«

Hi,

Equipment: Oly C-750.

Recently I bought a Kenko 52mm UV Filter. Its really cheap, ~US$5.
Take a look at the results at:
http://www.geocities.com/losttoy2000/UVEffect.html

Is that flare expected from UV filters or is it my El-cheapo lens that
needs to be replaced with a B+W or a Hoya?

Also, I am planning to get a Raynox DCR-6600Pro wide angle lens. Now
this lens has an outer ring of 72mm. So do I fit the UV and Circular
polarizer filters before it or do I get 72mm UV & C-PL filters?

Thanks,

Siddhartha

IMHO it looks like poor glass in front of good class

I am sure there will be experts along in a minute to elaborate

It wasn't steamed up/greasy by anychance?

Artio

"John Doe" <> wrote in message
news: om...
> Hi,
>
> Equipment: Oly C-750.
>
> Recently I bought a Kenko 52mm UV Filter. Its really cheap, ~US$5.
> Take a look at the results at:
> http://www.geocities.com/losttoy2000/UVEffect.html
>
> Is that flare expected from UV filters or is it my El-cheapo lens that
> needs to be replaced with a B+W or a Hoya?
>
> Also, I am planning to get a Raynox DCR-6600Pro wide angle lens. Now
> this lens has an outer ring of 72mm. So do I fit the UV and Circular
> polarizer filters before it or do I get 72mm UV & C-PL filters?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Siddhartha

Thanks Artio. Nope, it wasn't smudged or anything of the sort. Also,
would appreciate if someone could suggest a method to check the
quality of the Marumi C-PL I just bought.

Cheers,

Siddhartha

> It wasn't steamed up/greasy by anychance?
>
> Artio
>
> "John Doe" <> wrote in message
> news: om...
> > Hi,
> >
> > Equipment: Oly C-750.
> >
> > Recently I bought a Kenko 52mm UV Filter. Its really cheap, ~US$5.
> > Take a look at the results at:
> > http://www.geocities.com/losttoy2000/UVEffect.html
> >
> > Is that flare expected from UV filters or is it my El-cheapo lens that
> > needs to be replaced with a B+W or a Hoya?
> >
> > Also, I am planning to get a Raynox DCR-6600Pro wide angle lens. Now
> > this lens has an outer ring of 72mm. So do I fit the UV and Circular
> > polarizer filters before it or do I get 72mm UV & C-PL filters?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Siddhartha

On 22 Aug 2004 23:50:43 -0700, (John Doe)
wrote:

>Thanks Artio. Nope, it wasn't smudged or anything of the sort. Also,
>would appreciate if someone could suggest a method to check the
>quality of the Marumi C-PL I just bought.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Siddhartha
>

The best way to check the quality of any polarizer is by using
another polarizer of known excellent quality, then cross them at 90
degrees to their plane of polarization and look through them at some
bright even light source. When testing circular polarizers you'll
have to make sure that you have the outward surfaces facing towards
each other, or else the 1/4th wave layer will make the image look
all clear or all black (depending if you use another circular
polarizer or non-circular one for the test) no matter how you orient
them radially to each other.

Good crossed-polarizers will look evenly dense (dark) across their
whole area in front of a very bright light. Any defects, like
banding, weak spots, or holes in the polarizing layer will easily
show up.

When testing them this way it's fairly easy to tell which is the
"best" polarizer to use for future tests by just noting which one is
rotating along with the easily-obvious defects.

When comparing bargain-basement polarizers with expensive ones I
generally find no correlation with cost and quality. Some expensive
ones easily fail the crossed-polarizer test, and some bargain items
are some of the best polarizers I've found. The converse also
holding true at times.

One thing to note is the density of darkness when doing a test like
this. Some polarizers are very weak and will not provide a
pitch-black view when crossed. Or show odd color-shifts that aren't
normally apparent. In others I've noticed annoying banding defects.

One of the best polarizers I've ever found came in the form of
16"x16" surplus plastic polarizer sheeting from sciplus.com a few
years ago, it was once used for making sun-glasses. When crossed
they provide nearly a 32 f/stop exposure difference, with zero
defects -- something that no brand-name photographic filter has been
able to accomplish for me to date. A nice find for $8 at the time.
Two filters cut from this material and mounted in old filter-mounts
work amazingly well for a variable neutral-density filter for
applications like slowing down shutter speeds for moving-water
effects in extremely bright sun-lit situations. The best I could
ever get with brand-name filters was at most a 12 f/stop change --
showing me just how weak they actually are, and yet they try to
charge a small fortune for them.

Live & learn. Don't believe what anyone tells you until you test
things for yourself (even what I've just told you). In the case of
polarizers for photography -- cost has never equated with quality.
At least in my findings. I suppose manufacturers figure that they
can get away with it because the average person will never know of
an easy way to check them for defects and polarizing density. Or
more likely that the average consumer will never bother because
they've been brainwashed into thinking that if it's the most
expensive then it must be best.


An interesting aside: when playing with a polarizer last year, in
conjunction with some diffraction-rainbow car-window tinting film,
it acted as a strange 1/4th(?) wave-plate. That, depending on the
film's orientation to the polarizer and the reflections from other
surfaces, would impart any color of rainbow into the reflected
surfaces (those that provided naturally polarized light). Providing
for some very unique imaging effects. I could change the windows or
bodies of cars, or bodies of water or areas of the sky, into
completely new colors while leaving all other objects in the photo
as their natural colors. I've since applied some of that film to a
plain-glass filter and now use it with a polarizer for some fun
special-effects. (The novelty wears off quickly though.

On 22 Aug 2004 23:50:43 -0700, (John Doe)
wrote:

>Thanks Artio. Nope, it wasn't smudged or anything of the sort. Also,
>would appreciate if someone could suggest a method to check the
>quality of the Marumi C-PL I just bought.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Siddhartha
>

The best way to check the quality of any polarizer is by using
another polarizer of known excellent quality, then cross them at 90
degrees to their plane of polarization and look through them at some
bright even light source. When testing circular polarizers you'll
have to make sure that you have the outward surfaces facing towards
each other, or else the 1/4th wave layer will make the image look
all clear or all black (depending if you use another circular
polarizer or non-circular one for the test) no matter how you orient
them radially to each other.

Good crossed-polarizers will look evenly dense (dark) across their
whole area in front of a very bright light. Any defects, like
banding, weak spots, or holes in the polarizing layer will easily
show up.

When testing them this way it's fairly easy to tell which is the
"best" polarizer to use for future tests by just noting which one is
rotating along with the easily-obvious defects.

When comparing bargain-basement polarizers with expensive ones I
generally find no correlation with cost and quality. Some expensive
ones easily fail the crossed-polarizer test, and some bargain items
are some of the best polarizers I've found. The converse also
holding true at times.

One thing to note is the density of darkness when doing a test like
this. Some polarizers are very weak and will not provide a
pitch-black view when crossed. Or show odd color-shifts that aren't
normally apparent. In others I've noticed annoying banding defects.

One of the best polarizers I've ever found came in the form of
16"x16" surplus plastic polarizer sheeting from sciplus.com a few
years ago, it was once used for making sun-glasses. When crossed
they provide nearly a 32 f/stop exposure difference, with zero
defects -- something that no brand-name photographic filter has been
able to accomplish for me to date. A nice find for $8 at the time.
Two filters cut from this material and mounted in old filter-mounts
work amazingly well for a variable neutral-density filter for
applications like slowing down shutter speeds for moving-water
effects in extremely bright sun-lit situations. The best I could
ever get with brand-name filters was at most a 12 f/stop change --
showing me just how weak they actually are, and yet they try to
charge a small fortune for them.

Live & learn. Don't believe what anyone tells you until you test
things for yourself (even what I've just told you). In the case of
polarizers for photography -- cost has never equated with quality.
At least in my findings. I suppose manufacturers figure that they
can get away with it because the average person will never know of
an easy way to check them for defects and polarizing density. Or
more likely that the average consumer will never bother because
they've been brainwashed into thinking that if it's the most
expensive then it must be best.


