Do you leave your circular polariser on the lens all the time?


Status
Not open for further replies.

noobie

New Member
Jan 29, 2007
313
0
0
#1
I feel really troublesome to mount and unmount the CIR-PL. So I only use it when I need it, and the rest of the time I dun use it one. :)
 

Rashkae

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
19,105
12
0
#2
I only leave a UV filter on as the default. Leaving a CP filter on is utter nonsense.
 

Stratix

New Member
Oct 13, 2005
936
0
0
#3
CPL cuts down 2 stops of light (IIRC), and leaving it on would cripple your lens..
 

Adelfin

New Member
Dec 18, 2005
495
0
0
31
Earth
#4
I NEVER leave it on.. i only mount it if i need to.. polarizer doesn't work in all situations, and sometimes u don't want that kind of effect anyway. The reduced light can also cause focus problems in relatively low light, and u have to unnecessarily use a slower shutter speed for your shots.
 

Azure

Deregistered
Mar 16, 2003
2,775
0
0
ClubSNAP community
www.clubsnap.org
#5
I used to use a circ-pol when I was shooting with my Coolpix. And even then, I'd rarely mount it. If you reasons for keeping it mounted is that you find it cumbersome to mount/unmount, then perhaps you are lazy. I was, back then. But after losing the shutter speed and thus losing the shot, I learnt my lesson.

That was back in 2003. I rarely use CPLs nowadays, preferring to get the shot right via camera control. It will only come in useful if and when I wish to cut reflections.
 

Galdor

Senior Member
Jul 5, 2006
9,544
0
0
Planet Gaia
s105.photobucket.com
#6
Most if not all photographers will only mount the CPL when necessary. It doesn't work in all situations and it'll slow down your lens.
 

ihub88

New Member
Mar 3, 2007
586
0
0
#7
:sweat:

this kind of question also ask
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#9
I feel really troublesome to mount and unmount the CIR-PL. So I only use it when I need it, and the rest of the time I dun use it one. :)
If you find it troublesome to screw on something that takes maybe 2 seconds if you take your time, and 4 if you fumble.. Then how? =D

But anyways, you should only use it when you need it what. If you shoot indoors need CPL for what? :dunno:
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#14
Maybe can invent transition lens :thumbsup:
Rofl, I laughed when I read this.. =D

Later don't want the CPL effect outdoors how? :bsmilie:

Then end up bringing one non-Transition edition of lens and one Transition edition.. In the end spend more $ than getting one normal lens and one filter.. Must also lug both lenses around. Hehe!
 

noobie

New Member
Jan 29, 2007
313
0
0
#15
Ok, let me rephrase the question, a CIR-PL or a hood is better for reducing glare? Well, yeah I am a lazy bum :) I read from somewhere it says CIR-PL can reduce highlight on very sunny days. My main use PL is to saturate the sky for landscape shots,and that's it. Removing of reflection is not important for me. I guess I don't really need a PL then because saturation can be tuned in PS easily.
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#16
Ok, let me rephrase the question, a CIR-PL or a hood is better for reducing glare? Well, yeah I am a lazy bum :) I read from somewhere it says CIR-PL can reduce highlight on very sunny days. My main use PL is to saturate the sky for landscape shots,and that's it. Removing of reflection is not important for me. I guess I don't really need a PL then because saturation can be tuned in PS easily.
PS editing doesn't compare to the image you get out of your cam, simply put.

At least at this stage. How does a hood reduce glare? I thought it reduces flare only?
 

Artosoft

Senior Member
Aug 31, 2005
3,710
0
0
Tanjong Katong
#17
Ok, let me rephrase the question, a CIR-PL or a hood is better for reducing glare? Well, yeah I am a lazy bum :) I read from somewhere it says CIR-PL can reduce highlight on very sunny days. My main use PL is to saturate the sky for landscape shots,and that's it. Removing of reflection is not important for me. I guess I don't really need a PL then because saturation can be tuned in PS easily.
Don't be lazy. Read this:
http://dpfwiw.com/polarizer.htm

True PS can't reproduce cpl effect.

Regards,
Arto.
 

posez

New Member
Mar 23, 2007
283
0
0
#18
Maybe can invent transition lens :thumbsup:
Brilliant idea! Except CPL don't quite work the same way.

It is a bit cumbersome lah seriously, unscrewing UV filter, screwing on polariser, then unscrewing polariser then screwing on UV filter.. even worse if you are shooting with lens hood on. Although I do quite a bit of outdoor and landscape photography, I usually only put the CPL on when I know I will be out in bright sunlight with lots of sky and cloud shots to do, and it stays on until I go indoors.
 

Rashkae

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
19,105
12
0
#19
Transition lens would be more like an auto-ND filter.
 

noobie

New Member
Jan 29, 2007
313
0
0
#20
Brilliant idea! Except CPL don't quite work the same way.

It is a bit cumbersome lah seriously, unscrewing UV filter, screwing on polariser, then unscrewing polariser then screwing on UV filter.. even worse if you are shooting with lens hood on. Although I do quite a bit of outdoor and landscape photography, I usually only put the CPL on when I know I will be out in bright sunlight with lots of sky and cloud shots to do, and it stays on until I go indoors.
precisely my point! i broke one filter because of too much screwing action that i dropped the filter onto the hard floor and it was smashed.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom