polarizing filter or natural density 0.6?

I am a photography newbie. I am looking for a filter to use when
shooting under bright afternoon sun in high altitude. Which one do
you prefer?

James

James Cloud wrote:
I am a photography newbie. I am looking for a filter to use when
shooting under bright afternoon sun in high altitude. Which one do
you prefer?


A warming filter? Why do you want the ND? Are you using film that's too
fast? An older camera with a slow top shutter? I guess what I'm asking is
what are you trying to get the filter to do for you?

Nick

On 22 Jun 2004 10:54:34 -0700, (James Cloud)
wrote:

I am a photography newbie. I am looking for a filter to use when
shooting under bright afternoon sun in high altitude. Which one do
you prefer?
James

Take both with you. The polarizer will give you dramatic skies while
reducing the light transmission, but the ND will reduce without
changing the color of the sky. Also, you can stack both of them if
you need to to further reduce light transmission.

James Cloud wrote:

I am a photography newbie. I am looking for a filter to use when
shooting under bright afternoon sun in high altitude. Which one do
you prefer?


Hmmm...

If anything, a "haze" filter which is a strong UV filter (more UV
filtration than a basic "UV" filter.) This will filter UV
light, but not all reflected light from haze. This will increase
the contrast a bit.

To work reflections from sky haze, water, ice, glass, etc., then
a polarizing filter can be used seperately. If your camera is
autofocus, then a circular polarize is usually required (and
should be indicated in the manual). With this filter you can
increase the sky blue saturation quite a bit. With wide angle
lenses, the resulting image will show the effect of the filter
being different at extremes of the image.

Polarizer Trick: Make a "gun" with your thumb up and index
finger out (such that they are 90 deg. to each other.) Point
your thumb at the sun. Anywhere your index finger can point
while your thumb points at the sun, is the direction that the
polarizer will have maximum effect at reducing reflections
(reduce haze).

An ND ("neutral", not 'natural') filter will not affect color
(unless it is crap), it will just increase the exposure
requirement. (longer time, fatter aperture, faster film).

--
--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Nick Zentena wrote in message ...
James Cloud wrote:
I am a photography newbie. I am looking for a filter to use when
shooting under bright afternoon sun in high altitude. Which one do
you prefer?


A warming filter? Why do you want the ND? Are you using film that's too
fast? An older camera with a slow top shutter? I guess what I'm asking is
what are you trying to get the filter to do for you?

Nick

Nick, I am thinking of shooting at f/8 or lower of street performers
in bright sun. For landscape shots, I guess the ND won't help much,
will it?
James

James Cloud wrote:


Nick, I am thinking of shooting at f/8 or lower of street performers
in bright sun. For landscape shots, I guess the ND won't help much,
will it?


Depends. If you're taking a photo of moving water and want the water to be
moving in the photo you need a slow shutter speed. So you'd want the ND. Or
if you didn't want a lot of DOF for some reason you might want one.

I think you said something about high altitude to. I'd look for a warming
filter for the street performers. It'll use up a light light. Will help warm
up the blue light from the altitude.

This one covers colour temp it doesn't have anything on altitude

http://www.fototreks.com/Pages/ARTIC...ortemp-jz.html

I can't find one on how the temps change with altitude.

Nick

Nick Zentena wrote:

Depends. If you're taking a photo of moving water and want the water to be
moving in the photo you need a slow shutter speed.


I am sure everyone would dearly love to know how you get the water
"to be moving" in a still picture.

TP wrote:
Nick Zentena wrote:

Depends. If you're taking a photo of moving water and want the water to be
moving in the photo you need a slow shutter speed.


I am sure everyone would dearly love to know how you get the water
"to be moving" in a still picture.


The difference between perception and reality. We've come pretty far in
the world. You can even get 3d movies now. Soon I hear we'll be getting
colour film!!! Can you imagine? I'm not sure I'll believe it.

You might want to go out and look at a photograph or a painting. It's
amazing what people can do today.

Nick

Nick Zentena wrote:

The difference between perception and reality


The difference between the English language and BS, more like.

Nick Zentena wrote:

James Cloud wrote:


Nick, I am thinking of shooting at f/8 or lower of street performers
in bright sun. For landscape shots, I guess the ND won't help much,
will it?



Depends. If you're taking a photo of moving water and want the water to be
moving in the photo you need a slow shutter speed. So you'd want the ND. Or

....moving in the photo? There's a trick! I think you mean
'blurred' in the photo.

if you didn't want a lot of DOF for some reason you might want one.

....not much with a 0.6 ND. An ND 4 (2 stops) or ND 8 (4 stops),
etc. is more like it.

Cheers,
Alan

--
--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--