Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: spotmeter on February 21, 2011, 08:23:46 pm
-
I wonder if some polarizers are stronger in their effect than others?
Has anyone done any head-to-head comparisons on
1. Reducing glare from foliage
2. Darkening blue skies
I vaguely remember seeing a comparison like this years ago, but am unable to find it now.
-
I don't have an exact comparison to point you to, but I do know that my B+W filter gives me crisper detail and deeper color saturation than my $60 ----- does. I'm sure a lot of this is the quality of the glass and coating used on the high end filters. As far as the actual glare reduction etc. that would be a good side by side test for someone to do.
-
I don't have an exact comparison to point you to, but I do know that my B+W filter gives me crisper detail and deeper color saturation than my $60 ----- does. I'm sure a lot of this is the quality of the glass and coating used on the high end filters. As far as the actual glare reduction etc. that would be a good side by side test for someone to do.
I'm not doubting your results, but without side-by-side shots of each image at the same time, I wonder how much influence the higher price puts on the user's imagination. This is so easy to do in photography, and there are so many variables for every shot that it's almost impossible to guess how things are really going to turn out in fine detail, as with the different filters mentioned.
Rob C
-
Yes, absolutely different types of pola filters have a stronger or weaker effect.
B+W i.e. Schneider even make a "One Stop" pola which is a pola filter with a lighter effect (and less light loss).
-
I sometimes use my Hasselblad (screw thread adapted) linear pola for a stronger effect or my Hoya SHMC (NOT the Pro 1 version) circular for cutting reflections.
For the ever-popular "see through to the bottom of the pond" type shots I'll use the 'blad linear filter. Decent used linear polas are really cheap so why not buy one and try it...
... the warnings by filter manufacturers and reviewers regarding everything from interfering with AF and metering to causing hair loss (joke!) has not proved a problem for me.
I just said 'for me' but bear in mind that many of my landscapes are taken using MF and with incident light readings but I haven't found AF or metering to be affected when
using the linear filter... why, I don't know but it may be the quality or the strength... mine is unfashionably fairly weak.
-
One way to test is to look at (or photograph) an LCD screen through the polariser. With suitable alignment you should be able to block essentially all the light, resulting in a plain black image.
I have three polarisers and one of these is very noticeably worse than the other too, having quite a bit of light leakage. I am sure that there are other differences too, such as the effects of coatings on flare etc though I haven't seen any obvious difference when shooting outside.
BTW, try doing this with some cheap perspex between the polariser and the screen and you can get some fantastic colours if the plastic gives a frequency dependent polarisation shift to the light (eg http://flic.kr/p/8W7KUg).
-
This is an interesting question. I use Hoya Pro1 and B&W CPLs. I've also rented some Cokins just to test. I've seen a slight difference in the amount of polorizing effects between the Hoya and B&W, and a considerable difference between those two and Cokin. The Cokin gave me a much greater and deeper polorizing effect.
However, I not only look for the CPL effects, but what they do to IQ in general. While the Cokins gave richer results, what they did to sharpness and detail was totally unacceptable.
I would like a little deeper results from the Hoya and B&W, but now I'm wondering if thicker polorizing coating (not just quality of glass) also means less detail?
Some day, I hope to get Lee or some other high-dollar CPL.
-
I'm curious about Tiffen ultra pol's: http://www.tiffen.com/ultrapol.htm
-
Tiffen....... well, I have used them but not in the last few years, they may have improved in quality. In previous years they were regarded as cine accessories.
I would definitely seek some professional reviews and opinions before buying one.
This is quite a good review site.....http://www.lenstip.com/115.29-article-Polarizing_filters_test_Tiffen_Cir._Polarizer_72_mm.html
-
"Tiffen....... well, I have used them but not in the last few years, they may have improved in quality. In previous years they were regarded as cine accessories."
This quote surprised me, with respect to cine usage, in as much as I sold Tiffen filters for still cameras some sixty plus years ago while working in the photo retail trade. My general impression of them in the years that followed is that many were susceptible to separation of their elements, at least in our humid Florida atmosphere. I do have one UV version still in my collection and it is in good shape.
-
Hi Jack.... Yes Tiffen and the movie industry have always been synonymous... for old pros like me! The link below is quite interesting...
http://www.tiffen.com/about_tiffen.html
On this site there's an article about Jim Domke which is also interesting, it's a company website after all so there's the expected trumpet blowing. Below is a press release from the BVE in January...
http://www.bvexpo.co.uk/page.cfm/T=m/Action=Press/PressID=40
If you say "Tiffen" to most people who are not connected to TV or movie they will, as you did, express surprise.
-
I have the lowest-end tiffen polarizer and a cheap kodak polarizer; the kodak is MUCH stronger, resulting in substantially deeper blue skies.
Anyhow, there's absolutely a difference between polarizers.