Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Any need for Polarizing filter w/ digital and PS?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
May 13, 2005 11:19:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I'm not a pro. I guess I fall under "enthusiast." I have an Olympus C5050
camera, with the WCON and TCON lenses, along with the FL20 flash (which, by
the way, is one of the best purchases I ever made - my indoor shots of my
children are so much better that I cannot imagine not having that flash).
So, for what I do, I'm pretty well covered. However, I love taking outdoor
nature shots, which are often marked by haze or light fog. I know a
polarizer would help with this, but I'm reluctant to buy anything right now
that I won't use a lot. I'm an advanced Photoshop user, and I can clean up
hazy pictures pretty well. My question is: Will a filter produce results
that cannot be achieved in PS? Remember, I'm not a pro, so I don't need a
tool for every occasion, and my results are not for print or sale. I just
need the very basics at this point. Would you consider a polarizer to be a
"basic?"

thanks for any input.

jm
May 14, 2005 12:31:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jake" <jake@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:s57he.21528$i1.10231@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> I'm not a pro. I guess I fall under "enthusiast." I have an Olympus
C5050
> camera, with the WCON and TCON lenses, along with the FL20 flash (which,
by
> the way, is one of the best purchases I ever made - my indoor shots of my
> children are so much better that I cannot imagine not having that flash).
> So, for what I do, I'm pretty well covered. However, I love taking
outdoor
> nature shots, which are often marked by haze or light fog. I know a
> polarizer would help with this, but I'm reluctant to buy anything right
now
> that I won't use a lot. I'm an advanced Photoshop user, and I can clean
up
> hazy pictures pretty well. My question is: Will a filter produce results
> that cannot be achieved in PS? Remember, I'm not a pro, so I don't need a
> tool for every occasion, and my results are not for print or sale. I just
> need the very basics at this point. Would you consider a polarizer to be
a
> "basic?"
>
> thanks for any input.
>
> jm
Yes a polarizing filter is quite useful. I can't say whether it would help
with haze or light fog though.
As for PS, my opinion is the less you have to do there the better.
Jim
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 1:14:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jake wrote:
> I'm not a pro. I guess I fall under "enthusiast." I have an Olympus C5050
> camera, with the WCON and TCON lenses, along with the FL20 flash (which, by
> the way, is one of the best purchases I ever made - my indoor shots of my
> children are so much better that I cannot imagine not having that flash).
> So, for what I do, I'm pretty well covered. However, I love taking outdoor
> nature shots, which are often marked by haze or light fog. I know a
> polarizer would help with this, but I'm reluctant to buy anything right now
> that I won't use a lot. I'm an advanced Photoshop user, and I can clean up
> hazy pictures pretty well. My question is: Will a filter produce results
> that cannot be achieved in PS? Remember, I'm not a pro, so I don't need a
> tool for every occasion, and my results are not for print or sale. I just
> need the very basics at this point. Would you consider a polarizer to be a
> "basic?"
>
> thanks for any input.
>
> jm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I, personally, don't use filters. I want my pictures to look like what
I saw. Those who are trying to make money from their pictures, however,
often are more interested in the overall effect, rather that cinema
verite. In short, they fudge things to make the picture look better.
That includes polarizers to clear up the sky, and likely even more
manipulation in PS. At some point, the image becomes less craft, and
more art, which is fine, IF that is what you are selling. Of course if
the buyer actually visits the site, he may be let down a bit...


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Related resources
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 1:27:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jake wrote:
> My question is: Will a filter produce results that cannot be achieved
> in PS?

Yes. Examples:

- reducing reflections in windows

- darkening the sky selectively

David
May 14, 2005 3:51:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 5/13/2005 2:19 PM, Jake wrote the following:
> My question is: Will a filter produce results that cannot be achieved in PS?
>
Yes

> Remember, I'm not a pro, so I don't need a tool for every occasion, and my
> results are not for print or sale. I just need the very basics at this
> point. Would you consider a polarizer to be a "basic?"
>

No, but they aren't expensive and you will see some nice effects on color
saturation in some lighting situations. Also all the expected tricks, like
minimizing reflections on water, etc. So .. when you're feeling like playing
around, get one and try it.
May 14, 2005 4:44:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I love polarizers. Many of my film and digital shots have been greatly
improved by the use of the filter. I can get much bluer skies, reduce
reflections on peoples glasses and get rid of other annoying
reflections.

Yes, a polarizer will achieve certain effects that PS can't do.
Experiment with one and I'm sure you will love it.
May 14, 2005 6:48:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <V9dhe.7718$i03.7092@fe06.lga>,
Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

>I, personally, don't use filters. I want my pictures to look like what
>I saw.

Many of the uses of filters are for exactly that purpose, to give you a
tool to make your pictures look more like what you saw, or what your
brain thought your eye saw, which is not always what you get on the
focal plane of your camera. In particular, I find a circ polarizer
to be pretty useful at helping me take pictures of what I see, when I'm
looking through things like museum cases and aquariums. My brain and my
eye somehow manage to filter out some of the nasty reflections in those
cases, but my camera needs a little help.
May 14, 2005 6:55:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> I, personally, don't use filters. I want my pictures to look like what
> I saw.

