Best still photo settings

[brettbrandon]

That's not too bad because the sun is high in the sky but it's not always in that position.

I know its not a published or talked about thing but it works for me. I have lived most my life outside of the box....
Fly Safe...

 

[Meta4]

I know its not a published or talked about thing but it works for me.

It works for you in that example because the mark on the polariser is at 12 o'clock and the sun isn't far from 12 o"clock.
But if you leave it on all day long it's not always going to be OK.

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

Like I said in my earlier post folks tend to disagree with how I use it. As I stated, at 12 oclock it blocks some scattered light and with that bumps the saturation slightly.

It blocks scattered light differently depending on the angle of the sun. It will only do that at 2 angles from the sun.

It doesn't saturating, which is an increase of color value.

What it is doing is reducing the amount of light (darkening it). There's a big difference (see below).

Here is a pan around with the polarizer at 12 oclock. You tell me where the problem is.

The problem is that the polarizer filter here is doing nothing more than darkening the sky all around. You're so far from objects that reflect that you're not seeing the CP effect of reducing reflections.

You can get the same darkened sky (on a still image) without a filter by

• Underexposing
• Using the HSL tool in a post-processing editing (PS or LR) and reducing the luminance (without changing saturation) -- just the amount of light, bringing it down to darken the sky.

From this site on "how circular polarizer filters work":

"Keep in mind that when any kind of light is filtered out, polarized or not, there is a reduction in exposure. That is how the circular polarizer darkens blue skies, it reduces the amount of light coming from the sky into the camera."​

I will leave it at this as it is not helping the OP.

It's very much on topic, but I have no need to discuss it either.

Chris

 

[offtheback]

OTB: I do exactly the same thing but I've never had an issue with the exposure of my shoe. (JK)

At a size 15 I have a lot of exposure when it come to my shoe!?

 

[brettbrandon]

It doesn't saturating, which is an increase of color value.

What it is doing is reducing the amount of light (darkening it). There's a big difference (see below).

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[offtheback]

It probably only works for you part of the time.

One thing that is not arguable is the science behind how it works, which usually means that the orientation of the filter needs to be a certain number degrees from the angle of the sun. That's what the mark means on the ring.

So if you take a picture of a building at one angle and just happens to be at the right angle, then you move to take a shot of the same building from the next side, then it will not work the same as it did for the last shot.

Getting the same results from both sides of the house would require you to land the craft and adjust the ring. To be proper, you would have to look to the new direction through the CP (or through the camera) and see it working as you turn the ring until you get to where you want it. The mark on the ring is for your reference to remember that setting (so as you move around from shot to shot, you don't always have to check it manually).

Leaving the ring at 12 o'clock means that it will only be 100% effective if the sun is 90s to the left or right of the camera orientation.

Of course, you will still get partial effectiveness at angles in-between, which may be fine for someone that doesn't want to be bothered with the whole landing and ring-adjustment thing. There's nothing wrong with that, but readers should know how this works.

"Polarized light is light who’s rays have been scattered due to pollution, moisture in the atmosphere and reflection. A circular polarizer filter only allows light rays that are traveling in one direction to enter the lens. "

Chris

One other issue with a polarizer.Even if the sun is at 90 degrees from where the lens is pointed a lens of about 30 mm focal length or less the polarizer effect will not fully cover the field.Most obvious is a large swath of blue sky where a part of the sky is not darkened.That said,it can be useful with even a less than 30 mm lens if the area photographed is not even in brightness/color etc.

 

[gnirtS]

You can take great pictures in fully auto mode and jpeg format.

and there are also situations, especially those with a high dynamic range and/or low light where auto mode and jpg mode will produce a terrible photo where manual/raw would produce a great one.
Its all about knowing the limitations of the camera and software and working around them.

 

[gnirtS]

What I really like about this one is it has a mark on the ring so you know where the polarization is.

Nice idea but it doesnt work. There is no way of knowing the exact polarisation angle without actually testing it as you have no way of knowing exactly which polarisation angles are causing the glare. Thats why most polarisers including those on real land based cameras dont have that mark - because it simply doesnt work.

 

[gnirtS]

What's to say you can't do a little editing on jpg files?
I've given examples of what can be achieved earlier in this thread.

If nothing else you just proved the other point. JPG is kind of acceptable in optimum, easy lighting conditions. Scenes without a large dynamic range, without a lot of contrast and without a lot of fine detail. Even a spark would work for those.
Anything slightly less optimum and the raw is going to give you huge amounts more tonal and colour range to play with.

 

[gnirtS]

It's funny that all those that say shoot in raw only still process in post and then export to jpeg. Isn't that exactly what the Mavic is doing when you take a Jpeg pic so what's the difference. One does it manually on their Computer the other automatically right there and then. Lol.

No its not. By processing the raw yourself you are capable of recovering highlights, shadows, selecting the sharpening and noise reduction,the compression needed and then producing a JPG based on that.
When the camera does it in house it has no idea how you want the scene to look (or even what it looked like). It guesses using an algorithm, makes adjustments and then discards the data, adds compression artefacts and makes you a file.

Which means if you try to edit that same jpg you have substantially less ability to change anything as a lot of the data has been dumped in the compression process in-camera.

 

[gnirtS]

For a example of how/why polatisation shouldnt be used on wide angle scenes i posted an example here:-

Always Use PL Filters?

Hey all, I was shopping for ND and PL filters for my Mavic and came across the Polar Pro line. Looks like they have a few options for filters, with different stops and with or without polarization. However, I'm wondering why one wouldn't just get all polarized filters and use them any time you...

mavicpilots.com

Its easy to do yourself as a test, set the polariser up correctly (NOT using the pointless arrow). Go up, take a 180 or 360 image. For added bonus do it in the morning or early evening where the sun angle is more acute.
You see clear dark/light banding across the blue sky as the polarisation effect kicks in and out due to the angle between that direction and the sun. Its a fairly hideous effect.
If you aren't seeing them on your panos and wide shots (where there is direct sun) its either because the sun is near directly overhead and/or you arent actually setting the polariser up pre-takeoff with the correct rotation angle so its doing very little/nothing.

 

[Meta4]

If nothing else you just proved the other point. JPG is kind of acceptable in optimum, easy lighting conditions. Scenes without a large dynamic range, without a lot of contrast and without a lot of fine detail. Even a spark would work for those.
Anything slightly less optimum and the raw is going to give you huge amounts more tonal and colour range to play with.

If you think my example shots were all shot in optimum, easy lighting conditions I must have done a good job with my editing.
But if you thought they were without a large dynamic range, without a lot of contrast and without a lot of fine detail, you didn't look very closely.

 

[gnirtS]

The histogram and tonal data doesnt lie. Those from a camera point of view are far from challenging conditions. So JPG will work. As will a Spark.

 

[Meta4]

The histogram and tonal data doesnt lie. Those from a camera point of view are far from challenging conditions. So JPG will work.

If jpg is fine for all of those, then it's pretty good for most photography.

 

[brettbrandon]

Nice idea but it doesnt work. There is no way of knowing the exact polarisation angle without actually testing it as you have no way of knowing exactly which polarisation angles are causing the glare. Thats why most polarisers including those on real land based cameras dont have that mark - because it simply doesnt work.

Maybe not for you but I have learned how to use it just fine and I get the results I'm looking for. Experimentation can teach you alot.

 

[FormerMember07122019_2]

and there are also situations, especially those with a high dynamic range and/or low light where auto mode and jpg mode will produce a terrible photo where manual/raw would produce a great one.
Its all about knowing the limitations of the camera and software and working around them.

I agree, but if all you know is auto and jpeg you do the best with what you have or just don’t take the picture.

 

[Dakrisht]

I agree, but if all you know is auto and jpeg you do the best with what you have or just don’t take the picture.

You know how to FLY a drone. In the air. Safely and effectively. The least challenging bit of this is learning how to use manual exposure or at least aperture priority and RAW. Besides, it’s fun editing your work after a nice day shooting with RAW ?

 

[Meta4]

. Besides, it’s fun editing your work after a nice day shooting with RAW

And how does that differ from editing jpg shots?

 

[FormerMember07122019_2]

You know how to FLY a drone. In the air. Safely and effectively. The least challenging bit of this is learning how to use manual exposure or at least aperture priority and RAW. Besides, it’s fun editing your work after a nice day shooting with RAW [emoji41]

I agree it’s not that difficult but what if someone doesn’t have a desire to learn the ins and out of photography. Also, the definition of fun is very subjective and unique to each person.

 

[Dakrisht]

I agree it’s not that difficult but what if someone doesn’t have a desire to learn the ins and out of photography. Also, the definition of fun is very subjective and unique to each person.

So they’re buying a $1500 drone to... fly around and watch the live view? Your comment doesn’t make much sense. There’s not a whole lot of in’s and out’s of photography by learning basics such as exposure and how to take a good photo. Sure, you can study photography for decades but this is not the point of the original thread. If I recall, we all took some sort of photography class in high school. This thread is about the basics, the best settings, the tricks.

The thread is asking for the BEST PHOTOGRAPHY settings for a beginner to understandably get better at taking photos. Therefore, others have suggested optimal settings as well as tips and tricks.

We buy these things to shoot videos, stills, create content. Spending an hour or two playing around with settings to take stunning photo that this bird is capable of only adds to the fun of an already great toy.

Last I checked, we’re not talking about grading D-Log M video here and converting into ProRes to deliver to Netflix based on spec. We’re all just trying to have fun, create great content and show it off

With that said, a basic understanding of photography is needed such as the case when buying a camera unless of course, you’re buying a point and shoot or Polaroid insta.