On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 8:46 PM Larry Colen wrote:
> A discussion last weekend prompted me to try and learn the difference.
> I found this short article on the subject reasonably illuminating.
I always figured it was enough to know that they all reduce reflection from
most non metallic
A discussion last weekend prompted me to try and learn the difference.
I found this short article on the subject reasonably illuminating.
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/polarizers.html
--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com http://red4est.com/lrc
.
But hey, why not have some fun with actual color filters if you have them??
I use Circular Polarizers, Neutral Density Graduated Neutral Density
Filters with my lenses. And a GND on my Sigma 10-20 SWA is an absolute
must as it covers a huge swath of sky. But using a Polarizer on this
lens can be tricky
Photoshop have a variety and strengths of
color filters.
But hey, why not have some fun with actual color filters if you have them??
I use Circular Polarizers, Neutral Density Graduated Neutral Density
Filters with my lenses. And a GND on my Sigma 10-20 SWA is an absolute
must as it covers
I use a polarizer when needed - usually when I want a bluer shade of
blue in the sky, make the clouds pop, or to cut back on reflections,
like on tree leaves, water, shiny metal, etc. A polarizer in the bag can
double as a 2 stop ND filter as well. That is the only filter I use on
digital
I've been using a polarizer on my 18-55WR and am pleased with the results.
I'm wondering how many others use filters (other than UV/1A) on their
lenses?
Also, if you do bw with the DSLR, do you use your Yellow, Orange, and Red
filters as with film?
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
I tend to us the polarizer during fall colour shoots. I have a ND
fader filter i just bought but have not tried it yet
Dave
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Collin Brendemuehl
coll...@brendemuehl.net wrote:
I've been using a polarizer on my 18-55WR and am pleased with the results.
I'm wondering
I occasionally use a polarizer, when I remember to bring it. For
waterfalls/slow water shots, I'll use an ND filter.
Other than that, I don't use any filters. For BW, all the
modifications are done in post.
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Collin Brendemuehl
coll...@brendemuehl.net wrote:
I've
When conditions call for it I use a polarizer. Neat thing about digital is I
don't need all the other color filters I used on slide film.
-Original Message-
From: Collin Brendemuehl coll...@brendemuehl.net
Subject: Polarizers and other filters
I've been using a polarizer on my 18-55WR
I sometime use a polarize. Most often when shooting cars to kill reflections. I
also used one the other day when shooting an autonomous vehicle, so I could be
certain of a view through the windshield. Sometimes use one to darken the sky
for a pic but not often. I never use color filters for BW.
On 6/9/2013 13:32, Kenneth Waller wrote:
When conditions call for it I use a polarizer. Neat thing about digital is I
don't need all the other color filters I used on slide film.
-Original Message-
From: Collin Brendemuehl coll...@brendemuehl.net
Subject: Polarizers and other filters
I sometimes proofread my e-mails. But obviously not this one!
Paul via phone
On Jun 9, 2013, at 2:12 PM, Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote:
I sometime use a polarize. Most often when shooting cars to kill reflections.
I also used one the other day when shooting an autonomous
On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 08:27:39AM -0400, Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
I've been using a polarizer on my 18-55WR and am pleased with the results.
I'm wondering how many others use filters (other than UV/1A) on their
lenses?
I use polarizers moderately often, particularly when I want to bring out
Hehe - join the group
sent from your mobile device?
ann
On 6/9/2013 15:45, Paul Stenquist wrote:
I sometimes proofread my e-mails. But obviously not this one!
Paul via phone
On Jun 9, 2013, at 2:12 PM, Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote:
I sometime use a polarize. Most often
Larry Colen wrote:
Rather than a collection of neutral density filters, why not have two fairly
large polarizers and a set of step down rings so that they can be used on a
variety of lenses?
Not only should you be able to get it fairly dark when they're cross
polarized, but you'd have
On Nov 6, 2010, at 7:40 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Larry Colen wrote:
Rather than a collection of neutral density filters, why not have two fairly
large polarizers and a set of step down rings so that they can be used on a
variety of lenses?
Not only should you be able to get it fairly
Rather than a collection of neutral density filters, why not have two fairly
large polarizers and a set of step down rings so that they can be used on a
variety of lenses?
Not only should you be able to get it fairly dark when they're cross polarized,
but you'd have adjustability.
--
Larry
The first thing which comes to mind is that polarizers are much more
expensive than NDs.
The second thing is they don't darken the entire scene do they? I
thought they change the color of the sky and remove reflections.
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:
Rather
Two polarizers will reduce the amount of light reaching the lens, just as an ND
filter would do. But I would be considered that the cross polarization might
cause diffusion. One would have to alternately rotate each of the two filters
to find a spot where they're at least somewhat compatible
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 18:08 -0700, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:
Rather than a collection of neutral density filters, why not have two
fairly large polarizers and a set of step down rings so that they can be
used on a variety of lenses?
Not only should you be able to get it fairly dark
Actually, I wouldn't be considered, I would be concerned. It's getting late.
Long day.
Paul
On Nov 5, 2010, at 9:31 PM, paul stenquist wrote:
Two polarizers will reduce the amount of light reaching the lens, just as an
ND filter would do. But I would be considered that the cross polarization
It's really not that difficult to adjust. If you happen to already
have two polarizers, then it doesn't hurt anything to try it out.
The biggest problem that you get is that you need to set a custom white balance.
This was taken with two polarizers and a 2 stop ND filter.
http://www.flickr.com
don't recall the prices but they weren't expensive
IIRC.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: polarizers, take 2
On Jun 5, 2008, at 4:43 PM, Ken Waller wrote:
Am I missing something here...
You could
Howdy!
So I'm shopping for a polarizer again. A year or two ago I asked about
polarizers, but I can't find the thread. Anyway, I ended up with a
fairly inexpensive Sunpak 58mm polarizer from the LCS and a few step up
rings for the smaller lenses. Now the 645 needs one. The filter ring
, and costs 30% less than the B+W. The coating is very good. It
also has filter threads on the front side so you can fit a lens hood.
Godfrey
On Jun 5, 2008, at 7:42 AM, Scott Loveless wrote:
Howdy!
So I'm shopping for a polarizer again. A year or two ago I asked
about
polarizers, but I can't
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
The biggest thing wrong with the step up plan you use is that lens
hoods are problematic. You should never use a filter without a lens
hood in order to minimize flare. Also, be sure to get multicoating
Looks like the one I was considering isn't multi-coated, and I
On Jun 5, 2008, at 8:32 AM, Scott Loveless wrote:
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
The biggest thing wrong with the step up plan you use is that lens
hoods are problematic. You should never use a filter without a lens
hood in order to minimize flare. Also, be sure to get multicoating
... However,
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Jun 5, 2008, at 8:32 AM, Scott Loveless wrote:
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
The biggest thing wrong with the step up plan you use is that lens
hoods are problematic. You should never use a filter without a lens
hood in order to minimize flare. Also, be sure to get
Am I missing something here...
You could use a hood (sized to the polarizer) screwed into the filter.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: Scott Loveless [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: polarizers, take 2
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Jun 5, 2008
- Original Message -
From: Scott Loveless
Subject: polarizers, take 2
Howdy!
So I'm shopping for a polarizer again. A year or two ago I asked about
polarizers, but I can't find the thread. Anyway, I ended up with a
fairly inexpensive Sunpak 58mm polarizer from the LCS and a few
Scott,
I've several polarizers. One is B+W 58mm that I bought brand new along
with 49-58 and 52-58 rings. It was about $115 from BH. It serves my
limited lenses, 'cause 31 ltd does not allow anything but proper 58 mm
filter. Another is Promaster MC Polarizer that I bought used from
someone
On Jun 5, 2008, at 4:43 PM, Ken Waller wrote:
Am I missing something here...
You could use a hood (sized to the polarizer) screwed into the filter.
Yes ... if the polarizer has threads, if you're willing to buy a very
large (and likely expensive) lens hood, and if what you get provides
Since one ideally uses a polarizer at a right angle to the sun, I have
never been certain that adding coating to a polarizer accomplishes very
much. I believe that Pentax does not add SMC coating to their
polarizers, while they add SMC coating to nearly everything else that
light goes through
SMC coating to their
polarizers, while they add SMC coating to nearly everything else that
light goes through.
Tiffens and Hoyas will usually give you good quality at a decent
price.
For coated filters I prefer Pentax, B+W, or Heliopan.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http
Hello!
I have a few questions about Multi-Coated circular polarizers.
I am considering buying one for my SMCP F-70-210/4-5.6, FA 50/1.4
and future D-FA100/2.8.
For other lenses I am using BW 77E slim c-polarizer which works fine
on my both Tokinas. The only problem I have
Roshchin wrote:
I have a few questions about Multi-Coated circular polarizers.
I am considering buying one for my SMCP F-70-210/4-5.6, FA 50/1.4
and future D-FA100/2.8.
For other lenses I am using BW 77E slim c-polarizer which works fine
on my both Tokinas. The only problem I have
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 04:52:41PM -0400, Igor Roshchin wrote..
Hello!
I have a few questions about Multi-Coated circular polarizers.
I am considering buying one for my SMCP F-70-210/4-5.6, FA 50/1.4
and future D-FA100/2.8.
For other lenses I am using BW 77E slim c-polarizer which works
Yep. It is exactly why I bought the slim version: so that I can use
it on Tokina 19-35 (yet with the film camera).
It might have been an overkill, - but I definitely had no vignetting.
:-)
I am not looking for a slim version in this case: all the focal lengths
are =50mm.
Any recommendations on
B+W makes the best polarizers, and their mounts, MRC coatings are
state of the art.
I wouldn't consider anything else.
G
On May 8, 2007, at 2:12 PM, Igor Roshchin wrote:
Yep. It is exactly why I bought the slim version: so that I can use
it on Tokina 19-35 (yet with the film camera
to part with, - please
let me know.
Using the opportunity, - if you have any advice on the cap that will
stay on my existing polarizer, - let me know.
