PDA

View Full Version : On-Topic Photographs - How?? (...please)



The Grand Wazoo
01-06-2009, 19:44
Come on then all you photographic geniuses.

I need to know how to take perfect piccies of hi-fi gear.........so some tips would be useful.

Pretty please.

Beechwoods
01-06-2009, 20:52
Tripod, lighting, and decent exposure.

Oh, and make sure you're cleaned your kit first!

(I'm no expert, but these 4 rules are good for a start!).

The Vinyl Adventure
02-06-2009, 09:48
depends on the camera you intend to use

few tips though:
shot with a normal lens - (45-50mm focal length on a 35mm slr or 30 - 35 on a dslr). or as close to this as possible (not always practical but woth the effort if it can be done) (read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_lens )
this will give the observer the corect idea of depth and perspective
if you have a point and shoot digital compare the screen to what you see and try to make them match!

if you dont have much light a tripod is handy for perfection but not esential.

with tripod:

set camera on tripod
point in right direction
make sure flash of camera is turned off
set iso as low as possible
(if you have an slr with apeture priority mode set to between 5.6 and 8 this is likely where you lens works its best and will mean your hifi is all in focus front to back)
set camera to self timer (this ensures the camera is steady when it fires)
press the button.
...

depending on the light the shutter will have stayed open longer than you could have held the camera still so let it click twice before you return to the camera

beware of doing this in partiuly low light as any small sources of light will burn highlights

also depending on camera and colour of your hifi it may be worth experimenting with +/- a stop of exposure comp


without tripod

shoot in the part of the day that most light comes into the room. if direct sunlight hits your hifi hanging a very thin sheet/net curtain infront of the window will difuse the light nicely
you may find you need to set the iso of the camera higher but unless you have a top spec slr i wouldnt recomend going above 800
if in these circumstances with the camera set at its widest apeture is wanting to shoot at less than a 60th of a second (unless you have steady shot and then less than 15th) you are unlikely to get a sharp photo
in which case some more artificial light is required

if you must use a flash you must either difuse it or bounce it off the cieling - idealy both
alternativly use a lamp
any lamp that can be angled can be used for this
depending how much light is required reflecting light of ceiling can work or for a softer light put thin material over it
different colours of meterials can set a different mood :eyebrows:

with or without tripod

if you have a shiny hifi watch out for reflections no one wants to see you, your camera and your cat watching you inquisitivly in the front of that shiny black box on your hifi rack

if you really suffer with reflections a circular polarising filter can help
screw it to the front of the lens and look through the viewfinder, as you rotate the bit that turns wilst looking an the reflective surface you should notice the reflections lessen and then disapear.
beware though even the best circ pola lens do reduce the light entering the camera so longer exposure times are required

(for a little bit of fun..... point a circ pola at a lcd tv (if you have one) you will notice as you rotate the filter the tv picture magically disapears.....)

thats about the lot i think.. if i think of anything else i will add it into this post later

...

good luck

DSJR
02-06-2009, 10:06
They always said that photography went hand-in-hand with HiFi...

I just point and shoot and hope for the best. Wifey had all the gear and I'll try to borrow her tripod next time. A small digital 6.3MP snapshot camera would look a bit daft on top of one though :)

The Vinyl Adventure
02-06-2009, 10:45
They always said that photography went hand-in-hand with HiFi...

I just point and shoot and hope for the best. Wifey had all the gear and I'll try to borrow her tripod next time. A small digital 6.3MP snapshot camera would look a bit daft on top of one though :)


might look daft but follow my "with tripod" pointers and you should get a good photo. any camera (within reason) can take a good photo!

i gave my next door neighbour my old tripod for her tiny little p/s nikon
my old tripod was a bloody great big steel thing! she does look a little bit silly using it but she commented the other day how much better her indoor shots of her artwork have been

Haselsh1
02-06-2009, 14:59
Compose your view using the LCD and then tilt the camera to around forty five degrees. That angle adds a very powerful dynamic which works well with hi-fi, cars, trucks and portraits. Check out:

www.pickeringphotography.co.uk especially the hobbies bit.

