Jim Davis 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?
No, not really. But then, a KB 12 color correcting filter for use under
tungsten lighting doesn't make natural looking photos also ...
> 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.
No, they don't. But our mind does some quite miraculous things. If you want to
record a scene just as it REALLY looks, you shouldn't use Velvia either.
> 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.
I don't use it all the time and when I use it, I almost never use it at the most
effective rotation angle. This can make a photo look somehow, hmm, dead.
Thomas Bantel
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
