On 5/1/2016 6:07 AM, Chris Trask wrote:
You could always use the Cokin filter system, where the filters are
square and slide into a holder.
Awkward, fussy, slow and annoying. My experiment in that from film days is
gathering dust somewhere.
Essential equipment if you're going to use graduated filters for attenuating
sky intensity.
Fortunately, I am not. I almost never encounter such lighting where contemporary bodies, proper exposure and post
technique cannot yield the result I want. One may set the camera to bracket exposures and combine them for brightness.
But when I do so, there always seems to be a single one that does what I want.
Criminy, even an iPhone 5, before the HDR option, can be coaxed to do a bright sky, with sun and dark foreground image
that's decent. <http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=19970>
Or a stylized one. <http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=19972>
I still use glass Wratten filters to correct for ambient light temperature,
And I still use a buggy whip on my car. ;-)
As below, I usually want early/late light to look warm, and overcast light to look that way. For me, the only filters
needed with digital post (scanned film or digital capture) are:
Polarizer, for "seeing through" glass or water surfaces. Unnecessary for darkening skies, especially for very wide
lenses, where they actually screw things up.
81B or 81C for high altitudes to filter out UV, something that can't be corrected in post. Over filtering can, but not
under; I've tried.
Neutral density, for those afflicted with needs to blur moving water (often excessively) and/or achieve razor thin DoF
in bright light.
Somewhere, there may be the perfect filter to give a slightly softened overall look with decent edges that looks much
like an old brass lens on LF film. I've not found one, and doubt one exists, but who knows.
Any other filter effect may be easily achieved, with greater control, in post. I can't think of the last time I used a
physical filter.
but I stopped using them for B&W due to the problems involving the digital
camera adjusting for ambient light temperature.
You can turn off auto WB, you can set custom WB, and you can set one of several fixed preset WB setting. Are those
options not still available when you set the camera to shoot B&W?
And then, all those options and more are available later in post. I generally just shoot anything outdoors at the
daylight WB setting, and do only minor tinkering to a small number of shots in post. I tend to prefer the subject to
look as it did in color in the existing light.
When I am concerned about light color, I pull the little WhiBal out of my wallet and take a shot of it in that light.
From that reference, I can readily get WB "correct" in post.
Now I just take a good colour photo and make the B&W conversion with post
processing.
An excellent choice. Why rely on some single solution baked into an old camera's firmware, when so many more options are
available? I don't see the point of closing my options at that point in the process. Doesn't Oly's Viewer offer the
ability to use the same algorithm in Raw conversion in post, should one want to do so?
As I've discovered, and tried to illustrate with examples of hand held panoramas, hand held focus stacking, background
blur/bokeh, and so on, gear and techniques that were necessary in film days aren't necessarily so today.
Moose D'Opinion
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
|