Im not sure if this would belong here or not, but when do you take the picture? Like how far in front of the sign are you before you should take the picture? Or does it really matter taht much?
BigMatt
Well, it depends on your camera and how good of a Optical zoom it has. My current camera currently is a 10x Optical zoom. So, depending on how big the BGS is, I can be farther back to take the picture then somebody with a 4x Optical zoom camera. Plus it gives me a 2nd chance if I need to try to get another shot if the first one was messed up.
Anyways, you just have to experiment with all the different settings on your camera and also practice taking pictures of them at speed while being a front seat passenger in the car/truck. That's all the advice I can give at this time.
But with time and practice, you can get some great shots of the BGS's like the one below that I took. ;)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv645%2Frickmastfan67%2FInterstates%2FPA%2FI-279%2FP1050432s.jpg&hash=00e578b401c746cfdcab91cf34b4c65951371053)
(Taken 06/14/09)
It's all about timing. You want to use your camera's LCD screen instead of the viewfinder so you can see how the image looks with optical zoom. You also want to get to know your camera as well as if you were going to marry the damn thing—learn how long it takes to focus, how long it takes between pressing the button and the photo being taken, and how long it takes to write the photo to the SD card, and learn how low lighting affects all of these times. Once you get a feel for these things, you merely have to learn how to put them all together in your head and know where the "sweet spot" for taking photos is. It's mostly a subconscious thing, so don't feel like you have to memorize the times and add them against the speed of your car and square pi times the limit of y as x approaches infinity. You just get the hang of it after some practice.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.denexa.com%2Froadgeek%2Froad-photos%2Fmain.php%3Fcmd%3Dimage%26amp%3Bvar1%3Dok%252Foklahoma%252Fimg_2360.jpg%26amp%3Bvar2%3D700_85&hash=cc5d52b7fb4a1d6b03b25feed1d442dcf6c2942d)
Always make sure your camera is focusing on the right thing (outside the windshield, not the bug guts on it) before you get right up on the sign. Focusing takes probably a hundred feet or so at freeway speeds, and if your camera focuses on the wrong thing you'll want to have time to try to refocus. The time it takes to save a photo is important to keep in mind too as it means you may not be able to take photos of closely spaced signs...so if your camera is a sluggard at writing to disk keep that in mind and don't take photos if the write time is going to make you miss what you really want a picture of most.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.denexa.com%2Froadgeek%2Froad-photos%2Fmain.php%3Fcmd%3Dimage%26amp%3Bvar1%3Dok%252Fcomanche%252F044i_ex045.jpg%26amp%3Bvar2%3D700_85&hash=fdb5b56f9c4fb4d315c8681bf6954056788103fe)
Camera settings are somewhat important. If your camera has a "Shutter speed priority" option, use that. (On my camera, it's labeled "Tv", if that doesn't look familiar, use the "sports" setting or whatever is recommended for high-speed shots). Keep the sun at your back as much as possible. As previously mentioned by other posters, use optical zoom. At least zoom in enough that you don't have the dash and hood in the photo. If you zoom in too much, digital zoom might kick in and it's pretty much just resizing the image, so quality suffers. And be absolutely anal about keeping that windshield clean! Spots always make your image look bad, and if you're particularly unlucky, your camera will keep focusing on them and making your signs blurry.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.denexa.com%2Froadgeek%2Froad-photos%2Fmain.php%3Fcmd%3Dimage%26amp%3Bvar1%3Droadtrips%252Fwaukesha%252Fimg_3314.jpg%26amp%3Bvar2%3D700_85&hash=d5deb22df8ed9d79c4ff3fbfeed6d9520c51838b)
Driving and photographing is a bit trickier in some ways and easier in others. Of course you will ALWAYS want to keep an eye on traffic, and I find that it's usually simple enough to do so by looking through the screen, but depending on how zoomed you are, you might not be able to do that. And of course if you're in heavy traffic/in the midst of crazy-ass drivers, you don't want to do anything. But being the driver you have the benefit of being able to adjust the driving to make the picture come out better (getting in the far right lane, slowing down a tad if necessary, backing off of large trucks, going back for another take). Though if you are in heavy traffic and you're the passenger, that can actually be a good thing, as it gives you a rare opportunity to do some close inspection of them.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.denexa.com%2Froadgeek%2Froad-photos%2Fmain.php%3Fcmd%3Dimage%26amp%3Bvar1%3Dmo%252Fst_louis_county%252Fimg_3167.jpg%26amp%3Bvar2%3D700_85&hash=b662327cab41edc9e46f8575952eb23aa9365989)
And if there's something you absolutely must have a good shot of, pull over!
Personal preference has something to do with it, too. In my case, I prefer signage shots that include perspective and not just a close-up of the sign itself. Similar to the example that Mr. Mast posted.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 01, 2009, 03:54:52 AM
Camera settings are somewhat important. If your camera has a "Shutter speed priority" option, use that. (On my camera, it's labeled "Tv", if that doesn't look familiar, use the "sports" setting or whatever is recommended for high-speed shots).
