Search results for 'uv filter' - page 285
question about depth of field
.....This time note, f1:4 for the 100mm lens, NOT - f1.4, as you seem to imply and YES it is a 49mm filter size..... I do apologies, it was the way your describe the two lenses f1:1.4 and f1:4, guess I need to recheck my glasses. However, you need to re-check your brain cell. For the last time, it ...
Posted by simonsteph on 04/03/2007 - 09:29
question about depth of field
Another interesting thread, though perhaps not what petekd was after! Suffice it to say that whether you select the aperture directly from the lens or from within the camera, that aperture has to be available ie. a lens with a maximum aperture of F2 cannot be opened to F1.4. John is quite righ...
Posted by Kimbo on 04/03/2007 - 11:39
white balance and other stuff
In apples aperture you can map out the dust spots on one (blanc white card shot) and apply the dust filter to those spots on an entire batch of photos. I bet adobe lightroom can do the same. there's a podcast on itunes called "Inside Aperture" that has excellent step by step instructio...
Posted by Don on 07/03/2007 - 13:52
white balance and other stuff
Thanks to all of you for your comments, still a bit perplexed on the colour balance problem when the set up hasn't changed at all between shots, like I said it isn't very noticeable and the lab would probably filter it out anyway. Thanks for the re-sizing tip, Daniel, it worked a treat. George...
Posted by gartmore on 10/03/2007 - 13:01
Digital CCD, Bayer and sharpness
In response to a PM I received, here's some background information and bed-time reading for anyone who wants to know what goes on :) It is, in part, some of the information I used in developing my Just to start the subject, sharpness is dependent on a number of factors. We are talking sharpness...
Posted by MattMatic on 16/03/2007 - 09:47
Polarizers - the good, the bad, and the ugly
Just wanted some opinions/recommendations : I need (I think) to pick up a polarizer... (I have a Sigma 18 - 200 - I know it's not the fastest lens available, but since I have some older Pentax glass, and since I blew my whole budget on the body.... :( and I guessed that after I got a little more...
Posted by Classvino on 16/03/2007 - 19:37
Polarizers - the good, the bad, and the ugly
Probably the only useful filter on digital is the polariser as polarisation is one of the few effects that can't be achieved after the shot is taken. On film I used to use polarisers, 81A for colour and the usual colours for monochrome, particularly orange and red. All these things can be done in...
Posted by johnriley on 16/03/2007 - 20:40
Polarizers - the good, the bad, and the ugly
I used circular polarizers quite regularly with film, but when I'm out and about with the K10D I tend to have the DA16-45 (67mm filter size, don't have it!) and the DA50-200 (52mm filter size) I will make some more tests with the DA50-200 when the atmospheric conditions are more appropriate. As for ...
Posted by Alan673 on 16/03/2007 - 21:10
Polarizers - the good, the bad, and the ugly
I use a Kood circular polariser (Cokin P size) a lot, on my istD. Has exactly the same effect on digital as it does on film, and it's something, as John rightly says, that can't be reproduced after the event. I tend to use the cheaper ones as I seem to have butter fingers when it comes to filter...
Posted by Daniel Bridge on 16/03/2007 - 23:47
Polarizers - the good, the bad, and the ugly
One thing to do is buy a filter that has a larger thread size than the lens. Use a step-up ring to attach it to the lens and the vignetting problem should be minimized or removed. You can also use it on all your other lenses by purchasing some step-up rings for the other thread sizes. When I g...
Posted by kcmadr on 17/03/2007 - 01:59
Polarizers - the good, the bad, and the ugly
The reason the OPtex filter is so thick is that the glass is primarily intended for use in the film industry - its designed to keep camera noise in! They are of the highest quality and the price you quote is a bargain but I'm sure you would get vignetting. I use a Jessops own brand 'Pro' filter whic...
Posted by gartmore on 17/03/2007 - 09:42
Polarizers - the good, the bad, and the ugly
I tried a step up ring on the FA35/2 (49mm to 52mm), but using a step up ring and the lens hood is a real pain. Because the hood will not fit over the ring, the hood has to be in place first. Trying to fit the CP filter with the hood in place for someone like me with arthritic fingers is not really ...
Posted by Alan673 on 19/03/2007 - 22:16
Polarizers - the good, the bad, and the ugly
John: Would I be correct then in assuming that if a couple miillimetres difference in filter width vignettes the picture, then I'm probably too wide to avoid the variable polarization issues you're talking about...? (Since the thin ones (5mm) are double the money of the thick ones (7mm) with ...
Posted by Classvino on 20/03/2007 - 13:44
Polarizers - the good, the bad, and the ugly
Would I be correct then in assuming that if a couple miillimetres difference in filter width vignettes the picture, then I'm probably too wide to avoid the variable polarization issues you're talking about...? Yes, that does imply that you are using quite a wide lens. In 35mm terms I wouldn't use a...
Posted by johnriley on 20/03/2007 - 16:29
81 series filters versus adjusting white balance
As always there are a couple of takes on how best to make this work and it depends entirely on the way that you work. I still use film in 645 MF so my filters are still part of my normal kit bag. In terms of filters I tend to tread my DSLR exactly the same as I did when I was using film all the t...
Posted by spirit_of_will on 21/03/2007 - 22:49
81 series filters versus adjusting white balance
It's in CS - "Photo Filter" (near the bottom on the layer adjustment flyout of the layers palette) Matt
Posted by MattMatic on 22/03/2007 - 14:51
My first wedding pics with k10
Hi AJ, no problem I have to assume you're using Windows.. if not, there are plenty of Mac/Linux users who will join in any minute.. :shock: :D ..and I'd assume that any differences would be in the background environments, rather than at the GUI level.. so.. From the start.. for everyone...
Posted by LiamD on 02/04/2007 - 18:50
ND's and CPol's
Yes. In the sense that you could attach a hose-pipe to your nose in order to emulate an elephant. Simpler to buy a ND filter. Or three. G
Posted by George Lazarette on 18/04/2007 - 20:14
ND's and CPol's
Simpler to buy a ND filter. Or three. G Since I own a CP already and am getting a bigger one for my 16-45mm, I will already own two of them. So in my case it's not simpler... :) And no, I haven't forgotten about the stepping rings... :) And my understanding was that when a CP is orien...
Posted by kcmadr on 18/04/2007 - 20:43
ND's and CPol's
And my understanding was that when a CP is oriented a certain way, it has no effect whatsoever other than to darken the image the same way an ND2 would. I'm afraid in the vast majority of cases this can't happen. :cry: some physics :shock: -For the purposes of a polarising filter, light travel...
Posted by Mr. Ist on 18/04/2007 - 21:23
