First Outing with 17-55/2.8

[Oren]

Welcome to the forums and congrats for the GREAT new lens! []


Nice picture. As said before, it's a bit overexposed and a neutral density would have helped.


It seems to me that you are already familiar with photography (you mentioned it was overcast for example) - that is good [Y]


Here is a quick tip for you that is very important, especially for landscape photography - composition, composition, composition.


Composition is very important! I must admit that I've realized that not to long ago and I still have to learn myself how to create great and interesting compositions - it's not easy at all.

[Madison]

I STILL miss that lens ever since I upgraded to full frame. It was my favorite lens and the quality was unsurpassed. I am still hoping Canon will release an EF mount version WITh IS at 2.8.

[TucsonTRD]

Thanks for all the feedback so far everyone. I knew I needed a ND filter for this photo as soon as I started and saw the limited shutter speed and maxed out aperture. I was actually pleasantly surprised the water was as blurred as it was at 1/5 sec shutter. It seems the consensus is slight over exposure, of course changing that would mean even less water blur.


My inexperienced take is though, that the shade area from the tree on the right and under various rocks would lose significant detail. Short of getting ahead of my abilities and trying HDR (which I don't think I will for a while), should the image be darkened for the over-exposed parts? I'm just trying to get an idea of compromises that sometimes have to be made, and it seems to me that this image may require some based on what I am observing. I'm the newbie here though.

[neuroanatomist]

My recommendation would be a 3-stop ND filter, then assuming you used the metered exposure, underexpose by 2/3 of a stop - that's not enough to kill your shadow detail. When in doubt, bracket, and shoot RAW so you have more latitude in post.