Hello, I'm traveling this weekend for 4 days and there's gonna be a lot sightseeing and it's gonna mostly be in day time and will be sunny all the time, and i just got a new lens and wondering if i really need a polarizer while shooting in RAW? Can't i just get the effect of a polarizer in lightroom or photoshop?
If you just want to make the sky a darker blue that's relatively easy to do with software. But if you want to remove reflections from glass or water, or if you want to remove glare from nonmetallic shiny surfaces like leaves, then there is really no substitute for a polarizing filter.
Shooting Games No Need To Download
DOWNLOAD 🔥 https://urllie.com/2yGaN0 🔥
This isn't a yes/no question. First things first - no, a polarizer for the most part cannot be duplicated in post-processing. Some of what it does can be - enhancing a blue sky and increasing contrast, but the effect cannot be completely duplicated as it can with the actual filter. Also, there is a feature that cannot be duplicated at all and that's the reduction or removal of reflections.
As for shooting in raw - the effect still cannot be duplicated. That said, only use a polarizer when you see a use for it. The easiest way to do this is to mount it, compose the image and rotate the polarizer until you see the effect you're looking for. If it's overcast it won't really do anything other than reduce your exposure about 1-1/2 stops. If the sun is in the wrong orientation with respect to the direction you're shooting, the effect will be minimal.
Hello, I'm traveling this weekend for 4 days and there's gonna be a lot sightseeing and it's gonna mostly be in day time and will be sunny all the time, and i just got a new lens and wondering if i really need a polarizer while shooting in RAW?
Once you have a reflection in a window, you can't Lightroom or Photoshop it out. Polarizing filters change the light that is entering the camera, so its effect on reflected light can't really be duplicated with Photoshop or Lightroom.
All statements in my posts represent my interpretation of data, research opinion or viewpoints.
The opinions expressed are not representations of fact, and are subject to change without notice.
All images are used for educational purposes.
No. And no. Polarizers and raw have absolutely nothing to do with one another. Also, polarizers need to be used with care. I'm a pro and I've ruined as many photos as I've improved with polarizers. That said, a quality polarizer can perform functions that you simply cannot duplicate in post processing: saturate foliage, remove glare, darken blue sky, cut aerial haze.
The Lumix S9 is Panasonic's newest full-frame mirrorless camera. It allows users to create their own custom looks for out-of-camera colors and is the first full-frame Lumix camera aimed squarely at social media content creators.
The Sony a9 III is the world's first full-frame mirrorless camera to feature a global electronic shutter with simultaneous readout. After extensive testing of this 120 fps sports camera, to see what you gain (and, perhaps, lose).
The Fujifilm X100VI is the sixth iteration of Fujifilm's classically-styled large sensor compact. A 40MP X-Trans sensor, in-body stabilization and 6.2K video are the major updates, but do they make the camera better?
What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best.
If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.
Having said all of that, if you're doing very specific shots where you want the narrowest possible depth-of-field, ND filters can be useful. However, I would lean towards adjusting the shutter speed instead due to how much more efficient you'd be.
CP filters can be very useful outdoors to end up with bluer skies and more lush foliage. I would lean towards having your subjects always be in a shaded area so at to work with softer light. Or use the direct sun as a backlight and look at adding some front fill with reflectors and/or fill flash. Here, I don't think you'd need CP filters at all.
Once you think you have figured out whether you are going to use additional filters/other hardware OR adjust via shutter speed: be sure and test your proposed setup in similar lighting several days before the ceremony. This is a situation where you certainly don't want to find there are unexpected interactions between any filter/modifier you use and the camera's AF and exposure systems at or after the actual event.
And Ricky's advice is spot on about concerns if you need to switch back and forth between high light and indoor settings and are dependent upon unscrewing a filter for this situation. It will slow you down more than you expect and any attempt to speed up is likely to result in a dropped and destroyed ND filter which you have made yourself dependent upon.
May want to add that shooting anamorphic on a digital sensor you more then likely will crop the sensor horizontally-unless your shooting with an Arri Alexa in open gate or a RED 8k ANA Dragon (something which they don't broadcast that's available)
For this particular shoot we considered Kowas, but went with the Lomo anamorphics. For a variety of reasons but mostly the film is really gritty and I'm a sucker for imperfect glass. I think the only issue we had was with the bottom left corner.
That's interesting about the horizontal crop. We were shooting Red Dragon 6k which changed formats and naturally de-squeezed the image. In post we're getting a true 2.39:1 pixel ratio. I don't recall any horizontal crop but that doesn't mean it didn't happen! I'll investigate.
Yeah the Dragon's sensor is 1.94 : 1 so with a 2x anamorphic it would have a 3.88 : 1 aspect ratio when desqueezed without cropping the sensor. If you chose a 1.3x or 1.5x anamorphic then the amount of cropping the sensor to achieve a 2.40 : 1 would differ
That's super interesting. This article was just meant to discuss the Director's angle on using anamorphic but I've considered interviewing my DP on Anamorphic and getting more into the nitty gritty details. Definitely something to bring up.
Very nicely expressed - and especially true of video. If anamorphic makes your blocking easier then it reduces your risk when shooting on locations you have limited access to. Or unlimited access but a high hourly for crew and equipment.
Clearly, this is a situation with a huge asterisk. It may not be your cuppa tea. Also, you could be shooting a film with a huge number of cuts in mind. But I believe most independent filmmakers who are focused on actor performance will find a lot of freedom in the anamorphic format.
Bret - about blocking for location shooting and the limited time productions often have, why not just use a model, either physical or computer? Take some photos of the distance background, pin them around the edges of table, put some cardboard buildings in place and move action figures around?
Pre-visualization is an important conceptual tool but the worst thing a director can do is set hard creative expectations before going on site. This particular shoot was 6 hours away from my home. I had location scouted twice but things change far more than you might imagine.
In the end, it's far more important to be flexible on site than to have rigid ideas about how things will go without massaging that action with your on-screen talent. My point is that anamorphic can definitely increase that flexibility.
Lighting: natural lighting would be far easier, but if you cannot, you are definitely going to need more than one flash - likely you'll need at least 2 powerful heads, probably more. You'll probably want to drag the shutter to catch the ambient background.
Lets say there's 200 people and your able to have three rows. That's 67 people wide...you'll need at least 100 ft horizontally to stack and pack each row, probably more. According to pCam, on a 10D @16mm you would need to be 53 feet back to get 100 ft horizontally. Is the room that big and devoid of furniture?
According, to the specs of a 550 flash, the guide number for ISO 100 @17mm is 50 ft. However, most ballrooms are dimply lit, so I would think that a second flash is advised. Even better would be using a STE-2 to drive them both so you can place the flashes closer to the group.
Any way you can slit them into smaller groups? My nephew's varsity football photograph is the Offensive Unit. The Defense, and Special Teams were seperate. His photo was large the other groups were small.
forget it. I often do groups of 40-50 at weddings with a 10D. It's fine for a 7X5" and has enough resolution for a 12X10" maybe even a bit further if your lighting was spot on and your sharpening skills impressive. For groups bigger than that I would really say forget it. I did a group on sunday of 40 kids who due to having to include elements of their show, occupied only 45% of the frame. I know photoshop and ACR, and with judicious edge sharpening and keeping the noise low, managed to get a respectable 8X12 from it, but it took time. I have made successful 30X20" prints from a 10D but not where fine resolution was of importance as this case would need 152ee80cbc