How do I.. (sun, rays, cpl filter)

[karebu]

How do I capture the individual streaks of sunlight (as in, you see diffused light rays radiating from the sun when you look through the viewfinder/naked eye)?

http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/4408/krayskz4.jpg

In the first photo one can barely see the sun at all.

In the second photo I've set the exposure to -2.0, it brought out the rays (by a bit) but it kills all the details. How can I capture both the tree and sun?



Also, when and how exactly do I use CPL filter? Supposedly you can 'see through' water/glass reflections but I cannot tell the difference with and without filter. I still see most of the reflections anyway.

(I'm using hoya filter and I've aligned the white marking to the top, to Nikon's white circle/dot thing on the top of the lens/hood)


Thanks!

[ngck12]

Hmmm, u might be using a UV filter instead? U can actually turn the CPL to achieve the result you desire. I guess the best way for you to be able to properly expose your sky and tree is to do HDR, i doubt GND filter will be of use in this case, that is for the tree and sky to be evenly exposed.

[karebu]

Originally Posted by ngck12 Hmmm, u might be using a UV filter instead? U can actually turn the CPL to achieve the result you desire. I guess the best way for you to be able to properly expose your sky and tree is to do HDR, i doubt GND filter will be of use in this case, that is for the tree and sky to be evenly exposed.

Filter? Yes I was using UV filter for the tree shot. (I actually cannot tell the difference with or without UV filter.) By HDR I have to do it through photoshop right?

How do use CPL filter exactly? Is it suppose to eliminate all reflections (window, water, etc) if used properly? So I have got to do trial and error (keep rotating the filter?)

[night86mare]

Originally Posted by karebu In the second photo I've set the exposure to -2.0, it brought out the rays (by a bit) but it kills all the details. How can I capture both the tree and sun? Also, when and how exactly do I use CPL filter? Supposedly you can 'see through' water/glass reflections but I cannot tell the difference with and without filter. I still see most of the reflections anyway. (I'm using hoya filter and I've aligned the white marking to the top, to Nikon's white circle/dot thing on the top of the lens/hood) Thanks!

if you get the details of the tree, you lose the sun, it is going to be too bright. if you want the sun to be there, you need to get the tree as a shadow. even film will not give you the shadow detail you want.

how to do it? maybe you can try hdr, but here it think it will be pushed hard and you will end up with a painting. google hdr to find out more about it, there around 8000 sites out there detailing how to do it, what to do, then if you do not understand you can ask what you do not understand here. active learning > spoonfeeding.

what do you mean "see through"? cpl will cut down reflections on non-metallic surfaces. cpl is different from other filters, if you have seen other filters. the white mark is not for you to align, it is for you to rotate. look through your viewfinder at the reflections and rotate, you should see a difference. the best part is, literature on this is available all over the net, heh.

[night86mare]

Originally Posted by karebu Filter? Yes I was using UV filter for the tree shot. (I actually cannot tell the difference with or without UV filter.) By HDR I have to do it through photoshop right? How do use CPL filter exactly? Is it suppose to eliminate all reflections (window, water, etc) if used properly? So I have got to do trial and error (keep rotating the filter?)

uv filter is not applicable for such shots, you are not meant to see a difference, which is why uv filter is used largely as a "lens protector" only. i hope you knew that already. the only time when it will have a discernible difference is probably when you.. go to high altitudes. should cut out some of the blue cast that you will get there.

it will eliminate SOME, sometimes all, depending on the direction of light, etc. and yes, you do it by trial and error, unless you really find out how it works, etc.. but it is not required, physics knowledge after all.

[karebu]

Originally Posted by night86mare if you get the details of the tree, you lose the sun, it is going to be too bright. if you want the sun to be there, you need to get the tree as a shadow. even film will not give you the shadow detail you want. how to do it? maybe you can try hdr, but here it think it will be pushed hard and you will end up with a painting. google hdr to find out more about it, there around 8000 sites out there detailing how to do it, what to do, then if you do not understand you can ask what you do not understand here. active learning > spoonfeeding. what do you mean "see through"? cpl will cut down reflections on non-metallic surfaces. cpl is different from other filters, if you have seen other filters. the white mark is not for you to align, it is for you to rotate. look through your viewfinder at the reflections and rotate, you should see a difference. the best part is, literature on this is available all over the net, heh.

oh okay. I've tried HDR (photoshop) personally. I thought there might be 'in built' HDR settings for SLR and hence the question.

Okay now I get the white mark thing. I was thinking there were only 2 settings. Align to top, either that or align perpendicularly (when holding your camera sideways). So .. the polarization could be at ANY angle and hence the need to manually adjust. I find it abit unhandy if that's the case because of the hood..

[night86mare]

Originally Posted by karebu Okay now I get the white mark thing. I was thinking there were only 2 settings. Align to top, either that or align perpendicularly (when holding your camera sideways). So .. the polarization could be at ANY angle and hence the need to manually adjust. I find it abit unhandy if that's the case because of the hood..

well, nobody said that photography would be easy. if it was, then more people would have dslrs since it is affordable now. imagine when you have tripod, 8 lenses that you want to bring everywhere that weigh a ton.. believe me, rotating a CPL with the hood on will be the least of your worries.

[karebu]

Originally Posted by night86mare well, nobody said that photography would be easy. if it was, then more people would have dslrs since it is affordable now. imagine when you have tripod, 8 lenses that you want to bring everywhere that weigh a ton.. believe me, rotating a CPL with the hood on will be the least of your worries.

alright thanks a lot!

may I move on to question 2? haha

This shot was taken with 1 second exposure time. (oh yes, on a tripod)
http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/4153/ktraab6.jpg

Is it possible to take a shot of the train with the train-face in perfect focus and the rest of the cabins a blur? Or is that a work of photoshop again?

