John Bennett
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
John any fast lens will do for indoor sports, problem will be focal length. Unless your right beside them its going to leave them distant, not frame filling…..not the end of the world.
depending on the sport and lighting I find f2.8 “borderline”. It wasnt fast enoguh for my daughters gymnastics (brutal lighting) barely fast enough for volleyball.
If all your looking for is reference. Heres a couple 85mm f1.2 shots of volleyball.
from back right corner so guessing 50 feet, lens wide open at f1.2, ISO 1,000 SS 1/1250th
same shooting positon so guessing 25 feet
ISO 1250, f1.2 1/1600th
and from beside the refs booth (basically courtside), so cross court maybe 25 feet
ISO 2000, f1.2 1/2000th
unless my math escapes me at the moment f2.8 would 2 2/3s stops slower. So top to bottom your f2.8 equivalents would be shooting at
ISO 1,000 1/200th
ISO 1,250 1/250th
ISO 2000Lol I have so many Cda’s I wouldnt know where to begin. Maybe a dozen + displayed on the web, likely dozens more unprocessed raws on my hdd
From 2 weeks ago
Cropped for artistic, would be fine for web display
Stil processing about 50 more from that day, with nice fall colours, Flocks flying, singles flying +++ those are just the two I added online.
couple older ones
static
Mixed duck/Cda hunting
calling
action
those are just some of what I have at hand (on line)
heres a good write up on alot of various filters.
http://www.naturephotographers.net/dw0502-1.htmldelves a wee bit into the differences between different types of filters, etc
Cokin is one of the makers that Ive read can produce color cast ( might be filter specific, cant quite recall) . Not the end of the world and fairly easy to correct in post but it still means your correcting, improving on stuff in post.
One reason for getting filters is to get it right at capture and reduce time/effort in post.
Not sure Michelle.
As stated earlier it was about 2 years ago I had decided to start acquiring an assortment of filters. Researching them really boiled down to….
Are the SRs really worth the extra price….
At the time I only knew one person who actually used SR, and no-one here on IA or other sites I frequented did either. I was interested in the NDs and the G/B in particular. I ended up buying a couple of their filters to start then around the time I wanted to buy the G/B I started looking again for actual people who used them ( not shills or reviewers)
Then while reading stuff on the SR site, in particualr how to use the G/B I came across some of Adams blog entries there. I dont think he ever did one on the BG but his other entries, and the fact he shot FFing and similiar stuff to what I shoot convinced me to spend the extra for SR and I bought a few more to mostly complete what I want.
If you dig through some old post here about 1.5 to 2 years old or so, you’ll find a thread or two where I posted some early results/fooling around images. By last fall I was doing alot of shots with the B/G posting here and on FB and others started getting it as well..I know AO picked one up and loves it now to as did a couple others.Its an awesome CP to own.
Some of my early shots.
In reading about other makers filters including the B/G I read alot of comments about colour cast, colors being less rich, etc, etc.
If they are currently out of stock, and you want one Id wait.
Ive used hoya, BW filters in the past and still use one their best CPs on my 85mm f1.2 (72mm thread) but they dont compare (imo) to my SR CPs (I have 3, of which the B/G is one). At the least with the SR LB CP its brighter..or worded another way, its not cutting as much light as a traditional 2 stop loss as with BW, HY etc.
/edit add.
Want to clarify, Im not saying other manufactorers dont make good product but if Im going to be dropping good money on anything (its all relative) I want to know I can trust (have confidence) that Im going to be happy with the purchase. No second guessing etc.With SR I know Im getting what Im paying for and thats worth the little extra. Ive spent 200 on a BW CP that had build quality issues.
So it boils down to with others “I dont know”…with SR ” I know “John filters are indespensible imo. Id would go so far as to say that in terms of various accessorries they are by far, my most important and most often used, surpassing both my flash and tripod even.
There are some things you can do in post to replicate or mimic the effect of utilising and employing filters at capture but not all. Polarizers are one, in post its really just damping down highlights..not actually cutting glare.
Best way to visualise that is.
Without a CP you just cant knock back the glare and increase visibility into water..Best you can do in post is tone down the highlights..But your still not left with an image that shows the substrate or the impression of clear water….to begin withFilters are like lenses.
In so much as the better Q ones cost. I started using and relying on them about 2 years ago. At the time I think only Adam Barker used them alot in FFing photogrpahy or understod their importance. It was largely Adams work that gave me to confidence to shell out for a kit of SR filters. Since then, Im noticing alot more people starting to using them. The Blue Gold is to die for at times…Suffice to say I use SR and wouldnt want to use anything else.3 filters to get this
3 to get this
2 to get this
2 to get this
2 for this
2 for this
I would say start with a CP ( SR, and LEE are very popular) B/W amd Hoya are also good makers. Then depending on your desires and taste move to specialised CPs and NDs
My 2c
add to what you have by getting a 3rd lens that fits a specific need and has more than one application. Expand your kit (options) and then after adding 1 or 2 application specific lenses upgrade your existing lenses.Theres nothing wrong with upgrading at this point and you will notice a difference. However at the end of the day you will still have *for the most part* what your have now…and thats coverage from 18-250.
some possibilities under or around $1,000 retail (Canadian)
a) 100mm f2.8 Macro (doubles as a portrait lens and borderline low light lens)b) 85mm or 50mm f1.8 great portrait lenses, fast glass for shallow DoF,
Was going to mention the 11-16mm as well Corey.
