A telephoto is a mini-telescope. It's going to compress the appearance of
distance in your camera. Objects that are separated by great distances will
appear to be next to each other when you look through the lens. When it does
that, it is also compressing all the haze ..... and exaggerating its
appearance. Shooting with a shorter lens will get rid of alot of haze.
Haze can also be emphasized by under-exposure in your camera or in the
printing process. You can take the same negative to the same camera store
everyday for a week and end up with a slightly different print every time
.... some may look amazing and some will be hideous. It is based on factors
that are out of your creative control - the machine, the operator, the
'freshness' of the processing chemicals. Anytime you get a picture that is
significantly different than the way you remember it, send it back and ask
them to reprint.
Don't throw your UV away. It's real benefit is that it protects the lens
from dirt and scratches. It's cheaper to replace a $10 UV than a $300 lens.
Sandra Hildreth wrote
>>I've been so busy I have deleted weeks and weeks of ArtsEdNet Digest -
but now I'd like to get back in touch and I have a question.
I did a lot of hiking and some mountain climbing over the summer
(Adirondack Mountains in northern New York) and while I took my
watercolors with me and did some paintings from the summits, I also took
photos. They were to serve as reference photos as I finished or started
new landscape paintings. I have a UV filter on my telephoto lens, but
was very disappointed to discover that haze obscured much more in my
photos than what I saw with the naked eye. In other words, I remember
seeing the distance much more clearly than my photos showed. Is there a
better filter I should be using? This happened even on relatively clear
days, but was much worse on a hot, humid day.<<