Get 'em while they're hot!

[Sassy]

I'm thinking that after today's wind there probably wont be any leaves left on the trees LOL.

 

[JaniceL]

I'm thinking that after today's wind there probably wont be any leaves left on the trees LOL.

They are pretty much gone where these were taken.

 

[HoedadKid]

These are gorgeous shots. Well done. Does anyone have any tips on taking brightly colored reflection images, or are they pretty self explanatory? I've taken my share of reflection photos, but never at this time of year, with such vivid color in the canopies.

Any suggestions appreciated; preferred lighting, exposure, etc...

cheers-

 

[JaniceL]

In general here are my thoughts about fall photography and reflections

Tripod, tripod, tripod. especially for reflections. Longer exposures flatten out any ripples that might occur.

For me I prefer cloudy days to prevent harsh light. I used a polarizing filter to soften any of the reflection off the leaves although be mindful of its application, you can loose your reflection.

Most of my shots used an aperture of f22 although a shallow DOF can have interesting results.

It also helps to bump up the saturation and contrast in PS too.

I'm sure there are as many thoughts on this as photographers here. I'm looking forward to seeing other answers.

 

[BobH]

Janice makes a great point. Long exposures will indeed make small ripples go away. The small motion during the exposure also slightly softens the reflection, giving it a natural look, rather than looking like you did it in Photoshop.

Also be careful with a polarizer, while many folks recommend them for bringing out color in fall foliage, they will also cut reflections dramatically.

 

[HoedadKid]

Thanks for the tips, both of you.

I wish I had read your posts before my photo foray this afternoon. I was indeed taking long exposures, but I also had my CPL on my wide angle. I was confused as to why the reflections I was seeing looked so much more vivid with my naked eye than they did through my lens... makes sense now.

Oh well, tomorrow then.

I didn't find any great compositions anyways. The set of ponds I went to had very few fully leafed hardwoods, and even when I found a spot with bright yellow trees, there were too many lily pads obstructing the reflection.

Try again I will.

Thanks again...
regards

 

[BobH]

Here's a couple of radomn reflection shots (poorly) cropped just to show the reflections. The first does not have a polarizer, the second does. Note how you can see into the water on the second one, with logs being visible.

The effect will vary of course, depending on several factors, your position to the sun, the water, how you've got the polarizer set, etc, etc.

View attachment 4051

View attachment 4052

 

[HoedadKid]

WOW. What a difference! That's certainly very convincing.

I'm super exited to get out there tomorrow, and give it another shot (no pun intended.)

I'm not sure why it didn't register before, but it makes obvious sense now that a polarizer would cut through the water and work against a strong reflection.

Bob- Could you explain what you mean by having your CPL "set." The way I have mine "set," is threaded onto the end of my lens...lol. Am I missing something vital here?

I hope to have something to show y'all here in the near future.

I'm too ashamed to post the only reflection image that I successfully captured today; in a puddle.

Thanks for all of the help. It is MUCH appreciated =)

Cheers- Tobiah

 

[BobH]

Bob- Could you explain what you mean by having your CPL "set." The way I have mine "set," is threaded onto the end of my lens...lol. Am I missing something vital here?

Well, actually, you just might be...

Polarizering lense are designed to rotate. You thread it onto the lens, but then you can rotate the filter. Doing that changes how the light looks.

As you rotate it, be very careful not to unscrew it from the lens. Having your expensive polarizer fall off the end of your lens tends to cause stress.

As you rotate it, the light will change. There's all kinds of formulas and methods to tell you how to do it and where the effect will be strongest etc. I vaguely recall something about making an L with your fingers between you and the sun.

If you get really advanced, knowing the sun position trick may help you choose the best time of day to shoot, or the best angle, but let's keep it real simple...

You don't need to worry about any of that, here's the simple and easy method.
1) Put it on your lens and compose the scene.
2) Rotate the polarizer until you find the effect you like.

Works every time. No math needed, no marks on the polarizer, just look through the lens and see the result. Rotate the filter until you get the best effect.

Here's a sample of how the angle between the polarizer and the sun changes the effect. Look at the sky color. It was a consistent blue, there was no haze on the left side like you might think by viewing this image.

View attachment 4056

Special two-for-one bonus. Not only does this show you how different angles need different settings on the polarizer, it nicely shows what Jake mentioned. (This was shot at 18 mm)

One thing to watch with polarizing filters is using them on wide lenses (esp. <24mm equiv.) Because they are so wide you'll often see uneven coloration, especially in the sky.

You also see the vignetting (dark corners) you get if you're lazy and stack filters.

 

[HoedadKid]

Bob & Jake-

Once again, thank you for your help.

I knew that CPL filters were meant to be rotated, but I mistakenly thought that it was more of a myth than fact. I'm glad to know now that it really does make a difference, as shown in that sky image.

Great tip about the 90deg. to the sun rule. That makes good sense. I'm exited to try that out.

I'm only working with three lenses right now and none of them are pro glass, so I hesitate to spend much more money on better filters for any of them.

I'm currently using a Canon XTI, and I think that in the near future I'll need to upgrade to a full frame camera. At that point, I'll also get some L series glass, and a subsequent better CPL.

The CPL I have on my 20-35 right now seems to work alright, but I always feel the need to alter my images in Photoshop, probably due to the ineffectiveness of said poor filter. I'd really like to get to the point where I can cut down on post processing, especially due to the fact that I'm not that great at it. I like the look of al natural photos so much better...

Aaaah, much to learn.

Thanx mucho for the detailed responses. I know what it's like to explain relatively simple ideas, to a newb. I've been a member at a mycology forum for years, and I'm the one answering everybody's queries there. It feels funny to have the roles reversed.

Thanx again. I've learned more in the last two days, from y'all, than I have in my last year of fidgeting through this learning process on my own.

best-
Tobiah

 

[JaniceL]

I agree 100% with Jakes comment above. However, I had an xti and was very glad to sell it and most especially the kit lens that came with it. I can understand why you would consider and upgrade and it makes sense for you to not spend the money on new filters if that is your plan.

A note to you. You may already be aware of this, if the lenses you have are EF-S lenses and you plan to upgrade to a full frame canon, those lenses you have won't mount on your new camera. A consideration when you upgrade.

 

[HoedadKid]

So, all of those things are great to know.

It really comes down to the fact that I want better image quality. I feel, maybe mistakenly, that my image quality has kind of plateaued as of recent, and that my camera may be holding me back from what I am trying to achieve. I could very easily be wrong. I second guess now, whether or not it would be a good idea to purchase a better wide angle, and a better zoom lens (quality filters, etc...) for my XTI.

And unfortunately, I enjoy so many styles of photography that there might not be one camera (full frame or cropped) that really suits all my wants perfectly. My apparently silly comment about purchasing a full frame camera, was preempted by more ignorance than fact. I was under the impression that full frame cameras were "better" <--- embarrassed guy.

For the magazines I work for, I shoot everything from macros of fungi, to studio set food, to wide angle landscapes. For fun and enjoyment I shoot all of the above plus more, urban, landscape HDR, nature, journalistic, portraits, etc...

So, I am confused now. I want it all. I want the WOW factor in my photos that I see in all y'all's images. I'd like to be able to capture reflection shots as high quality as the ones Janice posted, and to take portraits that are as vivid as the one that "Some Idiot" posted, and etc., you get the point. And...I'm blaming the fact that I have not yet achieved that, on my equipment. Really though, I do think I have some quality issues with my gear, and that I need to change something. What to change is the question though.

What would you all do? Is my XTI worth keeping? Should I start from scratch? I don't have a ton invested in my lenses. I could sell the package and start over... Should I keep it and buy better lenses? AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!! So confused...

I'm not poor per say, but I'm not loaded either. I have two young girls who necessitate most of my income. But, I am willing to sacrifice a weeks sustenance for them, new shoes, winter coats, medicine, etc... in order to elevate my photography. Uhem, I mean, I am able make it work, if investing a little more will really make a noticeable difference. Photography paying some of the bills is good excuse enough.

Thanks, you two, for the responses. I appreciate them immensely.

regards,
Tobiah

 

[JaniceL]

My 2 cents worth. I'm married to Canon since I've been shooting Canon prior to digital and have collected enough lenses since then to not move away from Canon. I traded my xti for a 7D for a couple reasons which may have been a specific issue with my camera only. I have a 5dmkII as well. If I had to have just one camera it would be a 7D for its versatility. I've shot with Nina's 50d and it does a great job. I have seen great shots on flickr too that were shot with the 50D and in hindsight that might have been a wiser choice. I do not regret my decision however.

I think the best advice I could suggest is this . . . If you are choosing between upgrading a lens or the camera, you might consider renting one or the other or both and see if your results are different. Purchasing a new camera does not always substitute for practice, practice, practice.

 

[BobH]

Tobiah,

A couple of comments, then a couple of questions.

In most (but not all) circumstances, your camera is not the limiting factor.

