Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Discussing Photographic Styles => Topic started by: barryfitzgerald on June 02, 2006, 06:41:17 pm
-
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/ (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.
-
Just a tool you can use, abuse or over-use.
Graeme
-
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.
-
> 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
-
It's a choice.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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]
-
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:
-
Would a polarizer have served much purpose in the following shot?
[attachment=685:attachment]
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
Without a polarizing filter, my photos don't look the same as the scene did through my sunglasses!
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
...
BTW, my 1st post here.
...[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69902\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So, Welcome here. Enjoy the forum!
-
The amount of overall darkening of the sky is somewhat controllable by the setting on the filter. The thing I don't like about PFs is that on wide angle shots their effect isn't uniform across the entire scene. They will darken part of the sky more on one "side" of the scene than on the other because the illumination angles are different on the two sides. Still, I agree that the effect is sometimes overdone.
I prefer neutral density filters, if I can make one work, because their effect on sky is uniform.
-
I find PFs very nice if used on shots that can make best use of them: I have tried but long ruled out any use of them on people because the skin goes a hellish brick-like colour where tan used to be... most unflattering.
There is indeed a problem with wide lenses and another thing, which conflicts with theory, is the use of a PF with the sun directly behind the camera: I do find it still does well in bringing out sky/cloud contrast.
Rob C
-
I came across this thread and I'd like to resurrect it, since this has been a topic on my mind today after spending close to 300 bones on polarizing filters for 2 lenses just last night. I got to thinking today that it's a waste, since most of the functions I need a polarizer for I can do in Photoshop, as Ray so aptly pointed out. Except for seeing through reflections on water (sometimes), I can't think of much that a landscape photographer absolutely needs a polarizer for these days, if they have any proficiency and comfort with Photoshop. Seems like I'm better off using that money for an upgrade to CS3, or to buy Lightroom
Does anyone else have any further thoughts or experience in this?
-
I came across this thread and I'd like to resurrect it, since this has been a topic on my mind today after spending close to 300 bones on polarizing filters for 2 lenses just last night. I got to thinking today that it's a waste, since most of the functions I need a polarizer for I can do in Photoshop, as Ray so aptly pointed out.
Or not-so-aptly. You can boost saturation in PS or selectively brighten/datken a color range, but there is no practical way to reduce reflections off leaves and other surfaces in PS. The best way by far is to use a polarizer. The saturation boost a polarizer offers is gained by reducing or eliminating veiling glare off leaves or water or glass. With a polarizer, you can also selectively reduce the brightness of specular highlights. This means you can increase the exposure of the rest of the scene safely, and have less specular clipping to worry about.
-
Or not-so-aptly. You can boost saturation in PS or selectively brighten/datken a color range, but there is no practical way to reduce reflections off leaves and other surfaces in PS. The best way by far is to use a polarizer. The saturation boost a polarizer offers is gained by reducing or eliminating veiling glare off leaves or water or glass. With a polarizer, you can also selectively reduce the brightness of specular highlights. This means you can increase the exposure of the rest of the scene safely, and have less specular clipping to worry about.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174060\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jonathan
I think you are treading very close to the edge, that edge over which the slightest step will invite a non-stop series of contradictory replies.
I have noted over a period that there is a breed of photographer about which is hell-bent on abandoning those tools which have worked well, both practically and theoretically, in favour of short-cuts or make-do methods. One such that comes to mind is the belief that some camera movements - even TS lenses - are obsolete because a method of approximating their solution to problems, as with converging verticals, can be found in Photoshop manipulation. That an approximate solution is not the same thing as a proper solution seems to matter less and less in some quarters.
This surprises me somewhat. Considering the high cost of such lenses, it would seem unlikely that lens manufacturers would continue making - even introduce - new objectives in this style if the knowledgeable target market really imagined them to be superfluous. But, the belief seems to thrive, even amongst some self-styled professionals.
Health warning - my own: do not become embroiled in argument on this matter!
Rob C
-
Jonathan
I think you are treading very close to the edge, that edge over which the slightest step will invite a non-stop series of contradictory replies.
It wouldn't be the first time I've weighed in on a controversial topic....
-
Where I live we get directly overhead sun at midday in summer. Polarisers are just one way we try to deal with this incredibly harsh light and excessive contrast.
-
I have noted over a period that there is a breed of photographer about which is hell-bent on abandoning those tools which have worked well, both practically and theoretically, in favour of short-cuts or make-do methods.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174235\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Rob, you might want to check out my other postings: "TS lenses, who needs 'em?" and "what's the use of a tripod anyway?" LOL.
As for myself, I am not one of those photographers hell-bent on abandoning tools which have worked well. I cut my teeth in the world of film and darkrooms, and have thousands of transparencies in my files, so I feel well versed in the world of traditional photographic tools. I'm just opening up a topic that's on my mind right now, and putting my brain on loudspeaker. I appreciate the contribution of Jonathan and others, that's why I'm throwing it out there. I believe rules are meant to be re-examined every so often. If the mighty PF is truly a worthy tool for today's PS savvy photographer then I am confident it will emerge from our humble discussion unscathed.
Back to the subject at hand. I would say in the arena of increasing contrast in the sky and bringing out detail, it's mostly a matter of choice, NOT necessity to use a PF. For reflections, If the subject is not close enough that I want to see into the detail of it, as in wet foliage in the distance of a scene, then the resulting need is to simply increase saturation and control contrast, two things that can be done with great fidelity in PS. Is there a noticeable difference in that approach vs. a polarizer? I don't honestly know. I may need to test that out. I understand what Jonathan is saying about specular highlights, to a point, depending on what angle the light is coming from. But again, are they something I need to see more detail in? A good range of contrast in a photo includes areas too light or dark to see detail in, as we all know.
And let's face it, if your having lots of trouble with glare washing out the color in your shots there's one very old-school approach that works best; shoot near the hours of sunrise or sunset. I know, in the real world that's not always possible or practical, but you've got to admit, the need and desire to slap a polarizer on your lens goes way, way down when you catch a scene in the best possible light to begin with.
-
I came across this thread and I'd like to resurrect it, since this has been a topic on my mind today after spending close to 300 bones on polarizing filters for 2 lenses just last night. I got to thinking today that it's a waste, since most of the functions I need a polarizer for I can do in Photoshop, as Ray so aptly pointed out. Except for seeing through reflections on water (sometimes), I can't think of much that a landscape photographer absolutely needs a polarizer for these days, if they have any proficiency and comfort with Photoshop. Seems like I'm better off using that money for an upgrade to CS3, or to buy Lightroom
Does anyone else have any further thoughts or experience in this?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174053\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, you can do it in Photoshop, just like you can anything that camera hardware does for you, question is where do you get the best result for the least effort? Starting out with an image that has near-burned-out skies or the ground in deep shadow can easily end up with poor tonality, extra noise and noticable edge errors if you have to process it too much. There's of course nobody stopping you from setting each pixel the way to want it to be, but by then the PF is probably easier.
Despite what the original poster said, a PF can help you make the scene look more like what you saw by compressing the contrast that the eye handles better than the camera. That a lot of photographers have abused it to make oversaturated skies is hardly the fault of the PF.
-Lars
-
Hello,
I am novus in photography. I want to find the right lenses to take photos of landscape. I would like reply. Thanks.
LaVee
-
Hello,
I am novus in photography. I want to find the right lenses to take photos of landscape. I would like reply. Thanks.
LaVee
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=176445\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
LaVee, please go to the Beginner's Question area of this board and ask you question there, ideally with some indication of what kinds of landscapes you want to take, what system you use, and what your budget is.
-Lars
-
A lot depends on your location and altitude. Here in New Mexico, there are days when the sky looks polarized all by itself. The air is so dry and thin that light just doesn't get scattered much by the atmosphere. If you look straight up, the sky appears to be a dark blue/purple hue. Completely different feel than, say, Misissippi in the summer.
-
Yes, you can do it in Photoshop, just like you can anything that camera hardware does for you, question is where do you get the best result for the least effort? Starting out with an image that has near-burned-out skies or the ground in deep shadow can easily end up with poor tonality, extra noise and noticable edge errors if you have to process it too much. There's of course nobody stopping you from setting each pixel the way to want it to be, but by then the PF is probably easier.
PS isn't even close. No PS technique can eliminate the reflection off the surface of water so you can see the fish underneath, or cut down specular relfections off leaves so you can safely increase exposure without frying specular highlights. A polarizer will save you a lot of time in such cases, and deliver far better results.