Lex wrote:
> ...The best reason I can think of *not* to rely on a polarizer is that the
> effect often looks false - skies so heavily affected at the corners it
> resembles vignetting; flat, muddy looking water with no highlights. For
> many situations where I see polarizers used a graduated ND filter - or no
> filter at all - may have been better.
When I used to go on holiday, in the days when June and July were sunny, I
used a polariser most of the time with my Pen F/FT and Kodachrome 25 (25 ASA
and a polariser - why do I think I need 100 ASA minimum now?), but then I
wore polarising sunglasses most of the time while motorcycling around so
that's how I remembered those views, polarised.
I don't often use one nowadays because I use mostly colour negative film and
when I did the lab over-compensated for the deep blue skies and the whole
prints were washed out and pasty looking.
I keep trying to remember to try a pair of linear polarisers used as a fader
as I remember an inspiring photo from a 1960s 'Leica Fotographie' of a
traffic cop in the middle of the road, surrounded by motion-blurred traffic.
Taken at 1 second IIRC
Regards,
Keith Berry
(Birmingham, England)
k.berry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.keithberry.telinco.co.uk
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|