Group: Member
Post: 2 (0 liked)
Join date: May 2020
Status:
|
|
on May 26, 2020 16:37:15 GMT
Posted: May 26, 2020 16:37:15 GMT
Thank you for the reply. I am new to using a cpl. while I understand that the light meter behind the lens will guess the correct shutter speed, I am wondering about how to appropriately adjust the cpl since the rangefinder does not allow me to see the effects through the lens. If I am fairly certain that the sun is at about 90° from where I am shooting is that the best guesstimate I can make? Thanks for your advice in advance
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 1,369 (301 liked)
Join date: February 2017
Status: Failed treatment for L.B.A. and G.A.S,
|
|
on May 26, 2020 23:23:09 GMT
Last Edit: May 26, 2020 23:24:12 GMT by lumiworx
...I am wondering about how to appropriately adjust the cpl since the rangefinder does not allow me to see the effects through the lens. If I am fairly certain that the sun is at about 90° from where I am shooting is that the best guesstimate I can make? Thanks for your advice in advance That is an excellent question, and I'm not sure if there's a surefire solution to get accurate enough results without using a purpose-built solution like the Kenko Rangefinder Polorizers. They aren't terribly expensive, but not exactly as cheap as the SLR lens filter setups either. You buy the 2 pieces separately - the index-marked polarizer pair for the lens, and a shoe mounted finder - and you match the numbers read from the adjusted finder to apply to the filter ring's indexing number. A youTube video on using that setup: There is also a very old solution, but it's more akward to use... A Tiffen Polaroid Rotoscreen set. These aren't made anymore, but they look to be easy finds on ebay. You'll also need a "Series" type adapter ring to fit to your lens, as they don't appear to be pre-threaded.
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 1,369 (301 liked)
Join date: February 2017
Status: Failed treatment for L.B.A. and G.A.S,
|
|
on May 26, 2020 23:35:05 GMT
Posted: May 26, 2020 23:35:05 GMT
A quick check with a currency convertor on the Kenko stuff makes it a little higher than it first appeared to be.
A 55mm Polarizer is ¥8,944 = $83.21 USD The Finder is ¥4,770 = $44.37 USD
Ouch!
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 770 (71 liked)
Join date: August 2016
Status:
|
|
on May 27, 2020 12:36:53 GMT
Posted: May 27, 2020 12:36:53 GMT
I can't speak to circular polarizers, but all of the linear polarizers I've ever seen are designed to be rotated and have a mark -- a white dot or stripe on the edge for alignment. All you need to do is look through the polarizer and notice where the mark is -- when you achieve the desired effect. Then place the polarizer on the lens and turn the polarizer so that the mark is in the same place when you were looking through it.
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 1,369 (301 liked)
Join date: February 2017
Status: Failed treatment for L.B.A. and G.A.S,
|
|
on May 27, 2020 16:08:18 GMT
Last Edit: May 27, 2020 16:24:33 GMT by lumiworx
[Moved to a new thread, to keep the original one on-topic]
A couple of things that might be worth pointing out...
Most of the better polarizers (linear or CPL) are likely to have at least one 'mark' to use as some kind of a reference point, however they may not provide anything useful under every circumstance. The reference points seem to be arbritary as an angular reference of 'XY degrees', so it might be 90 degrees or 0/zero degrees (or anywhere in between) when the dot is in a given position. It might be happenstance or it might be that each manufacturer sets the glass a certain way with the polarization effect at X percent at Y position for Z degrees.
Not one of the polarizers I own came with an instruction sheet (and I only buy new CPL filters, never used). Short of the one sentence on the box to "attach and turn...", there's nothing about the mark. I've looked through the documents available online from Hoya, Tiffen, and B&W (Schneider Kreuznach), and none of what they offer any mention there's a reference mark at all, let alone how they're meant to be used.
Of the "CPL" filters I've used (Hoya or B&W) the effects of polarizations repeat and reverse as you turn. I go in and out of the 90 degree effect twice on the Hoya 55mm I just tried, and the front element is the only one of the two back-to-back filter plates that has the mark, so there's not a lot of certainty without the precise re-placement of both glass plates in positioning when you go from off-lens to on-lens.
I should also note that it is not my personal practice to use filters as a matter of course, and if I do use a CPL at all, it's for water reflections on shallow water, or for glass reflections on interior shots. I don't use them for color enhancements or contrast control. I may not be one to offer advice on how best to use a CPL for those situations at all, as I'm just not familiar with using them that way.
Not that it's relavant for an Electro 35 CCN as a film camera, but for the sake of anyone stumbling on this post later and wondering... linear polarizers won't work with TTL metering, autofocus, or digital cameras in general.
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 1,010 (77 liked)
Join date: January 2014
Status:
|
|
on Jun 2, 2020 23:50:00 GMT
Posted: Jun 2, 2020 23:50:00 GMT
Apparently Japan Exposures must have bought up all the remaining stock of those Kenko filters, as I haven't seen them for sale anywhere else in a long time. Even the Kenko site hasn't listed them for many years. Like I said in my other post they are kind of expensive, but at least now you can get the finder separately.