I can't recommend the use of a polariser as it absorbs one and a half stops of light and the reflection will probably enhance the photograph. Polarisers do not work on metallic surfaces only painted ones.

The Vinyl Adventure
02-06-2009, 15:32
that guy has got some pretty good hifi pictures! its very easy to take a picture but to take something that you could see used as part of a advertisment or promotional publication is a different matter! it does help if you have nice furniture too!

as for polarisers it depends on the surface of the metal, it would work with a highly polished smooth metal but not with brushed metals as the reflected light travels in many more directions off the finely dappled surface (at least that is how i understand it)
basic rule if you can see your face in it a polariser will work!
that was the sort undesirable reflections i was talking about ... cats sofas windows photographer etc and the light drop can be overcome with the use of a tripod

that said i definatly agree with you, reflections are often beneficial, i dont think i have ever seen a good studio picture of a car without reflections to bring out the design and body shape

The Grand Wazoo
02-06-2009, 16:45
Great stuff chaps, keep it coming!

Haselsh1
02-06-2009, 17:13
"Music should never be harmless." Robbie Robertson

That is such a fabulous quote.

Polarisers do not work on any metallic surface. If you photograph a car through a polariser the effect works on the paint and the glass but not on the chrome. As far as I am aware, polarisers only work on painted surfaces. More than that, I do not know. This is true whether the polariser is linear or circular. Try it out on a mirror... you'll soon see what I mean.

The Vinyl Adventure
02-06-2009, 18:16
yeah your not wrong

it does have a slight effect on the light shinning off the metal lava lamp but not nearly as much as the glass of it...

i stand corrected

everything shinny apart from metal shiney... how do these god damn thigs actually work??
dont answer that, i wont understand anyway! the last guy who i asked told me to try and think of reflected light as a shape that was of a slightly different shape to that of normal light. polariser have holes in them that are of a specific shape that only let one or the other shapes of light through

i think he was dumming it down for me!

The Vinyl Adventure
02-06-2009, 18:35
these two pictures demonstrate how right you indeed are
but it does also demonstrate my point


with out
http://i728.photobucket.com/albums/ww282/hamish_gill/DSC_6628.jpg

with
http://i728.photobucket.com/albums/ww282/hamish_gill/DSC_6627.jpg

you can see how it would be a benefit in this situation so as to show off the screen of the radio
not perhaps up to the quality of your pictures but this is what i was getting at none the less

The Vinyl Adventure
02-06-2009, 20:34
tripod shot:
shot at f3.2 to get shallow depth of field
0.6 of a second to get sence of motion
iso 800 to get the other settings
60mm macro lens

prosess in lightroom: corners darkened to draw the eye to the centre, curves tweaked to increase contrast, blacks up

http://i728.photobucket.com/albums/ww282/hamish_gill/_DSC6634.jpg

what you recon, first time i have had ago at taking a photo of the hifi properly.. im pretty chuffed with it

Clive
02-06-2009, 20:58
The pic above is a little yellow but in this situation it's a pleasing effect. Change WB to remove the yellow (when you want it fixing).

More generally: flash can be a bit brutal on its own, even when bounced, try adding some extra lighting to fill-in, I use halogens on a couple of stands, about 5 halogens, this of course makes the pics yellow but setting the white balance to 3000 restores natural colour. This is a lot cheaper than buying studio lighting!

The Vinyl Adventure
02-06-2009, 21:17
i kept the warmer white balance on perpous i though it made it look pretty ...
also as the cartridge its self is a gold colour keeping the yellow/gold tint over the rest of the image just seemed to make sence to me
i guess its a personal style thing as much as anything else

im a great beliver in creating images that look right to my eye as aposed to technically correct. i guess thats a personal thing too

Clive
02-06-2009, 21:30
I agree in that yellow for that pic works. You wouldn't want all you pics to be yellow though, so that's why I made the comment. Whereas you're very well aware of WB, not everyone is. Great pic BTW!

Spectral Morn
02-06-2009, 21:34
tripod shot:
shot at f3.2 to get shallow depth of field
0.6 of a second to get sence of motion
iso 800 to get the other settings
60mm macro lens

prosess in lightroom: corners darkened to draw the eye to the centre, curves tweaked to increase contrast, blacks up

http://i728.photobucket.com/albums/ww282/hamish_gill/_DSC6634.jpg

what you recon, first time i have had ago at taking a photo of the hifi properly.. im pretty chuffed with it


What a beautiful photo and sir what clean vinyl you have...


Regards D S D L

The Vinyl Adventure
02-06-2009, 23:11
i did some of the pictures in the mens section on here
http://www.fly53store.com/category/1
that was the experience that tought me the most about white balance it had to be perfect every shot out of the camera as the colour has to be spot on acurate so the customer get spot on what they epect too
took a lot of fiddleing!! i used some 5000k lights but for some reason, im guessing the small amout of ambient light from the adjacent room or reflected light from the suroundings the camera had to be set to about 4900k with a slight bias to magenta
you would think with 5000k lights it would be simple....
... like a said i learnt a lot on that job!!

The Vinyl Adventure
02-06-2009, 23:12
cheers for the nice comments btw
neil, its a new record... they dont stay like that unfortunatly!!

Haselsh1
03-06-2009, 08:03
When I was ten years old I was a pathetic chemistry and physics swat and that's what led to me getting involved in photography. Back then photography was 90% chemistry but apart from that I studied the whole history of photography as well so that as the years went by, I gained more insight into photography. Later I worked for twenty seven years in a large corporate situation and now despise the whole chemistry scene with a passion.

You are quite correct in your description of light and how it either passes or gets blocked by a polariser. If memory serves me right, the light reflecting off a metallic surface is called 'specular' light and this is not affected by a polariser. Only light of a single dimension or flatness is blocked by a polariser. That's enough of that...!!!

Regarding the taking of stunning Hi-Fi photographs... it is not in the camera... it is in your head. The only thing restricting you is your own imagination.

Haselsh1
03-06-2009, 08:08
White balance is a nightmare and ultimately you need to setup a custom white balance in your camera by using a white card under the lighting conditions you will be using for the shoot. The easy way is to adjust the colour balance in Photoshop. (Image/Adjustments/Colour Balance).

The Vinyl Adventure
03-06-2009, 09:10
Regarding the taking of stunning Hi-Fi photographs... it is not in the camera... it is in your head. The only thing restricting you is your own imagination.

this is precicely my point, its just the other half of the same sentance

"any camera can take a good photo....its not in the camera...its in your head........."

....

i prefer lightroom for image manipulation i find photoshop a little ott in its functionality
lightrooms white balance control is excelent notonly does it shift from cool red to hot blue, it also has a magenta/green bais (?)
i shoot in raw and then adjust to eye on my photo monitor (apart from when technical perfection is required) and im always happy with the results and have not had any complaints from customers.....

Haselsh1
03-06-2009, 09:49
i prefer lightroom for image manipulation i find photoshop a little ott in its functionality
lightrooms white balance control is excelent notonly does it shift from cool red to hot blue, it also has a magenta/green bais (?)
i shoot in raw and then adjust to eye on my photo monitor (apart from when technical perfection is required) and im always happy with the results and have not had any complaints from customers.....


I know of a few photographers who prefer Adobe Lightroom for image manipulation but personally I prefer Photoshop CS2 as it handles layers much better. I have not tried CS3 with its better working of black and white as it's much cheaper to buy plug ins for CS2 and ones like Silver Efex do a much better job than CS3.

It's nice to find fellow photographers on here. Photographers with a true passion and very rare.