An interesting aside: when playing with a polarizer last year, in
conjunction with some diffraction-rainbow car-window tinting film,
it acted as a strange 1/4th(?) wave-plate. That, depending on the
film's orientation to the polarizer and the reflections from other
surfaces, would impart any color of rainbow into the reflected
surfaces (those that provided naturally polarized light). Providing
for some very unique imaging effects. I could change the windows or
bodies of cars, or bodies of water or areas of the sky, into
completely new colors while leaving all other objects in the photo
as their natural colors. I've since applied some of that film to a
plain-glass filter and now use it with a polarizer for some fun
special-effects. (The novelty wears off quickly though.

In article <>,
JustPassinThru <> wrote:

> would appreciate if someone could suggest a method to check the
> >quality of the Marumi C-PL I just bought.

Use a high quality light box that is daylight balanced with a CRI of 95
to 98+.
Put any polarizer you want to test on it and photograph the polarizer on
the box with daylight slide film.

The slide should show that a really good polarizer is neutral grey in
color.

Do bear in mind that there are many grades of polarizing foils of which
very few are designed to be placed in front of a lens for photography.
Anyone that recommends sheet foils to be placed in front of a lens is
recommending a method to degrade your results. Sheet polarizers are
intended for lighting purposes or other, non-photographic, uses.
Optically they will degrade the image as they are impossible to hold
absolutely flat and parallel to the lens.

Also, as they are not coated, they easily can create flare which will
reduce contrast and color saturation and, as contrast effects
resolution, the apparent sharpness of your result. Lastly they are very
difficult to rotate continuously as any mounted polarizer can do.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:43:13 -0400, Bob Salomon
<> wrote:

>In article <>,
> JustPassinThru <> wrote:
>
>> would appreciate if someone could suggest a method to check the
>> >quality of the Marumi C-PL I just bought.
>
>Use a high quality light box that is daylight balanced with a CRI of 95
>to 98+.
>Put any polarizer you want to test on it and photograph the polarizer on
>the box with daylight slide film.
>
>The slide should show that a really good polarizer is neutral grey in
>color.

And this will show you ... what? The evenness of dye layers in your
slide film and its ability or inability to accurately reproduce
colors? Or the quality of color and evenness of lighting in your
light-box, that you paid dearly for and are trying to find uses for
it to try to justify the cost? Or that you are now trying to find
any use at all for your outdated film equipment that is now rapidly
fading in value and use? Or is this just red-herring hype from
someone that's trying to dissuade people from an inexpensive and
easy way to find flaws in their overpriced polarizing filters that
they can now test right in the store before purchase (and then throw
them back down on the counter when they fail to pass the previously
posted, easy, and quick-to-perform test).

>
>Do bear in mind that there are many grades of polarizing foils of which
>very few are designed to be placed in front of a lens for photography.
>Anyone that recommends sheet foils to be placed in front of a lens is
>recommending a method to degrade your results. Sheet polarizers are
>intended for lighting purposes or other, non-photographic, uses.
>Optically they will degrade the image as they are impossible to hold
>absolutely flat and parallel to the lens.
>
>Also, as they are not coated, they easily can create flare which will
>reduce contrast and color saturation and, as contrast effects
>resolution, the apparent sharpness of your result. Lastly they are very
>difficult to rotate continuously as any mounted polarizer can do.

While some of what you claim may be true for some poorly made "sheet
foils", it is not always true. Just what do you think is mounted on
the glass of those high quality polarizers? Answer: polarizing film
(or in your words, "foil"). Any photographic filter you have ever
used started out its lowly life as a plastic sheet film first,
(unless it is the old style gelatins; or was built up from
molecule-thin layers in evaporative-deposition processes, found only
in the most expensive of laboratory-grade filters). You might like
to know that the best filters for use in astrophotography techniques
are UNMOUNTED FOILS/FILMS because the parallelism between the
front/back surfaces is hard to match in rigid glass filters, even in
optical flats. The thinness of them will also impart no distortions
from diffraction. It is also never true (with camera lenses) that
optically-flat filters are best. It is even better to use a curved
(convex/concave) filter in front of a lens, or else the perimeter
will impart chromatic aberrations into the image, as always happens
when using any planar filter in a convergent light path.

