The TPU Darkroom - Digital SLR and Photography Club

[de.das.dude]

So, I have bird feeders in my garden but the crows (Jackdaws) and pigeons have monopolised them. The little birds were getting pushed out so I bought a ground feeder and large cover to keep out the bigger birds. I found a pigeon in the cage one day but it never came back as it practically shit itself trying to get back out when I approached. So far, I've had Sparrows, a highly aggressive Robin, a pair of Coaltits, Starlings, a solitary Dunnet, and a Chaffinch snooping around the new seed deli.

I also have rats and a squirrel.

The first two pics show the difference between my Canon 7DMKII with 300mm f2.8 lens and the same with a TCx2 attached. I had to manually focus with the teleconverter but the result is pretty good. RAW file sharpened and exposure adjusted. Of note, the 7DMKII is an APS-C sensor so the 35mm equiv is actually 480mm on the bare 300mm lens, and 960 with the tcx2.

@Aquinus, I've got a EOS R and was watching the new Canon lenses. I've got the 35mm 1.8 STM, 50mm 1.8 STM, and the 24-105 f4-7.1. If I didn't have the crazy sharp 300mm f2.8, I'd get the new RF 100-400 as well. The 300mm EF lens (I bought it 2nd hand) weighs a freaking tonne. But it's awesome....

No crops on the pictures.

My ratty friend at 300mm (f5.6, 1/1600, ISO 2000)

View attachment 221955

At 600mm (f8, 1/1000, ISO 3200). Manual focus on a secure tripod (Peak Design - not the carbon fibre model).

View attachment 221956

Coal Tit, Sparrows and a jealous pigeon (300mm, f5.6, 1/1000, ISO 2000)

View attachment 221957


Squirrel (300mm, f5.6, 1/800, ISO 2000)


View attachment 221958

did you trap animals just to take pix? lol

 

[the54thvoid]

did you trap animals just to take pix? lol

Hell, food's so good, they trap themselves.

How do you feel about the 2x teleconverter? I was debating getting one myself, but the loss of two ƒ stops is a tough pill to swallow with this lens. A 1.4x might be a nice middleground.

I know this wasn't for me but I've done a stupidly OCD amount of reading on TC's and they only work well if the primary lens is near perfect. TC's amplify any anomlies in the base lens. My 300mm f2.8 is 15 years old but tack sharp (it's a classic lens I was very lucky to get at a good but still very expensive amount). It won't auto-focus so well with a x2TC, manual focus is better. On a 1.4TC the autofocus is pretty good (f4 minimum aperture). If you're thinking of the 1.4 on the RF lens, you'll almost certainly be reduced to manual focus (no use for moving subjects). The f8 at 400mm would become f11 (great for landscapes but not critters).

 

[Ferrum Master]

Ah, my bad. Updated the post with the Camera info. Also I don't really care if my real name is exposed, but thanks for pointing it out.


How do you feel about the 2x teleconverter? I was debating getting one myself, but the loss of two ƒ stops is a tough pill to swallow with this lens. A 1.4x might be a nice middleground.

Well I haven't used a good tele, they are all crap including the ones that cost an arm and leg. Just buy a good super tele lens.

I went an obscure path, I like to experiment, thus I like photography hobby just because of that. That Sigma I used is Pentax mount, I borrowed it from a die hard Pentaxer(I haven't met another types who are using Pentax tho it is like a religion), and there are loads of vintage teleconverters as the mount is like dino age old). So basically I got few converters for peanuts, I even went stacking them, best ones were Vivitar from the el cheapos. That's why the lens was manual only without data to my Sony camera.

Will attach few other ones, how soft becomes using 4x mode... but the lens there is Soviet Tair3, well it is 1950ties, you have to excuse it, the other will be native lens, my SEL70350G. I shot it at F8. At 4x so considering the crop factor I got like 1800mm throw. The other is 350mm and with the 1.5crop = 525mm and that's enough. Just digital zoom it and it will be the same as with 2x tele. The funny thing at that super zoom, I could not use slow exposures, the darn moon was sliding away in front of me, I had to readjust the camera with each shot as it went out of the scope. It was so shaky. I attached my camera to a monitor via HDMI and used an infrared remote to pull the shutter.



PS.

@W1zzard What's with the picture resolution limit? I have to resize my photos despite they are like in kilobytes. The forum accepts like 4K images as a limit? I can't add them as thumbnails or full size. Or is it only problem at my end?

@the54thvoid

You also have a rat? Mine isn't captive also... I have a cage like her home base, but I leave it open all the time and she doesn't do anything bad, she doesn't venture around and doesn't chew anything that ain't given to her as a toy. I have a good sample, you just have to understand them and their instinctive needs. Rats are very tough to picture they are always so active, at least female ones, male ones are more tame couch surfers.

I only have some random phone pic of her, she is 2.5 years old already.

 

[W1zzard]

@W1zzard What's with the picture resolution limit? I have to resize my photos despite they are like in kilobytes. The forum accepts like 4K images as a limit? I can't add them as thumbnails or full size. Or is it only problem at my end?

