|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 25, 2017 8:55:26 GMT
How to get a camera lens clean and "shiny"....
For a start, dont use a paper towel.
You need "soft cloth"...
But, for "That extra shine"?... as in extra clean polished "as new" type shine?.
I have been passed something from someone from someone from you know where that is supposed to work.
Take a candle, lit, and a clean glass.
Let the candle deposit soot on the class, carefully, may I suggest a pyrex type heat resistant glass here?.
Then wipe the soot off the glass with a good camera lens cleaning cloth, and use that to clean the lens....
The cheapest lens I have on my camera is a couple of hundred quid to replace, you can be sure I aint trying this at home, because I believe my lenses are already "Coated" by something or other to be anti-flare, but does anyone else know if this is a good or bad idea, and how the hell would you go about testing this anyway if you dont have two identical lenses and some way of accurately comparing the two after cleaning?..
Or is it a case of clean one lens as best as you can then take a shot, then compare that to a shot taken after you give it an extra polish in the described method?.
Any ideas?.
If this is a show idea that can be taken further, anyone know of any other good methods to clean expensive camera lens?.
My option is that I have a pump-spray dispenser of good lens cleaning fluid and a micro-fibre lint free cloth that gets a wash now and again in clean de-ionised filtered water, I aint taking no chances, and as this is the method my Father used, and he was CSI for 20 yrs, I suspect he knew a thing or two about this.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 25, 2017 14:32:20 GMT
How to get a camera lens clean and "shiny".... For a start, dont use a paper towel. You need "soft cloth"... But, for "That extra shine"?... as in extra clean polished "as new" type shine?. I have been passed something from someone from someone from you know where that is supposed to work. Take a candle, lit, and a clean glass. Let the candle deposit soot on the class, carefully, may I suggest a pyrex type heat resistant glass here?. Then wipe the soot off the glass with a good camera lens cleaning cloth, and use that to clean the lens.... The cheapest lens I have on my camera is a couple of hundred quid to replace, you can be sure I aint trying this at home, because I believe my lenses are already "Coated" by something or other to be anti-flare, but does anyone else know if this is a good or bad idea, and how the hell would you go about testing this anyway if you dont have two identical lenses and some way of accurately comparing the two after cleaning?.. Or is it a case of clean one lens as best as you can then take a shot, then compare that to a shot taken after you give it an extra polish in the described method?. Any ideas?. If this is a show idea that can be taken further, anyone know of any other good methods to clean expensive camera lens?. My option is that I have a pump-spray dispenser of good lens cleaning fluid and a micro-fibre lint free cloth that gets a wash now and again in clean de-ionised filtered water, I aint taking no chances, and as this is the method my Father used, and he was CSI for 20 yrs, I suspect he knew a thing or two about this. you could do it with glass filters to save cost on lenses. which brings up a topic - with my family, it has always been a standard to buy a glass filter to go onto any lens, in order to insure that if you bump something, it will hit the side of the lens and break the focus ring, instead of hitting the end. does this seal tightly enough that it does not need to be removed to clean the lens and the inner side of the filter? |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jul 25, 2017 14:37:33 GMT
How to get a camera lens clean and "shiny".... For a start, dont use a paper towel. You need "soft cloth"... But, for "That extra shine"?... as in extra clean polished "as new" type shine?. I have been passed something from someone from someone from you know where that is supposed to work. Take a candle, lit, and a clean glass. Let the candle deposit soot on the class, carefully, may I suggest a pyrex type heat resistant glass here?. Then wipe the soot off the glass with a good camera lens cleaning cloth, and use that to clean the lens.... The cheapest lens I have on my camera is a couple of hundred quid to replace, you can be sure I aint trying this at home, because I believe my lenses are already "Coated" by something or other to be anti-flare, but does anyone else know if this is a good or bad idea, and how the hell would you go about testing this anyway if you dont have two identical lenses and some way of accurately comparing the two after cleaning?.. Or is it a case of clean one lens as best as you can then take a shot, then compare that to a shot taken after you give it an extra polish in the described method?. Any ideas?. If this is a show idea that can be taken further, anyone know of any other good methods to clean expensive camera lens?. My option is that I have a pump-spray dispenser of good lens cleaning fluid and a micro-fibre lint free cloth that gets a wash now and again in clean de-ionised filtered water, I aint taking no chances, and as this is the method my Father used, and he was CSI for 20 yrs, I suspect he knew a thing or two about this. you could do it with glass filters to save cost on lenses. which brings up a topic - with my family, it has always been a standard to buy a glass filter to go onto any lens, in order to insure that if you bump something, it will hit the side of the lens and break the focus ring, instead of hitting the end. does this seal tightly enough that it does not need to be removed to clean the lens and the inner side of the filter? When I was into the 35mm photo taking, I always kept a 1A sky filter on the lens to protect it. It had little, to no effect on most pictures and if I really got serious, it was easy enough to remove. As for the soot thing, because of the anti-glare coating on most quality lenses, you should never use anything abrasive to clean them, and I would think soot would be abrasive. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 25, 2017 15:33:56 GMT
