Got me a Polarizer filter!

[jwsciontc]

just threw my CP on my lense for the first time. i got it with the UV which i've had on there since, never tried the poalrizer yet but i jsut threw it on i know what you eman now by the 2 rings. one tightens it into the grooves and the main ones adjusts it and i was just turning it and the colors change completely its real cool

[TPF Sponsor]

[Eldrich]

But however, when I A-B an old, linear polarizer and a circular polarizer, the old linear polarizer has a markedly more dramatic effect (of course, I have to manually focus with the linear filter- anyone remember manual focus, lol?). And is it just me, or are "modern" focusing screens a step backwards? Thinking of ordering one of these...

If the effect is more dramatic with a linear polarizer, then all I can say is that some polarizers are better than others. I say this from experience as a PhD student in an optics lab, not as a photographer (i'm relatively new to photography). For a reasonable but certainly not top of the line quality waveplate I might use at work, unmounted, in the visible spectrum is ~300$. The fancy zeroth order wave plates can easily cost 1.5-5k depending on the degree of fanciness you desire. Obviously if they were this expensive, not that many of us would be buying them for the ends of several lenses, so the polarizers for photography are certainly not the best that can be made.

So I guess what i'm saying is that consider all optics the way you would consider lenses, the money you pay can make a Huge difference on quality. And since a circular polarizer has a waveplate (which is much harder to make than a linear polarizer) its not surprising if the linear polarizing element on a circular polarizer would not be as high a quality.

As for the AF screen, I personally dont see how that could make a difference, as the problem is in what light reaches the screen, not the screen itself.

anyway, if anyone has an opinion based more on experience with photography i'd be interested to hear it.

[CAG76]

Wow! I started a pretty interesting thread on polarization! Keep the ideas flowing while I figure out what the heck a digital. Ok let me type this out and maybe someone here can explain or have some kind of idea what this digital thing is. Here is what's on the back of the package about the digital part.

"Digital Anti-Reflection Multi Coating Specially formulated to pass light reflected off of a digital camera's anti aliasing filter and silicon based CCD or CMOS sensor."

Ok someone explain this. Or does this still mean I paid more for basically the same thing as the cheaper ones? Not that I am worried about it. Just trying to get gears turning in peoples heads.

-Christopher

[mikemicki]

Looks cool Christopher. Can't wait to see more shots. What brand was the filter again?

[O|||||||O]

Only thing I don't like about this heavy duty photo head is that when I flip it vertical, the thing is not designed to where I could rotate the camera up and down. It only does that when flipped horizontal for horizontal pictures. Does anyone know what I mean?

I know exactly what you're talking about. The head I have still lets you move a little, but nowhere near as much as when the head is in the horizontal position.

The only good solution (other than buying a different head) I have found is a tripod collar. With the collar you can rotate the camera without rotating the tripod. Of course, that doesn't work for wide angle or normal lenses (no tripod collars for them).

If I'm using a lens that doesn't have a collar, I just get creative with the tripod legs. How far I extend them and how far I open them up can often get me the angle I'm looking for. I just don't get farther than an arm's length from the tripod with it like this though - the center of gravity is no longer at the center of the tripod.

[dxqcanada]

Sounds like an anti-reflective coating on the rear of the filter.

Light comes in from subject.
Some light is reflected off of sensor filter back through the lens.

The lens elements would normally have anti-reflective coating ... but if the filter does not then it will reflect some light back to the sensor again.

[RebelTasha]

Trying not to hijack but it was mentioned... soooo
Ok so I just bought a 'digital' CPL, I have had one before for a 'digital' camera so I bought another one today for my film camera

So this digital C polarizer will work ok on my auto focus film camera.. ?

[dxqcanada]

Yes.

[CAG76]

The filter was by Promaster. I went to Cord Camera which was the closest place to where I work so I could just run in and run out. That was the best brand they had. Well, the brand I was most familiar with.

Yes Mr. Steez, a better lens will be in the works for me, but right now, I can deal with the adjusting my polarizer and making sure my focus is where I want it. It's a small hassle but I can deal!

Ok so no one yet to comment on what I posted about Digital polarizers?

[CAG76]

One thing I do like about the tripod I bought is that the middle comes out and becomes a mono pod! I just LOVE that! Thats what I forgot to mention.

[Chris of Arabia]

to all you newbies who dont have a polarizer? haha.
isnt that like..the first filter you get after your uv?
hmm. debating your definition of noob, perhaps you are projecting

and if you want to use a polarizer without affecting your focus- buy a better lens.

The Photo Forum is all about helping other member to improve their photography, not to mock them for equipment or knowledge they neither have or are not aware of. If you are planning on staying round here, you may wish to bear that in mind in your future posts.

The moderation team would also welcome you rethinking your signature

[photogod]

Do I use my polarizer with the uv filter still in place

[CAG76]

The way mine is made, I attatch my polarizer, then my UV ontop of that. Then I can even put my lens cap on top of my both.

[CAG76]

Oh I love this stuff. It's just so neat seeing the difference. I like this filter, but now I have to figure out ways I can use it to my advantage.

No polarization:


Polarizer adjusted:

[jwsciontc]

it may be me but the difference in those 2 pictures seems slim to none