PF
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 770 (71 liked)
Join date: August 2016
Status:
|
|
on Jun 3, 2020 2:03:45 GMT
Posted: Jun 3, 2020 2:03:45 GMT
I just checked out those Kenko circular polarizer pairs for rangefinders. I'm quite amazed, and it makes me glad I only use linear polarizers.
I know very, very little about circular polarizers, but it makes me think they developed them to solve one problem, and created another.
I've used polarizers on many rangefinder and viewfinder cameras from the simple, viewfinder Yashica 72-E to the feature-laden, parallax-correcting, rangefinder Canon Canonet QL17 GIII.
For both, I've used several different linear polarizers. All of them had a mark on the edge, but I suppose some don't. And as I said above -- all you need to do is look directly through the polarizer and notice where the mark is -- when you achieve the desired effect. Then place the polarizer on the lens and rotate the polarizer so that the mark is in the same place when you were looking through it. There is no need for the manufacturer to place this mark at a specific point, angle, or anything else. Most people are using it on an SLR and see the effect in the viewfinder -- so the mark is not there for them. The mark is for NON-SLR (TLR, rangefinder, viewfinder, etc.) camera users, and works perfectly well wherever it is. It is there just as a reference (AKA, starting) point.
Why anyone would go to the cost of a polarizing pair -- one for the lens and one for the flash shoe (assuming your cameras has a shoe) -- strikes me as odd. I've got to assume that it has something to do with the nature of circular polarizers -- which are something that most (all?) viewfinder and rangefinder cameras don't need.
What Contax or Yashica cameras viewfinder and rangefinder cameras would need a circular polarizer? Just curious.
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 1,369 (301 liked)
Join date: February 2017
Status: Failed treatment for L.B.A. and G.A.S,
|
|
on Jun 4, 2020 17:22:52 GMT
Last Edit: Jun 4, 2020 17:24:51 GMT by lumiworx
I think there might be some circumstances where polarizers might be 'needed' from a creative perspective, but most times they aren't absolutely required to just take a photo on a rangefinder. There are a couple of instances where polarizers (of any type, on any camera) can dramatically alter a photo's visual content and the creative impact to the person viewing them - and both deal with specific reflections.
One is water reflections, where you're shooting a very shallow brook or stream that's absolutely clear, where your naked eye will see the bottom, but the camera is likely to show a surface reflection in the final shot. If you're focusing on the fish below the surface (they're the only thing in the frame worth photographing) and your photo shows the clouds and sky instead... you'd need a polarizer to correct the problem.
The second issue is a scene where someone is standing close to, and looking out of a window, and you - inside with that person - want to shoot a portrait of them looking out and not see their reflection in the window glass. That person will likely be close at a 90 degree angle in reference to their position to the glass, and only a polarizer could greatly reduce or eliminate that reflection. That reflection might obscure the view of whatever is on the outside, and it can't be seen well enough with reflections in play. If that's the important content of the shot, it won't be easily visible without a polarizer in use.
If you have a metered SLR or an Electro 35 CCN (w/ metering cell on lens-front), or any other rangefinder that has a lens-mounted meter, you need a circular polarizer to insure you can correct the issue -and- accurately meter the scene you're shooting. Linear versions are invisible to the meter, and could cause a 1 to 3+ stops difference in exposure. It can vary enough that you can't assume a specific value will be close enough to get a correctly exposed photo, and try to fool the meter by adjusting something (like, ISO) by the equivalent of X.x stops.
You can switch the filter from being in front of anything other than the lens (i.e., your eye, a hand-held meter, another on-camera non-TTL meter) back to being screwed into the lens' filter threads -but- you can certainly forget capturing spontaneous shots with that method, or in any circumstance where you can't control positions or movement of whomever/whatever you're trying to capture in a shot. That would be a nightmare and impractical with a rangefinder, and switching to an SLR would be a better alternative by far.
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 770 (71 liked)
Join date: August 2016
Status:
|
|
on Jun 4, 2020 20:59:05 GMT
Last Edit: Jun 4, 2020 21:03:37 GMT by xkaes
I certainly agree that those are two situations where a polarizer might be a good idea, but I usually use a polarizer for different reasons. The main one is to darken the sky. This is true in B&W as well as color -- but of course it only darkens the blue portion of the sky, and only at a certain angle. It's also good for reducing HAZE -- by that I mean reflections off of moisture, dust, etc. in the air. And while polarizers can reduce reflections off of water -- again at certain angles -- it reduces reflections off of many surfaces, from paint, rocks, cactus, flowers -- in short LOTS of things -- intensifying the color or tone/contrast. Talk about dramatic thunder clouds with a red or orange filter AND a polarizer. And polarizers and exposure meters are only a problem for some meters -- the ones that use certain mirrors. All the rangefinder/viewfinder and SLR cameras that I use WITH POLARIZERS have no problem at all with correctly compensating for the polarizer (which have variable exposure impacts depending on how much reflection is removed from the scene.
I've never used one on my Yashica Samurai Z, but that's the only auto-focus camera I have -- so I don't really care if a polarizer would mess up its metering as well as its focusing. I'll have to give it a try one of these days, and check it out. Thanks for the suggestion.
|
|