you could do it with glass filters to save cost on lenses. which brings up a topic - with my family, it has always been a standard to buy a glass filter to go onto any lens, in order to insure that if you bump something, it will hit the side of the lens and break the focus ring, instead of hitting the end. does this seal tightly enough that it does not need to be removed to clean the lens and the inner side of the filter? When I was into the 35mm photo taking, I always kept a 1A sky filter on the lens to protect it. It had little, to no effect on most pictures and if I really got serious, it was easy enough to remove. As for the soot thing, because of the anti-glare coating on most quality lenses, you should never use anything abrasive to clean them, and I would think soot would be abrasive. I'm not sure how abrasive lampblack soot would be. which is to say, I'm not sure if it is harder than whatever is used for the anti glare coating. (google says Mohs hardness of 2-2.9) the next question would be: is the appearance of it being effective actually a case of the lampblack depositing its own coating on the lens - which is the opposite of an anti-glare coating? the rule against using paper towels on optics, as explained by my motorcycle instructor, is that the fibers in the paper towel are harder than the plastic of a plastic optic (or motorcycle helmet face shield) and so they scratch the plastic. (or any coating on a glass optic) |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jul 25, 2017 16:23:41 GMT
When I was into the 35mm photo taking, I always kept a 1A sky filter on the lens to protect it. It had little, to no effect on most pictures and if I really got serious, it was easy enough to remove. As for the soot thing, because of the anti-glare coating on most quality lenses, you should never use anything abrasive to clean them, and I would think soot would be abrasive. I'm not sure how abrasive lampblack soot would be. which is to say, I'm not sure if it is harder than whatever is used for the anti glare coating. (google says Mohs hardness of 2-2.9) the next question would be: is the appearance of it being effective actually a case of the lampblack depositing its own coating on the lens - which is the opposite of an anti-glare coating? the rule against using paper towels on optics, as explained by my motorcycle instructor, is that the fibers in the paper towel are harder than the plastic of a plastic optic (or motorcycle helmet face shield) and so they scratch the plastic. (or any coating on a glass optic) Now I can see Mike Rowe needing something abrasive to clean his camera lenses, but unless the rest of us are photographing anything dirtier than mud-wrestling, I don't see why any abrasive cleaner should be necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 25, 2017 18:54:05 GMT
I'm not sure how abrasive lampblack soot would be. which is to say, I'm not sure if it is harder than whatever is used for the anti glare coating. (google says Mohs hardness of 2-2.9) the next question would be: is the appearance of it being effective actually a case of the lampblack depositing its own coating on the lens - which is the opposite of an anti-glare coating? the rule against using paper towels on optics, as explained by my motorcycle instructor, is that the fibers in the paper towel are harder than the plastic of a plastic optic (or motorcycle helmet face shield) and so they scratch the plastic. (or any coating on a glass optic) Now I can see Mike Rowe needing something abrasive to clean his camera lenses, but unless the rest of us are photographing anything dirtier than mud-wrestling, I don't see why any abrasive cleaner should be necessary. considering that is the same hardness range of a human fingernail, I'm not sure it counts as an abrasive cleaner. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jul 25, 2017 20:02:08 GMT
Now I can see Mike Rowe needing something abrasive to clean his camera lenses, but unless the rest of us are photographing anything dirtier than mud-wrestling, I don't see why any abrasive cleaner should be necessary. considering that is the same hardness range of a human fingernail, I'm not sure it counts as an abrasive cleaner. I would consider a finger nail scratching across a lens as being abrasive. In fact, I would consider the skin on your fingertip as abrasive as far as a coated lens is concerned. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 25, 2017 20:28:51 GMT
considering that is the same hardness range of a human fingernail, I'm not sure it counts as an abrasive cleaner. I would consider a finger nail scratching across a lens as being abrasive. In fact, I would consider the skin on your fingertip as abrasive as far as a coated lens is concerned. not sure what mohs hardness of human skin is, but I suspect the dust on the lens is more abrasive. but did you get distracted on the question of whether it is possible the lampblack leaves a coating on the lens instead of cleaning it? |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jul 25, 2017 21:48:26 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 25, 2017 22:14:42 GMT
good find. I looked to see if there was anything to it, and there are processes to coat glass with carbon that create that sort of property, but didn't have as much detail on how it works. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 26, 2017 10:02:44 GMT
