Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 06, 2015, 01:16:30 pm
-
...with a polarizer - San Francisco detail:
(http://www.slobodanblagojevic.com/img/s5/v121/p1670269106-4.jpg) (http://www.slobodanblagojevic.com/p861162586/e638e48b2)
-
Now I feel guilty.
Polas are a mixed blessing: nice skies if not with a wide, but they kill all other 'good' reflective surfaces too. Bit like cholesterol treatment too, in a way. Kiss of death on models near sea. Polas, not pills, but I don't know...
Rob
-
That's verging on a Velvia Sky!
I've found I use POLs on blue sky scenes less frequently with digital than I did with film, mostly because the effect seems more pronounced with digital. Is that possible or am I just imagining it?
-
If you feel it looks like Kodachrome, you think it looks like Kodachrome. If you think it looks like Velvia, it looks like Velvia to you. Subjective and why I find all the 'digital' presets or software packages that tell us something looks like something is only useful if you agree to this subjective POV.
Someday, someone might actually produce a match they can prove. Until then, if you're happy with what you have, be happy that you're happy with what you have!
-
In my early days of photography, my first "serious" camera was Canon FTbN. It was a manual model, like their flagship F-1. I chose manual, although auto-exposure was already available (Canon EF), as I wanted to learn how to expose properly. It also, like the F-1, had a 12% selective metering. I learned early to expose Kodachromes for the highlights, to preserve them from burning. That resulted in really deep black and mostly blocked shadows. It took me a while to figure it out that, by measuring the brightest parts of the image, I am actually underexposing the scene (the proper way would have been to use the selective metering area on approximately 18% gray parts, not the brightest ones). Then again, I got really punchy, contrasty, graphic images, even if by mistake.
-
I was in Ottawa a couple of years ago and got similar looking skies, as if I had used a polarizer. I started to automatically second-guess the matrix meter and overexposed by half to one stop and got less saturated, but still quite punchy skies. But if I liked it, I left it alone, as it makes for great bw images. BTW, excellent urbanscape.
JR
-
Polarizers can be fussy. But, the polished surface of the Bank of America building in the back, as I recall, is quite reflective, so a bit of polarization seems indicated. I think you've rendered it well. I also like the contrast of old and new(er) structures and materials. Good photograph, and good job making me nostalgic for SF!
-
In my early days of photography, my first "serious" camera was Canon FTbN. It was a manual model, like their flagship F-1. I chose manual, although auto-exposure was already available (Canon EF), as I wanted to learn how to expose properly. It also, like the F-1, had a 12% selective metering. I learned early to expose Kodachromes for the highlights, to preserve them from burning. That resulted in really deep black and mostly blocked shadows. It took me a while to figure it out that, by measuring the brightest parts of the image, I am actually underexposing the scene (the proper way would have been to use the selective metering area on approximately 18% gray parts, not the brightest ones). Then again, I got really punchy, contrasty, graphic images, even if by mistake.
No, Slobodan: use an incident light meter. A camera-spot isn't 1° and that's a minimum requirement for real spot metering. Anyway, an Invercone on a Weston, or one of those even better Minolta Flash 111 meters is designed, from birth, to give you correct exposure for the highlight, ensuring you will not overexpose it and lose it completely. Of course, as with everything, it takes some experience to know where and how to point 'n' place the thing.
Spot metering in-camera is fine if you are doing b/white and just want to get white faces right: as a rule of thumb, point at the face and then add 1.5 stops. Colour is/was always a bit more tricky with people shots, worst thing being reflected colour casts.
Rob