> > It sounds to me then, that a polarizer for a 20mm lens would be a real
> waste
> > of money, since I can't control the angle I'm shooting at, only rarely
> would
> > the polarizer be effective???
> >
>
> How about knocking the glare off the flora and fauna ? Also good for
> removing reflections on pools of water, etc.
Hmm, the reflections from water are what I like. I suppose if you're
photographing the fish in the water this might be a good thing. As to glare
from flora and fauna, it seems to me that a natural looking photo would
include any glare they give off. I guess polarizers are not about making
natural looking photos then?
Ok, if you want to photograph Lake Louise and show that nice green
coloured bottom, a polarizer would be a good thing. If you are photographing
a bunch of plants and want a really nice saturated 'green' look, a polarizer
would come in handy. If you're shooting buildings, cutting the reflection
from the glass would definitely be a good thing. But if you're a nature
photographer, most of the time, I just don't think the polarizer
appropriate. I don't believe our eyes do any kind of polarizing effect.
I'd like to hear from those of you who've got a polarizer in the last
year or so, and what kind of photos you think have been improved by it, or
if you really use it a lot, or if you only use it once in awhile for some
photos.
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
