That's not "banding" but rather the differences in polarization you are seeing. Will more expensive be better? Maybe - depends on what street corner in Brisbane you bought the one you've got. If the guy said it's a genuine "No-lex" then you got took.
Just had a mornings walk in the park & knew i had some banding but when i got home & loaded the shots
If i throw some more money at it & buy a more expensive CP will i be able to reduce the banding ? I know its angle induced btw but is it also a quality thing ?
PS...hows your weather guys ?
As Andy said, I don't see any banding here. Some things I do see:
A variation in brightness of the sky based on where the sun is. It's not banding. A better polarizer might make a difference, but it's hard to know. I reasoned I should spend good money on a high quality polarizer since the last thing I wanted to do is put some sub-standard glass in front of my best lenses.
Some pretty serious JPEG artifacts. You can see them really easily by looking at the blue channel in PS. Did you use a really high compression ratio on these when preparing them? To be honest, if there was banding, I wouldn't be able to see it through the JPEG artifacts.
An image in aRGB that you posted on the web so it gets quite washed out when we see it in our browsers. I was surprised at the pop that came back when I dropped it into CS2 and it was viewed through the right profile again.
On the first image you posted, sometimes a good lens hood helps a bit. It is difficult to get good pictures when the sun is just out of view. I don't technically know why this is, but I've consistently seen it in my own shooting.
My question is if paying more for a better quality of CP avoid that sky blueing difference on a wide lens.
Got it. A good quality polarizer will work wonders on the sky under the right conditions, even at a pretty wide angle. But, no matter how much you spend, an undesirable angle will still yield what you've seen. That's happened to me too with my equipment. These shots from Yosemite gave wonderful skies because of the CP and many of them were taken at 17mm (that's the widest I have). So, I wouldn't abandon the notion of using the CP with a wide angle, but you may only want to use it when the sun is further off to the side or think more about position the shot to make that true.
Comments
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
CPs work best at a 90° angle from the sun. They are ineffective at 0 or 180.
I have the same problem, especially with the 10-22.
Here's a particularly bad one of mine:
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
As Andy said, I don't see any banding here. Some things I do see:
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
The wider the angle the more likely that the lens will pick up those variations, as it captures a wider angle of the sky.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
Got it. A good quality polarizer will work wonders on the sky under the right conditions, even at a pretty wide angle. But, no matter how much you spend, an undesirable angle will still yield what you've seen. That's happened to me too with my equipment. These shots from Yosemite gave wonderful skies because of the CP and many of them were taken at 17mm (that's the widest I have). So, I wouldn't abandon the notion of using the CP with a wide angle, but you may only want to use it when the sun is further off to the side or think more about position the shot to make that true.
Happy shooting.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question