Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: No polarizing filter landscape technique!  (Read 36725 times)
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 607


« on: June 02, 2006, 05:41:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Well I decided that whilst a polarizing filter has its uses (PF I will call it now), the real problem for me was that too many are at it all the time!

Now I am not one to tell others what to do, its a personal choice..but I find that for me its just too overcooked. I fully expect to get some stick, just as I said this to some serious landscapers I know..they called me "insane"..but for me its working out ok. I dont have to live with the "pacific blue sky" look anymore...I get nice "natural" looking ones..

I also take care to be timid with pp as well, not to overdo things too much..

A few shots here...(sorry lots of b&w too)

http://s24.photobucket.com/albums/c25/barryfitzgerald/

So when I hear about how essential a PF is...no its not! handy yes...not essential IMHO.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2006, 05:57:48 PM by barryfitzgerald » Logged
Graeme Nattress
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 582



WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 02, 2006, 06:26:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Just a tool you can use, abuse or over-use.

Graeme
Logged

www.nattress.com - Plugins for Final Cut Pro and Color
www.red.com - Digital Cinema Cameras
Andrew Teakle
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 90


WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 03, 2006, 02:01:45 AM »
ReplyReply

I somewhat agree, Barry. I have almost completely eliminated using a polarizer for shots including the sky (esp. with wide angle lenses), but still use one almost universally for removing glare off foliage (esp. after rain) or the surface of water.

I still would call one indispensible for colour photography - if not abused, as Graeme mentioned.
Logged

dlashier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 518



WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 03, 2006, 02:13:33 AM »
ReplyReply

> So when I hear about how essential a PF is...no its not! handy yes...not essential IMHO.

I agree -if- you have the luxury of waiting for the right conditions. I almost never use one and normally don't even carry it, but if the conditions aren't right I don't shoot, or shoot different subject matter where it doesn't matter. OTOH if you're in an area for only a day or two and have to accept the conditions, it can be a life saver.

But I agree that like a lot of things, it tends to get overabused. If conditions are good it only gives an artificial feel (like watching CSI Miami).

- DL
« Last Edit: June 03, 2006, 02:15:30 AM by dlashier » Logged

Rokcet Scientist
Guest
« Reply #4 on: June 03, 2006, 06:01:48 AM »
ReplyReply

It's a choice.
Logged
jmdr
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 34


WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 12, 2006, 02:44:26 AM »
ReplyReply

I'd agree with these posters, any filter (pre- or post-capture), or exposure settings/focal length/type of film, etc. is a creative choice by yourself (the photographer).  Forget about the rules, just do what you think looks good to you...

"Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." -Edward Weston

-Jonathan
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8904


« Reply #6 on: June 12, 2006, 04:25:50 AM »
ReplyReply

The real question here is; can the effects of a polarizing filter be duplicated in Photoshop, when shooting RAW? The darkening of a blue sky can certainly be duplicated in PS, but what about the reduction of shiny reflections from water and metallic surfaces? I haven't made any direct comparisons, but it seems to be a fact that an ACR conversion with a -4EC adjustment into ProPhoto RGB and 16 bit TIF (usually resulting in an extremely dark image) will retain the full tonality and detail of the RAW image. All that remains is to brighten the image, applying a tone curve or whatever, whilst retaining maximum highlight detail in those shiny, blown reflections.

I suspect the advantages of a polarizer, for someone au fait with most of photoshop's processing options, would be very slight.
Logged
Paul Sumi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1217


« Reply #7 on: June 12, 2006, 08:20:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The real question here is; can the effects of a polarizing filter be duplicated in Photoshop, when shooting RAW? The darkening of a blue sky can certainly be duplicated in PS, but what about the reduction of shiny reflections from water and metallic surfaces? I haven't made any direct comparisons, but it seems to be a fact that an ACR conversion with a -4EC adjustment into ProPhoto RGB and 16 bit TIF (usually resulting in an extremely dark image) will retain the full tonality and detail of the RAW image. All that remains is to brighten the image, applying a tone curve or whatever, whilst retaining maximum highlight detail in those shiny, blown reflections.

