topic Re: Items lost in the field in General Discussion

Items lost in the field

John_SD — Sun, 28 Oct 2018 16:59:36 GMT

Well, **bleep**, I "lost" a circular polarizing filter in the field yesterday morning. What's worse is that I wasted an hour of good eary-morning light by the lakeside retracing my steps trying to find it, to no avail. It was a 67mm Tiffen, the first polarizing filter I bought for my Canon 18-135 STM lens. Inexpensive, but better than you might think, and certainly better than nothing. Better than losing the B+W.

I believe I had it screwed in securely, but must have loosened it as I turned the filter here and there while shooting.

I believe this is a first for me. I consoled myself by recalling a conversation I had with a guy once who "lost" a ReallyRightStuff tripod. He was at the edge of the woods and had been shooting for a half-hour or so, and decided to take his camera off the tripod and go into the woods itself for a "couple minutes" to shoot there. When he returned about an hour later, the tripod was gone. I have a feeling he paid a bit more than $29.99 for that tripod LOL. But still...it sucks to lose items in the field.

Re: Items lost in the field

RobertTheFat — Mon, 29 Oct 2018 04:32:31 GMT

@John_SD wrote:
Well, **bleep**, I "lost" a circular polarizing filter in the field yesterday morning. What's worse is that I wasted an hour of good eary-morning light by the lakeside retracing my steps trying to find it, to no avail. It was a 67mm Tiffen, the first polarizing filter I bought for my Canon 18-135 STM lens. Inexpensive, but better than you might think, and certainly better than nothing. Better than losing the B+W.

I believe I had it screwed in securely, but must have loosened it as I turned the filter here and there while shooting.

I believe this is a first for me. I consoled myself by recalling a conversation I had with a guy once who "lost" a ReallyRightStuff tripod. He was at the edge of the woods and had been shooting for a half-hour or so, and decided to take his camera off the tripod and go into the woods itself for a "couple minutes" to shoot there. When he returned about an hour later, the tripod was gone. I have a feeling he paid a bit more than $29.99 for that tripod LOL. But still...it sucks to lose items in the field.

I feel your pain. A few years ago I apparently left the case for my 580EX-II on an excursion train somewhere in Pennsylvania. Oh, well (you'd think), so what? $5 or $10 buys a new one, and all is well. But no. Canon doesn't sell just the case, and the only Brand X replacement I could find was made for the older 580EX-I and is slightly too small. I bought it anyway, but it's less than completely satisfactory. I still use the flash occasionally, so I'm still a bit sore at Canon for their unwillingness to stock a replacement case.

The Red Sox won the World Series tonight, so I'm in a good mood. But your tale reminded me that good moods can be fleeting things.

Re: Items lost in the field

ebiggs1 — Mon, 29 Oct 2018 15:08:40 GMT

"...it sucks to lose items in the field."

Yes it does. We all have been there. Both WS wins and lost gear!

Re: Items lost in the field

Tronhard — Wed, 31 Oct 2018 22:34:58 GMT

In terms of loss I have two stories to relate: one that turned out ok and one that didn't.

Back in 2011 I was off shooting for 5 weeks in the Alberta Rockies and on through BC. It was a business+pleasure excursion and I had a full pack with 3x Caon 60Ds, 17-55 L, 24-105L, 70-300L, plus the full set of filters, cleaners, spare batteries , laptop and spre hard disc, plus cards, and a good, light tripod.

Returning to NZ a series of delays caused my final travel time to be 26 hours, and in that time a security guy at Vancouver Airport dropped my padded camera holster and I only realized later that it shattered the 72mm dia CPL filter attached to the front of my 24-105. Still, better to lose the filter than the front element I consoled my self when I realized on the plane. By the time I left the shuttle at my home I was absolutely trashed. I unloaded my main luggage and went indoors. It was about 30 minutes later that I realized that I had left my camera pack with ALL that stuff on the shuttle! I was the last off but heaven knew where the shuttle was then or who was on board by that time. It took another hour of frantic calling to isolate the shuttle and to my immense relief the driver reported that it was still on board, it was only when I got it back with all items intact that I could really breathe again.

Earlier in my career I had in my car the a major part of my work taking transparencies over three years through NZ, Australia, Asia, the UK and Europe. They were all of commercial quality and the second batch I was taking to an image bank in Vancouver. Wanting to be ready for the early ferry from Vancouver Island to the mainland, I had packed the car already, and left it locked in the underground secure garage of my apartment building. Next morning when I went out the car was gone, and the police eventually located it about 100km away with a smashed transmission (conveniently by a garage that just happened to have one), and with all of my slides burned. The car thing was bad enough but the loss of all that work, and the memories that went along with them was devestating. I really only got back into photography seriously when I went to digital and could back up my stuff.

Re: Items lost in the field

AndyMilnePhotog — Thu, 01 Nov 2018 19:17:44 GMT

One time, I was hiking with my mom in Pennsylvania using a Panasonic Lumix FZ47 and I lost the lens hood out in the woods. Against all odds, I found it outside the trail in the grass.

Sometimes, I feel like I lost my lens caps on one of my Canon lenses, even though I put it in my pocket. As a precaution, I put my lens cap in my Lowepro Fastpack 200 aw II so it makes me feel at ease.

Re: Items lost in the field

Waddizzle — Fri, 02 Nov 2018 22:41:46 GMT

I have lost stuff, too. One time I was simply brain dead, and I am too embarrassed to say what I did. It cost me $400.

Re: Items lost in the field

John_SD — Sat, 03 Nov 2018 15:05:46 GMT

Well, I feel a little better knowing that I'm not the only guy to lose gear out in the field. Speaking of which, my new 67mm circular polarizer arrived yesterday from B&H, which I plan to make use of Sunday morning. Hopefully, I won't lose this one.

Re: Items lost in the field

RobertTheFat — Sat, 03 Nov 2018 15:10:22 GMT

@John_SD wrote:
Well, I feel a little better knowing that I'm not the only guy to lose gear out in the field. Speaking of which, my new 67mm circular polarizer arrived yesterday from B&H, which I plan to make use of Sunday morning. Hopefully, I won't lose this one.

You're lucky you can still use the polarizer. Polarizers have been rendered nearly useless in New England, because the sun almost never shines.

Re: Items lost in the field

ebiggs1 — Sat, 03 Nov 2018 20:07:53 GMT

"Polarizers have been rendered nearly useless ~~in New England~~, almost everywhere because of Photoshop."

Now Bob before you hit the panic button, I did keep "nearly" in your statement.

Re: Items lost in the field

RobertTheFat — Sun, 04 Nov 2018 14:31:20 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:
"Polarizers have been rendered nearly useless ~~in New England~~, almost everywhere because of Photoshop."

Now Bob before you hit the panic button, I did keep "nearly" in your statement.

And of course what you're prodding me to point out is that polarizers can do at least one thing that Photoshop can't do: remove reflections from bodies of water. PS can neutralize the reflection, but it can't show you what was hidden beneath the reflection.

Re: Items lost in the field

Waddizzle — Sun, 04 Nov 2018 14:52:23 GMT

@RobertTheFat wrote:

And of course what you're prodding me to point out is that polarizers can do at least one thing that Photoshop can't do: remove reflections from bodies of water. PS can neutralize the reflection, but it can't show you what was hidden beneath the reflection.

A polarizer filter can also do its’ job without adding as much distortion as Photoshop, [or Lightroom] would.

[EDIT]. Full disclosure, for the record, I use LR, so I do not use CPL or UV filters, anymore.

Re: Items lost in the field

John_SD — Sun, 04 Nov 2018 14:54:44 GMT

@RobertTheFat wrote:
@ebiggs1 wrote:
"Polarizers have been rendered nearly useless ~~in New England~~, almost everywhere because of Photoshop."

Now Bob before you hit the panic button, I did keep "nearly" in your statement.
And of course what you're prodding me to point out is that polarizers can do at least one thing that Photoshop can't do: remove reflections from bodies of water. PS can neutralize the reflection, but it can't show you what was hidden beneath the reflection.

Another thing Photoshop can't do for you is protect your lens element when you're shooting at the tidepools around splashing salt water, or in the California deserts when the wind is blowing. Neutral density fliters can offer some protection, but they can't perform the double-duty polarizers do. And by shooting in the desert, I don't mean pulling off the road and shooting from the safety of a "Viewpoint." Photoshop would be fine for those snapshots.

Re: Items lost in the field

ebiggs1 — Sun, 04 Nov 2018 15:15:56 GMT

"Another thing Photoshop can't do for you is protect your lens element ..."

I am going to bow to that point and give you the gold star for the day. However, no matter how much Bob protests, PS can or at least the resulting photo will reveal anything the photographer wants it to. It is just a factor of knowledge and talent about how to use/edit in PS.

Re: Items lost in the field

Waddizzle — Sun, 04 Nov 2018 15:38:01 GMT

@John_SD wrote:

Another thing Photoshop can't do for you is protect your lens element when you're shooting at the tidepools around splashing salt water, or in the California deserts when the wind is blowing. Neutral density fliters can offer some protection, but they can't perform the double-duty polarizers do. And by shooting in the desert, I don't mean pulling off the road and shooting from the safety of a "Viewpoint." Photoshop would be fine for those snapshots.

No, Photoshop cannot protect your lens, but a Clear filter can. But, a high quality Clear filter allows you to render better color than any CPL, UV, or ND filter. IMHO, one thing that separates Canon from the crowd is the color rendering.

Once, I began using B+W filters as protection filters, I noticed an immediate improvement in the color rendering. I think I had some improvements in exposure metering, and automatic white balance, too.

Besides, if I were shooting around splashing salt water, I would want more protection for my gear than a mere lens filter. I would go for the full rain cover to protect against the salt mist.