Not sure how often you’d open the lens on an 11-16mm but it’s always nice to have the choice. Kyle are you looking to “upgrade” or add something different to what you have thats of better quality?
If your simply looking to upgrade, Id look hard at the 17-40mm F4 L. If you want an uwa w/o spending 1500+ both Tokina’s are worth looking at. All 3 ( 17-40, 10-22, 11-16) are within the same park price wise.
Replacing the 55-250 Id look at one of Canons four 70-200’s. F4 or F2.8 IS or no IS. The 70-200 f4 L (non IS) is extremely good, especially for the price.
if you want reach to add to your existing kit theres lots of options, you could add reach, specialty (macro), a fast prime for low light ( 50mm f1.8 or similiar for example). Would depend on your needs, interest and budget.
On shots. As Henry said stuff often just pops. Or worded another way when your “there” you take into account light, direction, foreground/background etc, etc and you see a shot.
What I wouldn’t do and I would avoid it at ALL cost is the shoot at a WA, thrust fish forward and make it look larger than life. So uninspirational, so tired, so yesteryears grip and grin.
Dont, you’ll hate yourself in a year or twos time 🙂
Yep, great set Frank.
The Aurora is high on my list to. I’ve seen it a few times in my life, would kill to photograph it.
Adam the 10-22 won’t work with it.
In the Canon line up compatible with the 1D theres.
17-40 f4 L
16-35 f2.8 L
14m fisheye ( beleive its f2.8)I have been considering one of the 3 for times when Im in a boat and cant back up further. You gain quite a bit in the frame relatively speaking.
However.
The fish eye wont accept filters, which imo are an absolute must both for fishing photogrpahy ( Circ Pols) and Landscape ( NDs, Cir Pols and such).The 16-35 has a wierd configuation that requires 82mm filters, which means duplicating some filters given most lenses are 77mm.
Add in the cost of give or take $2,000.00 for the 16-35 or the fisheye and one must consider buying a 5Dii alternatively to a uwa.
Doug I know an absolute wizard at smudges and painterlies, retouches etc. I can’t say one way or the other if he’d do it, I cant say if he’s aged people but he might be worth a try. He could be earning vast sums of his work. I wish he would try.
Some samples
pm me if you want I’ll get you in touch.
Aint that the truth.
Very few pictures I dont know that couldnt be improved upon. Usually chuckle when friends/family rave about something and Im like…are you kidding..they arent that good 🙂Lansdscape is an area I’m really trying to work on. Problem for me is Ontario and in particular the area I live in, it’s just not very inspiring…Mostly being rural flat featureless farm land.
I play with things, experiment, delete alot 🙂 and I enjoy trying to “problem solve”.
How refreshing 🙂 Guys not afraid to point out the “faults” in their *own* pictures :). True, photogs tend to be hyper critical of their own work, but its the goal to “perfect” the image I guess.
Usually I find HDRs”telling” for lack of better words..I will say Douglas your second shot is one of the rare ones I really like.
I find thats kind of true of HDR…When they “work” they really “work” and other times theres something that …dunno right word…doesnt sit “right”. Maybe because often when I see them its people learning the software and still trying to master it…dunno.
The shots I think are cool are when people use the process to create something thats more work of art than representative of what the eye might see.. Your first is like that Douglas, I like that to but sort of feel its more a wrok of art, than a photo..
I agree that there are times for both and I stongly agree that working with filters can be a chore.But I dont find it that much more of a chore, than without. Without a filter Im going to meter the sky and meter the foreground, then set my bracketing.
With a grad nd I expose for the foreground and eyeball (experience more than anything else) whether to use a grad, reverse, or stack grads. 50% of the time I use them by hand (both filters and camera.)
Singh Ray Gold/Blue
Sing Ray 2 stop soft grad
ISO 1,000 1/160th
hand held
around 10am on a summers day, so lights starting to get harsh
Same set up, hand held (camera and filters)
Graham in order to avoid darkening the trees yet still hold back the sky I angled the 4×6 to try to match the treeline rather than horizon ( you can see the clouds in the lower left are blown whereas I kept detail in those higher.
…Not a perfect solution but it helps
You’d have a hard time convincing me software is the way to go. Once in a very blue moon will I see a post edit “merge” that I actually like.
Work enough with filters and most (ive yet to meet anyone that prefers software over filters) and you just begin to appreciate getting it right in camera.
10 stops to 6 stops of light reduction for this mid day photo under a bright sun. Have fun acheiving that with that in post 🙂
sunset with grad nds
Sunrises with various grad and reverse NDs are well as variable ND