The size limit is 8 MB, which should be big enough for all reasonable use cases

 

[tabascosauz]

The size limit is 8 MB, which should be big enough for all reasonable use cases

Isn't there a resolution limit though? I think that's what he's referring to

I can upload a sub-8MB image but if dimensions are too big it won't let me actually put it into the post, only as a blank attachment sans preview. So I stick to something smaller than say 3500x3000 usually

 

[W1zzard]

Isn't there a resolution limit though? I think that's what he's referring to

I can upload a sub-8MB image but if dimensions are too big it won't let me actually put it into the post, only as a blank attachment sans preview. So I stick to something smaller than say 3500x3000 usually.

 

[Ferrum Master]

The size limit is 8 MB, which should be big enough for all reasonable use cases

It ain't about the size, but resolution. Try adding some 8K picture, it can be like 100KB, but it will not allow to attach it to the post, like thumbnail.

I will an example. It is around 2MB, but it will not allow to add it in the post. Just as an attachment. No insert button.

 

[tabascosauz]

I can promise the practical limits are not anywhere near 10k by 10k. No picture I upload will make it past blank preview purgatory if it exceeds 4000 pixels in any one dimension.

 

[W1zzard]

Stupid limitation, let me see if I can work around it

 

[Jetster]

2017 - Nikon D3200, f/5.6, ISO - 800, 1/400 upload 32kb, now I'll try a larger file

7 Mb

 

[W1zzard]

There we go, fixed

 

[Ferrum Master]

2017 - Nikon D3200, f/5.6, ISO - 800, 1/400

Now tell me... did you do without ND filters... bare?

There we go, fixed

Best post German could do

 

[Jetster]

Now tell me... did you do without ND filters... bare?

I did a few with no filter right in the middle of the eclipse, it was dark enough. But yes most had a filter

 

[Ferrum Master]

I did a few with no filter right in the middle of the eclipse, it was dark enough. But yes most had a filter

I've heard stories you can burn your eyes when viewing through a mirror camera. I don't know if it is true... it could be... wouldn't dare to try.

Also you've managed to catch Regulus besides the Eclipse.

 

[Jetster]

I've heard stories you can burn your eyes when viewing through a mirror camera. I don't know if it is true... it could be... wouldn't dare to try.

Also you've managed to catch Regulus besides the Eclipse.

Yea you have got to be carful, Framing the shot it hard. You're looking at the sun. Filter, zoom in, lose the frame, zoom out, try to find the sun again. Eye's watering, its hot. Then everything goes dark, then you take the filter off and start shooting. It's a weird experience.

 

[Ferrum Master]

Yea you have got to be carful, Framing the shot it hard. Your looking at the sun. Filter, zoom in, lose the frame, zoom out, thy to find the sun again. Eye's watering, its hot. Then everything goes dark, it's a weird experience

You just like it hardcore, admit it...

 

[Valantar]

I've heard stories you can burn your eyes when viewing through a mirror camera. I don't know if it is true... it could be... wouldn't dare to try.

Also you've managed to catch Regulus besides the Eclipse.

You can definitely burn your eyes, and you can burn your sensor too. Shooting eclipses with no filter is not recommended.

Source.

 

[Aquinus]

I went hiking today and took some pictures of the land and wildlife. All are taken with the Canon EOS RP, however the lens for each varies.

Canon RF 50mm ƒ1.8 pancake lens.
50mm, ƒ8, 1/640s, ISO 100

Canon RF24-105mm ƒ4-7.1 IS STM
85mm, ƒ11, 1/320s, ISO100

Canon RF100-400mm ƒ5.6-8 IS USM for the next 2 pictures.
400mm, ƒ8, 1/400s, ISO 1000

400mm, ƒ8, 1/30s, ISO 500

Edit: Question for the group: Polarizing filter for landscapes. Opinions? I haven't used any filters for any of my shots.

 

[Nuckles56]

Edit: Question for the group: Polarizing filter for landscapes. Opinions? I haven't used any filters for any of my shots.

I'll sometimes use them, it is situation dependent tbh. Sometimes they make a huge difference but most of the time it doesn't really matter.

 

[Valantar]

I'll sometimes use them, it is situation dependent tbh. Sometimes they make a huge difference but most of the time it doesn't really matter.

Agree. They are extremely dependent on the angle of the sun after all, so they only really do anything in very specific scenarios. I have one, and have gotten some good shots from it, but I never really remember to use it these days.

 

[TheUn4seen]

Cthulhu visited a while ago. He was not impressed.

 

[Ferrum Master]

Depends on the scene. It might take away the reflection on grass and tree leaves, but you can manage it also in post in curves. I am considering trying variND filter, I have only classic ones. Just for long expositions to get rid of annoying humans .

I use extensively filters for film photography, especially skylight to tame down bluish led modern lighting effects. Film chemistry was calculated when no LED was around, thus you often need to balance white point for certain emulsions, mostly Fuji.

