Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,968   Posts: 1,523,439   Online: 998
      
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 56
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,325
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianShaw View Post
    Todd... I remain a bit confused. Please forgive me if this seems offensive (it isn't intended to be) but you need to do two things: 1. explain more details of what, why and how you are shooting, and 2. bone up on some of the fundamentals. Otherwise it is really tough to figure out what is going on and help you out. It most likely is not the filter. Think about this - focus and flare. Are you handholding or tripod? Are you using a lens hood? What is your lighting? And, again, what was the intent of the polarizing filter in the first place? (The last, of course, may be a nonsensical question at this point but goes back to my first comment about explaining the details and intent.
    Brian's right. Unless you're working carefully and methodically - and taking notes - you're wasting your time. For instance, comparing lenses with the camera off the tripod is pointless. A filter, polarising or other, should not affect your results beyond the filter's intended effect.

    When I compare lenses I set the camera (on a tripod) in front of a wall to which is taped some newsprint, be sure to get fine detail in the center and corners of the frame. The distance should be at least several feet for a 50mm lens. Focus carefully, use a magnifier if you have one. Use a cable release and (if possible) mirror lockup.

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    701
    No Problemm The vase shoot was done with tripod and shutter release cable. The shoot over the weekend was street shooting down by the University. The thing thats odd about weekend shoot it was the first time I left on the Polar filter on, I just find it ironic that it wasn't as sharp as before. Keeping in mind that I could have had an off day as far my focusing and stablity on my part. Since the FE is manual focus. What I've getting in advice is not to leave Polar filter on all the time and for every situation. I think it's always better to shoot with straight lens no filter in most cases. Oh.. I'm not offended at all. I believe we can alway learn.

  3. #33
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Post one of the "blurry" shots and we'll tell you what the problem is.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  4. #34
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SE Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,514
    Images
    15
    I would not get hot and sweaty deciding over a 1.4 vs 1.8 lens; the difference is, to me, miniscule. More about the lens in a moment.

    It is true that the quality of polarisers does vary. I have encountered Chinese-made polarisers with absolutely terrible optical quality, and these certainly would impact upon image quality, compromising lens peformance to boot.. On the other hand, there is no question at all on the quality of the long-established brands e.g. B+W, Hoya, Kenko, Tiffen...among. Besides the polariser and the nasty effect it can have on metering and the overall tone of a photograph (you do have to provide some compensation if you intentionally "flatten" the scen), have you had the lens itself professionally examined for alignment issues? This is what niggles me; a lousy filter stuck on the front of a lens will soften the image from any lens (second only to the problem of photographers shooting a 17mm lens at f32...). I agree though with the foregoing posts that you should give us something to examine; we can't provide insight or actually diagnose something we have not seen an example of!

  5. #35
    markaudacity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    88
    Something that would help is if we could determine what exactly you mean by "clarity", as that is not a photographic term with a specific definition. Are you looking for more resolution, greater acutance/sharpness, more microcontrast, or higher overall contrast? All of those could be thought of as clarity, and they are all governed and affected by different factors.

    The 50/1.4 shot you posted is representative of what that lens does, and most people would say it has a lot of snap/crispness to it. What film did you shoot that on? Film has the greatest effect on resolution and sharpness.

    Have you calibrated your monitor? You might not be looking at your images through an unbiased window.

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    701
    Ok.. Here is a sample pic of my shoot last weekend. To me it looks a little soft and grainy. I use delta 100 35mm 68 degrees @ 12min.

    Todd
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails image.jpg  

  7. #37
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Looks perfectly fine to me, friend.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  8. #38
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,091
    Images
    60
    Is that a scan of a print, or a scan of a negative?
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    701
    Scan of negative..un-manipulated.

    ToddB

  10. #40
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,091
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by ToddB View Post
    Scan of negative..un-manipulated.

    ToddB
    To me, it looks like you have missed the focus slightly - the plane of sharpest focus is near his sleeve, not on his face.

    And in order to try to eliminate any problems with the scanning, try re-scanning the negative after rotating it 180 degrees (don't turn it over, turn it around).

    The "graininess" may be scanning artifacts. Rotation of the negative may change the appearance of the scanning artifacts.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin