The TPU Darkroom - Digital SLR and Photography Club

[the54thvoid]

That's not the main feature of a polarization filter though, but rather to tame down blue skies, allowing for more balanced full-frame exposure, better colors, more contrast in any clouds and sky detail, and less blown out highlights.

I've used variable ND filters quite a bit, and they can be good as long as you're aware of their limitations (and you get one with no color cast). The main issue is that a variable ND is just two stacked circular polarizers stacked on top of each other (with opposite polarization), and rotating them relative to each other blocks out varying amounts of light. The issue is that the blocking of light is not equal across the frame (as it is dependent on the angle of incoming light), especially (but not limited to) wider angle lenses. This can easily lead to dark or bright areas in your photos that force some very annoying corrections in post (if possible at all). They also interact kind of weirdly with sunlight due to being polarized, enhancing the blotchy/uneven effect.

An illustration, a not-very-long exposure shot from a beach in Vietnam back in 2018:

Note how dark the areas from 4 o'clock to 6 and 10 to 12 are.
Here is after a lot of processing in Lightroom. IMO this was (barely) salvagable (the clouds in the upper left look kind of terrible) but there is still a lot more noise in those areas thanks to the excessive brightening needed. At best usable in small sizes.

(In case anyone cares: Pentax K-70, Tamron SP AF 10-24mm F/3.5-4.5 Di II LD @ 10mm, f/11, 1/2s, ISO 100. And if anyone wonders why the original exposure is so dark, it's because that blotchy effect got far worse at higher exposure levels, meaning I had to underexpose to get usable results at all.)

Lovely shots.

 

[grunt_408]

Canon 5D Mark IV , Tamron 90mm , ISO 640 , 1/160 , F16 , 4 shots stacked handheld.

 

[micropage7]

just found trashed lcd ic on the road, and it looks pretty good

 

[Ferrum Master]

Will throw also. Laowa 100mm f/2.8 2x Ultra Macro APO on my ilce6500, 4 sec exposition at F5.6, funny enough this glass doesn't get sharper when closed down. And that's a 6H13C.

 

[robot zombie]

Haha, toobz. So much going on in there! Am I correct in assuming the getter is somewhere down on the bottom? I see the flashing there but I can't make sense of what's inside the tube. I haven't seen much of that.

I'm betting the reflection on the glass is always blurred because you are so close to glass, with the objects being reflected far enough away that when you focus on the components of the tube, that it doesn't matter how much you close down, it doesn't have the focal range to also focus on what's reflected.

Or perhaps that is just the nature of the distortion applied to the reflection by the shape of the glass. The shape of the surface simply making things appear softer?

It's funny this comes up... the nature of reflections. Last night I looked at my watch in a dark room with my monitor's light hitting the sapphire glass juuussst right to almost cover the whole thing in glare. You only see the hands and indices poking through because they are even more reflective than the glass, being mirror finished themselves. The rest is the light of the screen, and what is on it.

I noticed something I never caught before when I was doing that. When looking with both eyes, both the reflection and the hands/indices appear equally sharp and clear... or more... I can't see the blur in the reflection because the angles of my eyes cancel big parts of the reflection. However, if I close one eye, I have to choose between seeing the reflection clearly and seeing the watch face. One will always be blurred. Made me think about focusing limitations. I don't deal with reflections like that, normally. To me that's what a polarizer is for. I never thought about the content of the reflections getting in my way.

A simple thing that I'm sure plenty of people pick up on. But it's not intuitive to think of a reflection on a surface this way. You want to think it's about the distance between the camera and the reflective surface when it's really the total distance the light has to travel from object to you. The reflection isn't the objects in it. For instance, if you were to get close to a dusty, scratchy mirror, you could choose between seeing mostly the dust on the surface or anything in the reflected image. But to do both would require a very narrow aperture, if it is possible at all without backing away to shorten the ratio of distance-from-camera between the mirror surface and the objects in the mirror.

I think it must work something like... the focal distance for the objects in the reflection = distance from camera to surface + distance from surface to reflected objects. This would mean that if you focus in the very near vicinity of the reflected surface, the objects reflected could simply fall out of range. Although reflected, the light is still covering distance and scattering as it goes. It's just bouncing on that path instead of going straight on. Right? I'm asking. I presume this is the reason.

But now, looking at your shot again. I can see parts of the reflection that are somewhat approaching sharp, sandwiched between what looks like surface distortion. The shape of the glass is blurring it in parts. While other parts start to look *almost* sharp. Probably the bigger factor.

 

[Ferrum Master]

Probably the bigger factor.

I took the picture random pointing in my shelf just as test shot, I didn't think about composition at all. I liked it and kept it just because how busy it looked, just as you described.

I cannot recommend the lens enough... it has zero aberrations also in super sharp and very well priced lens.

 

[micropage7]

just test minolta 135mm with closeup add on and honestly i don't expect the result will be good, the contrast is pretty kicking

 

[grunt_408]

Canon 5D mark IV , Tamron 90mm , 1/160 ISO 640 F10

 

[Aquinus]

I went for a quick walk this morning after dropping my daughter off at school. I was hoping for a bird picture, but they all escaped me. The shimmering of the dew covered grass turned out interesting, although I definitely had the wrong lens on for the shot. You can really see the lens aberrations on the outside of the image, but I still like the colors.

Canon EOS RP with 100-400mm Canon lens @ 400mm, ƒ8, ISO 200, 1/400s

 

[the54thvoid]

I'm getting itchy. Not been snapping much lately - weather's been Glasgow gloom (which isn't very atmospheric, just grey).

Glad you're enjoying that RF lens @Aquinus - I read somewhere the lens profiles for that and the new 16mm aren't available yet for PS/LR, or Capture One.

 

[Aquinus]

I'm getting itchy. Not been snapping much lately - weather's been Glasgow gloom (which isn't very atmospheric, just grey).

Glad you're enjoying that RF lens @Aquinus - I read somewhere the lens profiles for that and the new 16mm aren't available yet for PS/LR, or Capture One.

That's actually a good point. I wouldn't be surprised if updated corrections came out over the next several months. New lens is new I guess. It's a great lens for just $650 USD though. $2,800 for the 100-500 with L glass is a tough pill to swallow in comparison. I'm glad that the RF mount is starting to see a little more diversity.

 

[grunt_408]

Some awesome stuff being posted lately along with settings which is quite helpful to read.

 

[Ferrum Master]

Yeah some good info.

I didn't expect see onion rings on a modern glass though.

 

[grunt_408]

Canon 5D Mark IV , Tamron 90mm , Yongnuo yn560iii with diffuser. 1/80 ISO 400 F10 my only dissapointment with this shot is the blown highlight on top of the fly... but its ok there is always the next shot to look forward to.

 

[Nuckles56]

Canon 5D Mark IV , Tamron 90mm , Yongnuo yn560iii with diffuser. 1/80 ISO 400 F10 my only dissapointment with this shot is the blown highlight on top of the fly... but its ok there is always the next shot to look forward to.

You're way too hard on yourself, it's still a great shot no matter what

 

[grunt_408]

You're way too hard on yourself, it's still a great shot no matter what

Thank you so much , I do try very hard to get everything right though and see my faults where I go wrong etc. This is how I learn.

 

[grunt_408]

Canon 5D Mark IV , Tamron 90mm , 1/160 ISO 400 F10. Yeah I know the whites are a touch hot something that I have since fixed on my saved tiff file.

 

[Aquinus]

Canon 5D Mark IV , Tamron 90mm , 1/160 ISO 400 F10. Yeah I know the whites are a touch hot something that I have since fixed on my saved tiff file.
View attachment 223706

You're making me want to buy a 100mm macro lens.

 

[Valantar]

You're making me want to buy a 100mm macro lens.

And get some very well trained flies?

 

[Aquinus]

And get some very well trained flies?

I'm just trying to diversify the kinds if lens that I have. I don't actually have a macro lens, so it'd be a new addition to my kit. The only prime lens I have is the 50mm pancake lens and it's about as good as it's $200 USD price tag. That picture of the grass with the onion ring bokeh I took earlier with the 100-400mm would have be a lot nicer with a macro lens (and a narrower aperture.) I also don't own any L glass and I like how the USM focus system behaves on the 100-400mm lens. Either that or the ƒ4 wide-angle zoom lens to replace the ƒ4-7.1 I have now. I'm just trying to find the right lenses for the situations I want to cover. Between the 24-105 and the 100-400, I have the focal range I need for just about anything. I just don't have anything for vivid closeups like @grunt_408's Tamron lens.

 

[Aquinus]

Between meetings yesterday I stepped out just to get some air and vitamin D. Somebody put this old glass Pepsi bottle on the posting board by the boat launch at a local pond.

Canon EOS RP, Canon 100-400mm ƒ5.6-8 @ 225mm, ƒ7.1, 1/320s, ISO 200

 

[Valantar]

Between meetings yesterday I stepped out just to get some air and vitamin D. Somebody put this old glass Pepsi bottle on the posting board by the boat launch at a local pond.

Canon EOS RP, Canon 100-400mm ƒ5.6-8 @ 225mm, ƒ7.1, 1/320s, ISO 200
View attachment 223979

Looks like someone pulled that from the pond, must have been there for a few decades. Did you give it a try?

 

[grunt_408]

You're making me want to buy a 100mm macro lens.

Just do it you know you want to haha

What about a mpe 65mm , Canon 5D Mark IV , Canon MP E65mm , ISO 1000 F16 1/160

 

[the54thvoid]

@grunt_408

Are the fly shots taken in a studio set-up or in nature. Just wondering how you get set up.

 

[micropage7]

another shot with 135mm minolta with macro tube, with F3.5