Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

UV, Polarizing filters

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 4:42:29 PM

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

Are these still worth getting for D-SLRs? I'm pretty sure I can skip all
the color filters, special effects, etc, but I'm not sure about those 2
types.

More about : polarizing filters

Anonymous
April 17, 2005 6:10:50 PM

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

"Brion K. Lienhart" <brionl@lienhart.name> wrote in message
news:36mdnVhWKJe1If_fRVn-gw@comcast.com...
> Are these still worth getting for D-SLRs? I'm pretty sure I can skip all
> the color filters, special effects, etc, but I'm not sure about those 2
> types.

IMHO, especially with a polarizing filter, they will work the same with
digital as with film. Many people will use a UV or skylight filter just to
protect the lens, and a polarizing filter can work magic in the right
situation.
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 10:07:44 PM

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

As Jeremy stated, polarisers do much more than darken/intensify sky
colouring. They reduce glare, revealing colours/details that are not
visible without them, they reduce or eliminate reflections from glass
windows and other non-metallic reflective surfaces, and of course as
any fisherperson or ocean photographer knows, they do wonders to reveal
underwater detail and colour that is lost in glare.

If you routinely photograph cityscapes, land and seascapes, or even if
you just shoot outdoors near midday!, they are essential in my opinion.
No photoshopping comes close!
Related resources
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 12:13:00 AM

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

Brion K. Lienhart <brionl@lienhart.name> wrote:

> Are these still worth getting for D-SLRs? I'm pretty sure I can skip all
> the color filters, special effects, etc, but I'm not sure about those 2
> types.

You can't Photoshop a polarizing filter.

There's no difference in the need for a UV filter -- either you want to
use them to "protect" your lenses or you don't.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 12:13:01 AM

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

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:13:00 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com>
wrote:


>
>You can't Photoshop a polarizing filter.
>
>There's no difference in the need for a UV filter -- either you want to
>use them to "protect" your lenses or you don't.

I don't want to be too nit picky about this, but let's define what
everone who says you can't Photoshop a polarizing filter means. If
you've got a washed out blue sky it's no big deal intensifying that
sky using layers, using the gadient editor, or using curves and
masking (keeping the clouds white). Mind you, a polarizing filter will
save a lot of time and be "real", but.... Ken
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 12:13:02 AM

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

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 17:15:39 -0400, Ken Palmateer
<kenpalmateer@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:13:00 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>>You can't Photoshop a polarizing filter.
>>
>>There's no difference in the need for a UV filter -- either you want to
>>use them to "protect" your lenses or you don't.
>
>I don't want to be too nit picky about this, but let's define what
>everone who says you can't Photoshop a polarizing filter means. If
>you've got a washed out blue sky it's no big deal intensifying that
>sky using layers, using the gadient editor, or using curves and
>masking (keeping the clouds white). Mind you, a polarizing filter will
>save a lot of time and be "real", but.... Ken

And one more thing (keeping on track with the original question) I
tend to put uv filters on all my glass, and do own a few polarizing
filters which I use on my dsl, but it's a good idea not to stack
filters. And when I do macro work I take all filters off (looking for
a particular effect aside).
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 12:13:02 AM

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

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 17:15:39 -0400, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ken
Palmateer <kenpalmateer@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:13:00 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>>You can't Photoshop a polarizing filter.
>>
>>There's no difference in the need for a UV filter -- either you want to
>>use them to "protect" your lenses or you don't.
>
>I don't want to be too nit picky about this, but let's define what
>everone who says you can't Photoshop a polarizing filter means. If
>you've got a washed out blue sky it's no big deal intensifying that
>sky using layers, using the gadient editor, or using curves and
>masking (keeping the clouds white). Mind you, a polarizing filter will
>save a lot of time and be "real", but.... Ken

If that's all you use a polarizer for then you can PS it. How are you going
to deal with specular reflections off surfaces, water, leaves, glass?
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 1:42:13 AM

