Re: What filter to use????
1) I have the same camera and lens. I'd suggest that you check into the "styles" that the 30D offers. You can set saturation, sharpness, contrast, and tint. Try their presets, especially landscape (more saturated), faithful, and portrait. You may find just what you need. In addition, the Canon site has more preset styles that you can load into the 30D and you can make up your own.
As for blown-out (whitewashed) highlights, that may be inevitable. The camera has only so much dynamic range (shadow to highlight ratio). You can try underexposing a bit using exposure compensation, but that will reduce detail in shadows. Only you can tell if that will work.
Also, try shooting in RAW + JPEG for a bit. (It will work well unless you typically do a lot of burst-shooting. It will fill up the CF card a lot faster!) Then, use Digital Photo Professional to work on the RAW files. That will allow you to experiment with styles, exposure, white balance, tone curves, etc., without destroying the original image and without any loss of information, as would occur if you process JPEGs.
2) Bryan's contact info is on his site, though a bit buried. Go to the "Home" page link above and look in the panel with the list of reviews, etc. Find "Help" in the right column. There is a link on that page to his contact information, including an email address.
3) I wondered the same thing. The kicker for me, though, is that the 18-135mm lens does not have USM (ultrasonic motor) and, thus, may not focus as quickly as the 28-135mm does. I recently bought a used 28-135mm, even though I already cover that range (several times, actually). My problem was that, at some horse shows, I'm close enough so that the low end of my 70-200mm lenses (I have both the f/4L IS and f/2.8L IS) is too long, but I need more reach than the 17-85mm IS lens affords. Things happen way too fast for me to switch lenses. I considered the Canon 18-200mm and similar lenses from Tokina or Sigma, but, again, the micromotor vs USM was bothersome. Bryan's review of the 28-135mm helped, as did a review by Ken Rockwell, known as a bit of an iconoclast.
There was also the point that, someday, I may get a 5D. Before I got the 28-135mm, I had no good mid-range zoom lens that would work with a full-frame camera. I have the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS & 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS, both EF-S lenses and a cheap Sigma 28-80mm that I got in 2000 with my Rebel 2000 35mm camera. Once, I also considered the 24-70mm f/2.8L zoom, but it is a lot more expensive (average over $1,000 even used--I paid $255 for the 28-135mm), about twice as heavy (2.1 lbs vs 1.1 lbs), has less reach by a factor of almost 2, and lacks IS. The extra 1-2 stops would be useful, of course, but the main use I have for fast lenses is at indoor horse shows, where I'd be using a 1.6x camera, anyway. (The 5D is way too slow--<4 fps vs 6+ fps for the 40D & 50D, and shutter lag and viewfinder blackout are both longer.)
Re: What filter to use????
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Slusher
If by "iconoclast" you mean "haughty wannabe who thinks he's more knowledgeable than he actually is, and has made patently false, ignorant, self-contradictory, and occasionally offensive statements," then I would say that is a fair characterization, to put it charitably.
That's not to say KR is *always* wrong--there are moments where he makes true statements. But even a stopped clock tells the correct time twice a day. To rely solely on his advice as a basis for making photographic decisions is...unwise, shall we say. He's something of a joke among knowledgeable photographers, someone who can't keep his trap shut, as evidenced by his recent escapades at B&H, captured on video. He often comments on gear that he's never actually used.
I feel fairly comfortable flaming KR on this forum because (1) he provides no means for feedback on his site--so therefore he opens himself up to criticism for deigning to represent his opinion as gospel truth while disallowing others to openly question him; and (2) he is more than welcome to come here and debate the facts. But since his reviews are generally devoid of any meaningful data, it is not possible to have a quantitative discussion. Bryan's reviews are like the antithesis to KR. He presents solid data, ISO test charts, you name it.
Re: What filter to use????
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph III
Hello All,
1)Is there a lens filter you would suggest using for outdoor shots? I have a little issue with colors not being as deep as I would like with some whitewash occuring, in bright lights.
This is especially shown in some tennis tournaments I shot. I would just like a little more skin tone depth. Also with blue sky's in shooting scenic.
It's hard to say exactly what it is you are observing, without showing
a sample image to illustrate. Without knowing any further details, my recommendation is to use a circular polarizer. This will improve contrast in certain situations, as well as deepen the sky when used correctly.
Re: What filter to use????
Hello All,
Thanks for the replies. Yes, I considered setting myownpreferenceswith the camera but have yet to try that avenue. Some pros recommend ignoring preset settings.Isuppose as conditions can change and they make adjustments with the camera? I don't pretend to be on the level of making quick and perfect such adjustments but am learning. Imostlytweak the ISO and shutter speeds as needed in addition tooccasional aperture under creative zone.
I can make corrections in DPP (RAW) or even Photoshop (JPEG) but takes a long time. I must go now but will try to provide some pics later tonight with before/after photos.