Also, what caused the ghostly green lights in front of the train? I didn't use flash at all, so flash(rear) should be out of the question. (In this pic the train is moving from right to left.


And is there some formula for determining the shutter speed for freezing a moving object (yes, panning, but what speed?) When do I use 1", 30, 400, etc?

[night86mare]

Originally Posted by karebu Is it possible to take a shot of the train with the train-face in perfect focus and the rest of the cabins a blur? Or is that a work of photoshop again? Also, what caused the ghostly green lights in front of the train? I didn't use flash at all, so flash(rear) should be out of the question. (In this pic the train is moving from right to left. And is there some formula for determining the shutter speed for freezing a moving object (yes, panning, but what speed?) When do I use 1", 30, 400, etc?

you have to understand how the camera works, it is static while everything else around it is not. so if the cabins are blur while the train face is focused, there are 2 possible scenarios, maybe you are new, but read up more and you'll get the hang out of iso/aperture/shutter speed settings. iso will not relate to this, but aperture and shutter speed will.

for the first scenario, it is that the depth of field is so shallow that only one portion is in focus. this is not impossible. it can be done with a lensbaby. or if headon with any normal lens, maybe a long telephoto and large aperture. if you don't know what i'm talking about, read sulhan's notes on photography in the articles/guide section here, and google the net for lensbaby pictures.

for the second scenario, it is due to motion. in that case, if the cabins are moving, how can the train head not move?

was your filter on during the shot? looks like flare trails. this happens when the filter is on usually.. adds an extra reflection somewhere that you cannot control. for night shots, best to take out the filter. in any case, flash will never cause such a thing to happen.

shutter speed to freeze motion for a moving object? panning? there is no link between the two.

[karebu]

Originally Posted by night86mare you have to understand how the camera works, it is static while everything else around it is not. so if the cabins are blur while the train face is focused, there are 2 possible scenarios, maybe you are new, but read up more and you'll get the hang out of iso/aperture/shutter speed settings. iso will not relate to this, but aperture and shutter speed will. for the first scenario, it is that the depth of field is so shallow that only one portion is in focus. this is not impossible. it can be done with a lensbaby. or if headon with any normal lens, maybe a long telephoto and large aperture. if you don't know what i'm talking about, read sulhan's notes on photography in the articles/guide section here, and google the net for lensbaby pictures. for the second scenario, it is due to motion. in that case, if the cabins are moving, how can the train head not move? was your filter on during the shot? looks like flare trails. this happens when the filter is on usually.. adds an extra reflection somewhere that you cannot control. for night shots, best to take out the filter. in any case, flash will never cause such a thing to happen. shutter speed to freeze motion for a moving object? panning? there is no link between the two.

um, by blur i mean, motion blur, with light trails (from long exposure) Not just the usual big aperture whereby the face is focused and the body isnt.

Oh yea. I believe UV filter was on.

Okay bad phrasing. Let me retry. What I meant was, how do I determine what shutter speed to use for, say this scenario, and similar ones? Or has this got nothing to do with shutter speed?

[night86mare]

Originally Posted by karebu um, by blur i mean, motion blur, with light trails (from long exposure) Not just the usual big aperture whereby the face is focused and the body isnt. Oh yea. I believe UV filter was on. Okay bad phrasing. Let me retry. What I meant was, how do I determine what shutter speed to use for, say this scenario, and similar ones? Or has this got nothing to do with shutter speed?

no, you definitely cannot. maybe with photoshop magic you can combine two photos, but probably not out of camera unless you have a holga-like multi-exposure function like the pentax k20d has

oh, that has everything to do with shutter speed, but freezing motion is different from panning. panning involves "Tracking" the subject so that it is sharp while the background is blur because of your camera moving. freezing motion is simple, just select appropriately fast shutter speed, tweak aperture/iso settings to suit and tada you have it

[karebu]

Originally Posted by night86mare no, you definitely cannot. maybe with photoshop magic you can combine two photos, but probably not out of camera unless you have a holga-like multi-exposure function like the pentax k20d has oh, that has everything to do with shutter speed, but freezing motion is different from panning. panning involves "Tracking" the subject so that it is sharp while the background is blur because of your camera moving. freezing motion is simple, just select appropriately fast shutter speed, tweak aperture/iso settings to suit and tada you have it

Let's use the same bikers

Using these presets..
1) Still camera, super high shutter speeds, small aperture
2) Still camera, super high shutter speeds, big aperture
3) Panning the bikes with 'normal' shutter speeds

..my guesses are
1) The bikes and background would be clear.
2) The bikes in focus, background out of focus
3) The bikes in focus, motion blurred background (exactly like the picture)


Am I right.. ?

[catchlights]

Originally Posted by karebu um, by blur i mean, motion blur, with light trails (from long exposure) Not just the usual big aperture whereby the face is focused and the body isnt. Oh yea. I believe UV filter was on. Okay bad phrasing. Let me retry. What I meant was, how do I determine what shutter speed to use for, say this scenario, and similar ones? Or has this got nothing to do with shutter speed?

that's panning, using a lower shutter speed, pan with the subject while making your exposure, what shutter speed to use? that has to depends on the speed of you subject moving, in simple words, trial and error, plus practice, practice and practice.

[karebu]

Originally Posted by catchlights that's panning, using a lower shutter speed, pan with the subject while making your exposure, what shutter speed to use? that has to depends on the speed of you subject moving, in simple words, trial and error, plus practice, practice and practice.

okay.. thank you. will try when I get the chance