Re: Circular Polarizers, A Filter You Need

They were all exposed using auto exposure and none were autoleveled or 
such in PS. Yes the first is over exposed to what I would want but I 
left it in because I found it quite interesting that the camera itself 
would get such different exposures of the scene with and without the
filter.

For the article I used a quite wideangle lens to show the variation in 
sky darkening with such a lens. With a narrower lens the sky effect can 
be very strong with the right direction of camera relative to sun and 
is, IMO, a very useful creative tool.

As to the rest of your comments, grow up. I publish an online magazine, 
the same as the print photo mags I used to edit. I have every right to 
put advertising on there if I want. If people don't want to they do not 
have to click on anything except read the article. As it is I earn about 
enough to cover my hosting costs. I assume you expect to get paid from 
your job. Providing a site like DIMi, paying the costs and spending the 
time organising the competitions, prizes, doing the reviews and 
answering people's questions is a major effort. I do not see whiners 
like you doing anything like this. Sure you'll get on a list and offer 
opinions, it takes no real effort. When you put in the effort to do a 
site like DIMi and keep doing it year on year then I might listen to 
your crap.

Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog  http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/



Matt Clara wrote:
> On Aug 8, 5:33 am, "Wayne J. Cosshall" <wa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I've written the first of a series of articles on the use of real
camera
>> filters with digital photography. The first is on the circular
polarizer
>> filter:
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Wayne
> 
> I have one, rarely use it.  Additionally, a 77mm multi-coated circular
> polarizer to fit a great majority of my lenses, including my Mamiya
> gear, costs a minimum of $150.  It's not worth the money.  And about
> your examples, in the first series of thumbnail images, the one w/out
> polarizer is clearly over exposed, the ones in which you indicate
> reduced reflection from water and foliage are different, but not
> necessarily better, and the darkened sky images look unnatural (and
> again, you tend to overexpose, particularly in the ones with the dam
> in the background).  This is not to say the circular polarizer is not
> without its uses, but to say it's a filter one "needs" is a stretch,
> and a big one at that.
> 
> Finally, aren't you in essence spamming the photography groups in an
> attempt to make money off our visits to your website, which are
> replete with advertising?  If you want to share info here, please do,
> but your capitalist endeavors aren't welcome.
> 
> --
> www.mattclara.com (not a single image there taken with a polarizer)
>