Do you use TV mode for all times of the day, or just for cloudy, shady, or low-lighting conditions? I generally use TV mode for that, and Landscape mode for optimum photo conditions. If you use TV all the time, what settings do you prefer. I.E. what for sunny conditions, what for cloudy, etc.
I recently ran TV mode during optimal conditions and the photos came out well. My issue with TV overall is that it tends to make photos a bit grainy depending upon lightning conditions. In low lighting, it cannot be helped, as TV is the only way to obtain the photos without significant motion blur. But in higher lighting with shading, such as when a lot of trees are around, I'd like to use TV more without incurring more grain.
the one advantage of the retroreflective signs is that judicious use of the flash helps bring up the foreground levels when shooting into suboptimal background conditions.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/MX/MX19850024i1.jpg)
this trick will not work for button copy signs of course!
Are you shooting out of a window, or stopping to take photos when you use flash? I've found it next to impossible to use flash effectively from inside my car...
If you are like most in the hobby, just take a photo of every sign until you really learn.
If not having a photo of every sign on I-35 is your goal, the best is to actually get out of the car and take the photo.
I rarely shoot while driving anymore (unless it is something that getting out of the car is unsafe). I try to frame the shot as much as possible, and that really depends on what the surroundings are. Sometimes, I like to have fun with the angles -
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3118/2519260807_50659d152a.jpg (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3118/2519260807_50659d152a.jpg)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/15530177@N05/2441532981/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15530177@N05/2441532981/)
With Texas having many frontage roads you may be able to drive along them and take shots of signs without worrying about traffic. Similar to this one in North Carolina:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/15530177@N05/2441534753/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15530177@N05/2441534753/)
or NY - taken from a railtrail:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/15530177@N05/2442321000/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15530177@N05/2442321000/)
For closely spaced signs, I have a "continuous" feature on my camera. It's also good for getting BGS's while I'm driving: I can point, shoot and pick the best photo later ;)
Usually, I jump out of the van for my photos, unless there's too much traffic or no place to pull over.
I never pull over to take a picture of a sign in Europe. It's prohibited to stop on shoulders for such reasons. I don't think taking a shot of a sign counts as an emergency. :-D
I just shoot while driving, trying to get as much from the road as possible, without compromising the legibility of the sign on the picture.
My goal is to "document" a freeway, so I don't want to miss a sign. I also don't take the effort of photographing short sections, I at least want to cover an entire section between two major cities or borders.
I have a few things to add, but will focus less on photography than on some tricks which have to do with sign placement.
First of all, taking guide signs as the subject of sign photos does not suspend the normal rules of good photography--particularly composition and lighting. In my experience, signs photograph best when the sun is somewhere over your shoulder, although it is helpful to have the sun coming in at a relatively oblique angle if you want surface relief to be particularly evident (especially on signs with some form of demountable copy, such as button copy). As Jake notes, fill flash is very helpful in many contexts, but keep in mind (1) that the retroreflective sheeting performance of the sign may have deteriorated to the extent that flash illumination brings out unsightly blotches and (2) if the sign is backlit by the sun and you adjust your position and flash strength to optimize lighting ratios on the sign and the foreground, you can still be left with a very light sign against a very dark background.
I have some shots illustrating the possible problems.
Birdshit/paintball stains don't reflect under flash illumination:
http://winklers-roads.fotopic.net/p16968526.html (http://winklers-roads.fotopic.net/p16968526.html)
Old sign doesn't illuminate evenly:
http://winklers-roads.fotopic.net/p16968514.html (http://winklers-roads.fotopic.net/p16968514.html)
Extreme backlighting = dark background:
http://winklers-roads.fotopic.net/p16968529.html (http://winklers-roads.fotopic.net/p16968529.html)
http://winklers-roads.fotopic.net/p16968527.html (http://winklers-roads.fotopic.net/p16968527.html)
For "sign in scene" shots, I have found the rule of thirds is helpful largely in locating the horizon. For the typical straight-on signs-on-gantry shot, I'd suggest locating the vanishing point of the pavement at the bottom third and the crosspiece of the gantry at the upper third. Of course, road geometry will not always allow this and application of the thirds rule becomes a process of figuring out which are the most important elements in the composition.
http://winklers-roads.fotopic.net/p16968530.html (http://winklers-roads.fotopic.net/p16968530.html)
Now, moving on to the sign-specific stuff:
* Unless your main concern is with lighting and color tone, the best sign shots are usually taken while looking at the sign straight-on. For full-width overhead sign gantries approached on tangent alignment this usually means taking pictures while driving. On curves, however, it may be advantageous to shoot from a vantage point not on the highway, and not necessarily even in the right-of-way.
http://winklers-roads.fotopic.net/p6697616.html (http://winklers-roads.fotopic.net/p6697616.html)
Shooting straight-on is not necessarily as simple as just getting in front of the sign. On rural freeways in the US it is typical to build four lanes divided (in the first instance) on right-of-way 300' to 400' wide, and to locate ground-mounted large guide signs about 30' in from the right-of-way fence. This is done (1) to put the sign well outside the clear zone (30' or more in width for high-speed roads, counting from the edge of the traveled way), thus removing the need to provide frangible posts or guardrail, and (2) to reduce the chances of the sign being obscured by large trucks. Signs thus located tend to be positioned with the sign panel normal to a tangent drawn through the roadway alignment at the point where the sign is located. What this means is that in order to get a straight-on shot, you need to be standing directly in front of the sign, and to do this, you need to park on the shoulder (or in some other safe place) and do a cross-country hike across the ditch. I have done this many times, and it is worth the effort, but it is enough of a hassle that it makes sense to reserve it for shots which have definite artistic possibilities over and above merely recording the appearance of the sign. (BTW, this peculiarity of sign location practice in the US is the main reason StreetView has so few pictures of ground-mounted large guide signs with readable legend.)
http://winklers-roads.fotopic.net/p16992547.html (http://winklers-roads.fotopic.net/p16992547.html)
http://winklers-roads.fotopic.net/p16992623.html (http://winklers-roads.fotopic.net/p16992623.html)
In the case of cantilever-mounted large guide signs, the straight-ahead position is usually in either the shoulder or the right-hand driving lane. The reason for this is that the length of the truss arm is the critical dimension for cantilever structures: the shorter it is for a given structural cross-section, the less the likelihood of failure. 90' is about the limit for cantilever construction and for a cantilever structure with guardrail protection beginning immediately at the back of the shoulder, the clear width of truss between the post and the right-hand edge of the sign panel is often 15' or more.
In Britain the rules are somewhat different since land is used much more parsimoniously for highway purposes. On level alignments through prime agricultural land, for instance, it is not at all uncommon for the highway boundary to coincide with the edge of the clear zone. Ground-mounted signs are invariably located in the clear zone, with either guardrail protection or frangible posts. Naturally this increases headlight glare on the sign panel and this is dealt with by rotating the sign panel an additional 5° off the perpendicular to the road alignment. What this means is that if you want a straight-on sign photo, you will in effect position yourself toward the outer edge of the clear zone and will be shooting across the carriageways at an oblique angle, so that the road seems to disappear into the right-hand edge of the sign panel. It has historically been very common to illuminate large ground-mounted direction signs using Fresnel lamps positioned in front of the sign and it is not always easy to find a vantage point from which the lamp housing is not silhouetted against the sign.
http://winklers-roads.fotopic.net/p16864954.html (http://winklers-roads.fotopic.net/p16864954.html)
Final observation regarding flash illumination: it is extremely difficult to find combinations of distance and camera flash settings which won't cause signs with microprismatic sheeting to flare out. I don't know precisely how this relates to sheeting properties, and strictly speaking the problem exists in some form even for the traditional enclosed-lens (engineer grade) and encapsulated-lens (high-intensity) sheetings, but it is much worse for microprismatics.
JN Winkler nailed the most important aspect of sign photography in the Banff shot:
it always helps to have spectacular mountains in the background
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19632701i1.jpg)
or, interesting clouds, or trees, or something.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/images/front/MN19680711f200710.jpg)
and half the time, just throw the rules out the window. this shot has the signs completely illegible and was taken in an urban Hellhole but it's still one of my favorite sign photographs.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/MI/MI19550101i4.jpg)
the front page of the shield gallery (www.aaroads.com/shields/ (//www.aaroads.com/shields/)) has some of our best sign photos. It's heavily biased towards old signs, but in general it is a good reference. Keep refreshing the page to get a random image.
Getting silhouettes is the last thing I want but I must admit the last picture does look nice with black shields :)
One thing I do when taking pictures on the move is to get several pictures of the same sign in case any are blurred. My camera can take 6 frames per second so sometimes I just leave my finger on the button and I can get several almost identical pictures but with varying amounts of sharpness or blur.
One of my last US pictures I took was this a couple of weeks ago. The sun was behind the signs but the software with my camera has a feature that changes colors to improve contrast. In fact this feature can alter the shade of green from the modern brighter green to the darker 30 year old shade.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsabre-roads.org.uk%2Fgallery%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10163%2Fnormal_bronx.jpg&hash=7c19c785638a0d477b3bb7b007d004baec41cf2e) (http://sabre-roads.org.uk/gallery/albums/userpics/10163/bronx.jpg)
If I'm taking pictures while moving, I make sure the image stabilization mode on my camera is on. It cuts down drastically on motion blur.
If you have a more advanced advanced camera where you can set the shutter speed manually, set it to a fast shutter speed like 1/500 sec, 1/1000 or 1/2000. (1/250 sec might work, but slower than that is pushing it)
I usually leave it on auto. 95% of the pics are not blurred then. But it depends on the direction you're driving, and how clean the windshield is. Nothing as irritating as dozens of dead bugs on the windshield. I carry some cleaning stuff with me all the time.
Quote from: Chris on October 01, 2009, 04:16:38 PM
I usually leave it on auto. 95% of the pics are not blurred then. But it depends on the direction you're driving, and how clean the windshield is. Nothing as irritating as dozens of dead bugs on the windshield. I carry some cleaning stuff with me all the time.
Well, the Image Stabilization mode on my digital is an automatic mode, it must prioritize more towards high shutter speeds.
Personally, I like to set at least one of shutter speed and F-stop myself, or at the very least, I want to know what the camera is doing.
While reading the Mr Roadshow column written by Gary Richards of the San Jose Mercury News, I ran across this...
QuoteQ I know texting is illegal while driving. How about photography while driving?
Scott Burke
A It's also illegal to take a photo from your cell phone while driving. And I wouldn't suggest using a camera, either – police could ticket you for a distracted driving offense.
Which brings up the question for those of you who have taken pictures of California's highways, do you drive and take pictures at the same time, do you have a friend drive while you take the pictures? I've tried to take pictures of signs while driving and I have to admit, there's been more than one occasion that I've gotten that uncomfortable, distracted feeling.
^^^I've had that feeling too.
I'm on my third camera (the first two broke :-() and they've all had a manual mode. They were about $100, and I was surprised they had that feature at that price! If set properly, you can get good photos from a cheap camera.
My cameras
- Current: Polaroid i1037
- Previous: Samsung S860
- First: Samsung S760
I take pictures all the time while driving, but I will admit pictures taken while riding shotgun have come out a lot better. if there's an old shield I absolutely need a good photo of, I pull over to the side.
Alex...
Have you tried working with adjusting your ISO in various conditions?
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on October 01, 2009, 02:09:04 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv645%2Frickmastfan67%2FInterstates%2FPA%2FI-279%2FP1050432s.jpg&hash=00e578b401c746cfdcab91cf34b4c65951371053)
(Taken 06/14/09)
It figures that the Strip District would be right next to Melon Arena! :-D
Quote from: CanesFan27 on October 01, 2009, 05:09:30 PM
Alex...
Have you tried working with adjusting your ISO in various conditions?
You know, I've only used it on auto mode, but since this thread came about, I thought of experimenting with it on my camera to see what results I may get.
From what I remember in the old film days, I'd use ISO 100 for bright sunny days and ISO 400 for days with cloudiness. I even had a roll or two of ISO 800 back then. Here's a photo (https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/connecticut384/i-384_eb_exit_005_01.jpg) from one of those rolls.
What are your recommendations for digital photography?
I usually only play with exposure settings in two conditions: dawn/dusk (twilight) and indoors. Indoors, I use it to get longer exposure than 1/8 second to get brighter photos. During dawn/dusk, I may cut the exposure down to 2000 (1/2 ms) if I want to capture the oranges, yellows, etc. as vividly as possible. Then, gradually, I start increasing the exposure as light decreases - I have used as long as an 8 second exposure in near total darkness to capture a sign photo where flash obliterated the various cracks on the sign. I find it to be one of the more useful settings on the camera. I haven't experimented with aperture settings yet - I probably could use that to let in more light without the longer exposure or vice versa. Worth a try some sunny day.
100 is your best for sunny days unless you have high action (i.e. football, soccer, rugby). You don't really need to go with 800 on overcast days - 400 usually suffices - unless it's closer to dusk.
http://www.slrphotographyguide.com/camera/settings/iso.shtml (http://www.slrphotographyguide.com/camera/settings/iso.shtml)
I usually use ISO speeds more often for action photography. I do a lot of hockey photography (Steve Alpert can attest to this) - and my old camera tapped out at an ISO 400. With the new Canon XSI - I'm looking forward to using ISO's up to 1600 (which is recommended for hockey) - so I'm excited about trying that out tomorrow night for the first time.
Also, if things are too grainy there are programs like Noise Ninja etc. (I'm slowly learning these).
And finally check your manual - on a lot of cameras you can't adjust ISO in landscape - the purpose of that is basically it sets the camera for max depth of field and also tries to saturate certain colors (blue's and greens).
In regards to camera settings, for bright sunlight I use the following: full-manual mode, ISO 100, 1/500 sec, f/8. This will also work for through-the-windshield shots while the car is moving provided some allowance is made for attenuation of light through the windshield (this will likely have to be established through trial and error, though a gray card can be used to obtain precise results).
When unblocked sunshine is not available, I use a program mode which varies aperture and shutter speed. I don't think I have ever bumped up ISO for exterior shots, though I have for indoors shots (I need ISO 400 to give myself a margin of safety for document photography). For shots taken from a moving vantage point (e.g. while driving) there is a four-way tradeoff among lens zoom (zoom too far with too low a shutter speed and you get motion blur), ISO (too high an ISO and you can eliminate the motion blur but you get golfball grain), and the usual variables of aperture and shutter speed. Under conditions of low light and bumpy pavement this tradeoff is very tightly drawn.
