# Where does all this light come from?



## b_gossweiler (Nov 12, 2009)

Hi All

I was looking at the WebSite of Photographer Michael Poliza lately and have a question regarding some of his images:

Some of these images were shot at a shutter speed, aperture and ISO setting which I think I could never have reached myself. I just have the feeling (of course without direct comparison), that I could have at most gotten to 2 EVs lower on such a shot.

Am I right in the assumption that a certain aperture with a telephoto zoom (which I usually use) results in the same amount of light as with a prime lens (which I assume was used here)?

Two examples for this impression:
 (you'd have to stop the slide show and show shooting info at the bottom of the page to see the image still):
http://images.michaelpoliza.com/antarctic/slideshow#h1b26b5'4 ( f/11 @ 84' mm, 1/1''', ISO 5'')
http://images.michaelpoliza.com/antarctic/slideshow#h11e11fba (f/8 @ 6'' mm, 1/125', ISO 5'')

I'd appreciate some comments of you Pro's  

Beat

P.S: I hope I am not violating any copyrights by linking the images here.


----------



## Brad Snyder (Nov 13, 2009)

Well, I don't know about the 'Pro' part , but the photos I looked at (maybe a dozen or so) there all seem to fall comfortably within a half stop or so of the f/16 rule exposure settings for bright sunlight. Certainly well within the range of raw processing s/w combined with noise reduction to correct. The two specific examples you cite are very close to that rule of thumb.


----------



## Denis Pagé (Nov 13, 2009)

Not more to add to Brad's answer except that you made me loose my whole evening yesterday looking at those great images!


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Nov 13, 2009)

He may well have been using filters, that would explain some anomalies (although I don't see any real anomalies in these images).


----------



## b_gossweiler (Nov 13, 2009)

Thanks for your replies.

Actually, I've never looked at them comparing them to the Sunny 16 Rule, as I've never really used that rule so far. And they really fall close into those values (which gives me some comfort that there is nothing magic with them  ).

Beat


----------



## Robert T Higaki (Nov 15, 2009)

Absolutely, great photos. I just want to point out that Polar bears and Beluga whales are located in the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions. Apparently, the Churchill, Manitoba shots got mixed up with his Antarctica shots.

                                          Bob- the slide shooter at heart
PS: I would love to have another shot at Antarctica. I was counting my film rolls. Do not forget to look at your histograms- they are there fore a reason.


----------



## b_gossweiler (Nov 15, 2009)

[quote author=Robert T Higaki link=topic=8373.msg56857#msg56857 date=1258299559]
Absolutely, great photos. I just want to point out that Polar bears and Beluga whales are located in the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions. Apparently, the Churchill, Manitoba shots got mixed up with his Antarctica shots. ...[/quote]

I also noticed this "expansion" of Antarctica wildlife  Nevertheless, also some of those shots are great!

Beat

P.S: I'm leaving for Antacticta exactly 2 Weeks from now  Looking forward to it very, very much !


----------



## Robert T Higaki (Nov 15, 2009)

Beat,

   Be sure you bring a real water proof bag to carry your equipment. Some of the zodiac rides can be extremely wet and you do not want salt water to get on your camera. You will have a lot of fun in terms of the landscape and wildlife photography.

                              Have a fun and safe trip,
                                 Bob- the slide shooter at heart


----------



## b_gossweiler (Nov 15, 2009)

Thanks for the hint, Bob, I think I'm all set for some rough rides  

Beat


----------