You sound like you don't know much about physics but do know an
awful lot about old-school, lighting-school marketing hype. The kind
that comes from 3rd rate commercial schools or ragazines that
advertise on late-night TV shows, and employ desperate inept
educators who "can't, so they teach". I suggest you try some
hands-on tests of these materials yourself lest you be outted again
the next time you are passing on misinformation to others from your
inexperienced and misinformed life.

In article <>,
JustPassinThru <> wrote:

> mounted on
> the glass of those high quality polarizers?

Optical grade foils.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

Excellent positing JustPassinThru

Obviously u is well skilled and knaoledgeful

please continue to post and share your wizdom

Artio

"JustPassinThru" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:43:13 -0400, Bob Salomon
> <> wrote:
>
> >In article <>,
> > JustPassinThru <> wrote:
> >
> >> would appreciate if someone could suggest a method to check the
> >> >quality of the Marumi C-PL I just bought.
> >
> >Use a high quality light box that is daylight balanced with a CRI of 95
> >to 98+.
> >Put any polarizer you want to test on it and photograph the polarizer on
> >the box with daylight slide film.
> >
> >The slide should show that a really good polarizer is neutral grey in
> >color.
>
> And this will show you ... what? The evenness of dye layers in your
> slide film and its ability or inability to accurately reproduce
> colors? Or the quality of color and evenness of lighting in your
> light-box, that you paid dearly for and are trying to find uses for
> it to try to justify the cost? Or that you are now trying to find
> any use at all for your outdated film equipment that is now rapidly
> fading in value and use? Or is this just red-herring hype from
> someone that's trying to dissuade people from an inexpensive and
> easy way to find flaws in their overpriced polarizing filters that
> they can now test right in the store before purchase (and then throw
> them back down on the counter when they fail to pass the previously
> posted, easy, and quick-to-perform test).
>
> >
> >Do bear in mind that there are many grades of polarizing foils of which
> >very few are designed to be placed in front of a lens for photography.
> >Anyone that recommends sheet foils to be placed in front of a lens is
> >recommending a method to degrade your results. Sheet polarizers are
> >intended for lighting purposes or other, non-photographic, uses.
> >Optically they will degrade the image as they are impossible to hold
> >absolutely flat and parallel to the lens.
> >
> >Also, as they are not coated, they easily can create flare which will
> >reduce contrast and color saturation and, as contrast effects
> >resolution, the apparent sharpness of your result. Lastly they are very
> >difficult to rotate continuously as any mounted polarizer can do.
>
> While some of what you claim may be true for some poorly made "sheet
> foils", it is not always true. Just what do you think is mounted on
> the glass of those high quality polarizers? Answer: polarizing film
> (or in your words, "foil"). Any photographic filter you have ever
> used started out its lowly life as a plastic sheet film first,
> (unless it is the old style gelatins; or was built up from
> molecule-thin layers in evaporative-deposition processes, found only
> in the most expensive of laboratory-grade filters). You might like
> to know that the best filters for use in astrophotography techniques
> are UNMOUNTED FOILS/FILMS because the parallelism between the
> front/back surfaces is hard to match in rigid glass filters, even in
> optical flats. The thinness of them will also impart no distortions
> from diffraction. It is also never true (with camera lenses) that
> optically-flat filters are best. It is even better to use a curved
> (convex/concave) filter in front of a lens, or else the perimeter
> will impart chromatic aberrations into the image, as always happens
> when using any planar filter in a convergent light path.
>
> You sound like you don't know much about physics but do know an
> awful lot about old-school, lighting-school marketing hype. The kind
> that comes from 3rd rate commercial schools or ragazines that
> advertise on late-night TV shows, and employ desperate inept
> educators who "can't, so they teach". I suggest you try some
> hands-on tests of these materials yourself lest you be outted again
> the next time you are passing on misinformation to others from your
> inexperienced and misinformed life.
>
>