I've never tried to compare polarizers between digital and film since
(in my case) that would necessarily entail a comparison of linear and
circular. But I do agree that I think the circular polarizer is not
quite as effective. The only circular polarizer I have for digital use
is a 72mm B+W Kaesemann which I bought on ebay from a Chinese seller for
not very much less than I could have gotten it stateside. When I first
got it I was concerned that (despite it's wonderful construction and
machining) it might be a fake since the polarization effect on sky and
clouds wasn't as strong as I suspected. But when I gave it the task of
ridding the reflections from my car's windshield in strong sun it
performed wonderfully. I could easily see into the interior of the car
which I could not do with just my eyes.
So, I haven't worried about it being a fake since then and I've never
done a direct comparison with a linear but still feel that, on sky and
clouds at least, it doesn't do quite as well. I have no idea why.
Chuck Norcutt
On 3/4/2014 9:41 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
> To the subject of polarizers, I've noticed two things which have me puzzled:
>
> 1. Linear polarizers seem to be more effective than circular polarizers,
>
> 2. Polarizers don't seem to work as well (deeply) on digital as it does on
> film.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|