Mostly, I have to add a little colorsaturation to each photo while in DPP or Photoshop.
Ralph
Re: What filter to use????
OK, some of my concerns are not as warranted as I thought afterlookingthrough my pictures and details. I did have totweak colorsand will add apic or two as an example. This mayalways come down to apreference issue,in the end. I feel George may be spot on with creatingsome "custom" settings though, as easier than tweaking each photo. Mybiggestchallenge will however be ingettingthe blue sky's.
Inregards to my tennis pics. Iinitially used the "action" setting in basic mode which was overexposing pictures because of to slow ashutter speed. I was losing color because of that and thussuffering somewhitewash. Switching to shutter priority in creative modehelped solve thatand stop action issues, obviously. I have since decided, due to input fromforums as this, that mycheaper Hoya uv filteris contributing to some minor blur also. So I will invest in a quality filter, but as many, will only use it inpoor conditions. I am also goingto increase the "sharpness" in the Picture Style mode, to get even greater clarity for action shots. Will anything be thrown offby increasing sharpness two notches?
Pic #1 is unedited shot at 1/60, Normal mode, 4.5, iso 320, 60.0mm. Colors were a littleflat anddid not matchpic #3 which was alsounedited. #2 is where I adjusted saturationin orderto mimic#3 color tone. #3 was shot the same as #2 but at focal length of 56.00mm.
#1[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.34.57/6B.jpg[/img]
#2[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.34.57/6A.jpg[/img]
#3[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.34.57/7A.jpg[/img]
The flat colors in #1 only make #2 and #3 look more red than they really are. The wall and hair coloring is definetly correct in later pics. This is my niece who was concerned about a pimple just before my nephews wedding. She wanted me to take a picture so she could see herself. She was happy afterward, BTW.
Here is where I needed help with the sky. #4 was shot in Shutter Priority, 1/320, f 6.3, iso 200, focal length 44.0mm. The colors are great with exception of thesky. The sad part about it is the professionals shots were much worse than mine in many instances as they completely blew outmany. This was one of my poorer shots due to sky and why I picked it for you.The closeups in this sequence were very good but my conern, and why I am consulting you, iswith the sky.
#4[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.34.57/92.jpg[/img]
#5is one of my favorite shots due to contrast and colors. I shot this shutter priority, 1/400/ f5.6, iso 200, focal length 135.00mm. None of the hired professionals came outas good. Thatwasdissapointing to see butI would never say anything.Iwanted some shotsfor myself,especially offamily. Yes, I stayed out of the way of the paidpros, see #4!You live and learn though as I hadunique angles. In #4,I had thelake as mybackground with greatcolor contrasts. They had the house/guests on one end and concrete pillars/limo on theother end.
#5[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.34.57/a1.jpg[/img]
Would a polarizer have done the trick with the sky in #4? Do you lose anything or have to adjust colors whenusing a polarizer?
Why the difference between #1 and #3 when almost identicall settings?
Thanks, Ralph
Re: What filter to use????
Blown sky is a pretty common problem. Can you share the raw file (.CR2) for any of those shots? yousendit.com is a great way to upload the file. That will help us determine what combination of settings and profile will help in this condition.
The dynamic range of your printer/screen might be smaller than the dynamic range of the scene you photographed. If so, the only way to get the former to fit into the latter is to map or "compress" those tones. One way to compress the tones is to reduce the contrast setting. Another is to use "Highlight Tone Priority" of newer cameras.
Hopefully others will give you lots more useful advice as well. Kind regards,
Re: What filter to use????
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph III
1)Is there a lens filter you would suggest using for outdoor shots? I have a little issue with colors not being as deep as I would like with some whitewash occuring, in bright lights.
This is especially shown in some tennis tournaments I shot. I would just like a little more skin tone depth. Also with blue sky's in shooting scenic.
Shooting with a 30d and ef 28-135mm IS lens.
Lots of good suggestions already. I'd add that setting a manual white balance, either by preset or by gray card, might help a lot if you aren't already, and that's one of the advantages of RAW (more latitude to fix WB in post). Pushing your WB a little higher than ambient can add some nice warmth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph III
3) Does anyone have any input on the new 18-135 efs lens which comes on the 7d. Is it as good or better than the ef 28-135, picture quality? I know the 28-135 issupposed to have one aspheric element.
Wider-range zooms tend to be worse than smaller-range zooms (which tend to be worse than primes...). Unless the 18-135 is significantly more expensive (i.e. they have money with which to make up for wide-range shortcomings) than the 28-135, I'd stay far, far away.
Re: What filter to use????
I would truly suggest that you only by polorizers and neutral density filters as new software development with programs like Tiffen DFX2 you should be able to do most of the filter correction work in post processing our studio has used this software extensively it has tons of presets and you cam make custom filter to suite your need
Good luck
Coastal Kid
