--- Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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?
About the water. Depending on the position of your
polarizer you can increase or decrease the amount of
reflection. So you can see your fish or the clouds
reflecting.
If somebody would tell me I can use the polarizer only
to either saturate the sky or to reduce glare (on
flora and fauna, wet stones, etc) I definitely would
chose the later one. Except for a few cases I do not
believe that for example totaly washed out leaves are
better then green leaves just because there was
actually glare when you took the picture. If so you
should also not use a polarizer to increase reflection
in the water, you should not use any filters at all,
no flash because it adds light that wasn't really
there, etc. If this is what you want, and what some
people actually are doing, then don't get the
polarizer. Otherwise a polarizer is the first filter I
would suggest to get for any focal length, followed by
gradual ND filters and ND filters.
Robert
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
