Polarisation filters. Fit and forget?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Luke Vader, Feb 18, 2006.

  1. Luke  Vader

    Luke Vader Guest

    Just bought a 67mm circular polarisation filter for my cannon 20D. When
    shooting outside in the daytime could the filter be left on in most cases.
    Fit and forget so to speak. I know you can loose a few f stops but I
    wondered, generally if there were any instances were it might not be a good
    idea leaving it on.
     
    Luke Vader, Feb 18, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Luke  Vader

    Bob Salomon Guest

    In article <CTFJf.20393$>,
    " Luke Vader" <> wrote:

    > Just bought a 67mm circular polarisation filter for my cannon 20D. When
    > shooting outside in the daytime could the filter be left on in most cases.
    > Fit and forget so to speak. I know you can loose a few f stops but I
    > wondered, generally if there were any instances were it might not be a good
    > idea leaving it on.


    Yes you can leave it on if you don't mind the light loss. When shooting
    under condition when the polarizer has no polarizing effect it would
    simply work as a ND filter.

    However, as it does cause a loss of light you would have to be careful
    when shooting that you are able to get fast enough shutter speeds with
    enough depth of field so that everything you want is in focus and you
    don't have camera shake from too long a shutter speed. Also by always
    using the filter you may end up setting your camera for a faster ISO
    which may lead to extra noise.

    So most people who want to leave a filter on for protection when not
    using a polarizer would use either a clear protection filter or a UV
    filter.

    --
    To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
     
    Bob Salomon, Feb 18, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <CTFJf.20393$>, Luke
    Vader <> wrote:

    > Just bought a 67mm circular polarisation filter for my cannon 20D. When
    > shooting outside in the daytime could the filter be left on in most cases.
    > Fit and forget so to speak. I know you can loose a few f stops but I
    > wondered, generally if there were any instances were it might not be a good
    > idea leaving it on.


    I guess it's OK if you like throwing away about a stop and a half all
    the time. You might want to learn about photography before making
    stupid statements though.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Feb 18, 2006
    #3
  4. Luke  Vader

    Luke Vader Guest

    "Randall Ainsworth" <> wrote in message
    news:180220060925376213%...


    > I guess it's OK if you like throwing away about a stop and a half all
    > the time. You might want to learn about photography before making
    > stupid statements though.


    I'm sorry. Didn't realise you were the administrator of this forum. Do I
    have to have a certain level of competence in photography to dare ask a
    question. Yes, I hope to learn more about photography, but not from people
    like you.
    Maybe you need to learn some manners.
     
    Luke Vader, Feb 18, 2006
    #4
  5. In article <aHKJf.19857$>, Luke
    Vader <> wrote:

    > I'm sorry. Didn't realise you were the administrator of this forum. Do I
    > have to have a certain level of competence in photography to dare ask a
    > question. Yes, I hope to learn more about photography, but not from people
    > like you.
    > Maybe you need to learn some manners.


    Hey! Put a couple neutral density filters on there and leave 'em there
    while you're at it. They won't hurt anything either.

    What is a polarizing filter used for? It's to reduce reflections from
    non-metallic objects (at approximately a 30-degree angle) and to darken
    blue skies (when the sun is at a right angle). So what useful purpose
    would be served by wasting a stop and a half all the time and leaving
    it on there? When photographing people, it can have some adverse
    effects.

    It was a stupid question that gets asked here a lot.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Feb 18, 2006
    #5
  6. Luke  Vader

    Larry Lynch Guest

    In article <aHKJf.19857$>,
    says...
    >
    > "Randall Ainsworth" <> wrote in message
    > news:180220060925376213%...
    >
    >
    > > I guess it's OK if you like throwing away about a stop and a half all
    > > the time. You might want to learn about photography before making
    > > stupid statements though.

    >
    > I'm sorry. Didn't realise you were the administrator of this forum. Do I
    > have to have a certain level of competence in photography to dare ask a
    > question. Yes, I hope to learn more about photography, but not from people
    > like you.
    > Maybe you need to learn some manners.
    >
    >
    >


    CP filters cut out a LOT of light, and should only be on the camera when
    you have a need for it.

    On the other hand a LOT of people put a UV or "skylight" filter on and
    leave it all the time "to protect the lens" they say...

    I simply make sure my Homeowners policy covers accidental damage of
    "personal belongings" (cost about $13 a year for that). Instead of
    putting a 50 or 100 dollar filter on the front of a lens that was
    designed to work quite well without it! The lens MIGHT cost $2000 or
    more, the filter isnt helping unless its NEEDED.

    Larry Lynch
    Mystic, CT
     
    Larry Lynch, Feb 18, 2006
    #6
  7. Luke  Vader

    imbsysop Guest

    "Randall Ainsworth" <> wrote in message
    news:180220061221425178%...
    > In article <aHKJf.19857$>, Luke
    > Vader <> wrote:
    >
    >> I'm sorry. Didn't realise you were the administrator of this forum. Do I
    >> have to have a certain level of competence in photography to dare ask a
    >> question. Yes, I hope to learn more about photography, but not from
    >> people
    >> like you.
    >> Maybe you need to learn some manners.

    >
    > Hey! Put a couple neutral density filters on there and leave 'em there
    > while you're at it. They won't hurt anything either.
    >
    > What is a polarizing filter used for? It's to reduce reflections from
    > non-metallic objects (at approximately a 30-degree angle) and to darken
    > blue skies (when the sun is at a right angle). So what useful purpose
    > would be served by wasting a stop and a half all the time and leaving
    > it on there? When photographing people, it can have some adverse
    > effects.
    >
    > It was a stupid question that gets asked here a lot.


    I agree .. this Q is like the Loch Ness monster, it keeps on surfacing ..
    apparently people hear about it but never bother to lookup nor understand
    anything about its working .. we'll have to learn how to live with that ..
    eventually
     
    imbsysop, Feb 18, 2006
    #7
  8. Luke  Vader

    Mark² Guest

    Randall Ainsworth wrote:
    > In article <aHKJf.19857$>, Luke
    > Vader <> wrote:
    >
    >> I'm sorry. Didn't realise you were the administrator of this forum.
    >> Do I have to have a certain level of competence in photography to
    >> dare ask a question. Yes, I hope to learn more about photography,
    >> but not from people like you.
    >> Maybe you need to learn some manners.

    >
    > Hey! Put a couple neutral density filters on there and leave 'em there
    > while you're at it. They won't hurt anything either.
    >
    > What is a polarizing filter used for? It's to reduce reflections from
    > non-metallic objects (at approximately a 30-degree angle) and to
    > darken blue skies (when the sun is at a right angle). So what useful
    > purpose would be served by wasting a stop and a half all the time and
    > leaving it on there? When photographing people, it can have some
    > adverse effects.
    >
    > It was a stupid question that gets asked here a lot.


    It wasn't an informed question, but it wasn't a stupid question.
    It was simply a question asked by someone who didn't understand, and needed
    an answer.
     
    Mark², Feb 18, 2006
    #8
  9. Luke  Vader

    Don Dunlap Guest

    "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
    news:5PLJf.47$vd2.15@fed1read04...
    > Randall Ainsworth wrote:
    >> In article <aHKJf.19857$>, Luke
    >> Vader <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I'm sorry. Didn't realise you were the administrator of this forum.
    >>> Do I have to have a certain level of competence in photography to
    >>> dare ask a question. Yes, I hope to learn more about photography,
    >>> but not from people like you.
    >>> Maybe you need to learn some manners.

    >>
    >> Hey! Put a couple neutral density filters on there and leave 'em there
    >> while you're at it. They won't hurt anything either.
    >>
    >> What is a polarizing filter used for? It's to reduce reflections from
    >> non-metallic objects (at approximately a 30-degree angle) and to
    >> darken blue skies (when the sun is at a right angle). So what useful
    >> purpose would be served by wasting a stop and a half all the time and
    >> leaving it on there? When photographing people, it can have some
    >> adverse effects.
    >>
    >> It was a stupid question that gets asked here a lot.

    >
    > It wasn't an informed question, but it wasn't a stupid question.
    > It was simply a question asked by someone who didn't understand, and
    > needed an answer.
    >



    I agree Mark. Our group moderators need to take a vacation.

    Don Dunlap
     
    Don Dunlap, Feb 18, 2006
    #9
  10. In article <43f7892c$0$18969$>, imbsysop
    <> wrote:

    > I agree .. this Q is like the Loch Ness monster, it keeps on surfacing ..
    > apparently people hear about it but never bother to lookup nor understand
    > anything about its working .. we'll have to learn how to live with that ..
    > eventually


    But my favorite stupid question remains - Why can't I have a live
    preview with my DSLR?
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Feb 19, 2006
    #10
  11. Luke  Vader

    fishfry Guest

    In article <CTFJf.20393$>,
    " Luke Vader" <> wrote:

    > Just bought a 67mm circular polarisation filter for my cannon 20D. When
    > shooting outside in the daytime could the filter be left on in most cases.
    > Fit and forget so to speak. I know you can loose a few f stops but I
    > wondered, generally if there were any instances were it might not be a good
    > idea leaving it on.


    For lens protection I use a Skylight. That does not cost a stop.