Keeping a filter in front of a lens, yes, it "works", especially as a bump stop, but a Lens cap works better?.. I have always found difficulty in getting filters and lens caps to work together. Are they "Air tight" and can they repel all forms of pollution?.. not that I have found. As for the why use the soot as a cleaner, its detergent free. It is claimed that... Detergents can degrade that anti-glare coating? It absorbs finger grease and removes it easily as well. Although, why are there people touching the lens with fingers?. Most of my lens pollution comes from airborn particles such as dust, moisture, mix of the two, stuff like that. I keep the camera ready but lens cap on until I need to turn it on to take a shot, getting the camera from chest to eye whilst removing lens cap and getting that in the grip of a palm so I can turn the zoom wheel with one hand and turning the wheel to power it up with the other whilst gripping the camera body are a well practised movements I can do at a moments notice. Unfortunately, not so un-noticed... Last time I was out at a family gathering, we had "One of them", amongst the hoard of cousins nieces and great nieces, one young lady had decided I was going to be her own pet photographer for the night "Take a Picture of ME!!!" Every time I took the camera out she appeared from "somewhere", and started posing right in shot. Spoiled the bloody night for me. Onwards, I therefore keep the lens caps on 99.99% of the day, and only take it off when there is something worth investigating. I dont always take the shot... But when questioned on my 400 zoom, its a bloody good replacement for having a set of binoculars. Except, the lens hood I have on it, gets in the way a lot. And if you point the camera down, the lens extends fully, slowly, on its own, like its alive?.. No that aint annoying at all. Honestly. I have also decided that those planks of media photogs that have massive 500+ zoom lenses that do look a lot like a massive reflecting telescope, need their nadgers examined by a trained specialist... Like WTF?...  Your one side of the road, your subject is the other... I can take photo's of a bird from 500yds and zoom in optically to fill the frame, why DO they need such massive lenses?.. And do they need to hire a window cleaner to keep the thing clean?.. do you get windscreen wipers for the rain?.. So getting back on track a moment... Ignoring the plainly ludicrous situation I witnessed at a Bird reservation where it appeared one "twitcher" had one tripod for his lens and another one for the camera, like WTF?.. Anyway, ignoring the fact he also has a small telescope single monocular spotting thing as well as his camera equipment, so in all, had Three Tripods to lug about all day... Back on subject please?.. ya think ya can?.. So have we found anything better between us than the pump spray of reputable cleaning solution and a good camera lens cleaner cloth that my Dad used 30/40 yrs ago with his SLR and "Is still good" with todays technology in that it still works so isnt worth considering fixing, or, is there something else out there on the market that makes a better lens cleaner?. I still also carry my Dads old puffer-brush, thats a small paintbrush with a rubber ball bladder that when squeezed directs a jet of air towards the brush tip that can be used to flick dry dust away from the surface. I am presuming we are getting the idea that this soot-black is perhaps a not very good idea, and that if tested, we should suggest a pane of glass and a good microscope to examine what damage carbon leaves when used as a polishing tool. Do not use the camera equipment on the working camera crew... ?.. I also gather that any coatings would be degraded, and that renewing coatings is expensive. All above statements to be of course tested to distraction destruction and see what is best for cleaning a lens, and indeed is there is anything out there that is affordable to hobyist photogs, "We all want to know"... That can be also tested along with a few other camera myths. Tripod better than hand held... We know this of course to be true. Monopod is in the right hands as good as Tripod. I can suggest that this is a plausible suggestion... I use Monopod here myself, because tripod are unwieldy and time consuming to lug about all day, where having a screw-top handle that can make the thing double as a walking stick makes the monopod user friendly. It gives me a stable base to rest the camera on, maybe not as good as a tripod may be for a "posed" shot, but when you dont have time to get that Kingfisher bird to pose and hold that pose whilst I get ready.... anything else that can stretch the subject out a bit to maybe make a whole show on camera work?.. Do we include things for Video camera?.. BTW, I was offered a Canon DSLR that can take video, I am slightly concerned, I am pure and simple a Photog, I dont want to get into Video work, so refused simply because of that, but am now reconsidering, because I dont HAVE to use the video part, ad its an all round better camera than the one I have anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 26, 2017 13:41:58 GMT
