Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Panasonic / Leica

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 2, 2005, 1:36 AM   #21
Member
 
atomicfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 71
Default

Amazing, it looks like I am right there...great pics
atomicfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 2, 2005, 6:09 AM   #22
Senior Member
 
Narmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,813
Default

indiawala wrote:
Quote:
Narmer thats amazing how you used PS to bring out those trees. Damn one of these days I am going to have to learn how to use PS. Truly amazing what digital does now-a-days.

thanks for all your input

seth

Indeed PP can really turn a good picture into a "Wow" picture.
But yours were already great ones.

As you know if there is a portion of a picture which has been "burnt", i.e. the sky and/or clouds have been washed out, the only thing you can do is to paste a sky from a different image !!!

Instead in the underexposed areas there is still much data which can be brought back in the image: select the areas with similar color/hue/brightness ('Select' > 'Color range' in Photoshop) and use the levels to reintegrate it.
Or you can do "Auto contrast" but then you'll have to diminish the effect ('Edit' > 'Fade') and lower saturation.

In camera bracketing is another way, but then you have to know how to blend the 2 or 3 layers/images.

Nar




Narmer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 2, 2005, 6:57 AM   #23
Baz
Senior Member
 
Baz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 219
Default

Before getting into digi cameras a few years ago, I'd had about 30 years
experience with film slr cameras. Used the polarisers frequently. They
were excellent, and I could clearly see the effect in the viewfinder when
rotating the filter.

But now I have both linear & circular polarisers for the digi cameras.
Dont notice much difference between the two, and cant detect in the
viewfinder when rotating for the best effect.

I know about the sun angles, but doesn't seem to make any difference.

I "think" some pics I've taken have been improved by the polariser, but
I'm far from sure.

Is this usual for digi cameras? My camera is the Fuji602z

Baz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2005, 7:26 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
indiawala's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 403
Default

Hey Baz...sorry it took me some time to answer but I had these photos on my laptop and I didn't have access to my laptop for the weekend. These shots were both taken with the polarizer on the lens...the only difference is that

Shot 1 - was taken with the polarizer turned to a degree to be least effective in cutting glare.

Shot 2 - was taken with the polarizer turned to its max effectiveness.

both were taken seconds apart, from the same vantage point. I guess the point I am trying to make is that a good polarizer makes a great deal of difference.

seth
Attached Images
 
indiawala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2005, 7:27 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
indiawala's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 403
Default

Shot 2.
Attached Images
 
indiawala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 6, 2005, 12:53 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
NewsyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Vancouver, BC Canada
Posts: 231
Default

*sigh*

Broke my polarizer this past weekend. I doubt I even had 10 shots on it. It was a Hoya 62mm and I paid premium for it as it was a convenience purchase while I was in a camera store buying a expandable hood.

I have the Pemeral adapter on which I usally place a UV filter and then then expandable hood. For some reason this hood tends to stick and that is what happened with the polarizer.

I had removed the UV filter to install the polarizer and then threaded the hood onto the the polarizer but it started to get dim due clouds so I was trying to go back to UV + hood. The hood got stuck and I guess I must of inadvertently put some leveraging force on it as it popped the top half of the polarizer off the bottom half.

Now I'm looking at 3 pieces - top, bottom, and a retaining clip. The grease from the center cavity has been spread everywhere and I really doubt I'm going to be able to put it back together.

Frankly, it was a circular polarizer and I was having problems using it with the FZ20 as it was difficult to find the "sweet" spot as compared to the linear polarizer I use on my old old Canon G1. I think it is more a function of the LCD screen and EVF not being readable in bright sunlight. I need an eyecup for the EVF.

I'm going to look around and find another expandable hood where the threaded area is a different material. I paid $11.00 CDN for this one and would glady pay double if it prevents this "seizing" issue.

So I'm debating buying another polarize right away. The Tallships are in town but it is going to be cloudy all week. There is an airshow in a month though... hmmmm?


NewsyL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 6, 2005, 2:37 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
indiawala's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 403
Default

hey newsyl...sorry to hear about your mishap with the polarizer. I think of the polarizer and the UV and 2 of the basic lenses to get if you have a decent camera. The UV to act as a shield and the polarizer to really make things colorful and bring out the contrast in subjects.

I agree with you that the linear polarizer works a bit better than a circular, but luckily for us using the FZ20 they will both work just fine.

post some shots when you do take them of the tallships you were talking about.

seth
indiawala is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:08 AM.