Try Marumi polarizers - either WPC or the newest DHG. Both has output
thread despite being slim, so that you can put your ordinary lens cap
På 7. jan. 2004 kl. 22.56 skrev Tanya Mayer Photography:
Just a question in regards to polarizers...
Can someone explain to me the difference between a circular and linear
polarizer? Could I use a linear polarizer on my Oly which has
internal AF
ie. the lens doesn't rotate?
A circular
Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:
Just a question in regards to polarizers...
Can someone explain to me the difference between a circular and linear
polarizer? Could I use a linear polarizer on my Oly which has internal AF
ie. the lens doesn't rotate?
TIA,
tan.
Circular polarizers cost
Hi there,
Some confusion on circular versus linear polarizers... I know that the PL
is supposed to ONLY be good for manual focus, and that for AF you need a
C-PL. Then, I've also read that some cameras can't meter with a PL, and
require a C-PL.
Well, I didn't buy a C-PL, but just a regular PL
- Original Message -
From: gfen
Subject: ZX/MZ bodies and LINEAR polarizers.
Hi there,
Some confusion on circular versus linear polarizers...
Does anyone know if the metering will definatly be off without
using the
circular varient? And how did AF work correctly, then?
Circular
There's a pretty good explanation of Polarizers and how to use them in current
(Sept. 2002?) Pop Photography. The main reason I picked it up. It includes
a description of the difference between Circular and Linear polarizers and how
they interact with semi-silvered mirrors. I know from
- Original Message -
From: Peter Alling
Subject: Re: ZX/MZ bodies and LINEAR polarizers.
There's a pretty good explanation of Polarizers and how to use
them in current
(Sept. 2002?) Pop Photography. The main reason I picked it
up. It includes
a description of the difference
That should have been the meter accuracy of my LX is adversely
effected. I should
proof read these things.
At 04:37 PM 9/18/2002 -0400, I wrote:
There's a pretty good explanation of Polarizers and how to use them in current
(Sept. 2002?) Pop Photography. The main reason I picked it up
The LX bodies. See my corrected post. (I'm a bit to fast on the trigger
at times).
At 03:09 PM 9/18/2002 -0600, you wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Peter Alling
Subject: Re: ZX/MZ bodies and LINEAR polarizers.
There's a pretty good explanation of Polarizers and how to use
them
- Original Message -
From: Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 6:01 PM
Subject: Re: ZX/MZ bodies and LINEAR polarizers.
That should have been the meter accuracy of my LX is adversely
effected. I should
proof read these things
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Peter Alling wrote:
The LX bodies. See my corrected post. (I'm a bit to fast on the trigger
at times).
From what William said, this is the only Pentax body to use a beam
splitting meter.
Ergo, I'm still good to go.. althouhg I've also read the Cokin filters
also have a
I recently bought a used Polarizer at a local camera shop. N***n brand.
The filter itself just says Polar 52mm N***n Japan. It came with a N***n
Filter case marked CP-4
I bought it thinking it could come in Handy with my Ricoh KR-30SP.
I was shocked the the autofocus on my PZ-1p seems to work
on polarizing wide angle lenses .
seems to me that at the optimal "90degrees to the sun"
shooting angle and an ultrawide one would guarantee bad
flare effects. My old 17mm f4 FishEyeTakumar has a built-in
UV (but it seems much more like a strong
In a message dated 1/30/01 1:56:48 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think you may have misunderstood my post. I presume you are wanting a
center graduated polarizer, and AFAIK, they do not exist. What does exist for
some LF lenses are center spot graduated filters
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think you may have misunderstood my post. I presume you are wanting a
center graduated polarizer, and AFAIK, they do not exist. What does exist for
some LF lenses are center spot graduated filters designed to even out the
exposure variance caused by light fall off
discover that the skylight series do cause a very similar
deepening of blue sky when used on axis w/ the incident light,
whereas polarizers have maximum effect at a 90degree angle.
Some of my deepest blue skies have come from this combo and my
24mm f3.5 SuperTak. I
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 12:29:10 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, don't forget that with the SOOO WIDE FOV, some parts of the sky will
be darkened more than other parts (you will be recieving both rays
polarised more and polarised less), so you will propably get a very strange
effect of both
In a message dated 1/29/01 10:33:36 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The other issue is use of filters. Pentax comes with built-in yellow,
orange, skylight, and UV. Tamron and Sigma has a slot for gelatin filters.
The Ultra-wide Heliar (12mm) has an optional 77mm filter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 8:47 PM
Subject: Re: Polarizers on ultra-wde angle lenses Wa suggestion
ultra-wide angle lens
In a message dated 1/29/01 10:33:36 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The other issue is use
In a message dated 1/30/01 12:32:46 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think one would have to use one of these in conjunction with a polarizer
filter.
William Robb
What's the cost of the WA polarizer Vs "normal" circular polarizers of 77mm?
And who has (s
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: January 30, 2001 12:32 AM
Subject: Re: Polarizers on ultra-wde angle lenses Wa suggestion
ultra-wide angle lens
In a message dated 1/30/01 12:32:46 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think
60 matches
Mail list logo
