So I'm going on a trip to Europe in a couple weeks for a month long backpacking trip. I don't want to bring my SLR, or my Canon S3 because I am trying to pack as light as possible...I also don't want to get $2,000 of camera equipment possibly stolen. I'm a little out of touch with what's good...
Hey thanks, everyone.
jvw2941, I used my 50mm 1.8 lens. I knew the sky was gonna mess up the exposure so I overexposed by 2 stops. I was pointing the camera straight up almost!
thebeatles, I don't know what that is.. A hair or spiderweb I guess. It's annoying me now
I think it would be cool to go back when there's real fog..I don't think the fake fog looks good but real fog seems like it would be really cool. The clue sky in that picture doesn't really match the fall look of the forrest in my opinion
Here are some pictures with and without the polarizer. These are straight from the camera, no editing or anything, just the effects of the polarizer.
The pictures with the polarizer have bluer skys, the trees and grass are greener, everything has more color it looks like
I had the same problem with my pictures this morning that you commented on.. I used my polarizer and that worked pretty well. If you want I'll show you the pictures without the polarizer, there's a huge difference
I'm from the east bay, we're pretty much at sea level. I had to drive about 20 minutes to get up in the hills where the snow was, which aren't very high up at all. These pictures are from Mt Diablo, if you know where that is. The peak is 3,800 I think..
Last night, snow levels dropped wayyyy low, to the lowest I've ever seen around here. It never snows on these hills, so I took a drive to go an take pictures..I wanted to go early in the morning, but it was still snowy/rainy and the hills were covered in fog so I waited a while..Anyway I'm...