The Vinyl Adventure
03-06-2009, 10:27
passion... thats what i keep saying it is! my fiancee insists it is more of an obsesion...
its a very interesting peice of softwear lightroom! i makes workflow of multiple images very easy. and still retains the non-destructive edit proccess of editing a duplicate background. its main issue is not being able to apply multiple layers of the same function such as sharpening withoutout extra plugins (expensive!!) still, when required output to any photoediting program is possible if reqired!

on a different note altogether i have had a good look at your site and notice a shot i like of a boat taken with delta 3200, perhaps you could advise on how to get such a fine grain out of it.
i currently use ilfosol s (or 3 cant remember without checking)rapid fix and ilfostop and just follow the timing instructions on the bottles. im self tought and dont really know where these days to find reliable info on chemical photography these days.
with your background you seem the ideal candidate to help!

Haselsh1
03-06-2009, 10:39
on a different note altogether i have had a good look at your site and notice a shot i like of a boat taken with delta 3200, perhaps you could advise on how to get such a fine grain out of it.
i currently use ilfosol s (or 3 cant remember without checking)rapid fix and ilfostop and just follow the timing instructions on the bottles. im self tought and dont really know where these days to find reliable info on chemical photography these days.
with your background you seem the ideal candidate to help!


Hmmm... I'll do my best.

One of the problems with a very fast film is highly excessive contrast. This is can be cured. Another problem is excessive grain. This can be minimised.

If you take a developer such as Ilford ID11 which is a powder and dissolve the contents to make a stock solution you can further dilute this solution to make a very dilute developer. This will do both of the things you want to do. My suggestion would be to use ID11 at 1+3 as this will make for quite fine grain but will also lower the contrast.

If anyone out there is not sure about 1+3, add the two together to make 4 and divide your required quantity of solution by 4. So, if you need 300mls of developer then you need 75mls of stock solution.

I am way impressed that folk still use film and do it the proper way. I adore film over digital just in the same way I adore vinyl.

I do hope this isn't too patronising

Haselsh1
03-06-2009, 10:45
Check out:

www.digitaltruth.com

You need the massive developer chart which has loads of info for developers and times.

Haselsh1
03-06-2009, 10:47
Check out:

www.silverprint.co.uk

This is heaven for real photography

The Vinyl Adventure
03-06-2009, 13:10
execelent, cheers! a supplier of the chemicals too.. v usefull! i shall let you know how i get on!

Haselsh1
03-06-2009, 16:11
There is absolutely no point whatsoever keeping information to yourself merely to boost one's own ego. All that happens is that you die and it all gets forgotten. Pass it on...!!!

The Vinyl Adventure
03-06-2009, 20:52
thats one of the reasons i still do a day a week in the shop i love trying to answer peoples querrys about photography and hifi....

DaveK
03-06-2009, 21:59
Hi Guys,
This thread is largely a 2 person exchange, and none the worse for that. Please don't go PM on this, I for one am enjoying it and learning - great, and thanks. I have an interest in photography, my interest may come close to yours but my talents in this area certainly don't - congratulations to you both, and keep on swapping info.
:cool:

Haselsh1
04-06-2009, 06:49
OK Dave and Sue. I was going to go PM as this is getting very personal now but if we are OK to continue then that's what we'll do. Have a fab day.

Marco
04-06-2009, 07:46
Yep, guys, please keep it on the forum as this is information which many people will find interesting and informative :)

Marco.

The Vinyl Adventure
04-06-2009, 17:55
maybe it could be changed to "the art of sound (and some guy called hamish and another guy called shaun talking about photography and cameras and sh*t)"

step to far maybe....

anyway

so what is your current camera of choice then shaun?
and what would you say is your favorite camera of all?
and to keep it on topic ... choice equipment for hifi photography?

DaveK
04-06-2009, 19:18
maybe it could be changed to "the art of sound (and some guy called hamish and another guy called shaun talking about photography and cameras and sh*t)"

step too far maybe....



Hi Hamish,
Not a step too far for me - I like it - let's go for it - will you approach Admin etc. or should I ? :lolsign:
:cool:

The Vinyl Adventure
04-06-2009, 19:30
ha, yeah crack on... its a hifi forum and i havent barely said anything about hifi in ages... bit out my depth for the most part i prefer reading with interest than trying to comment! i then keep finding these photography threads and sticking my beak in where i might at least have somthing of use to say!

