They were all exposed using auto exposure and none were autoleveled or
such in PS. Yes the first is over exposed to what I would want but I
left it in because I found it quite interesting that the camera itself
would get such different exposures of the scene with and without the filter.

For the article I used a quite wideangle lens to show the variation in
sky darkening with such a lens. With a narrower lens the sky effect can
be very strong with the right direction of camera relative to sun and
is, IMO, a very useful creative tool.

As to the rest of your comments, grow up. I publish an online magazine,
the same as the print photo mags I used to edit. I have every right to
put advertising on there if I want. If people don't want to they do not
have to click on anything except read the article. As it is I earn about
enough to cover my hosting costs. I assume you expect to get paid from
your job. Providing a site like DIMi, paying the costs and spending the
time organising the competitions, prizes, doing the reviews and
answering people's questions is a major effort. I do not see whiners
like you doing anything like this. Sure you'll get on a list and offer
opinions, it takes no real effort. When you put in the effort to do a
site like DIMi and keep doing it year on year then I might listen to
your crap.

Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/



Matt Clara wrote:
On Aug 8, 5:33 am, "Wayne J. Cosshall" wrote:
Hi All,

I've written the first of a series of articles on the use of real camera
filters with digital photography. The first is on the circular polarizer
filter:

Cheers,

Wayne

I have one, rarely use it. Additionally, a 77mm multi-coated circular
polarizer to fit a great majority of my lenses, including my Mamiya
gear, costs a minimum of $150. It's not worth the money. And about
your examples, in the first series of thumbnail images, the one w/out
polarizer is clearly over exposed, the ones in which you indicate
reduced reflection from water and foliage are different, but not
necessarily better, and the darkened sky images look unnatural (and
again, you tend to overexpose, particularly in the ones with the dam
in the background). This is not to say the circular polarizer is not
without its uses, but to say it's a filter one "needs" is a stretch,
and a big one at that.

Finally, aren't you in essence spamming the photography groups in an
attempt to make money off our visits to your website, which are
replete with advertising? If you want to share info here, please do,
but your capitalist endeavors aren't welcome.

--
www.mattclara.com (not a single image there taken with a polarizer)