    As others have mentioned, once you get familiar with your camera you'll
    find that a stop is a terrible thing to waste. One f-stop is the
    difference in low light between being able to hand-hold at at 1/15,
    versus getting camera shake at 1/8.
     
    fishfry, Feb 19, 2006
    #11
  12. Luke  Vader

    Mark² Guest

    Randall Ainsworth wrote:
    > In article <43f7892c$0$18969$>, imbsysop
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> I agree .. this Q is like the Loch Ness monster, it keeps on
    >> surfacing .. apparently people hear about it but never bother to
    >> lookup nor understand anything about its working .. we'll have to
    >> learn how to live with that .. eventually

    >
    > But my favorite stupid question remains - Why can't I have a live
    > preview with my DSLR?


    I find that there are far more stupid answers than there are stupid
    questions.
     
    Mark², Feb 19, 2006
    #12
  13. Luke  Vader

    Guest

    >But my favorite stupid question remains - Why can't I have a
    >live preview with my DSLR?


    Hmm. It seems the answer to that one is different now to what it used
    to be. So perhaps it wasn't all *that* stupid?

    And back on topic, how about *this* stupid addendum to the OP's
    question, Randall...?

    Given a typical overhead sunlit outdoor scene, can you turn a polariser
    to an angle where it actually makes the image look *worse* (ie more
    contrasty/'glary') than it does to the naked eye?


    Think carefully before answering - the answer might have some relevance
    to the original question....
     
    , Feb 19, 2006
    #13
  14. Luke  Vader

    ½ Confused Guest

    "Mark²" wrote:

    > Randall Ainsworth wrote:
    >
    > > But my favorite stupid question remains - Why can't I have a live
    > > preview with my DSLR?


    There is no direct light path to the sensor until the viewfinder
    mechanism moves out of the way. I kinda like the viewfinder... it is
    what allows me to be immersed in the creativity and excitement of
    taking photographs... which is what I love most about my hobby. Now
    that I'm printing (and I never shot film) I will only go back to my
    F717 as a backup camera.

    It is an amazing thrill to have a famous stunt pilot land and do
    doenuts directly in front of me (the guy in the Sparco equipped
    whelchair). He opened the smoke canisters, disappeared, and headed
    directly at me, stopping about 20 yards from my chair. The photos are
    simply amazing, and for some reason, I had 100% trust in the pilot
    that his plane would not malfunction.

    > I find that there are far more stupid answers than there are stupid
    > questions.


    If I have a KIA 20D and really want a 96 mpix IDs Mark VII should I go
    to sleep for 10 years and just not take any pictures? ;=()

    Jeff
     
    ½ Confused, Feb 19, 2006
    #14
  15. Luke  Vader

    imbsysop Guest

    "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
    news:EnVJf.97$vd2.84@fed1read04...
    > Randall Ainsworth wrote:
    >> In article <43f7892c$0$18969$>, imbsysop
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I agree .. this Q is like the Loch Ness monster, it keeps on
    >>> surfacing .. apparently people hear about it but never bother to
    >>> lookup nor understand anything about its working .. we'll have to
    >>> learn how to live with that .. eventually

    >>
    >> But my favorite stupid question remains - Why can't I have a live
    >> preview with my DSLR?

    >
    > I find that there are far more stupid answers than there are stupid
    > questions.


    if people realised that "google" is alive and kicking (just to name one, and
    skipping all the archives of photo discussion forums!) there would be tons &
    tons less of stupid questions .. probably a lot of people can't even read ?
    I guess so ..
    lazyness as a virtue these days ..
     
    imbsysop, Feb 19, 2006
    #15
  16. Luke  Vader

    Luke Vader Guest

    >> It was a stupid question that gets asked here a lot.
    >
    > It wasn't an informed question, but it wasn't a stupid question.
    > It was simply a question asked by someone who didn't understand, and
    > needed an answer.
    >


    This is the problem with newsgroups generally. It's a bit of a free for all.
    I didn't realise it was a common question plus I'd take onboard that yes, it
    was perhaps a lazy. I should of 'googled' it before posting.
    It's hard to gauge the level of ability of the hardcore users of a group who
    tire of such questions. Theres no FAQ to read like forums you subscribe to
    such as http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/ as an example.

    Thanks for the many replies and support. At least I've learned two important
    things today.
     
    Luke Vader, Feb 19, 2006
    #16
  17. Luke  Vader

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 15:41:07 -0500, Larry Lynch
    <> wrote:

    >In article <aHKJf.19857$>,
    > says...
    >>
    >> "Randall Ainsworth" <> wrote in message
    >> news:180220060925376213%...
    >>
    >>
    >> > I guess it's OK if you like throwing away about a stop and a half all
    >> > the time. You might want to learn about photography before making
    >> > stupid statements though.

    >>
    >> I'm sorry. Didn't realise you were the administrator of this forum. Do I
    >> have to have a certain level of competence in photography to dare ask a
    >> question. Yes, I hope to learn more about photography, but not from people
    >> like you.
    >> Maybe you need to learn some manners.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    >CP filters cut out a LOT of light, and should only be on the camera when
    >you have a need for it.
    >
    >On the other hand a LOT of people put a UV or "skylight" filter on and
    >leave it all the time "to protect the lens" they say...
    >
    >I simply make sure my Homeowners policy covers accidental damage of
    >"personal belongings" (cost about $13 a year for that). Instead of
    >putting a 50 or 100 dollar filter on the front of a lens that was
    >designed to work quite well without it! The lens MIGHT cost $2000 or
    >more, the filter isnt helping unless its NEEDED.
    >
    >Larry Lynch
    >Mystic, CT


    Insurance is wonderful - AFTER damage has occured.
    I'd rather prevent the damage, especially after I think about it, and
    realize that I can continue shooting if I avoid the damage.
    As for the NEEDED part, well, I guess NEED is in the eye of the user.
    In a studio, a filter isn't needed. Shooting where there are a lot of
    people around, they can be a necessity. I'd much rather clean a UV
    filter of food smears than my new $500+ lens. (And, yes, it happened
    yesterday at the Rennaisance Festival; kids are very unpredictable,
    and far to seldom under the control of their parents. I *did* manage
    to not ghet hit by a wooden sword, though. :))
    At any rate, if you feel you shouldn't use a filter, fine; don't. But
    telling others they shouldn't ignores the fact that not everyone is in
    your situation.

    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
     
    Bill Funk, Feb 19, 2006
    #17
  18. Luke  Vader

    ½ Confused Guest

    "imbsysop" <> wrote:

    > if people realised that "google" is alive and kicking (just to name one, and
    > skipping all the archives of photo discussion forums!) there would be tons &
    > tons less of stupid questions .. probably a lot of people can't even read ?
    > I guess so ..
    > lazyness as a virtue these days ..


    I especially dislike people too lazy to assist people seeking answers
    in a time when "google" is now a verb. Finding answers to straight
    forward questions is often impossible (unless one has days to read
    drivel to find the actual answer). And, it is often necessary to get
    an up-to-date accurate answer; one from people one knows to have good
    information in their heads and an ability to communicate.

    Jeff
     
    ½ Confused, Feb 19, 2006
    #18
  19. Luke  Vader

    imbsysop Guest

    "½ Confused" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "imbsysop" <> wrote:
    >
    >> if people realised that "google" is alive and kicking (just to name one,
    >> and
    >> skipping all the archives of photo discussion forums!) there would be
    >> tons &
    >> tons less of stupid questions .. probably a lot of people can't even read
    >> ?
    >> I guess so ..
    >> lazyness as a virtue these days ..

    >
    > I especially dislike people too lazy to assist people seeking answers
    > in a time when "google" is now a verb. Finding answers to straight
    > forward questions is often impossible (unless one has days to read
    > drivel to find the actual answer). ..


    Dude, I've been on usenet maybe longer than you have lived .. If I had
    gotten 1 cent for all the Q's where the answer was listed just 3 postings
    before the Q, I would be stinking rich by now .. just to demonstrate the
    egocentricity .. 70% of the Q's here are redundant ..
     
    imbsysop, Feb 19, 2006
    #19
  20. Luke  Vader

    Mark² Guest

    imbsysop wrote:
    > "½ Confused" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> "imbsysop" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> if people realised that "google" is alive and kicking (just to name
    >>> one, and
    >>> skipping all the archives of photo discussion forums!) there would
    >>> be tons &
    >>> tons less of stupid questions .. probably a lot of people can't
    >>> even read ?
    >>> I guess so ..
    >>> lazyness as a virtue these days ..

    >>
    >> I especially dislike people too lazy to assist people seeking answers
    >> in a time when "google" is now a verb. Finding answers to straight
    >> forward questions is often impossible (unless one has days to read
    >> drivel to find the actual answer). ..

    >
    > Dude, I've been on usenet maybe longer than you have lived .. If I had
    > gotten 1 cent for all the Q's where the answer was listed just 3
    > postings before the Q, I would be stinking rich by now .. just to
    > demonstrate the egocentricity .. 70% of the Q's here are redundant ..


    Right. But that isn't true in this case.
    Also...
    -Many people who ask these questions are just as unfamiliar with usenet as
    they are unfamiliar with their gear. This means that it's a very large
    assumption that they even know how to search for previous posts.
     
    Mark², Feb 19, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. [blu|shark]

    Canon: EF filters = EF-S filters?

    [blu|shark], Jan 22, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    2,504
    Steve
    Jan 28, 2004
  2. Colin Barnhorst

    Forget VPC or x64 and buy Virtual Server for less!

    Colin Barnhorst, Nov 15, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    504
    Tony Sperling
    Nov 19, 2005
  3. Clogwog
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    528
    Clogwog
    Jul 7, 2007
  4. Rich
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    347
    John Bean
    Nov 8, 2007
  5. peter
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    895
    peter
    Dec 13, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page