Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,719   Posts: 1,483,126   Online: 1152
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22
  1. #11
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,436
    Images
    122
    I'm not sure about circular being more subtle. The first part of a circular polariser is an ordinary linear polariser. The extra bit is a layer which randomly rotates the already polarised light.


    Steve.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,064
    I have heard (read in these forums) before that linear polarisers are more dramatic, or pronounced, in their effect.
    I see two disagreeing posts in this thread on this, although neither one seems certain.
    All of mine are linear, but I may in the future have a camera that needs a circular one. Does anyone know for sure?

  3. #13
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,436
    Images
    122
    I can't see how the polarising part of a circular polariser can be any less effective than a standard linear polariser (because that's what it is). However, it might be possible that the re-circulificating* bit is somehow reducing the contrast a slightly making people think it's less effective at polarising.

    (* I can't think of the right word).


    Steve.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Richmond VA.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,548
    I use a linear on my RB67.

    Jeff

  5. #15
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    2,724
    Images
    336
    I am a little confused with this thread. Am I correct in thinking that the circular polarising filter is merely two linear polarising filters mounted together, where one rotates?

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  6. #16
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,436
    Images
    122
    No. It's a single linear polariser with another layer which puts the light back in a random orientation so cameras with lightmeters and/or AF which use polarisers internally will still work.


    Steve.

  7. #17
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,457
    which puts the light back in a random orientation
    No, but circular polarisation mean a steady uniform variation of polarisation. "Random orientation" is what characterises un-polarized light.

  8. #18
    bsdunek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,061
    Images
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Smith View Post
    I can't see how the polarising part of a circular polariser can be any less effective than a standard linear polariser (because that's what it is). However, it might be possible that the re-circulificating* bit is somehow reducing the contrast a slightly making people think it's less effective at polarising.

    (* I can't think of the right word).


    Steve.
    You may have hit it. It could be the contrast difference.
    Bruce

    Moma don't take my Kodachrome away!
    Oops, Kodak just did!


    BruceCSdunekPhotography.zenfolio.com

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Jackson. MS, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    223
    All I can tell is from my experience. I had a B+W linear which was easy to see the effects of on the viewing screen and in the transparencies. I recently acquired a Contax circular the effect of which is much more subtle (to the point that I can usually not find the correct angle using the finder.) Perhaps my linear was great (it was) and the Contax is a dud.
    Last edited by Jim Rice; 01-21-2013 at 05:43 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: spelling

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD/Belchertown, MA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    26
    RE #15: No. A circular polarizer is a linear polarizer followed by a 1/4-wave retarder plate. The linear polarizer does the polarizing (really it just selectively admits light with a polarization axis aligned with the polarizer and rejects anything else. it doesn't create any polarization). The light after this part is linearly polarized and it is this that can cause problems with meters and AF systems. So, the circ. polarizer puts the 1/4 retarder next which turns the linear polarized light into circularly polarized light which doesn't cause problems in metering and AF.

    steven
    Last edited by sbuczkowski; 01-30-2013 at 08:34 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: want to tie it to original post better
    "A friend will bail you out of jail.
    A TRUE friend will be beside you saying 'Damn! That was fun!'"


    "There's more than one way to skin a cat.
    With the new Pocket Peeler(TM) from ButchCo Industries, there's 75!"

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin