I'm having trouble making my pictures look professional!

Battou · Aug 24, 2008

tirediron said:
Very true; rule of thumb, if it's made of glass, don't buy cheap.

And what are you basing this on; if the OP has in fact bought a $10 'No-name' UV filter through eBay, I'd agree, but I've done some fairly extensive testing on the B+W filters I use (UVs among them) and have yet to detect any noticable degradation of the image at normal conditions.

Personal experience with UV filters including but not limited to Hoya (as was later explained to be the filter used) as well a lot of reading on the subject of UV filters. UV filters are not just a disposable peice of glass everyone makes them out to be, they are a filter and they do effect the light as it travels throught the glass, this effect most noticable when one is not used when it should be. Also I have seen a lot of disscussions where filters and AF don't seem to cooperate as they should. Knowing the insight you routenly provide I assume all your tests where done using manual focus correct?

danman281 said:
The UV filter I was using was from HOYA. I think HOYA is an alright brand, and I read good reviews from them, nothing fancy though. Any brand suggestions?

I don't use UV filters, even when necessary. I stopped using them all together when I kept forgetting to take them off. I've tried a bunch and Hoya was not bad at all, but I manual focus so, I can't say I have real insight to help you with.

tirediron · Aug 24, 2008

Battou said:
Personal experience with UV filters including but not limited to Hoya (as was later explained to be the filter used) as well a lot of reading on the subject of UV filters. UV filters are not just a disposable peice of glass everyone makes them out to be, they are a filter and they do effect the light as it travels throught the glass, this effect most noticable when one is not used when it should be. Also I have seen a lot of disscussions where filters and AF don't seem to cooperate as they should. Knowing the insight you routenly provide I assume all your tests where done using manual focus correct? I don't use UV filters, even when necessary. I stopped using them all together when I kept forgetting to take them off. I've tried a bunch and Hoya was not bad at all, but I manual focus so, I can't say I have real insight to help you with.

Hoya is a good name in filters, although some of their uncoated, entry-level stuff is suspect. As long as you stick with the big names (Hoya, Tiffen, B+W, Rodenstock, Heliopan, Singh-Ray) you won't have issues. Bear in mind too, that when people talk about distortion and filter effects, they're often refering to the extreme edge of an image shot wide open and cropped 100 or 150%. You're simply not going to see these things under normal conditions on images which are printed or displayed at common sizes.

As far as the testing goes, I have to admit that it never ocurred to me to deliberately test either manual or auto focus specifically, but as it happened, both were tested, simply because I compared all of my glass, including my 2.8/60mm macro, which is always manually focused. As far as I am aware, the only two filters which will affect the auto-focusing of a modern DSLR are linear polarizers and IR filters. UVs will have no effect whatsoever.

With DSLRs the use of a UV filter as a UV filter isn't really necessary. There is already UV protection built into the high-pass filter in front of the sensor. Most people have them on their lenses for protection since they have the least affect on an image of all of the standard filters. I've switched over from UVs to B+W clear glass elements mainly to keep dirt, dust and spray (I do a lot of shooting on/around water) off the front element of my lens.

randym77 · Aug 24, 2008

I suspect your main problem is that you picked a cloudy day. Gray, overcast skies are probably the worst for outdoor photography. Storm clouds can be dramatic (just don't get hit by lightning), and blue skies, perhaps with a few fluffy white clouds, are a postcard staple. But gray overcast skies send most photographers indoors to watch TV or something. :wink:

Pro photographers also prefer to take photos in the first hour after dawn, and a few hours before sunset. The light is much better then.

There are exceptions. Gray overcast skies are good for macro photography. (You can get nice photos of flowers, etc., without harsh shadows.) The noon sun is good for city shots (or deep canyons), where the subject will be in shadow otherwise.

But I think you'll be much happier with your photos if you take them in late afternoon, with better weather.

Also, use a tripod for landscape photography, when possible. A cheap lens on a tripod will often beat an expensive hand-held one.

anubis404 · Aug 24, 2008

tirediron said:
I will have to disagree with epp b; Photoshop is not needlessly over-complicated, it is, rather, very powerful, and features a huge array of tools. The nearly infinite array of adjustments you can make to an image neccesitate a complex menu system, and some commands which are less than intuitive. That aside, it is the industry standard for image editing.

While you certainly don't need to go to the expense of purchasing Photoshop CS3, I would strongly recommend spending ~$100 on either Adobe Photoshop Elements, or Corel PaintShopPro. Both of these are very full-featured editors which will last you for a long time, and have the power to deal with most situations you're likely to encounter. Something like MS Picture Publisher while cheap (and if money's a concern, try The GIMP; it's freeware - www.gimp.org) are not going to be updated, and do not follow the informal standards accepted by the "big boys".

Time spent learning Photoshop is time well spent.

Personally, I'm not the biggest ps guy and I have elements 6 and am loving it so far. If you can cough up $100, its worth every penny. Maybe get a used earlier version of elements for cheaper if you're crunched for money.