This bums me out... wide angle

**Natedogg** · 10-29-2007, 09:46 PM

Finally got my slides back from my own test of sensor 'crop factor.' What a pissah.

Canon Rebel G
Canon 17-40 f/4L @ 17mm
Velveeta ISO 50, 1/90, f/4 (-1)
Circular polarizer

Canon 20D
Canon 17-40 f/4L @ 17mm
ISO 200, 1/60, f/15 (-1)
Circular polarizer

Maybe I can get a 10mm zoom with end-of-year bonus loot...

PS--I still like the color and saturation of slide film (although both images were PSed--by a PS jong)

**Tippster** · 10-29-2007, 09:55 PM

Huh. Why the vignetting? Cheap Rebel no likey the expensive lens? Does it do that without the polarizer screwed on? If not, then get a larger polarizing filter and a step down ring.

I'd be pissed too, seeing the usable image size is about the same...

(Heh - "Velveeta")

**bio-smear** · 10-29-2007, 10:05 PM

Nice illustration of the crop factor on the less-than-35mm frame sensor. Damn those colors are nice in the Velvia. This is why I want the f/2.8 14mm USM IS.

**Natedogg** · 10-30-2007, 07:23 AM

Thanks, bio. Yeah, I've found the colors of Velvia and E100VS to be absolutely amazing.

Originally Posted by Tippster

Huh. Why the vignetting? Cheap Rebel no likey the expensive lens? Does it do that without the polarizer screwed on? If not, then get a larger polarizing filter and a step down ring.

I'm not sure. Sometimes it does it, sometimes it does not. Which makes me think that the body can't handle the lens at certain angles to light. But another factor to consider is that I have two relatively cheap filters on the lens--the UV and the polarizer. In which case the step down ring would be helpful. Although the lens is a 77mm--high-quality filters get damn spendy at that size!!

The true 17mm is awesome for mountain bike shots... With the 20D, my 17-40 turns into a borrrrring 27-64mm.

**Pura Vida** · 10-30-2007, 07:31 AM

Originally Posted by Natedogg

But another factor to consider is that I have two relatively cheap filters on the lens--the UV and the polarizer.

Bingo. Upgrade to a filter meant for a wide angle lens (more spendy, yes unfortunately) and this issue will likely be taken care of.

**Eldo** · 10-30-2007, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by Natedogg

...another factor to consider is that I have two relatively cheap filters on the lens--the UV and the polarizer...

Are you stacking filters? That could cause the vignetting. (You should really remove the UV before attaching the polarizer anyway.)

Transparencies are really nice, but you can achieve a similar look to your digital photos either during raw processing or post processing. I even have some settings saved to imitate some of my favourite slide films from the past, like PKR and EPP.

**Natedogg** · 10-30-2007, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by Pura Vida

Bingo. Upgrade to a filter meant for a wide angle lens (more spendy, yes unfortunately) and this issue will likely be taken care of.

Recommendations?

Hoya?

Nikon?

Canon?

Others?

It's hard for me to spend $150 on a single piece of glass when the entire L-series lens was only $650 more, but I will.

**Pura Vida** · 10-30-2007, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by Natedogg

Recommendations?

Hoya?

Nikon?

Canon?

Others?

It's hard for me to spend $150 on a single piece of glass when the entire L-series lens was only $650 more, but I will.

Personally I use B+W filters and always been happy with them. Maybe other mags can chime in for other quality recomendations. Typically they offer versions for wide angle lenses, usually indicated by a "W" at the end of the model number (and a higher price tag), but they do virtually eliminate any extra vignetting caused by the filter.

**Natedogg** · 10-30-2007, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by Eldo

Are you stacking filters? That could cause the vignetting. (You should really remove the UV before attaching the polarizer anyway.).

Nah, I never remove the UV, I just stack 'em. Probably should, eh?

Originally Posted by Eldo

Transparencies are really nice, but you can achieve a similar look to your digital photos either during raw processing or post processing. I even have some settings saved to imitate some of my favourite slide films from the past, like PKR and EPP.

