MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Singh-Ray Gold-n-Blue filters  (Read 5538 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« on: April 13, 2014, 17:41 »
+1
As this is in the Photography section of the forum, I'll post a link to an article I wrote today about using the Singh-Ray Gold-n-Blue polarizing filter. I found it could make some pretty interesting effects, and so will earn its place in my photo backpack for future expeditions!

Here is an example:

http://www.backyardsilver.com/2014/04/stock-photo-experiments-singh-ray-gold-n-blue-filter/

Hope the article is useful to some of you. I've only posted the image for sale on my own stock agency for now - I can imagine the "incorrect white balance" rejections at Shutterstock!

Steve


« Reply #1 on: April 13, 2014, 23:14 »
0
Great article, would you mind me putting that on my blog and giving you
a back link to your site

« Reply #2 on: April 14, 2014, 00:25 »
+3
That is an interesting filter but when you compare the price - $240 - with the price of the full Nik filter software - $149 - it's an extremely expensive way of filtering colours in a fairly limited way and I assume you have the problem of the effect sometimes varying across the frame, the same way you do with skies if you use a wide angle and a polariser.
Traditional special effects filters seem to me to be more relevant to film than digital and these days even film is usually scanned rather than printed directly, allowing adjustment during the digital phase.
That said, it's a nice blog.

« Reply #3 on: April 14, 2014, 02:06 »
0
... I can imagine the "incorrect white balance" rejections at Shutterstock!

Yep! That's the first thing I got thinking ;)

BaldricksTrousers must be right, is there any sense to pay big money for colour only? Isn't it better to use regular polarizer and add colours in post processing with (sometimes) better results?

« Reply #4 on: April 14, 2014, 02:24 »
+1
The nice thing about photography, we all have the capacity to choose how we make our images. If Steve wants to use a filter to create the photograph he wants that is his choice. I happen to agree with him. I rather make my image in camera rather than in post production.  Do not critique or criticize his method but his photos.

« Reply #5 on: April 14, 2014, 02:43 »
+2
The nice thing about photography, we all have the capacity to choose how we make our images. If Steve wants to use a filter to create the photograph he wants that is his choice. I happen to agree with him. I rather make my image in camera rather than in post production.  Do not critique or criticize his method but his photos.

Well, he's talking about a method, Dave, the photos (very nice, too) are an illustration of that method.

I'd be the last one to criticise anybody for choosing to make photos any way they want - in fact I've just come back from taking some shots with my Leica R4s from 1978. Last year I installed a darkroom in my house so I can develop and print in the traditional way.

However, when you blog about the results given by a particular and very expensive filter it may encourage people to buy a filter that isn't the best option for them - it may even be a deliberate advert for a filter, designed to get commission - so I think people who might not be familiar with the pros and cons are entitled to hear different views about photo techniques. In no way is that a criticism of the blog or the quality of the review.

« Reply #6 on: April 14, 2014, 02:54 »
0
I could not disagree more with your whole statement. Read any blog by Moose Peterson, Chase Jarvis and Joe McNally. Every one of their post is about buying a piece of equipment. But after reading all of their blogs I have to buy a single piece of equipment. And some of those lenses and flashed make this filter look cheap.

And you are criticizing.

« Reply #7 on: April 14, 2014, 03:49 »
+2
I really don't see why you think it is inappropriate, or criticising, to comment about the subject of a blog that the blogger chooses to publicise on a discussion site.

I'd love to hear which bit of equipment it is that you have to buy to do this that costs more than this filter costs, or are you saying that this filter is a cheap option compared with, say, buying 600mm f4 lens? A Ferrari car also makes this filter look cheap but it doesn't do the same thing.

« Reply #8 on: April 14, 2014, 05:58 »
-6
First you deny that you are not criticizing and now you are  trying to make a excuse that you have that right. How about keeping your mouth shut. And yes, I am saying this filer is a lot cheaper than a F2 20mm lens that chase has been choosing, or flash setups and Joe has been pushing.

Funny I see you that you pushed a service that was referral, kind of hypocritical of you

On today's market photographers are trying everything to make a profit. They push equipment, they are giving seminars and trips to keep a float.

You are acting like the typical internet troll.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2014, 06:00 by shotupdave »

« Reply #9 on: April 14, 2014, 06:47 »
+7
Actually, I don't think Steheap was looking for referral earnings from this, though in many blogs people do. There's nothing wrong with that. When I provided a referral link I made a point of saying what it was, so it was clear that I had a small interest in the thing, what's hypocritical about that?
I appreciate people providing information about equipment online, I do it myself, I have not said a single bad thing about Steheap, his photography or his choice of equipment. All I have done is point out that there is a cheaper alternative that might be useful to people (and since he doesn't seem to be offering a referral link to anywhere connected with the filter, that has no implications for him at all).
I don't know what's the matter with you. Why do you want to shut down discussion? Why do you falsely accuse me of lying and call me a troll? You don't believe that I shoot film as well as digital? Check out my (rather neglected blog) http://fotoblogzone.com.
I've been here longer than you, contributed more than  you have and you have the nerve to tell me to shut up, and accuse me of trolling? I think it is time you pulled your anonymous head out of your anonymous backside.


« Reply #10 on: April 14, 2014, 07:44 »
0
I think it is time you pulled your anonymous head out of your anonymous backside.

I agree with most of what you have posted. But this conversation is not about anonymity.

Let's not forget that several of the best and most interesting posters vanished from here partly as a result of anonymity being discouraged a while back.

