First Outing with 17-55/2.8

[TucsonTRD]

All,


I am new to the world of DSLR photography. I just purchased my 50D in November and on Friday just received my 17-55 lens. This is the first image I have posted and I know I have tons to learn and improve upon. Please don't hold back on any critique or suggestions. I'm guessing C&C means comments and critique, but let me know if I'm wrong.


This was my first outing with the new lens (yesterday). Believe it or not, this waterfall is snow-melt from outside of Tucson, AZ. It is uncropped, and if I remember correctly, no post processing other than converting it to a tif and then a small jpg for this post. It was bright out so 1/5 is the slowest shutter speed I could get.


Info:


12:40PM (overcast), Tv priority, 18mm, 1/5, f22, iso100, auto white balance, tripod mounted and 2 sec delay.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.38.96/FEB27_2D00_123948_2D00_1.JPG[/img]

[neuroanatomist]

Congrats on a great lens and a nice pic! The exposure could have been a little longer for just a bit more blur of the water (you'd need a neutral density filter for that, 0.9/3-stop would be a useful density), but as it is it looks quite good.

[Sean Setters]

I agree with the above. The pictures looks a bit overexposed the way it is. A neutral density filter would allow you to slow the shutter down a tad longer while maintaining a proper exposure. Keep in mind that you'll start losing a bit of sharpness after f/7.6 because of DLA. Since you might be unfamiliar with what DLA is, I'm posting Bryan's explanation here:





"* DLA (Diffraction Limited Aperture) is the result of a mathematical
formula that approximates the
aperture where diffraction begins to visibly affect image sharpness at
the pixel level.
Diffraction at the DLA is only barely visible when viewed at full-size
(100%, 1 pixel = 1 pixel) on a display or output to a very large print.
As sensor pixel density increases, the narrowest aperture we can use to
get perfectly pixel sharp images gets wider.



DLA does not mean that narrower apertures cannot be used.
And in fact, higher resolution sensors generally continue to deliver more detail well beyond the DLA -
until the "Diffraction Cutoff Frequency" is reached (a much narrower aperture).
The progression from sharp the soft is not an abrupt one - and the change from immediately prior models is usually not dramatic.
Check out this specific
diffraction comparison example
using the ISO 12233 chart comparison tool.
The mouseover feature will show you the degradation at f/11 compared to f/5.6."





You might want to take the DLA into account when purchasing a neutral density filter (as you may want a darker one to allow for the use of a wider aperture). Just note that it may get harder to focus the darker the ND filter is.

[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.

[Alan]

Nothing that a curves adjustment layer can't improve upon....


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.34/water-fall.jpg[/img]

[Chuck Lee]

Nothing that a curves adjustment layer can't improve upon....

Nice post proccess Alan.The curves adjustmentadded a lot of depth and color. Did you bump the saturation or was the color a result of the luminosity adjustment?


TucsonTRD,


Welcome to the forum and congrats on your new purchase. You're going to really enjoy it.

[Alan]

I used the Lab color mode for the adjustment layer. I increased the a and b channels slope to bring out the color, then adjusted the overall luminosity, and erased portions of the layer to restore detail in the shadows, while lowering the overexposure. The image looked washed out, and curves (especially, Lab curves) can do a great job in this sort of recovery.