Haselsh1
04-06-2009, 21:46
maybe it could be changed to "the art of sound (and some guy called hamish and another guy called shaun talking about photography and cameras and sh*t)"

step to far maybe....

anyway

so what is your current camera of choice then shaun?
and what would you say is your favorite camera of all?
and to keep it on topic ... choice equipment for hifi photography?


Bloody Hell man you don't want much...!

My most favourite camera is a Nikon F5 and it is the one I use the most. My most favourite lens is a Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX as it is f2.8 throughout the whole zoom range and I use the very same lens with my F5. Problems... yes, it weighs in at around 2.5kgs and that's bloody silly.

My favourite film is Fuji Velvia 50 ISO.

My favourite digicam is a Nikon D70.

I don't do Canon anything.

My favourite Hi-Fi would be vinyl and valves with speakers by Audio Note. Ahh... exquisite.

Haselsh1
04-06-2009, 21:49
Just to add...

I've had three Hasselblads in the past along with Bronica SQ's and ETRS' and also a Pentax 67 or two and to be honest, they're very overrated. 35mm is far more flexible and much more spontaneous.

Barry
04-06-2009, 23:03
Maybe it could be changed to "the art of sound (and some guy called hamish and another guy called shaun talking about photography and cameras and sh*t)"

step to far maybe....

anyway

so what is your current camera of choice then Shaun?
and what would you say is your favorite camera of all?
and to keep it on topic ... choice equipment for hifi photography?

No good - it would'nt fit the banner, though to attempt that could be a baptism of fire for Nick in his new role.

Although not addressed to me, I'll respond anyway:

Leica M3 with 50mm f/2, loaded with Kodachrome 64,
Leica M4 with 35mm f/2.8, also loaded with KR 64, with a 90mm f/2.8 in pocket.

Completely manual, superbly reliable - been with me all over the world under conditions of blistering heat, freezing cold, rain or dust, they have never let me down, unlike some other analogue or digital cameras owned by fellow travellers I have come across.

Barry

Barry
04-06-2009, 23:22
You are quite correct in your description of light and how it either passes or gets blocked by a polariser. If memory serves me right, the light reflecting off a metallic surface is called 'specular' light and this is not affected by a polariser. Only light of a single dimension or flatness is blocked by a polariser. That's enough of that...!!!



Light reflected by a surface that is not perfectly smooth (as a mirror would be, hence specular reflection: > speculum: mirror), tends to suffer some scattering. Most of this scattered light will emerge predominantly one direction, so may look like reflected light, however the scattering will have destroyed the plane of polarisation of the incident light. The emerging light will consist of light with random plane of polarisation. If the planes of polarisation are completely mixed up by a reflective but rough surface, the reflected light will be completely unpolarised.

Barry

Haselsh1
05-06-2009, 07:56
Bloody Hell man you don't want much...!

My most favourite camera is a Nikon F5 and it is the one I use the most. My most favourite lens is a Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX as it is f2.8 throughout the whole zoom range and I use the very same lens with my F5. Problems... yes, it weighs in at around 2.5kgs and that's bloody silly.

My favourite film is Fuji Velvia 50 ISO.

My favourite digicam is a Nikon D70.

I don't do Canon anything.

My favourite Hi-Fi would be vinyl and valves with speakers by Audio Note. Ahh... exquisite.


Look I'm even quoting myself now...!

I have used hundreds of different cameras over the forty years I've been doing photography but the Nikon F5 is the most complete camera I have ever used. It is totally reliable and made from Titanium which gives it a certain robustness against impact damage. I treat my cameras as though they are gold or platinum, I never abuse them. They do after all cost a considerable sum. I would like to say once again though that the camera is, by and large, irrelevent. It is the lens that forms the image not the camera. To that end I have never seen a better image than one formed by a Carl Zeiss lens. They truly are the best in the World.

Haselsh1
05-06-2009, 08:21
Just to add...

I've had three Hasselblads in the past along with Bronica SQ's and ETRS' and also a Pentax 67 or two and to be honest, they're very overrated. 35mm is far more flexible and much more spontaneous.


To edit what I said here I must add though that 35mm format photography is very definitely a compromise. Medium format shooting will always win over 35mm especially if it uses Carl Zeiss lenses. The main problem I have with 120 roll cameras is that they are very inflexible and the systems of lenses and accessories is very limited when compared to 35mm systems.

If you shoot negatives or transparencies and scan them then digital is supremely compromised.

The Vinyl Adventure
05-06-2009, 10:36
Bloody Hell man you don't want much...!

My most favourite camera is a Nikon F5 and it is the one I use the most. My most favourite lens is a Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX as it is f2.8 throughout the whole zoom range and I use the very same lens with my F5. Problems... yes, it weighs in at around 2.5kgs and that's bloody silly.

My favourite film is Fuji Velvia 50 ISO.

My favourite digicam is a Nikon D70.

I don't do Canon anything.

My favourite Hi-Fi would be vinyl and valves with speakers by Audio Note. Ahh... exquisite.

the f5 is one im missing out my colection i have the f4 but i actually favor the f3 for its simplicity i only shoot film recreationaly, prefering the security of digital for work and when i shoot recreationaly i prefer simplicity

the only digital i seriously use recreationaly is my favorite camera over all, the epson r-d1.. its a geeks choice i guess but its sucha pleasure to use. body designed by voigtlander with electronics by epson with a nikon d70 sensor at its heart.completely manual in its function, you wouldnt even know it was a digital until you turn the srceen round on the back, it even has a manualy cocked shutter! takes m mount lenses and ltm with the adapter. i can use a my 1936 3.5cm f3.5 leica elmar all the way through to my brand new voigtlander 35mm 1.4. i have even adapted a lomo lens from the 70's to work on it (with shockingly poor quality results ...that is the point of lomo though...) http://hamishgill.blogspot.com/2008/11/modify-industar-69-for-use-on-epson-r.html. you may ask why i would want to take such low quality photos with a lens from the seventies... well why not, im not harming anyone!
its only downfall is it is not getting a little long in the tooth so image quality is going down hill and the only alternative would be the leica m8.2 (to get the shutter that cocks when i tell it to) which is .. overpriced somewhat at £5k

for work i use a d3 and i went for the nikon 24-70 2.8 as i got a silly good price on it else i would have my self gone for the sigma

...nikon d3 with 24-70 + sb 600 flash.. over 3 kilos, to quote... "bloody silly"
takes jolly good photos though!


i looked into getting a pentax 645 as my entry into medium format. but after useing one on loan for a few weeks i decided against it... great pictures, a joy to look through such a huge viewfinder. but in 2-3 weeks i put 2 films through, and at 12 (?) per roll thats not many photos... it was just too much to carry for recreational use!
i ending up settleing on an old zeiss folder and i have only used that once

The Vinyl Adventure
05-06-2009, 10:44
No good - it would'nt fit the banner, though to attempt that could be a baptism of fire for Nick in his new role.

Although not addressed to me, I'll respond anyway:

Leica M3 with 50mm f/2, loaded with Kodachrome 64,
Leica M4 with 35mm f/2.8, also loaded with KR 64, with a 90mm f/2.8 in pocket.

Completely manual, superbly reliable - been with me all over the world under conditions of blistering heat, freezing cold, rain or dust, they have never let me down, unlike some other analogue or digital cameras owned by fellow travellers I have come across.

Barry

i prefer the m6 ... it has a pair of lights that tell me when its exposed corectly as im to lazy to carry and use a meter properly
voigtlander r2a even has apeture priority and is about 1/8th the cost of an m7 .....

.... can invisage leica users shielding their cameras ears from my comments... :lolsign:

in seriousness though i think oskar barnark would have aproved of the voigtlander r2a.. i think it brings rangefinder photography to the masses... if only the masses knew how good rangefinders are eh...

Barry
05-06-2009, 11:01
i prefer the m6 ... it has a pair of lights that tell me when its exposed corectly as im to lazy to carry and use a meter properly
voigtlander r2a even has apeture priority and is about 1/8th the cost of an m7 .....

