A&Q about Lotus
Q:
Originally Posted by swistun
Thank you...
Canon EOS 20D with a Canon EF 17-35 f/2.8L and an EF 70-200 f/2.8L.
No, sorry, not a single shot of a pure profile... the backgrounds sucked on both sides. The shots at night are as close as I got to the profile. I'll do better next time!
Heh swistun, I have the same camera and I just ordered the 17-35 2.8L today (already have to the 70-200 2.8L). Do you happen to know who makes a UV filter with front threads and is still thin enough not to block at the wide end?
A:
Originally Posted by Spudboy
Heh swistun, I have the same camera and I just ordered the 17-35 2.8L today (already have to the 70-200 2.8L). Do you happen to know who makes a UV filter with front threads and is still thin enough not to block at the wide end?
Kick ass, awesome combo. You'll be happy with it.
A standard filter will not vignette on the 17-35, so don't worry about getting a thin one - unless you intend to stack filters (UV, then Polarizer or something on top of the UV) - then your second filter should be a slim one. But for good results you should not be doing that anyway... the more filters the worse picture quality. The bare naked lens formula for any given lens is always the optimal one. Anything more will serve to deteriorate the image.
Advice: DO NOT under any circumstances get a cheap filter (tiffen, hoya, quantary, etc) to protect your pro glass. This glass will deliver prime lens quality results, but if you smack a cheap filter on top of it, your hi quality lens just became an average lens. A lot of pros don't even use filters, as a lens hood is actually sufficient most of the time to protect the glass from ever getting scratched... unless you're like me and you use the camera to shield your face from flying rocks as you shoot a helicopter which lands 15 feet away from you in the field - then you do wanna use a filter.
The only brand I use for filters is B&W - order it from www.bhphotovideo.com. The extra $20-30 is worth it. Good news is, both your leses use the same diameter filter (77mm). Yes, that was intentional by Canon.
have fun,
Luke
A:
Easy test for filter quality: hold it in a direct light source and look at how much light it reflects back at you. Light should go through the glass, not mirror off of it, so the more light reflection you see, the crappier the filter. Put a Quantary next to your Canon L lens - you'll find most light passing through your L lens (all 11 elements of it), while the single Quantary filter will reflect all that light right back at you... that's where haze, low contrast, and crappy color saturation of inferior lenses come from.
Now look at a B&W filter next to your L lens... you'll see it lets almost as much light through as the lens itself.
A:
Originally Posted by swistun
Easy test for filter quality: hold it in a direct light source and look at how much light it reflects back at you. Light should go through the glass, not mirror off of it, so the more light reflection you see, the crappier the filter. Put a Quantary next to your Canon L lens - you'll find most light passing through your L lens (all 11 elements of it), while the single Quantary filter will reflect all that light right back at you... that's where haze, low contrast, and crappy color saturation of inferior lenses come from.
Now look at a B&W filter next to your L lens... you'll see it lets almost as much light through as the lens itself.
Thanks for the tips. MY friend is a pro and he goes sans-filters. I'm not that brave!
A:
that UV filter is not worth using. minimal effect other than the deterioration swistun mentined. if you don;t need the polarizer shoot naked. just take a little care to not scratch the coatings
A:
Originally Posted by swistun
unless you're like me and you use the camera to shield your face from flying rocks as you shoot a helicopter which lands 15 feet away from you in the field - then you do wanna use a filter.
My first day of shooting automotive pictures, I got hit in the head by a rock, and a golfball-sized rock hit off the hood of my lens. Luckily the plastic scratched and not the glass - or worse yet break. Here's what I saw:
A:
that is awesome, looks MEAN and kick ass. One question...I've had matte finishes on my motorcycle and there is ONE MAJOR problem I've had with them. You can't "buff out" any scratches (which happen VERY easily I've found) on a matte finish. You'll end up with a little shiny spot. I can only imagine how much of a pain this would be on a car.
THat being said, I want to paint my car JUST like my bike now after seeing this pic...DAMNIT
A:
Hey Alan, mine too.....
You caught me with drooping front splitter! Help Sector111!!
What is the fix, I saw mine is coming off when I cleaned it after the last track day, but been to busy to get under there and take a closer look - is it an easy or a hard fix? (The guys at SCC did my fitting too)
A:
Originally Posted by AnsisK
My first day of shooting automotive pictures, I got hit in the head by a rock, and a golfball-sized rock hit off the hood of my lens. Luckily the plastic scratched and not the glass - or worse yet break. Here's what I saw:
DUDE THAT IS A GREAT SHOT!! Worth getting hit in the head with a rock. As Kapa used to say, if your shots are not good enough, you are not close enough
A:
Originally Posted by Serebo1
Thanks...I was worried I'd catch up to her post count.
darn where is my postbot...
Hey I am driving a brand new Chrysler Crossfire convertible in black. They are nice cars indeed.
Not an Elise but a great chick car....
zOOmz in Florida
A:
hey, I'm going to Fla next Wednesday!
A:
Originally Posted by Serebo1
Thanks! Regarding the mirrors, you have to see them in context. The splitter, radiator covers, side mirrors, upward facing portion of side sills, and rear wing are all glossy.
Cool, thanks for answering the question.
I dig it!
A:
I love it! This must be his daily driver, a flat black cls55.
A:
Originally Posted by ken_vs_ryu
I love it! This must be his daily driver, a flat black cls55.
wow.
A:
Originally Posted by swistun
As Kapa used to say, if your shots are not good enough, you are not close enough
You mean like this?
This one is like AnisK posted above but closer and in this case the rocks broke my "cheap" filter (and hit me in the nads) I keep in front of my expensive lens (not the first time the filter saved the lens either)
I mostly shoot with the filter in front of my lens for the protection and it has been a non issue.
IMO it was more of an issue when shooting film. Now I control my color saturation and contrast in post anyway.
That said, I would not use a UV filter for anything other than the protection I need
A:
I honestly can't decide if I like Flat Black or not. I am just so not used to it. I need to see it in person damnit!!!!
A:
Originally Posted by mopho
You mean like this?
This one is like AnsisK posted above but closer and in this case the rocks broke my "cheap" filter (and hit me in the nads) I keep in front of my expensive lens (not the first time the filter saved the lens either)
Funny... Both cars are mid-generation Lancer Evos.
Rally photography gets to be a lot of fun. Sure, you wait a lot, but most events are run pretty slack, so you can get to any place you want for a good shot.
Does ET have an automotive photography section (not necessarily Lotus-related?). I'd love to see other people's work, and have a place to get crits on my shots.
A:
Originally Posted by mopho
I mostly shoot with the filter in front of my lens for the protection and it has been a non issue.
IMO it was more of an issue when shooting film. Now I control my color saturation and contrast in post anyway.
That said, I would not use a UV filter for anything other than the protection I need
So would you recommend a skylight over UV for general lens protection?
A:
Originally Posted by Spudboy
So would you recommend a skylight over UV for general lens protection?
A Skylight filter is going to add some warmth to your images, so if that is what you want
A:
what is that cutout in the grill? it looks like a/c tubing, but im not sure. anyone know?