I have had zero luck with noticing any significant difference with different in-camera settings. I'm sure this isn't a one-line answer, but do you have any advice?

**Natedogg** · 10-30-2007, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by Pura Vida

Personally I use B+W filters and always been happy with them. Maybe other mags can chime in for other quality recomendations. Typically they offer versions for wide angle lenses, usually indicated by a "W" at the end of the model number (and a higher price tag), but they do virtually eliminate any extra vignetting caused by the filter.

Like this?

(Do I need the fancy coatings?)

**Pura Vida** · 10-30-2007, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by Natedogg

Like this?

(Do I need the fancy coatings?)

Yep, "slim" or "ultra slim" is what you are looking for. I could be wrong, but I don't think B+W offeres options for coatings on their slim filters.

**cj001f** · 10-30-2007, 09:45 AM

Before you go to a slim polarizer try just the circular polarizer.

I have a 77m slim circular polarizer I'm looking to sell if you want a deal on one

**Natedogg** · 10-30-2007, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by cj001f

Before you go to a slim polarizer try just the circular polarizer. I have a 77m slim circular polarizer I'm looking to sell if you want a deal on one

No frills circPL is what's on there now.

Definitely, shoot me a PM or ncg2111 at yahoo if you have pics.

**summit** · 10-30-2007, 10:41 AM

Unless you have a cockeyed lens hood for that shot (this happes sometimes... the hood rotates and vignettes the corners), you are experiencing filter vignetting at 17mm. Don't stack filters and consider purchasing a slim filter. Your problems will be solved.

The 17-40mm is perfectly capable of covering the full 24x36mm frame.

**Big E** · 10-30-2007, 01:04 PM

I am most definitely a beginner photog, and far-lower Photochopper, but the differences in the grasses totally befuddles me. I mean, that looks like spring vs. mid-summer! Someone mind elaborating??

**Junker** · 10-30-2007, 01:07 PM

The lack of symmetry of the vignetting is kinda interesting. The amount should be the same, but looking at the upper corners, they do not appear to be.

**Natedogg** · 10-30-2007, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by Big E

I mean, that looks like spring vs. mid-summer!

Well, I am a jong photochopper. I could have screwed it up. But you're right, and this (the representation of color) is one of the big 'problems' I'm having as being new to the digital world of SLRs. I have yet to hear a good explanation.

Originally Posted by Junker

The lack of symmetry of the vignetting is kinda interesting. The amount should be the same, but looking at the upper corners, they do not appear to be.

Good point. I've noticed that before, and never thought much about it.

**Pura Vida** · 10-30-2007, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by Natedogg

Well, I am a jong photochopper. I could have screwed it up. But you're right, and this (the representation of color) is one of the big 'problems' I'm having as being new to the digital world of SLRs. I have yet to hear a good explanation.

Sounds like some of your camera settings may be "off." You shouldn't have to be photochopping when you are shooting a 20D w/ decent glass to get a decent image. If you bought it used you can always restore it back to the factory defaults through a menu option. That will at least get you back to sqaure one and you can tweak it your prefrences. Maybe post up some detailed exif metadata for some shots you think are "off?"

**grizzle6** · 10-30-2007, 02:57 PM

Natedogg--
What the others said about stacking filters--no good. Definitely remove your UV before putting the Polarizer or any other filter on. Spend the money on quality UV and polarizing filters. Look at it this way--you spent $650.00 on a nice piece of glass. Why would you want to negate the high quality of that glass by putting a piece of crap filter in front of it? It's like buying a Ferrari and putting bald tires on it.

As for the whole issue with color representation, think about it this way. Slide film has already been pre-processed (during development or during it's actual creation) to represent color or a scene a certain way. This is most obvious in Velvia where the color's are extremely saturated. Digital, on the other hand, captures the color/scene directly as the sensor sees it. The information is in there to give you the same effect as velvia, but you, the photographer and artist have to process it and bring that image out. A better understanding of how to do that in PS will probably help you to be better satisfied with digital.

That said, it still is a little disturbing to see such a strong difference between your digi and film captures. Might want to take it to a dealer and make sure that sensor is still functioning properly...

