|
Polarizing Filter
 |
Hi Folks,
I went out to shoot on Saturday with a circular polarizing filter for the first time. Mind you it was a cloudy, overcast grey day. I had pointed the camera at my subject, included a lot of sky, and rotated the filter, acccording to the directions "until I saw the results I wished for"....and saw nothing dramatic happen, to the sky, or my subject. Since there was a pond nearby, I aimed at a leaf below the surface of the water, rotated, and *BAM* the leaf jumped right out. Back to my subject and sky....and nada. I went home and shot through a window, and got some difference on varying subjects, but nothing to enhance the sky.
Is there something I am doing wrong?
Thanks in advance.
Posted at 4:45AM, 17 March 2008 PDT
(
permalink
)
|
 |
The polarizing filter is a tool to deal with glare getting in the way of your picture. That means when the conditions aren't favorable to make glare, the polarizing filter isn't going to do much. Because water can reflect light with harsh glare, the polarizing filter helps a great deal even when it is overcast. You aren't going to see much help in the sky unless it is primarily a blue sky with the occasional puffy cloud.
When you shoot black and white film, your options open up as to the types of filters you can use to enhance the drama of the sky. Yellow filters block blue, so the sky becomes darker and it enhances the contrast and makes it more dramatic. Red filters are even more drastic, taking out greens as well.
When you shoot color, there is only so much you can do. The polarizing filter is the only tool you have, but it really only makes noticeable differences when the conditions are right. No glare means no effect.
Originally posted 4 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Berin Loritsch edited this topic 4 months ago.
|
 |
next time you are out on a sunny day do this....note the position of the sun in the sky, look through the viewfinder and swing 360 degrees while rotating to find the sweet spot. you'll find that when you are facing the sun you get less of an effect, i think it's at it's best 90 degrees from the sun but don't quote me on that :)
Posted 4 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
It is indeed most effective with side lighting. Watch out for uneven results though, you can get a steep tonal gradient across the sky using a polariser. In the right conditions it can really make the scene pop, so it's worth persisting.
As has been suggested , for B&W photography you are often better off using a coloured filter to darken a blue sky.
For colour and B&W photography a graduated neutral density filter can be used to darken the sky.
Posted 4 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
i find that the effect is actually more dramatic (in colour) shots with a polariser than neutral density filter. to darken blues, the polariser is perfect, i use a linear polariser and i have never used a circ one so i'm not sure if they have the same half-frame darkening effect (that the linear ones do) or if they deflect the light outwards from the middle.
anyway, as suggested the effects will be most visually noticeable when the sky is a clear blue or if there is a lot of glare from reflective surfaces.
with b/w you may also want to try a combination of polariser and red filter. with the pol. on top, the sky is rendered almost black and the white clouds are even more pronounced. give it a go.
d.
Posted 4 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
The difference is contrast. The neutral density filter (graduated or not) darkens everything equally. Polarizers and color filters change the contrast by darkening some things and leaving others alone. For the polarizer, it removes stray light (glare) and it is designed to help with side lighting issues as well as reflected glare. Color filters will lighten the colors that pass through and darken the colors that are filtered out (since the sky is blue and clouds are white yellow filters increase the contrast in the sky by darkening blue and leaving clouds alone).
Posted 4 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Like someone else said up above, a polarizing filter, IMO, works best when your shooting at a 90 degree angle from the sun....or sidelight, if you will.
Posted 4 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
90 degrees from the sun.
The polarizer almost has no effect if you are pointed at the sun or directly away (as far as darkening the sky goes.)
Some people only use them to cut reflective glare off of water or windows. I like to use them to supersaturate my digital photos.
Here is an example of a hotspot with the polarizer. The sky was obviously all one color that day, but to the right, you notice the effect is highly amplified:
On the right day (clear September afternoon!) you can get overkill with a CPL. I didn't do any postprocessing here:
Here is an example where I purposely caused extra reflection using a CPL on the water:
Here's some Kodak Tmax 400 with both a 25A red filter and a CPL pointed at a white water tower and a deep blue sky:
Again with the 25A, CPL, but Agfa APX 100:
Some people HATE filters. Most pro photographers sort of look at me like I'm a complete hack if I mention that I use them.
Screw them.. I like photos that look out of the ordinary.
Originally posted 4 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Luke H (a group admin) edited this topic 4 months ago.
|
 |
well if Ansel Adams could use them it should be OK for us.
Posted 4 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
ninety from the sun!
;-)
Posted 4 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
try two polarizers and you'll see magic!
this one by genius andy:
Posted 4 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I was shooting 90 degrees to the sun, but I think the problem for me was that there was no sky to speak of. Only grey clouds.
I get the same nose in the air about filters. But, I like you Luke, are tyring to achieve a vision that I have, not perfectly represent the scene.