I've had photos published that were shot with a Nikon D40x (Nikon's intro level camera from 4 or 5 years ago). I've had photos published with a Canon G6. (Upper end point and shoot from 6 or 7 years ago.)

So, it's certainly possible to do quality work with consumer grade gear. I've got $1,500 lens and I've got $150 lenses. Jake is right, they differ mainly in 3 areas:
1) Bigger aperature, so you can shoot in low light.
2) Better build quality, heavy duty materials. The pro gear lasts longer and takes moderate abuse.
3) Often the pro gear is sharper, but not to a huge degree. I've only got one consumre grade lens I'd call "soft", an old 70-300 from about 10 years ago.

Now, here's my questions.
1) What are you shooting?
2) What problems are you seeing in your current images?

 

[HoedadKid]

Those are all great points.

As to what I feel like I'm missing in my photos, it's a crispness. There's an almost fake look to some of my images that I don't see in some of yours. My colors seem weaker, my close-ups less sharp, etc... I know that a lot of this has to do with me, and my inexperience. I love to practice, and I look forward to getting better. I am though, ask my poor gray haired mother, a notoriously impatient person. I see something that I want, I want it now. I see all of the fantastic photos out there, and I want to be able to put out "equally" high quality work, now...lol.

I know that a ton of what I am trying to achieve, will come in time, because I wont stop until I'm satisfied, which I hope is never. I just want to make sure though, that there isn't any real physical reason for my dissatisfaction with my images. I have as well, had photos published with a point and shoot, and I understand that my camera inequities are probably less of a big deal than I'm making it out to be.

If I had to pick a few specific things that I most enjoy shooting, they would be wide landscapes, reflections, and human portraits (faces specifically.)

I think I could most likely achieve all of this with some higher quality lenses, say a 10-20mm wide angle and a 70-200mm, and a tad better body like a TLI, eh?

Despite my self deprecating talk, I am very happy with some of my images. I just see lots of room to grow. I'd like to hit this motivation from all angles, if I can.

Thanks to all of you for your help and honesty. If I can ever help one of y'all out with something, please let me know. I know food, mycology, fishing, and NW geography and some of it's gems pretty well. I feel bad being only on the receiving end of all of this knowledge. I will always welcome all critiques, either of my picts, or my possibly asinine ideas.

Practice, practice, practice, practice, practice, practice, practice, I will.

Cheers-
Tobiah

Oh, and I wish I was educated enough about camera technology to accurately decipher which cameras were used where, Jake, but unfortunately, I am not. I get your point though, very well. Please do tell!

 

[BobH]

Those are all great points.

As to what I feel like I'm missing in my photos, it's a crispness. There's an almost fake look to some of my images that I don't see in some of yours. My colors seem weaker, my close-ups less sharp, etc... I know that a lot of this has to do with me, and my inexperience.

The colors almost certainly can be adjusted, either in camera and/or in post processing.

Sharpness COULD be the lens. I'm guessing it's not though. Does the lens have image stabilization?

Time to talk specifics. What lens are you using? Also, can you post a photo or two as a sample? Also, post the exif information for the photo.

Meanwhile, here's a sample from my Nikon D40x, Nikon's entry level DSLR, and in fact an older model, which is equal to the Canon Rebels.

View attachment 4070

100% zoom of the shot, note the sharpness.

View attachment 4071

I like Nikon, but I'm not brand snob. I know that if a Nikon kit lens can take photos this sharp, a Canon kit lens can too. There may be minor differences you can see on a test bench, but for practical purposes, I'm guessing the kit lenses are pretty close to one another.

 

[JaniceL]

Actually the kit lens on my Xti was pretty crappy. Oops did I say crappy? Oops I said it again.

The image quality significantly improved when I placed my other lens' on it. But I am going to amend this statement some in that with careful processing you could overcome that.

 

[JaniceL]

Here are some older pics from the camera.

kit lens

100mm macro lens (he's a little bear)

100-400 zoom @ 400mm

 

[BobH]

Actually the kit lens on my Xti was pretty crappy. Oops did I say crappy? Oops I said it again.

The image quality significantly improved when I placed my other lens' on it. But I am going to amend this statement some in that with careful processing you could overcome that.

OK, well maybe they're not as good. I'm not really familiar with Canon kits lenses. Nikon kit lenses are actually pretty good, and I was just guessing that Canon's were also decent quality.

 

[JaniceL]

Whoa wait a minute, here is one taken with . . . hold your breath a D30 a whoppin' 3.11 mp. Here's the camera data. http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/suppo...amera_systems/eos_digital_slr_cameras/eos_d30

and a D60