File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Just curious, what are the effects of stacking cpl's?
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>192799
Basically, a CPL from my understanding only lets light sperm in traveling in 1 direction. for example Left&Right. And filters out the Up&Down.

Also, I know that if you get 2 sheets of polorising filter paper, and then put them together against a window, and move them so they both filter out different movements, then it'll make a black square. So I guess it'd do that. Let no light through.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
You would probably get a small bonus due to the imperfection of the polorisation, but nothing major.

Also wtf martin Light Sperm?!

If you were to get a CPL and a Linear you could make some weired effects.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>192801

>light sperm
>> Anonymous
>>192801
Martin, are you fourteen?
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>192842
Photons.
Thought i'd bring some humour into this dismal thread..
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Martin.
>> Anonymous
>>192847
you got a wicked sense of humor body
>> Anonymous
<Martin's Light Sperm3
>> Anonymous
i hear $10 CPL by Targus from Walmart works extremely well
>> Anonymous
>>193027


$10 CPL by Targus from Walmart is now a /p/ meme.
>> Anonymous
>>193027
>>193051

Samefag.
I certainly won't contest my filter being a meme, though. Targus CPL, fuck yeah!
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>193052
forgot my tripcode
>> Anonymous
little known fact, two polarized lenes on top of each other = black
>> Anonymous
>>193063
you're thinking linear polarisers. And only black at certain angles.
L2physics
>> Anonymous
>>193063
>little known fact, two polarized lenes on top of each other = black
>two polarized lenes on top of each other
>polarized lenes
>lenes
>> Anonymous
Hmm, I'm thinking that two stacked circular polarizers of the same handedness (RCP on RCP or LCP on LCP) will have the same effect as a single circular polarizer, and two circular polarizers of opposite handedness (RCP on LCP or vice versa) will be black.

I will seek the answer in my optics textbooks tomorrow.
>> Anonymous
spoilers: 2 cpl filters would basically act like an adjustable ND filter.

now move along.
>> Anonymous
>>193052

yeah, everyone who has been shitting on your threads has been the one and same person

fucking butthurt faggot
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>193230
actually...same'd because of forced meme. Nice try, though.

I know more than one person hates me. I also don't particularly care. Half of you don't even post pictures, anyway.
>> Hatefag
Why are all the tripfags in /p/ so fucking horrible?

Is it just because they're the ones who are too arrogant & stupid to post as Anonymous?

And for what it's worth the only reason I use a name now is because I'm sick as shit of assholes like Depressed Cheesecake, Sage, Martin, Beethy, etc continuing to say "OH SAMEFAG" any time several of us critique them for being shitty and arrogant.
>> Anonymous
>>193672
I think a lot of the samefag stuff is done to RAGE people like your "criticism" is RAGING them. It appears to be working.
>> Hatefag
>>193675

Oh, I know, because most of the time it's them BAWWWWing because they can't handle criticism.

And FWIW I don't criticize to try to get people to rage, I criticize because I'm fully aware that if people want to get their photographic cocks sucked they can go to Flickr or basically any other photography site on the net.
Instead of that kind of circle jerk I'd rather give people the kind of criticism they'd get if they were taking a college photography course and point out what could be improved instead of fawning over what they did right.

And YES I post pictures here, however I always post pictures as Anon because I try not to be too attached to my shots and I want to get unbiased opinions.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>193680
Actually, if you'll note how most of my threads go, I could care less really about who is and isn't criticizing me. It's the $10 CPL by Targus from WalMart guy I always accuse of samefaggotry.

I know going in that a lot of the pictures I post suck, good criticism occasionally falls between the "shitsux" posts, though.

I'm also still really curious about seeing a picture of yours, just to see where you're coming from with criticism. You're still anonymous even with your name, who cares about becoming "attached" to a shot?
>> Hatefag
>>193686

Where I'm coming from with criticism is several years of art school for various subjects.

The vast majority of my work is commercial and lacks all artistic merit.

I have no interest in attaching myself to any particular photograph(s) or style of photography because I am painfully aware that most of the posters on /p/ are unable to understand the difference between criticism and practice, and think for some bizarre reason that in order for anyone to be qualified to critique their work they must be a better photographer than they are.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>193689
Going to art school doesn't automatically make you good or knowledgeable about art. But I'm sure you know that, obviously. Just saying, that's not really worth bringing up because it doesn't mean anything any more than posting your pictures does for your critiquing skills.

Why not just post a fucking picture and say "lol, hay guise, I took this". Right now you're just acting intimidated about it. I don't care if you're good or bad, I just want to see a picture. You don't have a tripcode, anyway, for all we know there could be 12 different Hatefags at any given time.
>> Anonymous
>>193680

i've been saying this for a while now but dumb fuck cheesecake and the others always accuse me of samefag.

there's plenty of other photography forums out there where you can have your own name, avatar, and even signature to show how fucking pretentious you are and everyone else can listen to your shitty advice. being anonymous is what makes boards like this so great. tripfags completly fail to understand this for some reason. whenever i see a tripcode it's pretty much guaranteed to be epic shit.

fucking burn in hell tripfags and quit coming here screwing up a good thing. no one wants you here.
>> Hatefag
     File :-(, x)
>>193693
I've seen other people using the same name, so you're right about that. Not trying to wave my e-peen with talk about art school, but you asked where I was coming from in terms of critique and that seemed like the best way to try to explain.

Not sure why you're so insistent on wanting to see something I shot or why you think it would have anything to do with "where I'm coming from" in terms of critique. Most of my best photographic work is darkroom faggotry that I haven't bothered scanning in, and beyond that I'm incredibly aware of all the flaws in my own work so none of it shows what I think makes a "good" photograph.

It's been nice chatting with you though.
I'm off to bed.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>193702
because I don't look at it as "lol you must be good or you must suck." Some people are fans of certain looks to photographs while others aren't, obviously. I wanted to see a picture you had taken because 1) I've never seen a picture attributed to you and was curious. 2) If you showed multiples pictures with common themes and processing, it just may be that you're biased against certain techniques.

But yeah, good night. Don't forget to turn your seething-hatred knob down, stuff causes nightmares if you fall asleep with it on.
>> Anonymous
>>193686

Has it ever occurred to you it's because you're being such a fucking retard about your $10 filter that people have used it against you?

Any fucking idiot can be "$10 CPL filter from Walmart" but you going LOL HI SAMEFAG isn't helping you one bit.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>193713
lol hay samefag

See;>>193675
>> Anonymous
>>193722

lol faggot

see>>193713
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 MacintoshPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:05:27 17:05:38Exposure Time1/80 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating800Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePartialFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width671Image Height1000RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard