Shooting Wedding (Outside) - Polariser?

robigouk

Hi

I'm shooting a wedding this weekend and the grounds of the venue are lovely, so most shots will be outdoor in the gardens, near trees, sat on benches etc. etc.

Should I use a polariser/polarizer whilst shooting outside?

Any thoughts welcome!

cheers

Rob

MA-FOTO

I would say a big yes.
the only time to not use is when completely overcast - dark day's.

Using a polarizer or ND will allow you to shoot with narrow DOF and still use a fill flash to get separation.

You can actual stack an ND followed by polarizer if you want to adjust w/ polarizer.


just my 2 cents.....

Later,
Mark

Qarik

robigouk wrote:

Hi

I'm shooting a wedding this weekend and the grounds of the venue are lovely, so most shots will be outdoor in the gardens, near trees, sat on benches etc. etc.

Should I use a polariser/polarizer whilst shooting outside?

Any thoughts welcome!

cheers

Rob

It won't hurt but I don't think it is neccessary at all.

Shima

Qarik wrote:

It won't hurt but I don't think it is neccessary at all.

That's my opinion too. I personally don't shoot with filters. I'm a hoods on filters off girl.

run_kmc

Yeah. Either way.

You could get a nicer blue sky straight out of the camera, but if you're shooting a wedding, you might be shooting wedding parties. And if you're shooting wedding parties, you might be going wide, and if you go wide enough, a polarizer can make the sky look funky, in a bad way.

But maybe. And you'd have to be really wide.

JohnBiggs

Maybe its me, but I don't have tons of time to mess with filters.

pwp

Shima wrote:

That's my opinion too. I personally don't shoot with filters. I'm a hoods on filters off girl.

Matthew Saville

This was discussed recently, shooting in bright sunlight and how to reduce the harsh, boring-ness of the day. I posted these two examples of what polarization can do. These two RAW images received the EXACT same processing, I kid you not.








I noticed that many people have stated that they never use polarizers, or special filters in general, either because they just don't have the time or because the desired effects aren't critical to their images.

Personally I have to say that coming from a background in landscape photography, I cannot imagine putting ANY LESS effort into my images. Yes, it takes a few seconds to put the filter on, but if you're shooting near water or big sky, or if you need super shallow DOF in bright light, you really ought to go the extra mile for your clients.


Just my opinionated opinion, of course!
=Matt=

Qarik

Matthew Saville wrote:

This was discussed recently, shooting in bright sunlight and how to reduce the harsh, boring-ness of the day. I posted these two examples of what polarization can do. These two RAW images received the EXACT same processing, I kid you not.








I noticed that many people have stated that they never use polarizers, or special filters in general, either because they just don't have the time or because the desired effects aren't critical to their images.

Personally I have to say that coming from a background in landscape photography, I cannot imagine putting ANY LESS effort into my images. Yes, it takes a few seconds to put the filter on, but if you're shooting near water or big sky, or if you need super shallow DOF in bright light, you really ought to go the extra mile for your clients.


Just my opinionated opinion, of course!
=Matt=

interesting..just to be sure...the 2nd shot has the polarizer correct?

Also if you have second..could you PP expose the 1st shot to match the exposure in the 2nd shot on say the lit trees? I want to see if there is difference in contrast between the shaded regions with similar exposure for the foreground. It apeears teh skies are matched in your examples. I am no where near my editing mac atm.

bendruckerphoto

A polarizer is very appropriate in the situation Matt showed. A static shot. For when things start moving quickly, I would skip it. You could always underexpose the ambient by a stop and compensate for the subject with fill. Underexposure saturates color, so that would emulate some of the effects of a polarizer.

Qarik

bendruckerphoto wrote:

A polarizer is very appropriate in the situation Matt showed. A static shot. For when things start moving quickly, I would skip it. You could always underexpose the ambient by a stop and compensate for the subject with fill. Underexposure saturates color, so that would emulate some of the effects of a polarizer.

if you underexpose a bit then the shadow regions get darker. Expose for shadows and the lit areas get shifted. I am wondering if the polarizer will in effect reduce the light from the lit areas slightly more then from the shadow areas. This gives you slight "fill light" efect.

Matthew Saville

Qarik wrote:

interesting..just to be sure...the 2nd shot has the polarizer correct?

Also if you have second..could you PP expose the 1st shot to match the exposure in the 2nd shot on say the lit trees? I want to see if there is difference in contrast between the shaded regions with similar exposure for the foreground. It apeears teh skies are matched in your examples. I am no where near my editing mac atm.

I get what you're saying- The polarization darkens the sky, which allows you to use a brighter exposure overall, which lets you see into the shadows more. But no, I don't have the original RAW file on me right now.

For me the bottom line is back-end workflow. I just can't afford to spend more than 0-10 seconds on each image I deliver to a bride and groom, so even if the effects of a polarizer are reproducible in photoshop with fancy highlight / shadow work, I'm not gonna make the time for it...

=Matt=

harvey3

make yourself ready.. bring everything you think necessary for this kind of shooting... I believe in actual samples.. above advices are good!

cheers!