thats the 1st problem, dont use a polarizer. it flattens all your colors

 

Shutter priority between 1/125 and 1/60

 

beautiful pics, that hardtop viper is ****

 

I disagree. The polarizer reduces the reflection of light off the paint, thus increasing the saturation, not flattening it as you state.

For more info on polarizers: http://dpfwiw.com/polarizer.htm#reflection_soln

Here are two shots, the first taken with a CPL, the second without

 

flattening colors to me is oversaturating them.

you will rarely/never find a motorsports photographer using a polarizer

 

The majority of motorsport photographers I shoot with up here in the NE use them. Why would you not want to bring out the colors of the vehicle's paint and reducing the reflection off the windows so that you can actually see the driver?

 

+1 CP's are the first "filter" I make sure I have in the correct diameter for a lense. In fact, other than a graduated neutral filter used in shots having too much exposure latitude.. it's the only filter I use assuming we don't count those used for nother but lense element protection.

 

No sir, most use them that I know. I even use one on my Camera 90% of the time.

 

out of nascar, imsa, grand am, formula D, D1 GP, NHRA, NMCA, NMRA, champ car, indy, etc events that i've covered, No photographers i have come across use them. Especially since they are unrealistic on fixed focal lenses.. unless you have something with a drop in style element like my 400mm F4 DO IS.

This is also just from a action motorsports perspective, i dont shoot a lot of stills I not too sure about that.

but each to their own right? i just prefer not to use any filters that change how my shot looks in any way.

 

And how do you know this? Where are you getting this from?

 

I tend to agree with you, but there is always a line.

While I don't use colored filters (at least with the intention of changing color) I'll use filters whose intention is to correct what the film records to match what you see. Take incandescent light for example. I you shoot under that light source and do not use a daylight filter you get that wonderful fugly yellow look due to the balance of the film.

Filters are also used to bring a shot into an exposure latitude that the film can actually handle (as opposed to having it washed out in one spot, and underexposed in another.

Taking your idea to the extreme, you would never use a lense that alters your perception of the shot (wide angle, or telephoto). One covers more area than the camera would typically see and in some ways distorts reality. The other will compress distances and give a different effect, but still somewhat distorted from reality.

I try to stay "traditional" personally. I don't use colored filters, and almost never use an artificial light source. I will use that wide-angle or telephoto lense however. Personally.. I don't think you're truly distorting reality very much with those lenses, or neutral colored filters such as a polarizer.

In fact, some of the better films (such as Velvia) probably do more to distort natural color than the equipment I use.

 

Yeah, for me, the CPL is on my 70 200 2.8L IS about 80% of the time. If I'm outdoors, it's on the lens. It only gets removed when I go indoors. I'll usually leave it on when the sun starts setting and shoot at a higher ISO when shutter speeds start to drop rather than remove it and shoot at a lower ISO.

 

What body do you use? I've been using an EOS 3 since they first came out, but I HAVE to get a DSLR... they're just too good not to anymore. I'm thinking on a 5D.

 

1D MKII is my primary, 20D as back up. I'm waiting for prices to drop on the 5D once Canon releases the 5D replacement(s). Supposedly Canon is now introducing two full frame bodies, a 3D and 7D rather than just one 5D replacement (ie 5D MKII). I'm in no rush since the 20D does fine as a back up.

Since you've been shooting film for awhile, I'd suggest a 1D or 5D body. I don't think you'll like the Rebel or 30D/40D bodies since their viewfinder is quite small/dark compared to a 35mm body.

 

Yeah it would definitely be the 5D or the 1D, although the 1DMKIV (I think that is the newest) does more than I need it to. I shoot almost 100% stills and as long as I have at least the resolution the 5D has I'll be fine although I've been very impressed on what I've read about the 1DMKIV.

I've used a 40D some.. and it's a capapble body for sure.. but it feels really small in comparison to my 3 (and all those wonderful dials are in different places).

Biggest thing for me is not wanting to give up much in functionality. I love my EOS3 although I could have done without the eye controlled focus.


Thanks for the info!

John

 

apologies to the OP for getting OT.. I like your shots BTW

 

how do i know that? bc when i have shot said events I talk with people in my photo holes. the info i am getting is from myself, lol.

 

Hold off on the 1D MKIII - there are some focusing issues that need to be worked out. It could be just a few early production models, though.

If you're doing just stills, take a look at some of the 1Ds MKI and 1Ds MKII. If you didn't like how the 40D felt in your hands, you might not like the 5D, either. A vertical grip helps but the 1D bodies are built like tanks. The 5D is well built, but for anyone that has used a 1D, they'll tell you that the 5D feels inferior.

 

Yeah I've got the vertical grip (with faster film advance motor) for my EOS 3. It almost feels like a weapon in your hands although it's very comfortable. There will be some time before I buy in any event, and I plan to try out (even rent if I have to) a few before I make a decision.