Cameras vary very widely in how they handle low-light situations (which typically imply high ISO). I use a Canon PowerShot, which is not engineered to provide fine grain at high ISO or a great amount of tonal definition in areas of shadow (maybe because it has a CMOS sensor?). I knew it had those disadvantages and I was ready to accept them, because I knew my principal use of the camera would be in high-contrast situations (document photography). I did also look at a Nikon which had a somewhat lower MP count but better grain at high ISO, and Fuji has some digital P&S cameras which offer very good grain at high ISO. I would imagine that a digital SLR would offer better performance in terms of grain at high ISO, but I have never been sure whether the performance is so much better that it justifies the premium of buying a system camera with the intention to use it only with a bog-standard zoom lens. (I reached maturity as a photographer with 1960's film SLRs--Pentax Spotmatic and the like--and I have absolutely no interest in jumping into the world of digital SLRs at the moment, because the structure of the lens market seems completely wrong to me. A digital SLR with a zoom lens is essentially just a jumped-up P&S. In contradistinction, a 1960's 35-mm film camera with a 50-mm f/1.4 lens and macro ring offers a much broader range of artistic possibilities. But zooms have become the standard now, and the modern equivalent of a 50-mm prime lens with an aperture opening that wide is mind-blowingly expensive.)
For evening and night BGS pictures, I like to use image stabilization and fill-in flash since it works pretty good.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi696.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv321%2FFLroadgeek%2FPicture133.jpg&hash=707674d16c11739fd588055a78d839cdada00f04)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi696.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv321%2FFLroadgeek%2FPicture139.jpg&hash=8fca9bec3a84196f20925a34c2274cdc3ad57ade)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi696.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv321%2FFLroadgeek%2FPicture140.jpg&hash=4f0bf2da11c6fba6c6034bce749d1756c32b8b1c)
Quote from: CanesFan27 on October 01, 2009, 06:47:33 PMWith the new Canon XSI - I'm looking forward to using ISO's up to 1600 (which is recommended for hockey) - so I'm excited about trying that out tomorrow night for the first time.
Will it also be used for taking pictures during the tailgating?
I tend to use aperture priority and let the camera decide the exposure time, with a -0.7 stop exposure compensation to not blow out clouds. f/8 and ISO-200 are daylight staples (alas, my camera does not do ISO-100), and then as it gets closer to night, it's tripod time.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NE/NE19632751i2.jpg)
Something else worth trying: if you've got a sunroof, open it and stick the camera up out of it. Probably best only done from the passenger seat, though.
Glare from the windshield can blemish photos quite readily depending on the lighting. Sooo many of my road photos from when my family went to Rocky Mountain National Park in 2006 have reflections of the defogger vents from the rental car and the Rand McNally atlas in my lap in them. Couple examples:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg21.imageshack.us%2Fimg21%2F495%2Fdscn0363w.jpg&hash=485c786974695e757e181fb6796a6504dc1a3c41)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg21.imageshack.us%2Fimg21%2F4711%2Fdscn0396t.jpg&hash=cbf1e676714f2556f216a94949930b639558fe50)
One thing that cuts down on the windshield glare is a black cloth or towel draped across the top of the dashboard. Downside of this is it tends to highlight pockmarks or major nicks in your windshield, especially if you're driving into the sun.
For me, I hate using flash photography for signs/traffic signals at ANY time. I like getting shots to make it look real, as if I am looking at it in real life. I don't like it when signs light up like Christmas trees when you use flash photography, so I am always one for non-flash photography, even at night (well, sometimes). Like Chris, I like to "document" highways and get picture of any road sign and traffic signal intersection (if its an at-grade highway. I even get signal closeups :) ). I don't get out of the car to get shots unless its something important or old, like a US cutout shield for example or an original interstate marker, etc. I also am going to mention Alex's idea of putting a black shirt on your dashboard to block out reflections because it DOES work very well for me. So, if you are taking pictures from inside the car, don't use flash. It comes out most of the time where any small spec of dust and blotches will light up like a Christmas tree. Oh, and when you take road photos, try and look out for any obstacles like your car antenna (if you have one), the hood of your car, the dashboard, etc.
Only my opinion.
i
Quote from: froggie on October 01, 2009, 09:21:10 PM
One thing that cuts down on the windshield glare is a black cloth or towel draped across the top of the dashboard. Downside of this is it tends to highlight pockmarks or major nicks in your windshield, especially if you're driving into the sun.
I have used this to great effect whenever I've had one available. This is very effective unless your windshield is dirty or damaged (as froggie mentioned), or you're driving directly into the sun.
Generally, shake reduction (image stabilization) helps immensely. If I am not driving, I can usually use shutter-priority mode at an appropriate ISO (200 seems to work best for me in most conditions, though if there's enough light 100 is fine) with the lens zoomed in past 35mm to cut down on barrel distortion (or I can use my Olympus E-420's telephoto zoomed out).
If I AM driving, then after I wonder just what I'm trying to accomplish by using a digital SLR while driving (though in this case I opt for a compact :p), I'll just go with program mode at 200 ISO with the 18-55mm lens zoomed all the way in.
The biggest thing I recommend is to get a camera that will allow you to set a zoom/focus point beyond the windshield. I can't tell you how discouraging it is to get home and realize that great roadgeek money shot you really wanted was wasted by the camera focusing on the pits and bug guts.
Otherwise, I tend to keep my camera (A Fuji FinePix E550) on a programmed auto mode. That way I force the focal point to be in the center of the image, not wherever the camera decides. When I'm in low lighting conditions, I tend to adjust the aperture settings a little higher. Seems to work for me.
Of course, the best tool to have is a good photo editor to fix up all the little glitches!
Yes, the new camera will be used for taking photos of all the tailgating festivities, Jeff. :-p You should have came down for the home opener. Too bad we won't be able to tailgate at the game in Columbus in November. :(
What camera does everyone in here use now?
I am now using a Canon Rebel XSI.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on October 02, 2009, 08:10:16 AM
What camera does everyone in here use now?
I am now using a Canon Rebel XSI.
Nikon D50. At some point when I have some spare cash I'll upgrade to a D90. Gotta keep up with the Daniels.
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 01, 2009, 07:00:43 PMA digital SLR with a zoom lens is essentially just a jumped-up P&S. In contradistinction, a 1960's 35-mm film camera with a 50-mm f/1.4 lens and macro ring offers a much broader range of artistic possibilities. But zooms have become the standard now, and the modern equivalent of a 50-mm prime lens with an aperture opening that wide is mind-blowingly expensive.)
I found that out the hard way when I bought my first DSLR in 2004. I bought a D70 and a cheapo zoom lens with f/5.6 at the long end and it was completely useless in anything other than good light. When it went cloudy the shutter speed was too slow to prevent blur from showing. Soon afterwards I sold it on ebay and bought a 50mm f/1.8 and this is the lens I've used ever since for taking road pictures. F/1.4 would be no advantage as the band of focus would be so narrow on such a wide aperture, besides, I always use mine at around f/7.1 as this is a good compromise between a fast shutter speed and maintaning close and distant subjects in focus. The f/1.8 lens is also a damn sight cheaper than the f/1.4.
Agentsteel - get the D90 if you can, you'll love it. I have a D300 but the D90 is 90% the same and it has the same 12mp sensor as the D300. It also has the 3" LCD with 920,000 pixels and the detail is amazing.
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 01, 2009, 07:00:43 PM
A digital SLR with a zoom lens is essentially just a jumped-up P&S. In contradistinction, a 1960's 35-mm film camera with a 50-mm f/1.4 lens and macro ring offers a much broader range of artistic possibilities. But zooms have become the standard now, and the modern equivalent of a 50-mm prime lens with an aperture opening that wide is mind-blowingly expensive.
I disagree with this assessment, but it may very well be true in several years. The DSLR gives me a lot finer control over the manual settings - aperture, shutter speed, ISO - as opposed to a lot of point and shoots which you really need to finagle to get into long-exposure mode, if the option is available at all. A lot of compact cameras only go up to 8s, while the DSLR goes up to 30. More if you have the remote timer, which I have not ever felt the need to invest in: I just take repeated 30s exposures and overlay them as necessary. (This allows me much finer control over the final exposure, as well as the possibility of using a non-linear combination curve that approximates film better in terms of not blowing out the highlights.)
Furthermore, the DSLR allows for filters, which not very many compacts to. A lot of the time I use a polarizer, or sometimes an infrared filter, and if I were less lazy (read: had more money!), I would get a 6 or 8 stop ND filter to get better waterfall photos in visible light. Right now I tend to use the IR filter as a 10-stop ND, and if I insist on visible light, I have to use the full moon, which is 17 stops darker than the sun.
as for zoom lenses vs. prime: I've always thought the 50mm to be a bit too constrained in its field of view, but that is a function of the DSLR having the smaller sensor. There is a new 35mm/1.8 lens out right now, which results in the same field of view on the DSLR as the 50mm does on the film camera, but for some reason it is $200 and frequently out of stock. I got my 50/1.8 used, for $60 or something, and better bargains can be had if you know where to look.
I use the 18-200 as the workhorse lens because, despite its slow aperture (f/5.6 at the far end), it is great for switching quickly between various views of signs - entire context with road and sky, sign only, or even a close-up of a shield. With the 50mm, sometimes it would be possible to take the requisite number of steps forward and back, but sometimes the interesting cloud cover is just too extensive in the sky, necessitating a wider field of view, and other times the sign is sufficiently far off the ground that 50mm yields too much of a tilted perspective, while 200 gives a much more square view.
(also, at 200mm, the 18-200 makes a surprisingly good macro lens, since it can focus to about 10cm in front of its front! Great for shots of bees and flowers and grasshoppers and whatnot.)