I suspect the advantages of a polarizer, for someone au fait with most of photoshop's processing options, would be very slight.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67973\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

One of the main reasons I use a PF is to reduce or eliminate unwanted reflections in water, thus allowing one to see what's underneath the surface.  Ditto for glass window reflections.  Photoshop would be of no use in this respect.

Paul
« Last Edit: June 12, 2006, 08:23:45 AM by PaulS » Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8904


« Reply #8 on: June 12, 2006, 10:42:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
One of the main reasons I use a PF is to reduce or eliminate unwanted reflections in water, thus allowing one to see what's underneath the surface. Ditto for glass window reflections. Photoshop would be of no use in this respect.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67982\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Good point! But you also have to be careful you don't eliminate wanted  reflections, as in the following shot.

[attachment=682:attachment]

Perhaps a polarizer would have been of no benefit in the following shot also, but I'm not sure. If circular polarizers were easier to remove, I might try them more often.

[attachment=684:attachment]
« Last Edit: June 12, 2006, 11:14:00 AM by Ray » Logged
Paul Sumi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1217


« Reply #9 on: June 12, 2006, 10:59:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Good point! But you also have to be careful you don't eliminate wanted  reflections, as in the following shot.

[attachment=682:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67987\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Very true!  Ditto in this one:
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8904


« Reply #10 on: June 12, 2006, 11:25:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Would a polarizer have served much purpose in the following shot?

[attachment=685:attachment]
Logged
Paul Sumi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1217


« Reply #11 on: June 12, 2006, 11:40:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Would a polarizer have served much purpose in the following shot?

[attachment=685:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67993\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray,

Probably not, since polarization is most effective with sun at 90 deg angle to the scene.  Looks like the sun is directly behind you, so polarization would be minimal.

Paul
Logged

jule
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 738


WWW
« Reply #12 on: June 12, 2006, 03:22:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Perhaps a polarizer would have been of no benefit in the following shot also, but I'm not sure. If circular polarizers were easier to remove, I might try them more often.

[attachment=684:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67987\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nice swimmming hole Ray - where is the location?
Julie
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8904


« Reply #13 on: June 12, 2006, 09:29:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Nice swimmming hole Ray - where is the location?
Julie
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68016\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Too far for a Sunday drive, Jule. Mossman Gorge.
Logged
Gordon Buck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 409



WWW
« Reply #14 on: June 13, 2006, 11:05:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Without a polarizing filter, my photos don't look the same as the scene did through my sunglasses!
Logged

DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #15 on: June 13, 2006, 11:08:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Without a polarizing filter, my photos don't look the same as the scene did through my sunglasses!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68085\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My sunglasses have a brown tint to them.  I used to have an action that would add that.
Logged
jule
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 738


WWW
« Reply #16 on: June 13, 2006, 04:32:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Too far for a Sunday drive, Jule. Mossman Gorge.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68039\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

   Thought it might be somewhere up north, or Girraween, Sundown or Washpool National Parks...but haven't seen water flowing like that down here for 15 years, so I hedged my bet on up north.
Julie
Logged

jule
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 738


WWW
« Reply #17 on: June 13, 2006, 04:39:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Without a polarizing filter, my photos don't look the same as the scene did through my sunglasses!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68085\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

lol... I have to remember to shift my sunglasses to see what the 'real' scene looks like because I have polarising lenses. Sometimes I forget, and am baffled -momentarily-    as to why the image looked different than I recalled.
Julie
Logged

marcoventuriniautieri
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #18 on: July 06, 2006, 03:54:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Hello,

Well, I usually like the effect of a polarizer, not just for darkening the sky (it can usually be done in postprocessing) but mostly for reducing reflections.

BUT, I must say, I never use it: I cannot photograph well if I am not relaxed, and I am not relaxed if I carry around more than my S3 with 50/1.4 on it. ;-)

BTW, my 1st post here.

Ciao,

Marco
Logged
francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6874


« Reply #19 on: July 06, 2006, 06:02:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
...
BTW, my 1st post here.
...[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69902\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So, Welcome here. Enjoy the forum!

     
« Last Edit: July 06, 2006, 06:02:27 AM by francois » Logged

Francois
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad