If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If your shooting through terminal windows your gona get lens flare on long exp when there are bright sources of light such as those poles. I can pretty much guarentee that if you were outside shooting that same photo you wouldnt get 1/2 has much glare.
Fireworks are a bugger to shoot mainly because the camera usualy picks up the light meter reading from the least bright part then gets all sorts of lens flare.
Never use the camera's meter.
Place the camera on the tripod.
For most shots, position the camera vertically rather than horizontally.
Turn your meter off, shoot manual only.
Set focus to infinity.
Use an aperture of F8 or smaller (higher number).
Set the shutter to bulb. Use a cable release and a card to cover the lens iIf you're photographing multiple bursts.
Exposure: try between 1/2 and 4 seconds; although one to two seconds seems to work best. Longer for multiple bursts.
If your shooting through terminal windows your gona get lens flare on long exp when there are bright sources of light such as those poles. I can pretty much guarentee that if you were outside shooting that same photo you wouldnt get 1/2 has much glare.
Yes, I noticed that when I tried a few shots from a park nearby but there nothing to be done at GIG at night, there are no outside spots there that are any good at night (mostly because the planes are moving).
Recently i have been taking off my UV filters for general shooting as well as night shooting. If i am shooting in a controled enviroment then i take the uv filter off now. If i am shooting at the airport, or in the city or at the track then i leave them on.
For night photography it is a cardinal sin to leave a filter on! lol
Buying a £20 filter is the reason why a lot people get flare in their photos. the cheaper filters just do not control it as well as the more expensive ones do. I have a Hoya Super HMC Pro Slimline on my 17-40 and that controls flare the best out of all my filters but i still take it off now when shooting in controled enviroments.
I understand that a lens is a costly item to buy, but why spend £1200 on a lens and then put a £20 piece of glass in front of it when you want top quality out of the lens you have spent so much on??? My sigma 120-300 takes a 105mm filter and to get a high quality filter for it would cost me £150-£200, nearly the same as it would cost to replace the element!
Even on a 100-400 or a 70-200IS the front element replacement only runs to about £200-£300. My insurance would cover it so i dont worry about it too much anymore.
Camera insurance is the best accessory you can buy for your camera!
I dont think you understand what i meant. It was more the point that if for whatever reason a stone or something similer hits your £1200 lens its a write off. Wheras if you spent £20 on a filter it would break the filter not the lens. I wouldnt suggest getting a cheap sh*tty filter in any case. My filters cost around £60+ each. Im just saying even if you dont want a filter for effects etc just get one to protect your lens.
If you are shooting in night conditions just change the filter to a skylight or similer that wont effect the photo.
Not intending to sound condescending or anything, but any filter will affect the image to a greater or lesser extent. Any air-to-glass surface, even when multi-coated, will reflect some light. Whether such reflections will be visible (among the reflections arising from the lens elements themselves) is another matter, obviously. In night-time conditions, where contrast tends to be extremely high, they just might...
If you really want to minimise reflections, you might even want to use a prime lens (with fewer lens elements) than a zoom lens, if that's an option.
I understand what your saying Dan. When i shoot motorsports or aviation or football or athletics or anything involving action or when i am running aroundi usually use a filter. However when i am in a studio shooting portraits, or shooting landscapes from a tripod i remove it as i am controlling the situation.
Oh and another thing, if a stone comes up and hits the lens then there is a fairly good chance you can just have the front element and maybe one or two planes of glass replaced for about £200-£300 from canon. I know that on the long canon teles (300F2.8LIS/400F2.8LIS/500F4LIS and 600F4LIS) that the front piece of glass you can touch is just there for protection and costs about £500 to replace. On the smaller lenses it is less.
I think we should agree to disagree on this point. I dont want to p**s you off or anything! Keep it friendly!
You havnt p*ssed me off at all mate. I agree with what your saying. I'll just reiterate my point. Its worth spending £20 (or £60 for a decent filter) on your £1200 lens even if its just to protect it. As you said it can cost upwards of £200-£500 to get the front element replaced. You do the math
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Comment