**Natedogg** · 10-30-2007, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by Pura Vida

Sounds like some of your camera settings may be "off." You shouldn't have to be photochopping when you are shooting a 20D w/ decent glass to get a decent image. If you bought it used you can always restore it back to the factory defaults through a menu option. That will at least get you back to sqaure one and you can tweak it your prefrences. Maybe post up some detailed exif metadata for some shots you think are "off?"

I did buy it used, and the guy I bought it from told me that he put it back to factory default. When I get home, I will put it back to default settings in case he was full of shit.

Can you give an example of the metadata you are looking for? I'm a jong--I know what it all is, I just don't know what is useful to you all-knowing dudes. Also, I've seen some people's photo sites where they list an insane amount of metadata--is there a way to cut and paste, or am I just looking at the screen on the back of the camera and copying it down?

Originally Posted by grizzle6

What the others said about stacking filters--no good.

Roger that. It makes sense, but I've never bothered to ditch the UV when using a polarizer. I will from now on. And the analogy I understand, but if your Ferrari costs $150,000, would you spend $30,000 on tires? I'm not trying to be a dick, but it's hard to justify paying between $150 and $250 for a polarizer to put on my $800 lens. /rant I will buy the $150 polarizer.

Originally Posted by grizzle6

Slide film has already been pre-processed (during development or during it's actual creation) to represent color or a scene a certain way. Digital, on the other hand, captures the color/scene directly as the sensor sees it. A better understanding of how to do that in PS will probably help you to be better satisfied with digital....

So you're basically saying that the $5 roll of Velvia and $15 developing was a fantastic deal because all of that work was already done for me, right? I would love to learn the PS part of it--unfortunately I have little time for it. I am planning on pursuing a better understanding of PS, but right now my goal is to get the maximum out of the raw images from my body with as little modification as possible (until I am proficient at PS).

But yes, I'm beginning to understand that you are absolutely right--a better understanding of PS will help me to be better satisfied with this darned digital contraption. Well said.

On a side note, how much time would you guess you have put into post-processing on any one of your shots that you are submitting to OP?

Originally Posted by grizzle6

That said, it still is a little disturbing to see such a strong difference between your digi and film captures. Might want to take it to a dealer and make sure that sensor is still functioning properly...

That is one thing that crossed my mind very early, but I wrote it off as me not knowing my way around a DSLR. What is involved in getting it checked out? Is it an on-the-spot check, or something where the body has to be shipped to Canon?

Jesus, sorry for the long post. But thanks, guys, for the advice and discussion. I learn a lot from you guys.

Much appreciated.

**Bawheed** · 10-30-2007, 06:33 PM

I think you may have to retest the lense on both bodies, because having two different appertures between shots doesn't really indicate how the lense performs in this kind of test.

Take off all filters/hoods, take a meter reading, and shoot at the same apperture on both bodies (preferably 3-4 stops from wide open as this is generally the apperture that most 35mm lenses perform best at). So say you get iso200, f11, 1/250th on the 20D, shoot iso50, f11 1/60th on the Rebel G. If you still get drastic light fall off in the corners with the Rebel G, don't use the lense on the Rebel G, it ain't going to work.

Is this lense supposed to produce an image circle that can cover a 35mm frame? Or is it like Nikon's DX lenses that were designed only to cover the smaller digital sensor size? I don't have the first clue about Canon lenses.

I'll third the motion on learning Photoshop asap... it ain't called the digital darkroom for nothing. Don't fall for the "straight from camera, no PS" chest beating bullshit, every print in galleries/museums etc have been through the ringer be it through traditional darkroom processes (dodge/burn, unsharp masks etc) or PS, it's part of the process of creating a final definitive image.

**MeatPuppet** · 10-30-2007, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by Natedogg

Well, I am a jong photochopper. I could have screwed it up. But you're right, and this (the representation of color) is one of the big 'problems' I'm having as being new to the digital world of SLRs. I have yet to hear a good explanation.

Grizzly6's explanation is dead on. That being said, I ditched my Canon because I never could get the colors to look the way I wanted them too. I could get close, but I could never get quite what I wanted. I bought a Fuji S5 Pro and couldn't be happier.

For all practical purposes, this is straight out of the camera. Raw conversion with a little sharpening. Nothing else.

I'm generally a big advocate of investing the time to learn to use the tools you have before picking up another set of tools. But, in the end, if you aren't able to get the results you want, you might consider a different brand of camera.

And just so you aren't tempted to give up on your 20D too soon: I took this with a 10D/24-70L and no filter. The 20D should be capable of just as good, or better. You just have to learn how to draw out the colors you want and get rid of the information you don't. You can never spend too much time learning to use PS.

I agree with everyone who said to invest in good filters. There is no point in having an expensive lens if you are going to degrade the light, by passing it through a cheap piece of glass, before it even gets to the lens.

**Natedogg** · 10-30-2007, 10:30 PM

Originally Posted by Bawheed

I think you may have to retest the lense on both bodies, because having two different appertures between shots doesn't really indicate how the lense performs in this kind of test. Don't fall for the "straight from camera, no PS" chest beating bullshit, it's part of the process of creating a final definitive image.

My test was to bum me out about how my wide-angle is not so wide anymore.

I'm not real concerned with the vignetting, because a) I have many photos where even with stacking filters there is no vignetting and b) I'm 98% sure it's from the stacked filters, which will be solved when I buy cj001f's slim polarizer and stop stacking filters.

Re: chest-beating BS, I agree, but at this point in my life, I don't have time to learn PS, nevermind edit every decent photo I have. Therefore I'd like to minimize any post-processing. I'm hopeful that at some point I will have the time to sit down and learn PS, and edit photos the way I would like.

Originally Posted by MeatPuppet

That being said, I ditched my Canon because I never could get the colors to look the way I wanted them too. I'm generally a big advocate of investing the time to learn to use the tools you have before picking up another set of tools. But, in the end, if you aren't able to get the results you want, you might consider a different brand of camera.

Interesting. Thanks. And I also agree that I need to learn how to use this thing. I'm not sure I'm going about learning the correct way. I have too many questions and no one to ask. This thread has been by far the best resource for me, and I have yet to get into the meat of the problem. Learning to use the tools is key; finding a good mentor is key to learning to use the tools.

**Natedogg** · 10-30-2007, 10:40 PM

Here is a photo that totally bummed me out. Looking through the viewfinder, the scene was stunning. What came out looked like a pile of steaming turd.

Things that I already know:
1. Not to shoot during direct sun--this was more of an opportunistic shot, so I had no choice. Better light would have helped.
2. The range of exposure here, from the rocks to the shadowed bank, is high. Should I use a graduated ND filter? Should I make multiple exposures and combine in PS?
3. Due to high range of exposures, I feel like I might be in no mans land, where the rocks are overexposed and the shadows are underexposed. I have other shots where the trees appear correctly exposed, but the boulders are totally blown out.
4. There is no definitive subject, but that does not concern me at this point.
5. ISO 800 and f/18 are not optimal--this just happened to be a photo that illustrated my point well...

Here is metadata from the Windows properties tab:

I showed this to the owner of the local shop, and he told me to not use manual, ever. He thought that was why I was overexposing and washing out color, and might not have white balance set correctly.

Anyway, any comments/suggestions are welcome. Let the lambasting begin.

**amyzilla** · 10-31-2007, 12:06 AM

Hmm... I think I would have tilted the camera up a bit to reduce all the rocks in the foreground, and then maybe overexpose the rocks a bit to make sure the trees aren't underexposed. Shooting in bright sun is tricky, but if you draw the attention away from the problem areas (i.e. overexposed areas), it's not as bad.

I know you say you didn't have a definitive subject, and that doesn't bother you, but were you trying to call attention to the rocks in the foreground, or the trees in the background? Making that decision while you were shooting may have helped. If you aren't sure what you want to highlight, try taking a bunch of pictures from different angles with different settings.

Oh, and the owner of your local shop is full of shit. You'll never learn if you don't play around.