Quote from: Truvelo on October 02, 2009, 02:28:54 PM
Agentsteel - get the D90 if you can, you'll love it. I have a D300 but the D90 is 90% the same and it has the same 12mp sensor as the D300. It also has the 3" LCD with 920,000 pixels and the detail is amazing.
the main reason I am looking to the D90 is much better ISO performance. It is about a stop and a half less noisy than the D50, with ISO-1600 being perfectly usable and ISO-3200 workable in a pinch. On the D50 I hesitate to use ISO-800, even.
This isn't too much of a difference on a sunny day, but for less blurry photos under overcast skies, it works wonders, and also at night, the difference between a 20 minute exposure and a 5 minute exposure becomes quite clear when it's -11 degrees outside!
Perhaps you should get a D700 if you use high ISO. I've taken ISO 2000 pictures in a dull room handheld at 1/30 second and the noise is virtually invisible.
the D700 is nearly three times as expensive :ded:
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 02, 2009, 03:42:24 PM
the D700 is nearly three times as expensive :ded:
But it allows you to take pictures like this at a true 14mm with no crop factor :colorful:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsabre-roads.org.uk%2Fgallery%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10163%2Fnormal_m6a685.jpg&hash=6bad6e050ef93a2752ece8223b2d99b8c8bf95c6) (http://sabre-roads.org.uk/gallery/albums/userpics/10163/m6a685.jpg)
the D700 is full frame? I do not remember offhand which ones are full frame and which ones are DX.
Most of my lenses are DX, including the 18-200 that I mentioned. My 50mm is the only full-frame lens I own. I suppose I can always sell them down the line but for now they are an investment I am sticking with.
Yes, the D700 is full frame. I use it solely with the 14-24 lens. I like ultrawides at they give weird perspectives like this. The front of the blue car at the bottom right corner is about two car's lengths from the bridge I was standing on.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsabre-roads.org.uk%2Fgallery%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10163%2Fnormal_a1a.jpg&hash=ce9820ca2969a61e09e20e2a7990939ff96c58dc) (http://sabre-roads.org.uk/gallery/albums/userpics/10163/a1a.jpg)
This (http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/IbbVMgPY4g3NG4bdsRezjQ?feat=directlink) is my only BGS picture so far, taken in Acuna
I'd say go with a bit more road and a bit less sky - otherwise, looks good to me!
Quote from: CanesFan27 on October 02, 2009, 08:10:16 AM
Yes, the new camera will be used for taking photos of all the tailgating festivities, Jeff. :-p You should have came down for the home opener.
I would have if not for being the Pens' home opener and banner raising ceremony.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on October 02, 2009, 08:10:16 AMToo bad we won't be able to tailgate at the game in Columbus in November. :(
Yeah, a place worse than Mellon for tailgating.
As a Nikon D40 user...I find that manual focus lenses actually are a boon for road photography, simply because by setting them to infinity, you can generally avoid the "focus hunt" that autofocus lenses tend to have when faced with a windshield. My favorites for this are probably my 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 100/2.8, and at night, the 50/1.4....
And 1/500 is probably the minimum shutter speed to use to guarantee stability, as noted earlier in the thread...
Shortly after I got my new Sony α300, I realized how much more fun shooting BGS's could be with the addition of a longer-range lens (55-200mm):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphoto-gallery.triskele.com%2Fmain.php%3Fg2_view%3Dcore.DownloadItem%26amp%3Bg2_itemId%3D7882%26amp%3Bg2_serialNumber%3D4&hash=0575f066f601d65b35591f52a56dc03d508295d0)
What does that blue panel on the bottom of the IH 69 exit sign say?
Casinos :sombrero:
Quote from: burgess87 on October 05, 2009, 02:29:37 PMWhat does that blue panel on the bottom of the IH 69 exit sign say?
Knowing Tunica, I'd say "CASINOS."
Quote from: PAHighways on October 05, 2009, 02:31:24 PM
Quote from: burgess87 on October 05, 2009, 02:29:37 PMWhat does that blue panel on the bottom of the IH 69 exit sign say?
Knowing Tunica, I'd say "CASINOS."
Yep. I shot that while visiting my parents in Memphis this spring. When I grew up in Memphis, Tunica was synonymous with extreme poverty, and I hadn't had a chance to visit the casinos since I left.
My head hurt after that excursion. I had a hard time getting my head around just how much the area has changed, as well as being underwhelmed with the casinos after having gotten used to Foxwoods, Mohegan, and Vegas.
I wish I had had the camera out and ready later that trip, when we went by the "Future I-269 Corridor" sign in southeastern Shelby County.
OT: Nice avatar, MikeTheActuary. Would I be correct in assuming that's a CT marker? In fact, looks like the infamous Secret Route 540 (Hatchet Hill Rd. in E. Granby, CT) that was signposted for a while with a gorgeous MUTCD elongated reassurance shield complete with the best of all Highway font types...Type D. That was probably the best looking shield ever posted in the state... Or is it maybe just a coincidence? Had to ask.
