-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Mike <watershed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> While I agree that PS has taken over some of the duties of the polarizer
> I still like to use one. There is no getting around the fact that a
> polarizer actually changes the physics of the light striking the film.
> PS can darken skies in a super wide angle shot without the charteristic
> banding of a polarizer but PS can't tell from the pixels how to filter
> out the reflected part of the light. Polarized skies just look more
> dramatic and foliage is sharper and crisper. I think haze causes a lot
> of bouncing around of light and a pol is able to cut through this giving
> that clear atmosphere which we probably don't actually have.
>
> Mike
> (who prefers to see the world through polarized glasses)
>
I wear polarized sunglasses, and when out and about with photographic
intentions, I often subconsciously tilt my head from side to side to assess the
effect a polarizing filter might have on a photograph of the scene before me.
My wife says I look like an idiot doing this, which is nothing new for me, and
sometimes sympathetic strangers inquire about my "neck problem," occasionally
offering adivce about treatment alternatives.
You can do a lot in post-editing, but you can't kill reflections, which, for
me, is the primary reason to use a polarizer in the first place. In fact, now
that I think about it, it's just about the only reason I ever use one.
Filter rule #1: If there's no reason to use a filter, there's no reason to use
a filter.
Walt
--
"Anything more than 500 yards from
the car just isn't photogenic." --
Edward Weston
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|