[LRFlex] Re: Polarizer results.. subjective quality of image also important?
- From: "Steven Rosenthal" <steverose108@xxxxxxx>
- To: <leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:23:26 -0800
Just for fun I got out ALL my polarizers today, and looked thru 'm. Sorry I
do not yet ascend to the level of B+W filter quality...they are mostly
decent older Tiffen USA and well made older Hoya (Japanese made)... and a
bunch of no-name Japanese and Korean ones at the bottom of my bag. Maybe
five in all, are all linear, I don't believe they are coated, certainly not
multicoated. However, I did notice that there was a noticible difference as
regards the quality of the image in the finder, which I would assume would
be borne out on film. I had never thought to compare them, thought I would
throw this out there for discussion.
The best one (Tiffen, it turned out) yielded a pleasant image, when dialed
down all the way for maximum reduction of glare on a shiny plant leaf... I
know it is subjective but it just seemed nice. Also I did not have to darken
the image that much to achieve a great deal of glare reduction. Whereas the
others seemed to require such polarization that the image was not only
darker, perhaps a third stop? hard to say... but the images were just harsh,
very dark, as if the zones of contrast were terribly compressed. Not at all
appealing.
S
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Young" <dnr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 10:04 AM
Subject: [LRFlex] Polarizer results
> Scott Gardner wrote:
>
> >Hmmm . . . I find this interesting . . .
> >
> >I already deleted David's original response or I'd reply to it, but I
> >recall him saying he has quite happily used a linear polarizer for years
> >with his 'R' series cameras and may prefer the results to those he gets
> >with a circular polarizer.
>
> I mainly use a polarizer to reduce glare from water or glass (when needed)
> or to darken the sky for some landscapes. I've noticed that the reduction
> of glare and the darkening effect are both substantially lessened when I
> use my Rodenstock (Jet-Pol) circular polarizer vs. my old Nikon linear
model.
>
> During this period, I used, (in order) an Oly OM-1, R3, R5 and then R6,
and
> shot a mixture of chrome and neg film.
>
> >H. Herr suggested David may have used negative film with enough latitude
> >to compensate exposure errors, but I'm wondering if that's true and if
> >not, a linear polarizer may indeed 'work'. David, do you shoot 'chromes
> >with your linear polarizer attached?
>
> In recent years, I've shot nothing but colour neg. (Sadly, I've discovered
> that people will sit and look at a photo album, but run like hell, when
you
> bring out the slide projector!)
>
> I used chromes, (mostly K25 & K64) however, for many years with my old
> linear polarizer and found no (significant) problems, even though the
books
> all warned me there would be exposure errors with a linear polarizer.
>
> When I bought the circular one, I was most disappointed with it and it
> languishes, in my kit, virtually unused. :(
> ----------
>
> David Young, | égalité, liberté,
> Victoria, CANADA | fraternité et Beaujolais.
>
> Personal Web-site at:
> http://www.horizon.bc.ca/~dnr
> Leica Reflex Forum web-page:
> http://www.horizon.bc.ca/~dnr/lrflex.htm
>
> ------
> Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
> www.horizon.bc.ca/~dnr/lrflex.htm
> Archives are at:
> www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
www.horizon.bc.ca/~dnr/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
Other related posts:
