JD> Hmm, the reflections from water are what I like. I suppose if you're
JD> photographing the fish in the water this might be a good thing. As to glare
JD> from flora and fauna, it seems to me that a natural looking photo would
JD> include any glare they give off. I guess polarizers are not about making
JD> natural looking photos then?
JD> Ok, if you want to photograph Lake Louise and show that nice green
JD> coloured bottom, a polarizer would be a good thing. If you are photographing
JD> a bunch of plants and want a really nice saturated 'green' look, a polarizer
JD> would come in handy. If you're shooting buildings, cutting the reflection
JD> from the glass would definitely be a good thing. But if you're a nature
JD> photographer, most of the time, I just don't think the polarizer
JD> appropriate. I don't believe our eyes do any kind of polarizing effect.
JD> I'd like to hear from those of you who've got a polarizer in the last
JD> year or so, and what kind of photos you think have been improved by it, or
JD> if you really use it a lot, or if you only use it once in awhile for some
JD> photos.
Hello Jim,
Your eyes don't see the polarizing effect, but if you look at the leaves
from a different angle you don't have the reflections either.
I really like the polarizer and it remains on my lens until the light
level is too low. I am usually doing architecture and landscape
photography using lenses from 20mm to 300mm. Especially in nature and
landscape the polarizer is a great tool to enhance the natural beauty. You
have to use it carefully when shooting architecture and tilting the camera
upward because you can get skies that look almost black if you are standing
in the "wrong" angle to the sun.
--
Best regards,
Dieter mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
