[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Rollei] Using a polarizer instead of red filter



Jim,
     I usually prefer a red filter to a polarizer in
most situations in b&w work. I find that the skewing
of the tones (which I work around) is many times
compenstated by the deep reduction of aerial haze,
especially in landscapes. Yeah, yeah I know, wrong
filter color for landscapes, but it would surprise ya.
Personally, I find the 23 red to be most useful, but
you can't beat the 25A for drama in the sky. When
using either, be most aware of cloud formations,
especially those high, streaky kind that are barely
visible to the naked eye as the red filters will
render them quite starkly.
     A polarizer, of course will not shift the tones
away from what you would get without a filter too very
much. But, it will give one more saturation and darker
tones in the sky. It also has some haze penetrating
power like the reds but not as much. It also has the
advantage of eating up only 1 to 2 f/stops of light as
compared to the 2 1/2 to 3 of the red.
     I don't know about the Southwest's clarity, but
here in the Southeast it's kinda dusty most of the
time, and the heat and humidity exacerbates the
situation. I have found that the use of a filter is
nearly always advisable with b&w here. 

Jon
from Deepinaharta, Georgia
- --- James Chow <drjchow  > wrote:
> Does anyone use a polarizer to darken the sky in B&W
> landscape shots over a red
> filter? I realize that the sun might not always be
> at the correct angle for
> this, but in the Southwest, one can make the sky
> effectively dark purple w/ a
> PL. It would certainly be a lot cheaper, as 95mm B+W
> multicoated filters for my
> Schneider lenses cost $$ and are special order only.
> :-)
> 
> --Jim
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/

------------------------------