Quality - But In Prespective

[ameerat42]

OK, time to re-gress... - to the word "Perspective" in your title.
I haven't used a polarising filter since film days. Phew! The main
reason has been - I haven't felt the need for one, and even then
it was sparing.

Now if you think that's heresy, what about this...?

I bet there are a lot of people like that.

Exegesis has been based on the following fundamental questions:
Is there a preponderance of pesky reflections that could be minimised?
Is there such a thing as universal "glare"?
Are the daily colours in life so dull as to need "enhancing"?
Does a polariser provide a saving fix for all photos?
Was Rome built in a day? (Woops!)

Don't forget the basic science:
Not all light is polarised, so the main use of a polariser to analyse
the light will be lost. It will only act as a density filter, likely unwanted
at the time. For instance, a polariser will not do much for bright reflected
bright sunlight on choppy water. It does help for other reflected
light off smoother water, cutting down on the polarised reflections to show
beneath the surface.

Anyway, good luck in your quest, and where it has been said to try for a cheaper
one first - sometimes it's useful to give vent to urges at the time - I agree.

[Geoff79]

OK, time to re-gress... - to the word "Perspective" in your title.
I haven't used a polarising filter since film days. Phew! The main
reason has been - I haven't felt the need for one, and even then
it was sparing.

Now if you think that's heresy, what about this...?

I bet there are a lot of people like that.

Exegesis has been based on the following fundamental questions:
Is there a preponderance of pesky reflections that could be minimised?
Is there such a thing as universal "glare"?
Are the daily colours in life so dull as to need "enhancing"?
Does a polariser provide a saving fix for all photos?
Was Rome built in a day? (Woops!)

Don't forget the basic science:
Not all light is polarised, so the main use of a polariser to analyse
the light will be lost. It will only act as a density filter, likely unwanted
at the time. For instance, a polariser will not do much for bright reflected
bright sunlight on choppy water. It does help for other reflected
light off smoother water, cutting down on the polarised reflections to show
beneath the surface.

Anyway, good luck in your quest, and where it has been said to try for a cheaper
one first - sometimes it's useful to give vent to urges at the time - I agree.

Out of curiosity, Am, do you ever photograph waterfalls? I could easily do without a CPL filter for every photo I take, and I do... except waterfalls.

Way back before I ever knew what a CPL filter was, I never used one. But most of those photos are now write offs. I still clearly remember the thread I posted here (probably about 8 years ago now) where I posted some Blue Mountain waterfall shots and Dylan alerted me to the CPL filter and that they needed to be operated to be effective. I think I had one on my camera by that point, but I didn’t know you had to play around with it for it to be effective.

Anyway, point being, even shooting waterfalls this weekend, after some rain, I always take a shot or two where I forget to re-adjust the CPL filter, and they’re useless. Quick adjustment and I’m back in business.

Anyway, just curious if you shoot waterfalls without a filter, or if it’s just not your jam.