| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/21/2005 04:39:18 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by peecee:
Originally posted by phreakon:
I have a personal theory that it is much easier to take advantage of the polarizer with dSLR cameras. My camera is not, and when I use the polarizer outside, it is difficult to see any "significant" noticable changes. I see it working, but it doesn't work any miracles. Its much easier to use indoors, but I bought it for outdoor use. It has come in handy, but it has only been useful when glare was extreme. |
As it happens Mike for some reason I find it more difficult on my dslr (much darker)than the fuji 602 which I used for my example post to Leon.Having said that, you must be able to see through the lense to use one. |
I was I use the Fuji S1 Pro i keep forgeting to change my profile
|
|
|
|
04/22/2005 02:14:37 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by sabphoto:
if I may offer a little hint that helped me...I have a hard time seeing the difference in my LCD when I turn the polerizer...sooo I took it off and rotated it till I got the effect I thought I would want the most, then I took a marker and drew a line across both the moveable piece and none moveable piece so I can line it up on the fly. Seems to work pretty good. |
A small piece of tape works as well, with the added benefit of holding it in place.
David
|
|
|
|
04/22/2005 02:20:15 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
Originally posted by sabphoto:
if I may offer a little hint that helped me...I have a hard time seeing the difference in my LCD when I turn the polerizer...sooo I took it off and rotated it till I got the effect I thought I would want the most, then I took a marker and drew a line across both the moveable piece and none moveable piece so I can line it up on the fly. Seems to work pretty good. |
A small piece of tape works as well, with the added benefit of holding it in place.
David |
But that will not work in every instance. The polarizer needs to be ajusted to compensate for whatever dirction the glare is coming from.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2005 02:29:21 AM · #29 |
nsbca7 is right - this method may work for the landscapes when the sun is i a certain position in the sky. However, shooting through the window and avioding reflections, shooting fish in shallow water etc. are other use cases where the direction of light may be different.
not to speak of changing the orientation from landscape to portrait - you need to turn it 90 degrees if you do that.
The bottom line, you'll need to take more than one shot and later pick the best at home.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2005 07:27:45 AM · #30 |
The tape is applied on a per shot basis -- to keep the thing from moving and to give me an indication of orientation.
It would be nice to see the change thru the lens, but that is not the case for my camera -- and the change has to be fairly dramatic to show up on the lcd.
Although, looking back at the reason fo the marker in the earlier post, I see I am useing the tape for a slightly different reason.
David
|
|
|
|
04/22/2005 08:35:37 AM · #31 |
here are a few shots I took the day I got my polarizer
this is just a screen print from my photo browser showing a group of photos I took while turning the polarizer to see the difference it makes
these two shots show how reflections are removed with the polarizer
 . 
in the first one the side of my car reflects but you can see through the front window and in the second you can see through the side windows but the front window now reflects
I suggest you do what I did and go out and play with sky shots, reflection shots and also try shooting in to a creek
don't forget to try with the sun coming from different angles as well
the sky gradiant in this shot was from using a polarizer
|
|
|
|
04/29/2005 07:58:44 PM · #32 |
I have a question...I just bought a B+W circular polarizer with my birthday money and I have a few questions for you guys:
1. Doesn't it scare the crap out of you to have a $200 piece of glass on the front of your lens that constantly has to be removed/replaced depending on the shot?
2. I had to buy the slim because I got a 77mm that will go on the front of my 16-35. If you're in this situation, doesn't it scare the crap out of you that you can't put a lens cap on this $200 piece of glass?
|
|
|
|
04/30/2005 05:18:16 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
I have a question...I just bought a B+W circular polarizer with my birthday money and I have a few questions for you guys:
1. Doesn't it scare the crap out of you to have a $200 piece of glass on the front of your lens that constantly has to be removed/replaced depending on the shot?
2. I had to buy the slim because I got a 77mm that will go on the front of my 16-35. If you're in this situation, doesn't it scare the crap out of you that you can't put a lens cap on this $200 piece of glass? |
when it's covering a $2000 piece of glass, it's not so scary :) |
|
|
|
04/30/2005 05:28:38 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by riot:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
I have a question...I just bought a B+W circular polarizer with my birthday money and I have a few questions for you guys:
1. Doesn't it scare the crap out of you to have a $200 piece of glass on the front of your lens that constantly has to be removed/replaced depending on the shot?
2. I had to buy the slim because I got a 77mm that will go on the front of my 16-35. If you're in this situation, doesn't it scare the crap out of you that you can't put a lens cap on this $200 piece of glass? |
when it's covering a $2000 piece of glass, it's not so scary :) |
I disagree...first of all, because of the flimsy cap that comes with the filter...and secondly, removing and replacing the filter is much more precarious than removing/replacing a lens. I started a different thread on this, though...
|
|
|
|
05/01/2005 03:26:48 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Originally posted by riot:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
I have a question...I just bought a B+W circular polarizer with my birthday money and I have a few questions for you guys:
1. Doesn't it scare the crap out of you to have a $200 piece of glass on the front of your lens that constantly has to be removed/replaced depending on the shot?
2. I had to buy the slim because I got a 77mm that will go on the front of my 16-35. If you're in this situation, doesn't it scare the crap out of you that you can't put a lens cap on this $200 piece of glass? |
when it's covering a $2000 piece of glass, it's not so scary :) |
I disagree...first of all, because of the flimsy cap that comes with the filter...and secondly, removing and replacing the filter is much more precarious than removing/replacing a lens. I started a different thread on this, though... |
What i meant was, the damage you can do to your flimsy filter is nothing (financially) compared to the damage you can do to your lens. When the two are juxtaposed, you learn to treat filters as practically disposable.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2005 04:03:16 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by riot:
What i meant was, the damage you can do to your flimsy filter is nothing (financially) compared to the damage you can do to your lens. When the two are juxtaposed, you learn to treat filters as practically disposable. |
Sorry, still disagree. Perhaps with a $40 UV filter but not with a $200 PL-C.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/13/2025 06:48:49 PM EDT.
