I'd like to make two points:
First, a photo that is improved by a polarizer is any one that looks
better through one oriented in any direction that looks good. It
probably is not good to figure out which "types" of pics it is valuable
for, since this might be limiting. Just pick it up and look through it.
If you are afraid the pics will look fake, shoot one with and one
without. You can also shoot a different degrees of polarization, often
I find that a river scene looks best with the reflections cut, but not
entirely gone. Obviously, the angle of the polarizer determines this.
Second, don't forget that a polarizer will *emphasize* reflectison as
well. If you want to make that sky reflection in the water more
saturated, put on the polarizer and turn it until the reflection is
brightest. This will emphasize the reflection just as much as it would
cut the reclection if it were turned 90 degrees. At 45 degrees, the
reflections would be the same as without the polarizer. This is also
great for shots with reflections in glass, obviously.
Just for the record, I use a polarizer most for waterfalls (and their
attendant pools and streams). I should use it more often for landscapes
and macros (saturates the flowers nicely). Also it is great on
telephoto shots if you can afford the light loss. It will cut the haze
between you and your subject nicely (just like polarized sunglasses)
because the dust, etc. in the air polarizes the light it scatters.
Mike
Jim Davis wrote:
> 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
***********************************************************
