Polarizing Filter effect comparison

amp'd · June 18, 2009

I may have done my experiment incorrectly, but I tried! My hubby bought me a polarizing filter and I wanted to see exactly what it did that was so different to not having one. I took boring pictures- so excuse that part. These are Raw images, turned directly to jpg- I didn't sharpen or contrast or anything. I hope they aren't too large. Still figuring out the forum. =0)

The first is without the filter.
Specs are 200mm, f/13, 180 iso, 1/50s

This next one is WITH the filter. I had to open up the aperture more, and decrease the iso to keep it from getting too dark. 200mm, f/5.6, 100 iso, 1/50s. The wind was blowing too.

Yes boring pictures. But I was suprised to see detail in the leaves without overexposing the sky.

I am not a photoshop pro and I am told this can not be replicated in PS- so this is a useful filter to have yes?

Nikolai · June 18, 2009

amp'd wrote:

I may have done my experiment incorrectly, but I tried! My hubby bought me a polarizing filter and I wanted to see exactly what it did that was so different to not having one. I took boring pictures- so excuse that part. These are Raw images, turned directly to jpg- I didn't sharpen or contrast or anything. I hope they aren't too large. Still figuring out the forum. =0)

I am not a photoshop pro and I am told this can not be replicated in PS- so this is a useful filter to have yes?

Congrats on getting CP.
Mind you:
1) they are mostly effective at 90 degrees from the sun
2) they may create unpleasant effect if used on wide angle lenses
3) they can be also used to control reflection off the glass and water (semitrasparent surfaces)
4) and yes, this is one of the very few filters that is either very hard or nay impossible to simulate in PS.

All in all, "it *is* as usefult filter to have, yes"!

amp'd · June 18, 2009

Nikolai wrote:

Congrats on getting CP.
Mind you:
1) they are mostly effective at 90 degrees from the sun
2) they may create unpleasant effect if used on wide angle lenses
3) they can be also used to control reflection off the glass and water (semitrasparent surfaces)
4) and yes, this is one of the very few filters that is either very hard or nay impossible to simulate in PS.

All in all, "it *is* as usefult filter to have, yes"!

Would this be an appropriate filter to use if you are taking portraits of people wearing glasses, shiny cars, shiny buildings (with metal or glass glare/flares)? (that glare is fierce) Or stick to landscapes mostly? Thank you for the info!

Nikolai · June 18, 2009

amp'd wrote:

Would this be an appropriate filter to use if you are taking portraits of people wearing glasses, shiny cars, shiny buildings (with metal or glass glare/flares)? (that glare is fierce) Or stick to landscapes mostly? Thank you for the info!

Yes, absolutely. It's not only landscape, it covers all those areas, too.

amp'd · June 18, 2009

Nikolai wrote:

Yes, absolutely. It's not only landscape, it covers all those areas, too.

Awesome!! Thank you so much!

Nikolai · June 18, 2009

amp'd wrote:

Awesome!! Thank you so much!

You're welcome!
Anothing filter you may need is an ND (netural density). It helps to create long exposure shots when sun doesn't want to cooperate.
FWIW these two types are ONLY filters I personally use (apart from UV one which is simply protecting the lens). Yet of course YMMV :-)

amp'd · June 19, 2009

Thanks! I have seen some pretty amazing shots with the ND filter- especially with water. The light, the mood, everything is so phenomenal. Definitely going on my list of I-wants!

raptorcaptor · June 22, 2009

amp'd wrote:

Would this be an appropriate filter to use if you are taking portraits of people wearing glasses, shiny cars, shiny buildings (with metal or glass glare/flares)? (that glare is fierce) Or stick to landscapes mostly? Thank you for the info!

Not metal! Metal is not polarized so the filter will not work!

Nikolai · June 22, 2009

raptorcaptor wrote:

Not metal! Metal is not polarized so the filter will not work!

Reflections - no; Sunstars/glares - yes. At least that was my experience when shooting classic cars and prop planes...

Aldazar · June 25, 2009

Is it necessary to have both a CP filter and a UV filter, or can I pretty much just get a good CP and leave it on the lens all the time?

Another way of asking this question is: Are the many (or common) situations where it'd be a disadvantage to have the CP filter on?

As far as I know you're fine leaving a UV filter on 24/7, but since I love to shoot water and sky, I'm thinking a CP filter would be good. I'd rather not have to buy (and keep track of and take care of) 2 though, so I'm wondering if I can just get a CP filter.

