointed the filter at the sun - rotated the filter - could see no difference.
Pointed the filter at a few clouds to the side of the sun - rotated the filter - could still not see any difference.

When I do the pointing at the computer screen as you have said earlier I can see a difference when the filter is rotated.

The filter by the way is the Hoya Pro.
Click to expand...

For the benefit of others, this is the finger and thumb trick. Form a 'gun' with your forefinger and thumb at right angles. Point your finger at the sun and rotate your hand around that axis so the thumb scribes and arc in the (blue) sky. It will point to the zone of maximum polarisation. The position of the camera doesn't change that zone, it just tells you where it is though it's quite wide, so if that area of sky is included in the shot, the polariser will work - rotate for best effect.

Two examples. If the sun is low, like a sunset, your thumb will scribe an arc right above your head and to both sides left and right. So all of the zone will be outside the picture.

Now it's midday in mid summer, and the sun is directly overhead. In this case your thumb will point to a zone on the horizon that goes all around 360 degrees. In that situation, you will get strong polarisation just above the horizon in all directions.

In every other situation, you'll get something inbetween. No need to put the filter on the camera, just look through it, making sure it's the right way round. If you look through it back to front, you'll get nothing.

The other angle is for reducing reflections. At 30-40 degrees to the surface, a polariser will kill reflections almost completely. Again, rotate for best effect.
 
nickjohnwatson said:
I didn't realise that using both together could have a large impact on images, does it really make a huge difference? (Only asking as I have both on, hoya uv filter and cokin polarizer on p system)
Click to expand...

It depends on your expectations. I was shooting today with a CP stacked on a UV (both Hoya filters) and the IQ to the regular viewer isn't affected. Maybe if I go down to pixel level then there may be some difference between this set-up and a lens straight from the box, but it's not enough for me to worry.

People worry too much :)
 
4wd said:
You don't need the polariser - really - just leave it off and concentrate on other things.
They are the most over-rated item IMO and hardly ever do anything worthwhile with digital cameras.
Click to expand...

Yes, CPs are absolutely pointless IMO... ;) :lol:


Polarisation by Pat MacInnes, on Flickr

To be fair, I don't use mine nowhere near as much as I should, especially for skies, but for water I fid them absolutely essential.
 
Just to check that the polariser is a circular polariser not a linear one. Many metering systems can get confused by a linear pol.

I carry both a UV and circular pol but never stack them since that can cause problems, mainly extra flare (god, how I wish it was flair!) and vignetting but there have been reports of image degradation from using just the UV. I fit the UV if there's a lot of dust or sand blowing around and the pol to reduce reflections and darken skies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top