On 3/5/2014 12:21 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> Then, as you suggested, the X-Pro1 is not a valid test case for the
> E-M5. Calling E-M5 owners....
I have the gear (E-M5, various polarizers, 37=>49 and 58 mm step-up rings
arrived today, for another purpose), but
little enthusiasm.
I proved to myself long ago, when I started scanning film, that post processing
was more effective for skies, foliage,
etc. than polarizers. It was especially so for WAs and SWAs (18/3.5 and 21/3.5).
With better software and skills, that's even more true today.
All I can figure I'd need a polarizer for is knocking down specular highlights
and 'seeing through' water and glass.
Specular highlights aren't a feature, or at least not unnatural looking, in my
favorite subjects. Wavelets in the sun
SHOULD sparkle, for example.
When shooting through water surfaces and glass, there are already image effects
stronger than I imagine could possibly
come from using a linear polarizer. I just don't think there's going to be an
observable difference.
I've dutifully carried polarizers around for many years and many, many miles
(Such a good, obedient boy, Moosie.), and
just don't use them. I've been trying to remember when I last actually used one
in the field; it's been a looooog time.
So if the sun comes out (Hurrah for Rain!!!), and I get a sudden burst of
energy ... But don't hold your breath. :-)
Un Polarized* Moose
* Centrist? Or Anarchist?
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|