File :-(, x, )
sage !i/euDJmWr2
since when has Walmart carried filters?

lol@Targus, low quality but worth it for $10 total.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.8Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:05:24 09:34:19Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashFlash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
Accessories have a good profit. Makes sense for them to sell them if they sell the other stuff.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>188441
Yeah, they're just a new part of the display there. Also noticed that they now have both Canon and Nikon battery grips.

I'm impressed, honestly, my hicktown WalMart has only recently discovered the conveniences of self-checkout.
>> Anonymous
Walmart is the cancer that is crippling capitalism.
>> Anonymous
lol

have fun with your $10 filter on your $80 50mm
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>188460
lol i wull

I just bought them 'cause I could, I had to get groceries anyway. I'll enjoy my $80 lens a lot, though, thank you very much.
>> Anonymous
FUCK YEAH

LET'S PROTECT MY $80 PLASTIC LENS FUCKING AWESOME

MORE ABERRATION
MORE FLARE
ONE MORE ELEMENT IN FRONT OF LENS

but FUCK YEAH PROTECTION
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>188499
0/10
>> Anonymous
>>188501

10/10 for protection

gg
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>188502
No, but seriously. You're an idiot. $10 humor purchase =/= thoughtful investment on the integrity of a plastic lens.
>> Anonymous
>>188506$10 humor purchase

who is the idiot now

lol, let's spend $10 on a UV filter for no reason

that sure sounds like an intelligent thing to do
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>188509
Actually I spent $10 for the cheap CP filter.
The UV was just packaged with it.

lol, let's try looking at the picture and using reasoning skills next time. That would certainly be an intelligent thing to do.
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
>>188512
a $10 CPL? Why would you buy a crappy filter that's only gonna degrade your light quality when you could make your own CPL in photoshop?
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>188519
Because it's ten fucking dollars, I'm really not that concerned about it. I rarely need a CP, anyway.
>> Anonymous
>>188519
one does not make a CPL in photoshop.
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
>>188523
Photoshop CPL > $10 CPL
>> Anonymous
>>188519
Jesus, what's up nowadays with kids and photoshop, thinking they can do it all.
>> Anonymous
>>188527
No, because a CPL is impossible in photoshop. You can't modify data where there is none.
>> Anonymous
>>188527
Jesus, you aren't supposed to troll. You're Jesus for Christ's sake!
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
     File :-(, x)
>>188535
Oh hai, I polarized your circles.

(and no, doing it in photoshop will never be as good as having a good quality CPL, but it's sure as hell better than putting shitty glass in front of your lens)

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image Width1680Image Height1050Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8, 8Compression SchemeUnknownPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2008:05:24 13:31:59Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width645Image Height700
>> Anonymous
>>188540
and do you also photoshop out all nonmetallic reflections?
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
>>188541
Do you see any nonmetallic reflections in that picture?
>> Anonymous
>>188543

zing!
>> Anonymous
lol PS cannot CPL... fucking idiot kids
>> Anonymous
>>188540

You can spend a thousand hours in Photoshop and only come close to what you would get using a CP filter and only in very limited situations or you can just use one and get the image finished in-camera if you do it right. Mr//Ms. sage's purchase was worth trying and maybe they'll get interested in something more upmarket after trying it. At least it's not some lame time-consuming PS fake that won't even do the job properly.
>> Anonymous
>>188549
That's not what he's saying. He's saying that faking the effect it has on the sky is better than using a crappy filter, in the same way cropping from a 200 or 300mm telephoto is better than buying an Opteka supertele.
>> Anonymous
bump for source
>> Anonymous
>>188558

I would like to see proof of that claim.
>> Anonymous
>>188558
that's assuming the filter actually causes a discernable loss of focus. I don't see anyone actually verifying that, though, only assuming based on the price. The clarity could be perfectly fine with a cheapy polarization if you hadn't thought of that.
>> Anonymous
>>188585

The only likely real problem I can think of is flare. But you can't fake CP effect, so even a cheap one can be better than none if you need it. It's not the same as with UV filters which do nothing for most people.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>188585
seconded.
i use cheap Marumi CPL's and they work compleatly fine. No way would i spend $++ for one of those crazy expensive multicoated CPL.
Unless the filter is curved to magnify or refract light (like a lens), a flat glass pane should not 'degrade' image quality no matter of its dollar value as it passes straight though without any refraction unlike a lens. (I doubt i made any sense but i know what i'm talking about thats thats important)
>> Anonymous
>>188594
well not true because the cheaper ones could use cheaper glass or even plastic.
>> Anonymous
>>188602

Even the super cheap UV filters don't do shit to it. It's flare and build quality that are the true enemies and the reasons to pay for good ones.
>> Anonymous
$10 multicoated CP?
>> Anonymous
>>188973

Insane price for a multicoated filter set.
>> Anonymous
so i went to fucking walmart after seeing this thread and they only had them in 55mm FUCK YOU OP
>> Anonymous
>>188437
I thought Targus made notebook and PC accessories? What the butt?

Anyways, will Walmart be likely to give me store credit for a new Optio Z10?
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>189071
we've got 52, 55, and 58
>> Anonymous
who the fuck shops at walmart?
>> Anonymous
>>189170

people who would buy $10 CPLs made by Targus
>> Anonymous
my friend has a targus backpack
>> Anonymous
OP show us some photos taken with this 10$ cpl.
>> Anonymous
>>189170

Most of the USA and UK.
>> Anonymous
>>189217
This. Now.
>> Anonymous
>>189283
seconded
>> Anonymous
Every photo ever taken with a $6.00 Holga is a billion times better than any cliche stock-photo snapshots you daddymoney fags shit through your ladypenishole. The end.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>189326
who the fuck said anything about stock photography?

lay off the dosages