Keeping a filter in front of a lens, yes, it "works", especially as a bump stop, but a Lens cap works better?.. I have always found difficulty in getting filters and lens caps to work together. Are they "Air tight" and can they repel all forms of pollution?.. not that I have found. As for the why use the soot as a cleaner, its detergent free. It is claimed that... Detergents can degrade that anti-glare coating? It absorbs finger grease and removes it easily as well. Although, why are there people touching the lens with fingers?. Most of my lens pollution comes from airborn particles such as dust, moisture, mix of the two, stuff like that. I keep the camera ready but lens cap on until I need to turn it on to take a shot, getting the camera from chest to eye whilst removing lens cap and getting that in the grip of a palm so I can turn the zoom wheel with one hand and turning the wheel to power it up with the other whilst gripping the camera body are a well practised movements I can do at a moments notice. Unfortunately, not so un-noticed... Last time I was out at a family gathering, we had "One of them", amongst the hoard of cousins nieces and great nieces, one young lady had decided I was going to be her own pet photographer for the night "Take a Picture of ME!!!" Every time I took the camera out she appeared from "somewhere", and started posing right in shot. Spoiled the bloody night for me. Onwards, I therefore keep the lens caps on 99.99% of the day, and only take it off when there is something worth investigating. I dont always take the shot... But when questioned on my 400 zoom, its a bloody good replacement for having a set of binoculars. Except, the lens hood I have on it, gets in the way a lot. And if you point the camera down, the lens extends fully, slowly, on its own, like its alive?.. No that aint annoying at all. Honestly. I have also decided that those planks of media photogs that have massive 500+ zoom lenses that do look a lot like a massive reflecting telescope, need their nadgers examined by a trained specialist... Like WTF?... Your one side of the road, your subject is the other... I can take photo's of a bird from 500yds and zoom in optically to fill the frame, why DO they need such massive lenses?.. And do they need to hire a window cleaner to keep the thing clean?.. do you get windscreen wipers for the rain?.. So getting back on track a moment... Ignoring the plainly ludicrous situation I witnessed at a Bird reservation where it appeared one "twitcher" had one tripod for his lens and another one for the camera, like WTF?.. Anyway, ignoring the fact he also has a small telescope single monocular spotting thing as well as his camera equipment, so in all, had Three Tripods to lug about all day... Back on subject please?.. ya think ya can?.. So have we found anything better between us than the pump spray of reputable cleaning solution and a good camera lens cleaner cloth that my Dad used 30/40 yrs ago with his SLR and "Is still good" with todays technology in that it still works so isnt worth considering fixing, or, is there something else out there on the market that makes a better lens cleaner?. I still also carry my Dads old puffer-brush, thats a small paintbrush with a rubber ball bladder that when squeezed directs a jet of air towards the brush tip that can be used to flick dry dust away from the surface. I am presuming we are getting the idea that this soot-black is perhaps a not very good idea, and that if tested, we should suggest a pane of glass and a good microscope to examine what damage carbon leaves when used as a polishing tool. Do not use the camera equipment on the working camera crew... ?.. I also gather that any coatings would be degraded, and that renewing coatings is expensive. All above statements to be of course tested to distraction destruction and see what is best for cleaning a lens, and indeed is there is anything out there that is affordable to hobyist photogs, "We all want to know"... That can be also tested along with a few other camera myths. Tripod better than hand held... We know this of course to be true. Monopod is in the right hands as good as Tripod. I can suggest that this is a plausible suggestion... I use Monopod here myself, because tripod are unwieldy and time consuming to lug about all day, where having a screw-top handle that can make the thing double as a walking stick makes the monopod user friendly. It gives me a stable base to rest the camera on, maybe not as good as a tripod may be for a "posed" shot, but when you dont have time to get that Kingfisher bird to pose and hold that pose whilst I get ready.... anything else that can stretch the subject out a bit to maybe make a whole show on camera work?.. Do we include things for Video camera?.. BTW, I was offered a Canon DSLR that can take video, I am slightly concerned, I am pure and simple a Photog, I dont want to get into Video work, so refused simply because of that, but am now reconsidering, because I dont HAVE to use the video part, ad its an all round better camera than the one I have anyway. I am neutral on the lampblack as a cleaner. I still think it should be done on screw on filters instead of on lenses, because then you can do side by side testing and testing to destruction more cheaply. as far as the filter - I've never had a problem with a lens cap on a filter. they are double threaded to enable filter stacking. for the guy with two tripods: you idiot, they put the tripod fitting on the lens, so you can shift the camera off the tripos and the lens on, and have the tripod at the balance point. (the 300mm lens I had with the old camera had a tripod fitting) as for the offer of the Canon DSLR, the one drawback besides the video, which I predict you will find yourself using more often than you think, because sometimes seeing something move is cooler than seeing it stationary, is that it will probably obsolete all your glass, and you will have to restart your collection. - assuming you're not already on DSLR. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jul 26, 2017 14:30:55 GMT
Since I've started to take pictures for the sake of the subject rather than for the sake of the camera, things have gotten so much easier. What use to take $3000 in camera equipment, which I never had with me when I needed it, I can now do with my cell phone. And a little spit and some toilet paper is all I need to clean the lens.
Same with music. When I learned to listen to the music rather than the stereo system, my investment in sound equipment went down and my enjoyment in listening to the music went way up.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 26, 2017 14:47:16 GMT
Since I've started to take pictures for the sake of the subject rather than for the sake of the camera, things have gotten so much easier. What use to take $3000 in camera equipment, which I never had with me when I needed it, I can now do with my cell phone. And a little spit and some toilet paper is all I need to clean the lens. Same with music. When I learned to listen to the music rather than the stereo system, my investment in sound equipment went down and my enjoyment in listening to the music went way up. I don't know. I couldn't have gotten this picture with my cell phone.  granted, it's not going to win me any photography awards, but it reminds me I got to see it. |
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Jul 26, 2017 23:44:46 GMT
For my DSLR, it has always been recommended to me to always use a UV filter on the end of my lens. Partially to protect the photo sensors of the camera, partially to act as a defense to my more expensive glass. I figure it is cheap protection. If it doesn't work, I'm not out anything and I have never noticed a difference with the pictures I take. Even thought I keep UV filters on my lenses full time, I still need to take it off every few months and clean everything.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 27, 2017 10:05:40 GMT
Like WTF?... I am neutral on the lampblack as a cleaner. I still think it should be done on screw on filters instead of on lenses, because then you can do side by side testing and testing to destruction more cheaply. as far as the filter - I've never had a problem with a lens cap on a filter. they are double threaded to enable filter stacking. for the guy with two tripods: you idiot, they put the tripod fitting on the lens, so you can shift the camera off the tripos and the lens on, and have the tripod at the balance point. (the 300mm lens I had with the old camera had a tripod fitting) as for the offer of the Canon DSLR, the one drawback besides the video, which I predict you will find yourself using more often than you think, because sometimes seeing something move is cooler than seeing it stationary, is that it will probably obsolete all your glass, and you will have to restart your collection. - assuming you're not already on DSLR. Not only on DSLR with a smaller canon, but also using canon "TTL" lenses with auto-focus as well, I am hoping I am right with the presumption that all TTL lenses are interchangeable with camera body... My larger zoom doesnt have the auto-focus as its Cosina not Canon, but that beast takes some hefting about, so not a major problem, the camera still tells me when I am in focus, it just cant do that job its self. The extra weight in the lens for that was considered a detractor and thats why they didnt include it. They tried to keep the thing so it didnt need its own tripod... And yes, you are supposed to put the lens not the camera on the tripod at massive lense weight, I think this twit-cher was trying to get one particular shot, he may have had a remote shutter control as well, so may have been trying to eliminate all camera shake, and that can happen when your balancing a camera on a tripod when the shutter fires if you dont have a camera with *IS" Image stabilisation. Otherwise, yeah, maybe it was his first time out and he didnt ask about the tripod mount thing and thought he needed both?.. I didnt stop to ask, I couldnt, sometimes laughing at someone and asking questions at the same time gets some unfavourable responses?.. it was the whole "All the gear but no idea" scene that fored my memory into something you cant quite un-see... ALSO< I am with you on the polish the filter not the lens... However, a sacrificial lens must be used at some point to check if the anti-flare/glare coatings are degraded, and by how much. My Kid has got in on this idea... Will "coating" the lense with carbon "darken" the image acquisition. As in, will you get a darker image from less light getting through... Good question.?.. he aint even a photog... except what he picked up from me, must be osmosis?.. To test, maybe a camera set on full manual... yeah, your going to need the bigger camera here that doesnt have full ijurt as "Default", and even on mine, I have to turn the selector so far clockwise its starts to complain "we aint never been out this far captain". You need to do that to select a set aperture set exposure set depth of field and all the rest and glue the f-stop in place electronically to prevent the camera from adjusting something or other... my TTL system monitors the light being received in real time as the shot is taken to set its exposure rate. You would then have to swap the "Filter" quickly and ensure that there is no change of light in the room [dont try this outside] [too many variables to control] as you take two shots to compare. Also dont try this on electronic flash, as I believe there are flash units out there who query the camera now to find its exposure setting[-and the rest including focus depth] to time the flash, and, how MUCH flash... I suspect that there may be some difference, I also suspect you may have to review the histograms in Photo editing to find the exacts in difference, but, I suspect that "A Trained eye" could tell... maybe a car paint sprayer, who can tell colour variation from "Many paces"... its their job?.. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 27, 2017 10:40:01 GMT
Since I've started to take pictures for the sake of the subject rather than for the sake of the camera, things have gotten so much easier. What use to take $3000 in camera equipment, which I never had with me when I needed it, I can now do with my cell phone. And a little spit and some toilet paper is all I need to clean the lens. Same with music. When I learned to listen to the music rather than the stereo system, my investment in sound equipment went down and my enjoyment in listening to the music went way up. We all have different styles, and you use what you feel more comfortable with?.. I got my DSLR back before Phones had decent camera's... And now I dont need to buy a phone with "A decent camera" on it to be disposable after a few years because the battery gave out. I also enjoy the art of Photog... As a Hobby, getting the shot right in the camera is an intelligence test at times, even though I do rely on the full auto for many shots, but the ones I take the time to set up and get right, especially the "HDR" bracketed shots, are worthwhilst, interesting, and well worth wall space when they get printed. Some Purists say a decent shot needs no post production... I disagree. A Good photo can become "Stunning" with the right PP over it, and the shots I take that are changed to sepia filter can not be done with a filter on the lens. I also can not take black-and-white shots in the camera. I also can not crop in the camera successfully to digitally enhance shots that have an unfortunate inclusion of a bloody awful building at one side, or an UGLY kid photo-bombing a beautiful shot... Post Production also teaches me. If I can get anything out of photography, especially digital, the most useful tool is the ability to examine failed shots and why they failed, and then DELETE them once you have learned all you can. Yes my Wife takes shots on her phone, yes some of them are worth keeping, but exactly none so far have made it to the "A4" size wall of fame of stunning shots we have in our house that is our memory wall. She will ask me to take that kind of shot, because she knows its beyond the camera she has in that phone, even though it boasts more pixies per square farmers hectare with cows in or something, it just doesnt have the glass in front to make the shot "stunning", and all photogs will yell you its all about the glass. This isnt any form of snobbery.... When I was getting married, we did the thing with the disposable camera's to every guest to take a few snaps of what the main camera doesnt see. And even as one of the main "stars" of the event, I had my camera... For the shots no one knew I was taking. You point a camera, and everyone does the duck-face "do something silly" pose or stands to attention for the "Formal" shots... Yeah, we did them all a couple of hours ago on the front lawn under the sunshine, now can you stop posing for the camera and let me take shots that are natural?. I get the best shots when no one knows I am pointing a camera at them. We all have different ideas of what we want from our photography, and yes, the mobie phone has its place... Except... I had a father who was a Pro Photog in his field, CSI, and I followed him and the shots he took. The best shots of the stunning Scottish highlands that he took didnt have a member of the family stood awkwardly grinning like a loon in dayglow orange weatherproofs just to prove we were there. And the ones we have of the family that made his "worth taking" list and the family album, had us family acting naturally because we didnt see the camera, and therefore, were not squinting down the lens trying to get "Dad" to press that damn shutter.... "Posed" shots. I have a nasty trick I use, I put my camera on "Burst" mode, press fire, "say cheese", and collect a dozen shots... The best one is the one just before or after everyone strikes their own pose, the shot looks more natural when they are watching me and not the camera. I have their attention, just not the fake pose?.. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 27, 2017 13:54:06 GMT
you can get a filter with an anti glare coating as well, I think.
I agree with the question of does the lampblack do a coating that affects the light transmission.
|
|