Also, anybody want to recommend a particular brand/model? Warn me away from any particular brand/model? Recommend that I spend roughly $xx because any more would be extravagant and any less would result in noticeable degradation? Any other tips?

As you can tell, I'm a noob to this stuff, so thanks in advance for your help!

ziggy53 · June 25, 2009

Aldazar wrote:

Is it necessary to have both a CP filter and a UV filter, or can I pretty much just get a good CP and leave it on the lens all the time?

Another way of asking this question is: Are the many (or common) situations where it'd be a disadvantage to have the CP filter on?

As far as I know you're fine leaving a UV filter on 24/7, but since I love to shoot water and sky, I'm thinking a CP filter would be good. I'd rather not have to buy (and keep track of and take care of) 2 though, so I'm wondering if I can just get a CP filter.

Also, anybody want to recommend a particular brand/model? Warn me away from any particular brand/model? Recommend that I spend roughly $xx because any more would be extravagant and any less would result in noticeable degradation? Any other tips?

As you can tell, I'm a noob to this stuff, so thanks in advance for your help!

Aldazar, welcome to the Digital Grin.

A circular polarizer is a relatively expensive filter to risk up front and and it is not terribly transmissive, i.e. it absorbs a fair amout of light and reduces the effective aperture of the lens noticeably. I have known folks who "almost" leave a CP filter on a lens because they like the effect so much, but I do not personally recommend it.

Tiffen is about the only main brand I would stay away from and avoid the cheap store brands and camera brands as well.

If you purchase a Hoya multicoated (HMC) or B+W/Schneider brand multicoated I think you would be pretty satisfied.

CaliStateBear · July 1, 2009

I have a B+W 82mm MRC F-pro with 16-35mm II and 400D, will this filter vignette on a FF camera such as 5D? Eventually I like to upgrade to a FF camera and would like to invest in CPL and UV for my 16-35mm II that will not cause any vignetting also has front thread. I was told never to stack filters, besides reason from picture vignette and what else?

Thank you in advance.

System · July 1, 2009

Aldazar wrote:

Is it necessary to have both a CP filter and a UV filter, or can I pretty much just get a good CP and leave it on the lens all the time?

Another way of asking this question is: Are the many (or common) situations where it'd be a disadvantage to have the CP filter on?

As far as I know you're fine leaving a UV filter on 24/7, but since I love to shoot water and sky, I'm thinking a CP filter would be good. I'd rather not have to buy (and keep track of and take care of) 2 though, so I'm wondering if I can just get a CP filter.

Also, anybody want to recommend a particular brand/model? Warn me away from any particular brand/model? Recommend that I spend roughly $xx because any more would be extravagant and any less would result in noticeable degradation? Any other tips?

As you can tell, I'm a noob to this stuff, so thanks in advance for your help!

The problem with leaving the CP filter on 24/7 is you loose some light hitting the sensor. Also if you are using a wide angle lens, you may get an uneven sky color (from light to dark). Some folks will argue that you are lowering the image quality (IQ) when using ANY kind of filter. If you have a $1000 lens and put a $5 filter on it are you lowering that IQ to that of a $5 lens?

ziggy53 · July 1, 2009

CaliStateBear, welcome to the Digital Grin.

While "Captain78" was answering Aldazar, his advice goes for you as well. You would probably not be happy using a polarizer on a super-wide-angle lens because a polarizer will vary in effect according to its orientation respective to the sun. A super wide lens just takes in too much angular view and the sky in the scene will vary in color tone across the field of view.

More information here:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/polarizers.shtml

At any rate I do think you would be happiest using a "slim" filter on the EF 16-35mm, f2.8 USM and not stacking when you use the lens on a full-frame camera.

Aldazar · July 2, 2009

Thanks for your responses guys! I think the biggest reason not to leave the CP on all the time would be losing 2 stops worth of light!

On the upside, that probably means if I get a good CP, I wouldn't have to buy an ND filter as well, right?

I've heard the argument about not using a cheapo filter on a good lens as it defeats the purpose of having a nice lens. What do you guys think? What's a good guideline for a 77mm UV filter? (as in, how much should one be looking to spend in order to ensure one of decent quality but not waste a ton of money?) How about for a CP?

Polarizing Filter effect comparison

Comments