On 5/20/2016 7:22 AM, DZDub wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Polarizer filters are an interesting twist. I use them but not nearly
as much as I used to. In fact, I rarely use them these days. Is it
because I can do what I need/want to do in Photoshop instead? Well,
sorta. But this is one of those form/function things. I've been
shooting a lot of panos and wide-angle stuff the past couple of years
and polarizers are just to problematic for ultrawide photography.
I used to used a PL as much to saturate colors
LCE
as deepen blue sky.
Separate sky layer. Pols do such weird things to sky, worsening as the FL gets shorter, that I much prefer to adjust sky
color in post.
I find
with digital a PL is so effective that there is not enough specular
highlight detail to allow the result to look natural to my eyes. I think
maybe Moose should try it. It might be his "dream look" in certain
situations but it ain't my cup of tea.
I hadn't thought about that. Probably a non-starter because I simply don't carry extra stuff like that - and when I do I
forget it's there until I'm later going through the bag at home, see the thingie and think "Oh yeah, I was going to try
that, but I forgot."
In general, if I use a PL with digital, I don't go for maximum
polarization, just part way.
I still have a "Moose" polarizer (nothing to do with our noble Moose) --
basically a PL with warming filter in it.
Back to the UV/altitude thing. That other Moose is a nature photographer who works extensively in high mountains, so he
combined a Pol with an 81A.
I loved that with Fuji slide
films. I don't have the right sizes for my E-system lenses, so I've never
tried it with them. I could experiment with my Zuikos on the Canon body.
As if I don't have enough fooling around to do with that already, haha!
I've got so many thing I think I should try/test, and even few I really want
to try . . .
Random Effects Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
|