« Reply #11 on: April 14, 2014, 08:02 »
0
I think it is time you pulled your anonymous head out of your anonymous backside.

I agree with most of what you have posted. But this conversation is not about anonymity.

Let's not forget that several of the best and most interesting posters vanished from here partly as a result of anonymity being discouraged a while back.

Yes, I agree with you. My reason for mentioning anonymity was that it struck me as odd for someone anonymous to accuse someone whose name is easily available (from linked portfolios) of being a troll. But, no I never have had any objection to people being anonymous here.

« Reply #12 on: April 14, 2014, 08:06 »
+1
Baldrick is right and so is the OP.  I have a complete set of filters and they can create interesting images WHEN USED RIGHT.  When used right = limited opportunities. But if you can afford it, it's a fun way to spend some time at the beach or some other scenic areas.

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #13 on: April 14, 2014, 08:44 »
+1
Wow - I've been away from the forum for 12 hours and I come back to quite a debate! Firstly, there are no affiliate links at all in the blog - I get nothing from Singh-Ray (or Helicon Focus who are mentioned as well). I'm also happy for anyone to mention it on their blog and link back.

On the broader question of value for money - you are right, it is expensive. I originally bought it because I think it can really brighten up some scenes if you have traveled somewhere, haven't much time, and the lighting isn't great. I also found that it can modify shades and luminance of colors in ways that would be quite hard to reproduce in software. I'm pretty competent in Photoshop, but changing the color of the sky when you have thousands of blossoms in front of it is not that easy. I do have various plugins, and I probably should spend some more time with them, but I do enjoy getting a nice shot in the camera. I'm not paranoid about it - I will happily "make it better" in processing - but I found this filter to be good fun to use and it sometimes gets those creative juices flowing! I will update my blog to mention how expensive it is - that would be a reasonable thing to add.

Anyway, thanks for the interest!

Steve

« Reply #14 on: April 14, 2014, 08:47 »
-7
I am done with you, youvare nothing but a troll who thinks his opinion is correct because he has been here longer and has more posts. 

And yes you have sais something negative about Steve, you accused him of trying to make money with his blog post. Your story changes from post to post. 

Ron

« Reply #15 on: April 14, 2014, 08:49 »
+2
Calling Paul, of all people, a troll, is the stupidest accusation I have seen on the forum, even stupider then anything I have said here.  ;)


The second part of the comment is open for home runs  :)

« Reply #16 on: April 14, 2014, 09:03 »
+2
I am done with you, youvare nothing but a troll who thinks his opinion is correct because he has been here longer and has more posts. 

And yes you have sais something negative about Steve, you accused him of trying to make money with his blog post. Your story changes from post to post.

I did not accuse him of that at all. I said sometimes blogs are intended to do that, it was a general point not a specific one.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2014, 09:08 by BaldricksTrousers »

« Reply #17 on: April 14, 2014, 09:08 »
0
Wow - I've been away from the forum for 12 hours and I come back to quite a debate! Firstly, there are no affiliate links at all in the blog - I get nothing from Singh-Ray (or Helicon Focus who are mentioned as well). I'm also happy for anyone to mention it on their blog and link back.

On the broader question of value for money - you are right, it is expensive. I originally bought it because I think it can really brighten up some scenes if you have traveled somewhere, haven't much time, and the lighting isn't great. I also found that it can modify shades and luminance of colors in ways that would be quite hard to reproduce in software. I'm pretty competent in Photoshop, but changing the color of the sky when you have thousands of blossoms in front of it is not that easy. I do have various plugins, and I probably should spend some more time with them, but I do enjoy getting a nice shot in the camera. I'm not paranoid about it - I will happily "make it better" in processing - but I found this filter to be good fun to use and it sometimes gets those creative juices flowing! I will update my blog to mention how expensive it is - that would be a reasonable thing to add.

Anyway, thanks for the interest!

Steve

Hi, Steve, sorry to have been part of an altercation that distracted from the topic. I've recently found the LightRoom does amazing things with adjusting individual colours. Less fun than doing it with a trad filter but certainly very flexible. If you haven't used LR then you would probably find what it can do very surprising - I know I did.

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #18 on: April 14, 2014, 10:04 »
+1
No problem - I don't feel bad about any of this. Lets just keep calm...

Quote
I've recently found the LightRoom does amazing things with adjusting individual colours. Less fun than doing it with a trad filter but certainly very flexible.

I use LR a lot - that is my main go to tool - the HSL adjustments are really interesting for bringing up saturation (or changing the hue) or individual colors, and I really like the ability to change color temperature via the brush and gradient - that can make a big difference to the skies where you can cool them off very nicely. It is tough to make big changes that don't affect other things though - the flowers in my example for instance - as the colors as you get right up to the edge of another object aren't as pure and hence don't get picked up as easily by the HSL controls. Still - I think we are all agreeing that we have some things that we like using, and sometimes it is worth the money to get a bit of enjoyment out of this business! Could I do a business case to buy this filter - no way, but then I don't have a CFO to answer to!


Steve


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
15 Replies
4523 Views
Last post May 17, 2007, 14:00
by Vally
7 Replies
5276 Views
Last post March 28, 2008, 13:51
by boatman
2 Replies
3884 Views
Last post October 28, 2008, 15:00
by madelaide
0 Replies
1742 Views
Last post July 04, 2012, 19:52
by ShadySue
32 Replies
7103 Views
Last post March 03, 2015, 04:40
by Justanotherphotographer

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle