Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: fike on April 22, 2013, 01:59:42 pm
-
Why?
(http://www.marcshaffer.net/portfolio-2010/Upstate-New-York-7D-1698-1%20Pano-ver3.jpg)
http://marcshaffer.net/fine-art-panoramics-for-sale/breaking-ice-under-sunny-skies.html
I frequently like to put the sun in my images. Generally it is broken up by branches or somehow attenuated from its full power, but not this one. Am I destroying my sensor? My eyes?
-
Nope. Not unless you spend a lot of time staring directly at the sun - then it might be a problem for your eyes.
Love the photo. I also like having the sun in the frame.
-
+1.
-
+1
+1.
-
Not shooting into the sun means lots of good light missed.
-
So I am buying what you guys are selling. I have recklessly ignored this recommendation to not shoot into the sun.
Why do all the manufacturers tell you not to? Is it because they are afraid you are going to fry your eyeball with a telephoto lens or something?
-
I expect it is precisely that. Some numpty will set up a camera, looking directly into the sun, with a dirty great big telephoto, and will stare into it for ages, burn out their retina, then claim compensation from the manufacturer for not warning them that the sun is bright. People who sue a restaurant or cafe 'cos the coffee was very hot & they scalded their tongue, then find an idiot judge who'll grant them millions in damages, they're the ones the camera makers are scared of, and so they tell us stupid things, all to cover their arse.
-
It is precisely because you can blow out your eye. I take pics into the sun but not with long telephotos. What made me be more cautious was I was setting up a small telescope that is much like a camera lens, 500mm focal length, and I do have a solar filter for it, but I wanted to get it pointed at the sun first as it would make it easier to find once the solar filter was attached. I was smart enough not to look at it but I was watching the transmitted image straight out the back of the telescope and it was pointed at my chest, I found the sun and within about 3 seconds I had a smoking hole in my t-shirt and tiny burn just starting on my skin. So yes it can be dangerous, just be cautious. A lens is focusing light.
Alan
-
;D
Your should definitely not shoot into the sun. That's what the instructions for my Canon 5D said. So I went to Turkey and shot this picture of a total eclipse in 2006. Oops ! Sorry Canon.
1.3 seconds at f4.0 ISO400. But, photographically, not my finest hour (image for illustrative rather than aesthetic purposes). In competition a judge said that the foreground needed a little more light on it (a touch of fill-in flash perhaps ?). Someone else kindly pointed-out it was an eclipse and thus inclined to be dark(ish).
This was my first experience of shooting digitally. A tad over ambitious subject perhaps ? Also, my first experience of a total solar eclipse. I highly recommend the latter. Although it didn't change my life it was awe inspriring. I will never forget it.
-
And dont try to reduce the dangers by using a neutral density filter. They don't filter many of the harmful rays since you eyes will adjust to the lower light level with a bigger pupil the actual amount of dangerous exposure is higher.
-
I shoot with sun in the frame, but I pull my eye a little away from viewfinder so it is not staring at the sun directly. I can usually manage composition with my eye an inch or two away from eyecup, but if composition is wrong, I can always take another (or dozen more) shots.
-
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=10728130
double-click to enlarge...Central Park in the snow
-
With rangefinder cameras (and, I suppose, the current mirrorless models), it is very possible to burn the focal plane shutter if aimed at the sun too long. In fact, a local photographer was showing me his patched M4 shutter just the other day. Just focus an image of the sun on a piece of paper with any lens to see how quickly it can happen.
-
With rangefinder cameras (and, I suppose, the current mirrorless models), it is very possible to burn the focal plane shutter if aimed at the sun too long. In fact, a local photographer was showing me his patched M4 shutter just the other day. Just focus an image of the sun on a piece of paper with any lens to see how quickly it can happen.
The M4's shutter is rubberized cloth. A modern shutter is more likely to either warp (metal) or melt (plastic).
-
All I can say is that it's a good thing no one ever came up with a concept such as contre-jour
-
And dont try to reduce the dangers by using a neutral density filter. They don't filter many of the harmful rays since you eyes will adjust to the lower light level with a bigger pupil the actual amount of dangerous exposure is higher.
I'm skeptical. What "harmful rays" are not reduced by a ND filter?
-
I'm skeptical. What "harmful rays" are not reduced by a ND filter?
I am pretty sure that I have read that IR can "push through". If using a 10stop ND, it is sometimes helpful to also use an IR-cut filter to reduce any influence of the IR.
-
I'm skeptical. What "harmful rays" are not reduced by a ND filter?
ND filters don't necessarily filter IR and UV. E.g., from this page about a LEE filter (http://www.leefilters.com/index.php/camera/bigstopper):
These glass neutral density filters are optimised for use with digital cameras, as they absorb more infrared and ultraviolet light than traditional ND filters.
Also, from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ND_filter):
Practical ND filters are not perfect, as they do not reduce the intensity of all wavelengths equally. This can sometimes create color casts in recorded images, particularly with inexpensive filters. More significantly, most ND filters are only specified over the visible region of the spectrum, and do not proportionally block all wavelengths of ultraviolet or infrared radiation. This can be dangerous if using ND filters to view sources (such as the sun or white-hot metal or glass) which emit intense non-visible radiation, since the eye may be damaged even though the source does not look bright when viewed through the filter. Special filters must be used if such sources are to be safely viewed.
-
All I can say is that it's a good thing no one ever came up with a concept such as contre-jour
Heh. Exactly. Without backlight, we're toast.
-
Because lens flare reducing contrast? :)
-
Beautiful image fike!
I'd say the reason most people are told not to shoot directly into the sun is because they may think that if they can get away with it using a wide angle lens, pointing a super telephoto at it may not brighten up your day as one may think. I'm thinking a wicked headache. :) Of course the trend these days is for manufacturers to cover their a**es in every ridiculous way they think they need to. :)
Cheers,
Jay
-
Because lens flare reducing contrast? :)
That is the most substantive reason I have heard. It still won't stop me. Contrast isn't everything.
-
A few reasons. The already mentioned 'looking into the sun' which can cause vision problems.
Using telephoto lenses magnifies the problems and with very long lenses can lead to burned and melted shutters. Not a good thing for the camera.
-
A few reasons. The already mentioned 'looking into the sun' which can cause vision problems.
Using telephoto lenses magnifies the problems and with very long lenses can lead to burned and melted shutters. Not a good thing for the camera.
There is a lot of scary warnings about stuff like this, but I haven't heard or seen anyone who has actually damaged their camera with too much sun.
-
There is a lot of scary warnings about stuff like this, but I haven't heard or seen anyone who has actually damaged their camera with too much sun.
It's said that a swan's wingbeat is strong enough to break a man's arm. I've never met anyone who's had an arm broken by a swan.
-
It's said that a swan's wingbeat is strong enough to break a man's arm. I've never met anyone who's had an arm broken by a swan.
Excellent expression!!
-
simply note that your sensor may be damaged.
Not burned, but some areas may have some problems (higher moise, color cast,...)
And you may discover that far later and don't imagine that it comes from sensor high overexposure.
Have a Nice Day.
Thierry
But as a lot of photographers I've taken shots with sun in the frame ;) ;) ;)
-
So I am buying what you guys are selling. I have recklessly ignored this recommendation to not shoot into the sun.
And you did well! Very nice image.
I know it sounds quite mundane but... Which lens, please? It seems very resistant to ghosting.
Why do all the manufacturers tell you not to? Is it because they are afraid you are going to fry your eyeball with a telephoto lens or something?
Frying your eyes through a ground glass seems much less probable to me than simply while staring at the sun with naked eyes, as the visual pain in the latter situation may tell you (once it's a tad too late) ; the ground glass should scatter much if not all of the energy.
Frying the sensor itself would involve a longish exposure, which is not compatible with our sensors' sensitivities : I'd say that the energy level necessary to fill (saturate) a pixel is a few orders of magnitude below the energy level that may fry it.
Frying the shutter seems much more probable, and one may well point that it's the only fact reported hereabove. ;)
For me, the main reason is to avoid complaints about ghosting and flare.
Remember the the EPL2 "red dots" problem? Just ghosting (but way worse than usual, perhaps because it might have been created at the sensor).
-
Maybe we need a contre jour thread, just as we have one for rocks, clouds & trees?
-
The brightness of the solar image does not change with focal length, but f-number. A wide-angle lens is not safer.
-
...
I know it sounds quite mundane but... Which lens, please? It seems very resistant to ghosting.
...
Sigma 15mm f/2.8 fisheye on APS-C.