So you shoot only stereoscopic Kodachrome transparencies with about a 40mm (35mm
film equivalent) lens and adjust the color temperature of your viewing light
source to match the illumination of the original scene? And you do measure and
record the color temperature (and, inside, the spectrum of fluorescent or sodium
or mercury vapor sources) of the original light?

Of course not.

The point, of course, is that no photo - however "un-manipulated" -- can ever
look like "what you saw."

Loosen up and enjoy the show.
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 9:09:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jake <jake@yahoo.com> wrote:
: I just need the very basics at this point. Would you consider a
: polarizer to be a "basic?"

: thanks for any input.

If you will be taking photos outside, or in situations where reflections
may obscure your subject, a polarizer is a very useful tool. In some cases
it can help your camera work better. For example, a scene of a mostly
still lake, with sunlight glinting off the small ripples. Shooting it
straight may cause your camera to underexpose the image due to the strong
reflections. But using a pola filter to cut down (or remove) the reflected
glints will allow the camera to better select the proper exposure. Also if
you are shooting through a window (like a museum display, zoo glass
enclosure, a plate glass window, etc) a pola can cut down or remove the
reflections of what is behind you. This is in addition to the normal "sky
darkening" and "color brightening" effects that some use to good effect.

So the decision of "is this a basic" will have to depend on how likely you
are to run into one of these situations. If you are only going to take
indoor, candid photos you may have little use for a pola. But if there is
a chance that you may someday take your camera outside, you may want to
have one in your camera bag. The price is not so prohibitive as to make
the decision a tough one. Personally, I do have one for my camera on the
off chance that I will need it someday. I haven't used it yet, but my
camera is new, and summer is about to lure me into the sunshine again. :) 

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 2:55:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

stormwatcher wrote:
> I love polarizers. Many of my film and digital shots have been greatly
> improved by the use of the filter. I can get much bluer skies, reduce
> reflections on peoples glasses and get rid of other annoying
> reflections.
>
> Yes, a polarizer will achieve certain effects that PS can't do.
> Experiment with one and I'm sure you will love it.
>
I have, I didn't. It makes the picture look different from what I saw.
Generally, I don't like that. Of course, if one has a particular
artistic, or commercial interest in making the picture look different
from reality, that's up to him.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 7:39:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <cGdhe.32306$fI.1910@fed1read05>,
fishbowl@conservatory.com (james) wrote:

>In article <V9dhe.7718$i03.7092@fe06.lga>,
>Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

>>I, personally, don't use filters. I want my pictures to look like what
>>I saw.

>Many of the uses of filters are for exactly that purpose, to give you a
>tool to make your pictures look more like what you saw, or what your
>brain thought your eye saw, which is not always what you get on the
>focal plane of your camera. In particular, I find a circ polarizer
>to be pretty useful at helping me take pictures of what I see, when I'm
>looking through things like museum cases and aquariums. My brain and my
>eye somehow manage to filter out some of the nasty reflections in those
>cases, but my camera needs a little help.

The brain doesn't bother compensating for images, like it does the real
thing. The Brain is literally following the framing of the image, and
refusing to give what is within that frame "extra processing", no matter
how fast you move the image around. As far as the brain is concerned,
an image is not a vision; it is just a subject.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 4:13:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <Bbphe.9937$i03.754@fe06.lga>, Ron Hunter
<rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

> stormwatcher wrote:
> > I love polarizers. Many of my film and digital shots have been greatly
> > improved by the use of the filter. I can get much bluer skies, reduce
> > reflections on peoples glasses and get rid of other annoying
> > reflections.
> >
> > Yes, a polarizer will achieve certain effects that PS can't do.
> > Experiment with one and I'm sure you will love it.
> >
> I have, I didn't. It makes the picture look different from what I saw.
> Generally, I don't like that. Of course, if one has a particular
> artistic, or commercial interest in making the picture look different
> from reality, that's up to him.

Who said that a picture must be reality? All pictures are
interpretations (not so if your shooting portraits for passports,
snapshots in special occasions. x-rays and the like). I had the chance
to follow workshops with Ansel Adams, Brett Weston, Cole Porter and
Howard Bonds to name a few and believe me, reality as nothing to do
with photography. If you want to capture what you saw, fine; but if you
go to a place with another photographer, you will see that no one is
seing the same thing out of "reality". Polarizers, aside from "blueing"
the sky, is a fine tool for removing reflections on any objects (be it
leaves, grass, water, flower or anything ctaching up the sky). I gave
lectures on filters for 25 years now and as soon as I speak about
polarizing, I show more than a hundred slides showing the slight (and
not so slight) changes that polarizers can do to improve "reality".

I own polarizers in linear (for my old non-autofocus cameras) and
circular for the autofocus ones (including digital); my only problem
for now is having some banding in the sky when I work in PhotoShop and
transferring the pics to B&W. I will get a solution one day (everything
digital is quite new for me).
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 10:42:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <150520051213372199%jeecee@home.ca>, jeecee <jeecee@home.ca>
wrote:

> having some banding in the sky

That is normal when shooting wide angle images of the sky with a
polarizer. The banding is the area of the sky that is naturally
polarized.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
!