Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Circular polarizer
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
estudleon wrote:

Itself having the conception of positivar the negative in 40 xs 50 or 30 x 40. For it an average of near 90 l/mm or more is required in the negative of 35mm.
If we used a negative of 4x5 or 8x10 it is another thing.


I completely agree with this Rino.

If someone want to shoot landscapes to produce good prints the first thing he has to do is buying at least a medium format camera. I never saw a pro landscape shooter using anything smaller than a 6x4,5.

Otherway if we just need images to produce small prints or for the web, 35 mm is enough but then lpm isn't the problem anyway.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 8:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A G Photography wrote:
estudleon wrote:

Itself having the conception of positivar the negative in 40 xs 50 or 30 x 40. For it an average of near 90 l/mm or more is required in the negative of 35mm.
If we used a negative of 4x5 or 8x10 it is another thing.


I completely agree with this Rino.

If someone want to shoot landscapes to produce good prints the first thing he has to do is buying at least a medium format camera. I never saw a pro landscape shooter using anything smaller than a 6x4,5.

Otherway if we just need images to produce small prints or for the web, 35 mm is enough but then lpm isn't the problem anyway.



Alessandro. Im not a professional and I like to do landscapes with my equipment of 35 mm. And I like that the prints looks the better that I can do.

As I do it, someone else can do it too. And for him (and me) the lpm are important.

Rino.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 9:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi

My first post to this forum. Enjoyed lurking long enough.

For digital photography many of the useful lens filters required for film are not necessary because the effects can be applied by post processing images in camera or on computer. Polarizing filters though are an exception. You can not filter out polarized light with post processing like you can with colour, white balance etc.

Polarizing filters do more than just darken skies





The fish in the above photos could hardly be seen without the use of polarizing filters. Sorry, don't have picture taken without filter, but believe me, it would have been a waste of time.



Fish waits for no man.



The fish in this picture were in the shade of an overhanging tree, so water surface glare and reflection was not to bad. No polarizing filter this time with Pentacon 400mm @ F4 as I don't have polariser big enough to fit this lens and there was not enough light to afford the 2-3 stop loss.

Polarising filter effects can be a bit unpredictable though, depending on subject and light angles. Just as with skies, water will only show a significant effect if condition are right. Take a picture of a car, cutting through glare on paintwork and leaving lovely saturated colours Very Happy but look at the windscreen and all those stress patterns in the glass, not really what we want Mad It does take practice and experience to know when and when not to use them.

To test whether your filter is in fact polarising, just test with second known polarising lens. Hold one in front of the other and rotate one. If both are polarising you should see a point where the view blacks out.

As to the point of not using filters because they degrade optical resolution, well I think I prefer to have my mediocre fishy pictures to high resolution pictures of glare and reflected sky Laughing Chances are my sensor wouldn't know the difference in resolution anyway.

Best regards

Fergus

Last edited by fergus on Fri Aug 20, 2010 5:03 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
fergus wrote:
Hi

My first post to this forum. Enjoyed lurking long enough.

For digital photography many of the useful lens filters required for film are not necessary because the effects can be applied by post processing images in camera or on computer. Polarizing filters though are an exception. You can not filter out polarized light with post processing like you can with colour, white balance etc.

Polarizing filters do more than just darken skies





The fish in the above photos could hardly be seen without the use of polarizing filters. Sorry, don't have picture taken without filter, but believe me, it would have been a waste of time.



Fish waits for no man.



The fish in this picture were in the shade of an overhanging tree, so water surface glare and reflection was not to bad. No polarizing filter this time with Pentacon 400mm @ F4 as I don't have polariser big enough to fit this lens and there was not enough light to afford the 2-3 stop loss.

Polarising filter effects can be a bit unpredictable though, depending on subject and light angles. Just as with skies, water will only show a significant effect if condition are right. Take a picture of a car, cutting through glare on paintwork and leaving lovely saturated colours Very Happy but look at the windscreen and all those stress patterns in the glass, not really what we want Mad It does take practice and experience to know when and when not to use them.

To test whether your filter is in fact polarising, just test with second known polarising lens. Hold one in front of the other and rotate one. If both are polarising you should see a point where the view blacks out.

As to the point of not using filters because they degrade optical resolution, well I think I prefer to have my mediocre fishy pictures to high resolution pictures of glare and reflected sky Laughing Chances are my sensor wouldn't know the difference in resolution anyway.

Best regards

Fergus


PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 9:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Welcome Fergus!

Nice to see you here, many thanks for this informative first post!


PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I like the pics very much.

When I was young, sold aquarium's fishes.

I like them.

Yes, the pol was very necesary in this case.

Regards, Rino.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for your kind comments Rino.

The orange coloured fish is I think some kind of Koi carp, which would normal be captive within ornamental ponds. This one though was wild and seemed quite happy to be part of a shoal of common and mirror carp. It may be even be native (being born there and may be a little interbreeding Rolling Eyes ) as I can remember seeing a more exotic Koi carp in this water many years ago probably placed there as an unwanted pet (unlawful and careless act).

Sorry, sort of back on topic now Embarassed Yes, I certainly remove any filters that are not necessary for the shot in more critical work, but I still like to use plain/skylight/uv filters as lens caps and for shooting in more adverse conditions. This is one case, a picture tells the story best:



Seconds after taking this photo, after-burner came on and I got severely sand blasted and missed the intended series of shots of the jet engined dragster doing its 1/4 mile sprint. When I recovered from my rearward crouched protective position a few seconds later, it was out of sight Sad Anyway the moral of the story is that my skylight filter was wrecked, but lens unharmed. Funny at the time I was more concerned for my camera and lens than my own well being (skin heals, lenses don't Shocked ). I can't image with today's health and safety regulations being able to be in that position again, what an adrenalin rush Laughing
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Techniques
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2