File :-(, x, )
sage !i/euDJmWr2
Remember my $10 CPL from WalMart?

I finally took some test shots with it today. Only editing was equal exposure bumps to both images in Lightroom.

Inferior glass, huh? I think it's pretty good for a $10 filter.

Ignore the eager birds, they have a nest on my porch and didn't like me being so close to it.
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 Created2008:05:29 14:59:07Exposure Time1/1250 secF-Numberf/10.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/10.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePartialFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
Your images are soft as hell.
>> Anonymous
>>192685

That's because he's missed focus on the birds, but bfd.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>192685
You're soft as hell.

I wasn't focusing on the birds...they just kept flying into the frame. There are about 5 of them living right outside my house.

Both shots are the same exact location and same settings (except for exposure; had to compensate for the polarizer.) The first picture is without the polarizer, second is with it.
>> Anonymous
What polarizer is it?
Brand, I mean?
>> Anonymous
lol bought a CPL then took pictures of the sky that are approaching a 180 degree angle to the sun and didnt get any use out of the polarizer whatsoever
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>192694
lol didn't look at the pictures.

>>192693
Targus. Yes, the laptop accessory company. Shocking, I know.
>> Anonymous
>>192693
Targus.
>>192691
Naw dudette, I mean the clouds. They're not in focus. It's like you lost infinity by putting on that crappy $10 CPL, which really acts as a soft-focus filter I guess.
>> Anonymous
>>192684
>>192685
>>192687
>>192691
>>192694

the beauty of /p/
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>192697
The first image is without, second is with. The focus isn't affected noticeably at all by the filter.

A 50mm 1.8 just isn't the greatest lens for focusing at infinity.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !vtwT5guftY
So basically your $10 filter doesn't work.
>> Martin !JAPIvSY.3s
I don't see a significant difference between the two images in the OP... What am I supposed to be seeing here?
>> sage !btr76hqMa6
>>194344
>>194355

Eat shit and die.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>194357
lolbadtroll

>>194355
the difference in those pictures is subtle, apparently because of the angle in regards to the sun (I totally didn't think about that when I snapped them)

The difference is there, though. Most noticeably in the tone of the clouds and very, very slight difference in the blue hue.

Want me to take better pictures tomorrow to demonstrate it more effectively? Assuming it is sunny again I would be glad to.
>> Anonymous
Is this the real sage, or a fake sage?

Given how trollish the OP image is I have to kind of assume that it's a troll?
>> Anonymous
>>192684
Lol theres no difference there. Quit trying to justify your shitty walmart purchase.
>> Anonymous
>>194364
Yes, because it's pretty fucking obvious to everyone else that either these pictures are a terrible demonstration or that you wasted $10 and trying hard not to be butthurt over the waste.
>> Butterfly !vGHp/TseBg
>>194364

I don't see any real difference, but that could be because the clouds are different in each shot.

Try it again with the camera on a tripod, shooting the exact same clouds/sky.
>> Anonymous
>>194364
if you want a real experiment set your camera up on a tripod at something that isn't going to change (IE-not a cloudy sky). Then take one picture without anything, another with your shitty CPL, then one more with a nice CPL.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>194373
It was on a tripod and stationary. The clouds, however, were moving faster than I was expecting. In the time it took to add the filter to the lens, the clouds had shifted noticeably.

>>194369
I'll test on something a little more stationary tomorrow, then.
>> Hatefag
>>194378

Are you a fucking cripple?
Why did it take you so fucking long to remove a fucking filter?
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>194387
Took a few seconds, which was long enough for a dramatic cloud shift. The front of the filter freely rotates for no apparent reason because it isn't a gradient, and the threads on it suck. So it took a second or two of fumbling to get it to start threading.
>> Anonymous
>>194401The front of the filter freely rotates for no apparent reason
Do you mean that it's so loose that it rotates unintentionally?
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>194416
It doesn't rotate on its own, but it's easy to accidentally rotate it because the portion that threads into the lens doesn't have much of a grip to it.
>> Anonymous
Sounds like something I'd want to buy.
>> Anonymous
>>194420
Heh, a spinning CPL would be pretty useless. You'd never have the filter polarizing the right direction. At least it's not quite that cheap.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
     File :-(, x)
actually, screw waiting until tomorrow. My sunglasses worked OKAY to demonstrate.

The picture on the left is without the filter, the picture on the right is with the filter. Happy?

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Elements 3.0 WindowsPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:06:01 00:20:26Exposure Time0.4 secF-Numberf/2.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/2.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePartialFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1000Image Height334RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Qonfused !!ziHVWcW6bcF
This thread fails.
>> sage !arr6eky2Sg
I don't see anything, faggot
>> Anonymous
>>194457
Go do a real demo tomorrow or just fucking get over your shitty CPL.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>194463
That was a good enough demo to verify that it works as much as a $10 filter can be expected to while causing no noticeable harm to the quality of the image. The change in the glares and reflections in the second set of pictures should be pretty obvious to you if you're not completely blind or unwilling to accept that I'm not lying.

If you'll pay attention, the people keeping the discussion about this filter going are the trolls, not me. I'm just providing information and pictures as asked for in the thread I posted ABOUT the piece of glass.
>> Anonymous
>>192684
Obviously a deeper set of blues with the filter and there's definitely no loss of sharpness. Looks like a good buy. I actually just bought a cheap UV filter today that came with a polarizer. I'll post something when I find the charger for my Olympus...
>> Anonymous
>>194470
>>194465

samefag
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>194478
because the possibility that someone on /p/ doesn't hate me is slim to none, right? Gotta be a samefag?

Funny. Two days ago you people were accusing me of acting that way.

For the record...I shoot a Canon, not an Olympus. Samefag = no.
>> Anonymous
Obviously a deeper set of blues with the filter and there's definitely no loss of sharpness. Looks like a good buy. I actually just bought a cheap UV filter today that came with a polarizer. I'll post something when I find the charger for my Canon...
>> Anonymous
Obviously a deeper set of blues with the filter and there's definitely no loss of sharpness. Looks like a good buy. I actually just bought a cheap UV filter today that came with a polarizer. I'll post something when I find the charger for my Nikon...
>> Anonymous
Obviously a deeper set of blues with the filter and there's definitely no loss of sharpness. Looks like a good buy. I actually just bought a cheap UV filter today that came with a polarizer. I'll post something when I find the charger for my Pentax...
>> Anonymous
>>194459This thread fails.
>> sage !Ja7FmFDKRk
>>194457
Maybe your filter isn't a complete waste of money then.

Your still a bitch though.
>> Anonymous
>>194470
Here.

This is actually the second time I've been called a samefag for not instantly RAAAAGE-ing against Sage. I almost fucking wish there was mandatory tripfaggory just to avoid this shit.
>> Anonymous
>>194457
Trolls just got OWNED.
>> Anonymous
>>194457
anyone else notice there is no polarizing going on here, and its just a less exposed picture?

Congrats, you bought an ND filter
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>194700
somebody is expecting a polarizer to do more than it really does...

It's an indoor shot with flash, bounced off the roof. Not that that matters. The glare on the frame of the lens is noticeably subdued by the polarizer. Turning down the exposure wouldn't do that, the reason it seems slightly underexposed compared to the other is because the settings on the camera were kept exactly the same to show the effect.

You can try all you want, but speeding the shutter up and darkening the exposure still isn't going to achieve the same effect.
>> Anonymous
>>194688
Hi OP.

>>194700
Actually...it seems to me as if the reflections off the sunglasses are even more apparent with the filter on. lolwut?
>> Anonymous
>>194710

You have no idea how a CPL works, do you?
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>194712
We've been over this before. Samefag = no.

The last two Anonymous posts have assured me that some of you have difficulty grasping the effect of a polarizer and how it works and instead expect "lol blue skies and non-tinted windows"
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>194714
Do you?
>> Anonymous
Stop feeding the trolls, you idiot.

Every time you're trying to defend your $10 CPL, the trolls go LOL MADE HIM POST RAAGGGEE.

Delete the thread or let it die.
>> Anonymous
I love how all females are SO easy to troll. sage is really discrediting her entire gender.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
     File :-(, x)
>>194733
I don't care about the trolls if you haven't noticed, I'm glad to entertain them.

Last example shots I'm going to do, I want to go take some real pictures now. Top row was metered at the ground, shutter speed was left the same. Bottom row is metered off the sky, shutter speed changed to compensate for the darkening of the filter.

Top row: No filter, low polarization, mid polarization, full polarization.

Bottom row: no filter, mid polarization, full polarization.

In conclusion, the $10 CPL by Targus from WalMart works reasonably well for a $10 purchase, if you're strapped for cash and really want to try a polarizer out, I would say to go grab one. It's no Hoya, but it works for the price.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.8Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:06:01 12:32:54Exposure Time1/40 secF-Numberf/16.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/16.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePartialFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>194746
eh just looks like a ND filter. though the neutral part is up for debate.
>> HelpfulFag !O05bvUNY9Y
>>194746
I started paying attention to this, but what are you trying to do here?

Convince /p/ that your filter was a good investment? Or just troll everyone with dubious info?

If you want a cheap filter that is sure to work, by a Hoya filter on ebay.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>194755
Inform, waste time because I've got nothing better to do, show that the "inferior glass" of the filter isn't causing any harm to the quality of the pictures (not that my test shots have any hint of quality to them)
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
For $10.. you dont expect quality. So as far as I see it, if
>if you're strapped for cash
and need a polarizer on the quick, buy it.
/thead now?
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>194759
+1
>> Anonymous
>>194459This thread fails.
>>194759/thead now?
>>194763+1
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>194795
you forgot your sage
>> Anonymous
why are you using a CPL for a sky?

i thought they were to cut off non metallic reflections

and that for skies, you use a GND

someone explain please
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>194805
I'm not on my own computer, so I don't have access to my photos. Anybody have the double image of that landscape I posted that demonstrated exactly why this is useful?
It killed reflections on the water, and darkened the sky enough to really even out the exposure. In the right conditions, cpl is just as useful as gnd for this purpose. Also, some of us just like that dark blue color.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>194807

didn't do shit to the sky
>> Not Sage
>>194746
Agreed. Where do you live?

>>194750
No, notice how the exposure of the trees in the top frames remains somewhat even through out while affecting the sky and other parts of the photo? Not quite the same as a ND filter.
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>194928
The sky was bright enough that in the first, it ended up underexposed. The polarizer darkened it so that in the second, the ground and water had a little longer exposure. The sky looks mostly the same, because that part got evened out.