.... can invisage leica users shielding their cameras ears from my comments... :lolsign:

in seriousness though i think oskar barnark would have aproved of the voigtlander r2a.. i think it brings rangefinder photography to the masses... if only the masses knew how good rangefinders are eh...

Agree with you completely. My cameras are at least 25 years old, bought second hand. I do use a light meter, but I am also good at estimating exposure (outdoors), so an M6 would be nice to have for indoor use. I prefer not to have to rely on batteries, even for exposure, let alone to operate the shutter (M7).

Good to see that the Voigtlander name is still going; rescued by Cosina. The R2A is a nice camera, and I have been considering using some of the new Voigtlander lenses on my Leica bodies.

I like rangefinder cameras, though I also have and use five SLRs. They are Exactas, ancient, but very well made and work well with Zeiss, Schacht and Steinheil lenses.

Barry

PS Love your avatar - makes me smile each time I see it.:)

Clive
05-06-2009, 11:18
I'm nowhere near the same league but I do have a Nikon FE that is pure delight to handle, older metal cameras with good manual focus prime lenses are such a delight, not that I've put a film through one for ages. My Nikon 801s was very effective but not tactile enough and too plastic. What do I do with an 801s now? They seem to be worth about £30....

Currently I use an Olympus E410 and enjoy using my manual Nikon lenses with it.

shane
05-06-2009, 12:37
OK, this is how polarisers were explained to me.

Light consists of transverse waves. If you imagine holding the end of a piece of rope whilst someone holds the other end, and waggling it from side to side, that's a transverse wave you see travelling down the rope. As with light, the wave going down the rope can be either vertical, horizontal, or anything in between depending on whether you waggle the rope up and down or from side to side. The light that reaches your eye, or your camera lens, is a random mixture of vertically polarised (vibrating up and down), horizontally polarised (vibrating from side to side), and every other angle you can think of. Now if light reflects off a horizontal flat surface at a lowish angle,, the reflected light tends to be predominantly horizontally polarised.

Going back to the rope analogy, imagine the rope passing through two sticks stuck upright in the ground. Vertical vibrations can pass through, whist horizontal vibrations cannot. A polarising filter is in effect a microscopically fine grid of "poles", so it will allow through only light vibrating in the plane of the "poles", thereby cutting out the reflected light. Rotating the filter rotates the plane of light that the filter will pass.

Clear as mud? Thought so...

Haselsh1
05-06-2009, 12:46
These days whilst I'm out and about in the Yorkshire Dales or the North Yorkshire Moors I use a 1970's Olympus OM2n MD with a Tokina 17mm, Olympus 28mm, Olympus 50mm and Olympus 135mm. My film of choice is Fuji Velvia 50 with which I often use various levels of Tobacco grads. I shoot standing stones and cloudscapes but my heart lies with the place I grew up... Lincolnshire. The skies in Lincolnshire are vast as the horizon is just so low. The storms that sweep across there are amazing and produce some wonderful photographs by the sea. The black and white image of the boat on my website was taken on a beach in Lincolnshire at a place called Howden's Pullover; a truly lost, desolate place that makes one wonder when alone.

I like to use massive wide angles like the 17mm as these enhance the skies no end and produce beautiful cloudscapes. The Olympus performs faultlessly and produces accurately exposed slides but I do have a Gossen lightmeter as well for when things get difficult. When using a tobacco grad and a load of sky you simply cannot use a TTL metering system. If you do, you need to be prepared for a lot of failures.

I have no problems taking photographs around midday if the image looks good. So much is made of this time of day but it's mostly nonsense. If the photograph looks good, take the bloody shot. Stop worrying about your watch. A photograph is much better than no photograph.

Haselsh1
05-06-2009, 12:51
.... can invisage leica users shielding their cameras ears from my comments... :lolsign:


I was exactly the same when I used Hasselblads. I used to think there was nothing to compare. Of course, as is usually the case, I was wrong. The best thing about a Blad is it's lenses. In terms of the camera I'd rather have a Pentax 67 II.

Barry
05-06-2009, 14:50
Clear as mud? Thought so...

Not at all. Far clearer than my my post.

The ability of a rough surface to randomise the plane of polarisation by scattering was demonstrated to me by using a laser. Laser light has a specific and unique plane of polarisation. The exact plane depends on the design of the laser, however if a polariser is placed in the laser light beam and adjusted, there will be a position where the polariser completely extinguishes the light beam. If the laser light is then turned towards a rough scattering surface, such as a wall or a door and the laser spot viewed through a polariser, the polariser is found to have no effect on the brightness of the spot.

Barry

The Vinyl Adventure
05-06-2009, 15:09
leicas are bloody good, my m6 is stunningly well made and it does feel more solid than the voigtlander. but because of its provenance i dont use it as much. i get exactly the same results out of the voigtlander that cost me half as much new as the m6 did second hand...... barmy!and its got apeture priority (as i said before im a little lazy) i know that people say leicas last forever but some of that is probably down to the fact that thet are so valuable they get looked after more.

it does make me laugh that some people cant see beond leica. its nice to own and apriciate some of the kit. but paying such a vast premium for image quality that can be imho be equalled if not bettered (with a slightly different feel to the image) by that of zeiss and nikon and others (not canon though heh)

its the bast way to wind up a canon user... "did you know nikon used to make canons lenses?"

thats another thing that makes me laugh, picking up on something you said earlier shaun, the nikon vs canon thing.... it really gets people in a fuss sometimes!

i use nikon because the make better quality kit, nikon kit feels more robust and in my view the lenses are better. not to mention the fact that from working in a camera shop for 3 years i can tell you which brand is more reliable
any cannon user should be able to see this just from handleing nikon stuff, but they continue to disolution them selves :lolsign:

canon users :ner:


you want a great old camera, fantastic build, rock solid, great lens...
voigtlander vito b. i tought my self how to use a camera properly on one of these things cost me £11. get a accesory rangefinder and a western master 5/euromaster and a range of films and go out experiment
i seriously recomend this to anyone, get your self right back to basics and learn about apropriate shutter speeds and depth of field ... old lenses actually used to have little numbers on them to give you an idea of what might be in focus at a set distance at a set apeture!
what a bizzare thing to leave of modern kit eh????

anyway rant over!

that polarizer analogy it superb, i shall steal that for use in the shop ta

The Grand Wazoo
22-07-2012, 23:15
From The Grave

Thing Fish
22-07-2012, 23:51
learn to use Photoshop. If you do everything is possible despite what anyone else tells you.

If they don't agree then they don't know Photoshop well enough.

MartinT
23-07-2012, 10:49
Try to take the best possible image in the camera so that you can use Photoshop for creative effects rather than fixing shooting problems. To that effect:

- Set the camera for highest resolution, finiest quality JPG or use RAW (advanced)
- Always use a tripod
- Use natural lighting, or fill flash
- Use the self-timer so that you don't shake the camera when taking the shot
- Set the camera for the correct effect, e.g. macro is often a flower symbol, so that close-ups of cartridges come out well
- Sometimes you can set a very long shutter opening, like 10 seconds, in the dark and then wave a torch around the object to get interesting lighting effects

Then use Photoshop to crop and get the image looking ideal.

Haselsh1
24-07-2012, 14:16
learn to use Photoshop. If you do everything is possible despite what anyone else tells you.

If they don't agree then they don't know Photoshop well enough.

Of course it all depends on whether you do photography or digital imaging. Photography still takes place in a darkroom and requires extensive knowledge of chemistry, digital imaging is a doddle.

Haselsh1
24-07-2012, 14:19
Here's a digital image I did on topic with careful use of light. It required very little skill at all because it is digital.



http://i867.photobucket.com/albums/ab240/Haselsh1/Original_2008F_Website_Image.gif

MartinT
24-07-2012, 16:56
That's nice, Shaun, but then you've already shown us what a good photographer you are.