>
> As for UV filters - do some shooting at altitude with long lenses - they
> do make a difference, and I certainly have never seen any software at
> any price that can recover details lost to haze. Just like polarizers,
> to the best of my knowledge there are some filters that just can't be
> reproduced in post.
>
EXACTLY!!! This is not a white-balance issue, but gets right down to how
the camera sees the scene. Once the picture is taken, certain things are
cooked into the RAW file.
I'm sure most of you are well aware of this, but the E-1 is actually prone
to IR and UV issues just like the M8 is--but just not to the same extent.
So, if you are using flash (which has a huge IR output) or are shooting in
direct sunlight you do run the risk of purplish-red blacks if you overexpose
the scene at all. Overexposing (expose to the right) is so common among the
Canonistas because the shadow noise is so evil and ugly in the cmos sensor
cameras but not EVERY camera is so endowed with shadowy badness. (pick your
poison)
Anyway, my point is, that with some cameras, UV and IR cut filters actually
do have a far greater affect on the resulting image than others that have
their sensitivy range so trunkated to the visible light band. I saw this
and worked with it quite extensively this summer in Colorado where I
selected one polarizer over an other and actually used an UV filter just
because of these issues on both digital and film.
Oh, before you go dissing the E-1 and every Kodak sensor for extended UV and
IR sensitivity, keep in mind that Kodak sensor cameras are among the few
that capture purple flowers as purple (instead of blue) and mimick some of
our most favorite films of all time. Yes, Virginia, there are some films
that also turn blacks red.
I am quite opposed to this "fix it in post" mentality that Chuck is pushing.
He is absolutely correct that it is a viable alternative to using ND grads,
but the problem is that it forces a 100% repair rate on the images. Why
can't we get it right in-camera? If I'm shooting something serious, I'm on
a tripod anyway and I'm spending the time to get it right in-camera as much
as possible. It doesn't cost me anything (other than the initial buy-in in
filters) and it does something for me that is extremely important:
Getting it right IN-CAMERA means that I'm able to execute the vision of the
photograph I wanted on-site instead of days, weeks, months, years later when
I'm trying to figure out what I ever saw in that scene. I've dumped more
than a handful of shots in the wastebasket because I couldn't figure out why
I ever took the picture.
YMMV, but for me and my working methods, I can and do fix it in post, but
would much rather not have to. It takes seconds to adjust an ND Grad and I
can use the same setting for multiple shots, but it takes more than a few
seconds on each and every picture being processed in the computer.
When sorting through your images from a shoot, it's the difference between
going "aaaahhh--perfect" and "I can do something with this, just let me fool
with sliders for a while."
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|