Quote from: wytout on October 05, 2009, 08:16:13 PM
OT: Nice avatar, MikeTheActuary. Would I be correct in assuming that's a CT marker? In fact, looks like the infamous Secret Route 540 (Hatchet Hill Rd. in E. Granby, CT) that was signposted for a while with a gorgeous MUTCD elongated reassurance shield complete with the best of all Highway font types...Type D. That was probably the best looking shield ever posted in the state... Or is it maybe just a coincidence? Had to ask.
That it is. Until it was removed, I used to drive by that sign at least twice a day most weekdays. It was nice having a rather well known curiosity literally just down the street from the house.
Sadly, I only ever got one picture of that sign...and that picture turned out lousy. I should have gotten a few before it was removed, but somehow I never figured that ConnDOT was going to rectify the mistake.
Of course, the area still has a couple of oddities. If you continue east from the eastern end of CT540, you encounter a couple of roundabouts, installed by the Town of Windsor as traffic-calming measures. Think of them as horizontal speed bumps.
The older of the two is visible in Google Street View (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=750+Rainbow+Rd.,+Windsor,+CT+06095&sll=42.065607,-72.949219&sspn=16.236186,39.243164&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=750+Rainbow+Rd,+Windsor,+Connecticut+06095&ll=41.915819,-72.712412&spn=0.007952,0.019162&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.918038,-72.712172&panoid=TH_FRf8G5lPorp-OYFwXow&cbp=12,79.28,,0,-3.97), shot in September 2007. It doesn't show yet in most online aerial maps.
Quote from: wytout on October 05, 2009, 08:16:13 PM
OT: Nice avatar, MikeTheActuary. Would I be correct in assuming that's a CT marker? In fact, looks like the infamous Secret Route 540 (Hatchet Hill Rd. in E. Granby, CT) that was signposted for a while with a gorgeous MUTCD elongated reassurance shield complete with the best of all Highway font types...Type D. That was probably the best looking shield ever posted in the state... Or is it maybe just a coincidence? Had to ask.
doesn't 30x24 with Series D show up more often in Conn? I could've sworn I've seen some others here and there.
also, I can't remember offhand, but how do they sign US-202? 30x24 or 24x24?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 05, 2009, 11:32:44 PM
also, I can't remember offhand, but how do they sign US-202? 30x24 or 24x24?
It's 24×24 (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=hopmeadow+st.,+simsbury,+ct&sll=41.918038,-72.712172&sspn=0.007951,0.019162&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Hopmeadow+St,+Hartford,+Connecticut&ll=41.810188,-72.830354&spn=0.003982,0.009581&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=41.810511,-72.830295&panoid=kSPAr9cbW9C9vqO8qkm2Vg&cbp=12,28.74,,0,7.92).
QuoteOf course, the area still has a couple of oddities. If you continue east from the eastern end of CT540, you encounter a couple of roundabouts, installed by the Town of Windsor as traffic-calming measures. Think of them as horizontal speed bumps.
Hahah! I know all about them, lol. I live on a street in the Hayden Station Rd. area in Windsor and there are two on that road at consecutive interstections, and I have to use them just about every day. I have to use the one nearest my street to make the equivalent of a left hand turn... instead of bearing right onto it and traveling 3/4 around, when there isn't a soul around, don't think
I don't make a 1/4 trip on it by uhmmm... bearing left into the circle instead ;). I suppose one day I'll not realize one of Windsor's finest around or something and get caught doing it, but it shaves so much time of the commute, lol.
ok this is a BGS thread sorry... so to stay on topic. When you're in CT you don't need a technique to take BGS pictures... as most of them are rather ugly, lacking any distinctive character except being outdated, i.e. using button copy, not using left or right mounted exit tabs generally, mixing street and city names on one sign and more. Yup when I photo BGS's here I just take the shot. No matter how much you try to dress up a pile of poop... it's still poop! :-P
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 05, 2009, 11:32:44 PM
doesn't 30x24 with Series D show up more often in Conn? I could've sworn I've seen some others here and there.
also, I can't remember offhand, but how do they sign US-202? 30x24 or 24x24?
visit my sig link to see what CT usually does with 3-di state routes. Or should I say the MANY things they do with 3-di state routes on 24X24. there are a few 30 X 24 shields scattered around throughout the state, the biggest outcropping at one intersection I've ever seen in Windsor Center. However, usually if they do use an elongated shield a) it's by mistake as the 540 was a contractor flub up, and b) it's almost invariably type C font.
I took the photo in September, 2006.
Well I took three pictures of BGS's on Saturday (10/4/09). On two of them I can tell the mess-ups:
On the Bell St, Goodfellow AFB, and Smith Blvd/Main St (http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/FQblIXUWt_p-e0VVCyvP8g?feat=directlink) one I know I seemed to focus more on the sky :ded:
And on the Pulliam/Bell St and Goodfellow AFB (http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/gzhg2Q1OVUruiBnh35F6tw?feat=directlink) one theres a rain drop right on the window :ded:
But just remember that that was only my second time of taking BGS pics
BigMatt
I split the thread into the BGS photo thread, and the reflectivity standards thread.
I may further split off the discussion of Conn shields at a later time.