Originally posted 4 months ago.
(
permalink
)
justapaperbag edited this topic 4 months ago.
|
 |
Light passing through clouds bounces around randomly through all the water droplets, so it is not polarized.
The light from blue sky is somewhat polarized--most strongly at 90 degrees from the sun--which is why people use polarizers to darken blue skies.
Likewise , light reflecting off surfaces at a shallow angle is polarized, and so you can rotate the filter until you eliminate glare. But if you take a picture of yourself in a mirror, you can't rotate the filter and make yourself disappear, because a head-on reflection doesn't polarize the light.
Go out on a sunny day and try it again, and you'll see what we've all been talking about.
Posted 4 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
ooh ooh. you want a Graduated Neutral Density filter to bring out texture in clouds. All that does is actually under expose the top half (or whatever half you rotate it to) of the image by about 2 stops and is best used for overcast skies or for bringing out the dramatic colors in sunrise or sunset while retaining great shadow detail. Its sort of an optical HDR when you have a contrasty scene.
I use the polariser mostly on sunny scenic shots, and its sometimes helps to cut down haze (haze = reflection of light off of water and particle matter suspended in the air, aka Pollution usually). I also use it when shooting rivers, streams, and waterfalls. Its a useful filter and is certainly one of the first any photographer should have.
Posted 4 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Its sort of an optical HDR when you have a contrasty scene.
heh, especially when used poorly... I think graduated filters take a subtle hand to produce good images. They're useful, of course, but they've been used to create plenty of pretty hideous images, too.
Posted 4 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Since polarizers are good for a blue sky, what works best to make a cloudy washed out sky more dramatic or moody? I always see these pictures with brooding, expressive storm clouds, and I've never totally been sure of how to achieve that effect via filtration.
Posted 4 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I guess the lesson is grad ND filters don't make hideous images, people make hideous images.
Qualudez - I think that probably has more to do with the clouds themselves than the filters one uses, but grad ND filters would probably help somewhat. Or post-processing in Photoshop.
How does one increase contrast locally when making a wet print? Dodge-and-burning with different VC filters?
Posted 4 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
"Since polarizers are good for a blue sky, what works best to make a cloudy washed out sky more dramatic or moody? I always see these pictures with brooding, expressive storm clouds, and I've never totally been sure of how to achieve that effect via filtration. "
This is where I shoot b&w film and use a red or orange filter. That or you make the compromise to have a dramatic sky, knowing that you're going to underexpose what's on the ground by maybe 4 stops, having nothing but black silouettes of shapes as your landscape.
I rarely turn to photoshop to do anything to my film related photos.
Posted 4 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I use polarizers as a 2 stop neutral density filter and to make blue skies more dramatic.
Not to mention its very useful to use when you find fruit stuck to your monitor.
But alas even with the special flip up holder they are difficult to use with most rangefinders.
Originally posted 4 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Metrix X edited this topic 4 months ago.
|
 |
Luke H says...
snip.... Some people HATE filters. Most pro photographers sort of look at me like I'm a complete hack if I mention that I use them. Screw them.. I like photos that look out of the ordinary.
I agree Luke. How is using actual real optical filters any different from others doing the same thing digitally in Photoshop?
Originally posted 4 months ago.
(
permalink
)
digi.film ... on summer hybernation edited this topic 4 months ago.
|
|
they've been used to create plenty of pretty hideous images, too
So has HDR. :-P
digi.film: Using optical filters is actually better than post-process modification because in this case, you're modifying the light and not really losing any detail or information as you (properly) expose the negative. However, once you start making manipulations in photoshop, there's almost always detail or pixel information loss. The more you can do to your photograph optically (analog), the better it'll come out after you scan it. Actually, I wish digital photographers would discover the joys of optical filters.
Posted 4 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Circular polarisers have a less visible effect than linear polarisers. Linear polarisers went out of fashion when cameras started using half mirrors in their metering systems. At a certain rotation, a linear polariser will cause no light to travel through the half mirror to the light sensor and thus give a false meter reading to the unwary.
Circular polarisers have a constant effect which is fine for metering but only results in a semi-polarising effect when compared to linear.
Originally posted 4 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Mike Bartley edited this topic 4 months ago.
|
|
Matthew Singer I understand that all too well, and I wish the same.
Actually, and correct me if I'm wrong here, and apologies if it's OT, but if I recall the history of Photoshop correctly, wasn't it originally developed as a rendering tool for film photographers?
Posted 4 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
|
I Shoot Film /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to I Shoot Film discussion threads
Flickr Blog |
About Flickr |
Terms of Use |
Your Privacy |
Copyright/IP Policy | Report Abuse
|
Deutsch
|
English
|
Español
|
Français
|
|
Italiano
|
Português
Copyright © 2008 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Save to del.icio.us