Re: Items lost in the field

John_SD — Mon, 05 Nov 2018 16:43:16 GMT

@Waddizzle wrote:
@John_SD wrote:

Another thing Photoshop can't do for you is protect your lens element when you're shooting at the tidepools around splashing salt water, or in the California deserts when the wind is blowing. Neutral density fliters can offer some protection, but they can't perform the double-duty polarizers do. And by shooting in the desert, I don't mean pulling off the road and shooting from the safety of a "Viewpoint." Photoshop would be fine for those snapshots.
No, Photoshop cannot protect your lens, but a Clear filter can. But, a high quality Clear filter allows you to render better color than any CPL, UV, or ND filter. IMHO, one thing that separates Canon from the crowd is the color rendering.

Once, I began using B+W filters as protection filters, I noticed an immediate improvement in the color rendering. I think I had some improvements in exposure metering, and automatic white balance, too.

Besides, if I were shooting around splashing salt water, I would want more protection for my gear than a mere lens filter. I would go for the full rain cover to protect against the salt mist.

I've never used a Clear filter, as it doesn't sound like it would be useful for me in the environements I'm in. Can such a filter darken washed-out desert skies?

Ernie and others seem to spend a great deal of time making corrections and enhancements in Photoshop. While I don't doubt its power, I want to be able to do as much as I can in-camera, out in the field. IMHO, a CPL is absolutely essential in the desert and when you're knee-deep in saltwater.

Your suggestion about the camera cover is well-taken, though, and I suppose I've been lucky that I haven't caught a rogue wave at the tidepools, though as someone who grew up on surfboards, I'm pretty good at reading the waves and knowing when a break is coming, even when my back is to the incoming. They have a certain sound we're attuned to out here. Now rip currents are another matter LOL.

Re: Items lost in the field

Waddizzle — Tue, 06 Nov 2018 00:57:29 GMT

“I've never used a Clear filter, as it doesn't sound like it would be useful for me in the environements I'm in. Can such a filter darken washed-out desert skies? ”

No, a Clear filter cannot darken skies. But, post editing software can do it with just a few clicks. The only thing a filter can do that software cannot is polarize the light entering the lens. But, software can do an excellent job of bringing out the details in many shots that seem to have washed out skies.

Also, an HDR shot can clean up a washed out sky, too. Photoshop has a remarkable “dehaze” filter. But, go with what works for you. Personally, I would be more inclined to use a UV filter, or a graduated ND filter, to clean up a sky, instead of a CPL filter. Software can reproduce the effects of UV or ND filter, but not a CPL filter.

Re: Items lost in the field

RobertTheFat — Tue, 06 Nov 2018 02:50:32 GMT

@Waddizzle wrote:
“I've never used a Clear filter, as it doesn't sound like it would be useful for me in the environements I'm in. Can such a filter darken washed-out desert skies? ”

No, a Clear filter cannot darken skies. But, post editing software can do it with just a few clicks. The only thing a filter can do that software cannot is polarize the light entering the lens. But, software can do an excellent job of bringing out the details in many shots that seem to have washed out skies.

Also, an HDR shot can clean up a washed out sky, too. Photoshop has a remarkable “dehaze” filter. But, go with what works for you. Personally, I would be more inclined to use a UV filter, or a graduated ND filter, to clean up a sky, instead of a CPL filter. Software can reproduce the effects of UV or ND filter, but not a CPL filter.

One factor that has a limiting effect on the utility of a polarizer is that not all of the light from, say, a washed out sky enters the lens polarized in the same direction. So different parts of the sky will be affected differently. That can impart a degree of unreality to a wide landscape shot. Photoshop, which is indifferent to the polarization of the light that formed the image, doesn't have that problem. Of course the sky is what it is, and what constitutes "reality" in such a case is in the eye of the beholder. But the eye of the beholder is, after all, the intended target.

Re: Items lost in the field

ebiggs1 — Tue, 06 Nov 2018 03:34:05 GMT

"Photoshop, which is indifferent to the polarization of the light that formed the image,..."

Which is where you get lost, my friend. The ability to make such a photo look "right" is in the ability and talent of the PS user. There is nothing PS can not imitate that a polarizer can do. Depending on the "ability and talent of the PS user."

Re: Items lost in the field

Waddizzle — Tue, 06 Nov 2018 09:43:07 GMT

@Waddizzle wrote:
“I've never used a Clear filter, as it doesn't sound like it would be useful for me in the environements I'm in. Can such a filter darken washed-out desert skies? ”

No, a Clear filter cannot darken skies. But, post editing software can do it with just a few clicks. The only thing a filter can do that software cannot is polarize the light entering the lens. But, software can do an excellent job of bringing out the details in many shots that seem to have washed out skies.

Also, an HDR shot can clean up a washed out sky, too. Photoshop has a remarkable “dehaze” filter. But, go with what works for you. Personally, I would be more inclined to use a UV filter, or a graduated ND filter, to clean up a sky, instead of a CPL filter. Software can reproduce the effects of UV or ND filter, but not a CPL filter.

Re: Items lost in the field

ebiggs1 — Tue, 06 Nov 2018 21:49:36 GMT