From composition point my suggestion is to remember rule of thirds. Don't put the horizon in the middle. Try some golden ratios. It will look much better.

 

[Valantar]

Depends on the scene. It might take away the reflection on grass and tree leaves, but you can manage it also in post in curves. I am considering trying variND filter, I have only classic ones. Just for long expositions to get rid of annoying humans .

That's not the main feature of a polarization filter though, but rather to tame down blue skies, allowing for more balanced full-frame exposure, better colors, more contrast in any clouds and sky detail, and less blown out highlights.

I've used variable ND filters quite a bit, and they can be good as long as you're aware of their limitations (and you get one with no color cast). The main issue is that a variable ND is just two stacked circular polarizers stacked on top of each other (with opposite polarization), and rotating them relative to each other blocks out varying amounts of light. The issue is that the blocking of light is not equal across the frame (as it is dependent on the angle of incoming light), especially (but not limited to) wider angle lenses. This can easily lead to dark or bright areas in your photos that force some very annoying corrections in post (if possible at all). They also interact kind of weirdly with sunlight due to being polarized, enhancing the blotchy/uneven effect.

An illustration, a not-very-long exposure shot from a beach in Vietnam back in 2018:

Note how dark the areas from 4 o'clock to 6 and 10 to 12 are.
Here is after a lot of processing in Lightroom. IMO this was (barely) salvagable (the clouds in the upper left look kind of terrible) but there is still a lot more noise in those areas thanks to the excessive brightening needed. At best usable in small sizes.

(In case anyone cares: Pentax K-70, Tamron SP AF 10-24mm F/3.5-4.5 Di II LD @ 10mm, f/11, 1/2s, ISO 100. And if anyone wonders why the original exposure is so dark, it's because that blotchy effect got far worse at higher exposure levels, meaning I had to underexpose to get usable results at all.)

 

[Ferrum Master]

That's not the main feature of a polarization filter though, but rather to tame down blue skies, allowing for more balanced full-frame exposure, better colors, more contrast in any clouds and sky detail, and less blown out highlights.

That's exactly what polarization filter must do, the blue skies is just a side effect as Haze removal, but that's not the most important task, it doesn't deliver more, the sensor captures the same mount of color information actually, you can mimic CPL in postproduction by adjusting curves.

For your task there are gradient filters, those are for landscape and will provide the exact result you described. More POP.

Most important feature is reflection removal that's why the light has to be polarized. CPL is used to remove reflection from glass, water and also any reflective surface like leaves. Try on, I use CPL exactly for that, you can dehaze in post to get more blues, but it will not work that good for reflection removal for water etc. Also indoors there is often need to cut out light from the windows.

Bad or good filter actually distinct how much it can polarize the light. Test on your monitor, does it turn completely black, if not throw out the rubbish filter.

 

[Valantar]

That's exactly what polarization filter must do, the blue skies is just a side effect as Haze removal, but that's not the most important task, it doesn't deliver more, the sensor captures the same mount of color information actually, you can mimic CPL in postproduction by adjusting curves.

For your task there are gradient filters, those are for landscape and will provide the exact result you described. More POP.

Most important feature is reflection removal that's why the light has to be polarized. CPL is used to remove reflection from glass, water and also any reflective surface like leaves. Try on, I use CPL exactly for that, you can dehaze in post to get more blues, but it will not work that good for reflection removal for water etc. Also indoors there is often need to cut out light from the windows.

Bad or good filter actually distinct how much it can polarize the light. Test on your monitor, does it turn completely black, if not throw out the rubbish filter.

That's the most unique feature of CPLs, but not their main use. Their main use is, at least in landscape photography, blue sky enhancement through how they selectively reduce polarized light coming from the sky (while light from nearly anything else, whether it's clouds, buildings, trees or the ground, is scattered and not as polarized, and will as such not be dampened to the same degree). Most landscapes simply don't have enough reflective surfaces in them for a CPL to make a major difference; blue skies are far more common - thus blue sky adjustment is the main use of a CPL. These two uses are also somewhat mutually exclusive, as chances of the same angle of the CPL to both dampen blue skies and remove reflections from the ground are quite low, though it can happen (both need to be ~90° from the direction of the sun). You could at best argue that these are equivalent use cases, but you need some quite specialized photography habits for reflection reduction to be the main use of a CPL.

Also, graduated filters don't do what I say, as they dampen everything within a field, while a CPL just dampens polarized light - i.e. light that hasn't been dispersed by anything. A CPL will not dampen anything that isn't the sky, as objects disperse the light and thus change its polarization.

You're also right that you can somewhat mimic this in post, but you quickly run into exposure/data retention issues - as the CPL will darken blue skies but not everything else, you can typically expose brighter with a CPL without blowing out the sky; doing the same in post necessitates either underexposing and introducing noise in everything else, or blowing out the sky, leaving you less to work with. You could just as well say that you can get most of the reflection-reducing effect in post - you won't be able to see through something reflective without a CPL, but you will be able to tame down the reflection and make it less intrusive.