[ratpack] Filtrers and such
- From: humminboid@xxxxxxxxxxx
- To: ratpack <ratpack@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 19:32:25 +0000 (UTC)
WHOA! Back everything up, here! Shoulda done this before! Thanks to a fellow on
another forum for getting me thinking along the lines of more experimentation.
I cleaned my "reasonably-priced" Sunpak CPL, and installed it on my lens, then
took photos both with it on and off, at differing distances, with the polarizer
rotated 1/4 of the way for 4 photos, to get any possible difference caused by
the level of polarization.
Guess what? The sharpness is only very slightly less with the filter than not.
The "binocular test" fell flat on its...ahhhh...face!
All Pixes were acceptably sharp, even enlarged to slightly less than pixellated
on my monitor.(That's what I love about digital...instant feedback!) Plenty
good for my modest needs.
Would the higher-priced filter$ do a better job? No doubt, but I will continue
to use my present CPL, and collection of "better, cheaper" filters,and not
worry overmuch about the small stuff.
But, it does emphasize the need to carefully pick you experts, and verify!
NOW! Continung Ray's discussion regarding mirrors: The reflective backing
contains metallic silver, so probably would not be much affected by a
polarizing filter. Mylar plastic, being another animal entirely, might react
diffeerently.
However, focus on the frame or edge of the mirror, then on the image. The edge
will record at one distance, and the image will read about twice that !
HOWCOME? I read one explanation that said with the image, the light had to
travel twice the distance to be focused on the film plane of the camera.
Maybe so, but you are still focusing on the plane of the glass, no?
Other related posts:
- » [ratpack] Filtrers and such - humminboid
