File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Dear /p/
How did this picture happen? It was taken wirh a non-digital camera [which are > digital, IMO] and it definately did not look like this when i was taking the picture. The clouds were white and i took it because the light coming through the clouds was in shafts and it looked pretty sweet. Ideas?
>> Anonymous
And this is why digital > film; you would have been able to perfectly capture the moment if you'd had the ability to check your exposure at the time.

By the looks of it you had it on auto and the camera decided to make things a dark because the clouds were so bright.
>> Anonymous
[OP]
My ligh-sensor on my camera was perfect when i took the picture though, it's manual light setting and i had it set as normal though..

Eh i think i actually like this one better than the original though.

Thanks for your input ;D
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>107711
The sun was coming through the clouds. That was a very, very bright point. Your camera saw that bright spot and metered to keep it from clipping, which meant it underexposed everything else in the frame.

And yeah, this could easily have been caught with a digital, except that you then also could have caught the scene exposed for what you actually were seeing after you chimped and corrected the exposure.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>107709

that is so very not true. What the OP needed to do was check his settings, then use a polarizing filter. What OP needed to do was set his camera manually and use a polarizer to bring out the rays. Probably open up the fstop a little, since the faster the shutter speed the darker the clouds. JMO.
>> Anonymous
>>107756
>>107756
how much does cost a polarizer filter
>> Anonymous
>>107903
depending on quality and lens diameter... from $40 to $150 ?
>> Anonymous
>>107916
forgot to add... you need circular polarizer unless you have a camera without any ttl abilities (autofocus, metering etc)
>> Anonymous
i've yet to see a camera that suffers from focusing or metering problems with an ordinary polarizer. examples plz?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>107946
I've yet to see a non-circular polarizing filter, personally. Are you sure you're not just failing to realize that most people just call a circular polarizing filter a polarizing filter (or polarizer)?
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
I've never seen a non-circular polarizing filter either. I just naturally call it a polarizer. It works out great! I also use it to bring out rainbows.

http://www.calumetphoto.com/Cameras/Filters/Polarizing/Tiffen/
>> Anonymous
linear polarizers are cheaper + i haven't noticed any disadvantages to circular ones w/ any dslrs
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>107979

No disadvantage... are you serious? Okay, just turn your camera to the side.
>> Anonymous
your aperture might have been too big or too small maybe
>> Anonymous
>>107996
Doh, just spin the filter in its mount?

AFAIK both circular and linear polarizers do the polarizing part pretty similarly, but circulars additionally scatter the polarized light again (to behave like unpolarized light) before it hits the camera. This is to avoid fucking up the functioning of beam-splitter mirrors in your camera.

The price difference between them is indeed small.
>> Jeremo
>>108080

...>>Doh, just spin the filter in its mount?

... are you talking about polarisers in cokin system like holders? or a screw in linear polariser. Because those two are very different.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>108082

Both rotate in their mounts, otherwise you can't adjust them.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
Linear polarisers are meant to be a bit more effective, bit circular ones will allow proper autofocus and metering with your DSLR. You can use them both if you know what you are getting into.

Polarising filters are quite fun to play with if you are bored. You can get some odd effects with them.
>> Anonymous
>>107711
good lawd, how many times can you say "though" in a post?!