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

Ken Palmateer <kenpalmateer@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> I don't want to be too nit picky about this, but let's define what
> everone who says you can't Photoshop a polarizing filter means. If
> you've got a washed out blue sky it's no big deal intensifying that
> sky using layers, using the gadient editor, or using curves and
> masking (keeping the clouds white). Mind you, a polarizing filter will
> save a lot of time and be "real", but.... Ken

You can't duplicate the effect of a polarizing filter in Photoshop. If
what you want is a darker or bluer sky, you can do that, but that's a
different thing.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 2:08:52 AM

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

"Brion K. Lienhart" <brionl@lienhart.name> wrote in message
news:36mdnVhWKJe1If_fRVn-gw@comcast.com...
> Are these still worth getting for D-SLRs? I'm pretty sure I can skip all
> the color filters, special effects, etc, but I'm not sure about those 2
> types.

How well do polarizer work with auto white balance? I can't seem to get the
super blue skies like I used to on film...Would it be better to set the
white balance with an expo disk(Pringles lid for me) and then put the filter
on? The benefits for glare are obvious and I don't leave home without my
polarizer, but to me it just doesn't work as much on the color of the sky as
it used to with film.
http://harryphotos.com/waterrock2.jpg - the big rock with the water going
over it was almost invisible without the polarizer....
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 2:47:38 AM

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

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 21:42:13 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com>
wrote:

>Ken Palmateer <kenpalmateer@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> I don't want to be too nit picky about this, but let's define what
>> everone who says you can't Photoshop a polarizing filter means. If
>> you've got a washed out blue sky it's no big deal intensifying that
>> sky using layers, using the gadient editor, or using curves and
>> masking (keeping the clouds white). Mind you, a polarizing filter will
>> save a lot of time and be "real", but.... Ken
>
>You can't duplicate the effect of a polarizing filter in Photoshop. If
>what you want is a darker or bluer sky, you can do that, but that's a
>different thing.

I stand corrected, thinking along a rather narrow train of thought as
far as what a polarizing filter can and can't do. The sky effect is
just one thing. Reflections can be minimized and scenery can be made
more intense before Photoshop is applied to the image. So while some
polarizing effects can be imitated in Photoshop, Photoshop is no
substitute for a polarizing filter. Ken
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 3:20:39 AM

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

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 12:42:29 -0700, "Brion K. Lienhart"
<brionl@lienhart.name> wrote:

>Are these still worth getting for D-SLRs? I'm pretty sure I can skip all
>the color filters, special effects, etc, but I'm not sure about those 2
>types.

Colour filters, effects filters; How many people give photos
taken with those things a second-glance? The only one I can
remember that I ever liked was a Nikon picture from a Nikon ad
in the early 1980s taken of a dead tree overhanging a near-dry lake
shot through a yellow filter. The yellow seemed to emphasize the
power of the sun. Apart from that, using a cross-hatched
filter to produce "diffraction effects" or those silly Cokin filters
that tint the sky a different colour from the land just product
tacky-looking results.
-Rich
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 4:09:16 AM

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

Ken Palmateer <kenpalmateer@sympatico.ca> writes:

> On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:13:00 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>You can't Photoshop a polarizing filter.
>>
>>There's no difference in the need for a UV filter -- either you want to
>>use them to "protect" your lenses or you don't.
>
> I don't want to be too nit picky about this, but let's define what
> everone who says you can't Photoshop a polarizing filter means. If
> you've got a washed out blue sky it's no big deal intensifying that
> sky using layers, using the gadient editor, or using curves and
> masking (keeping the clouds white). Mind you, a polarizing filter will
> save a lot of time and be "real", but.... Ken

And save masking around that damned tree, don't forget.

Also the real filter is much better for removing reflections from
water and such -- in photoshop it's *really hard work* (depending on
what the reflection is of).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 4:58:37 AM

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

In article <U7B8e.1049725$Xk.320320@pd7tw3no>, NOJUNK@FU.ca says...
>
> "Brion K. Lienhart" <brionl@lienhart.name> wrote in message
> news:36mdnVhWKJe1If_fRVn-gw@comcast.com...
> > Are these still worth getting for D-SLRs? I'm pretty sure I can skip all
> > the color filters, special effects, etc, but I'm not sure about those 2
> > types.
>
> How well do polarizer work with auto white balance? I can't seem to get the
> super blue skies like I used to on film...Would it be better to set the
> white balance with an expo disk(Pringles lid for me) and then put the filter
> on? The benefits for glare are obvious and I don't leave home without my
> polarizer, but to me it just doesn't work as much on the color of the sky as
> it used to with film.
> http://harryphotos.com/waterrock2.jpg - the big rock with the water going
> over it was almost invisible without the polarizer....
>
>
>
Simple. Don't use auto white balance. Ever. Set the white
balance for the type of light you're shooting in, and just go
with it. Daylight white balance will give you about the same
results that you're used to getting with daylight film.

If auto white balance could read the color of the *light* that
you're working in, that would be great. But it can't and
doesn't; instead, it looks at the color balance of the *image*
that you shoot. It's probably working against you when you
try for that super-saturated blue sky. The camera looks at
all that blue and trys to adjust it *out* of your photo, to
achieve an "even" color balance by warming up the overall
white balance. The result is, well, pretty much what you've
been getting.

Diane
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 5:07:11 AM

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

In article <U7B8e.1049725$Xk.320320@pd7tw3no>,
Dirty Harry <NOJUNK@FU.ca> wrote:
>
>How well do polarizer work with auto white balance? I can't seem to get the
>super blue skies like I used to on film...

I never rely on my DSLR to do all the work for me - that's what
Photoshop (and the like) are for. But here's one recent shot
(tweaked to give Velvia levels of saturation):

<http://panix.com/~johnf/temp/DeathValley.jpg&gt;

You probably don't want anything bluer than that!

Here's another shot, this time practically straight from the camera:

<http://panix.com/~johnf/temp/DesertScape.jpg&gt;
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 5:10:57 AM

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

Ken Palmateer <kenpalmateer@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> I don't want to be too nit picky about this, but let's define what
> everone who says you can't Photoshop a polarizing filter means. If
> you've got a washed out blue sky it's no big deal intensifying that
> sky using layers, using the gadient editor, or using curves and
> masking (keeping the clouds white). Mind you, a polarizing filter will
> save a lot of time and be "real", but.... Ken

A polorizing filter will remove some glare and reflection. I just
tested this out up at a lake near home. The clouds could be seen
reflecting off of the water very clearly, a turn of the filter and they
disappeared entirely and I could see into the water much better.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 7:40:08 AM

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

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 12:42:29 -0700, "Brion K. Lienhart"
<brionl@lienhart.name> wrote:

>Are these still worth getting for D-SLRs? I'm pretty sure I can skip all
>the color filters, special effects, etc, but I'm not sure about those 2
>types.

I bought a couple polarizers for my lens (hoya's) They were relatively
inexpensive and i really like the effect. Oh yeah..use them on 20d
with canon ef lens.(zzz).

Regarding colored glass...my two cents are that it depends on your
creative process.

rgds
Ken
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 1:36:27 PM

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

Ken Palmateer wrote:

> everone who says you can't Photoshop a polarizing filter means. If
> you've got a washed out blue sky it's no big deal intensifying that
> sky using layers, using the gadient editor, or using curves and
> masking (keeping the clouds white). Mind you, a polarizing filter will
> save a lot of time and be "real", but.... Ken

Pol filters go further than that. They reduce the glare from some
surfaces like glass or wet autumn leaves. That's a harder trick in
photoshop, if at all possible.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 1:37:34 PM

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

Ken Palmateer wrote:

>
> And one more thing (keeping on track with the original question) I
> tend to put uv filters on all my glass, and do own a few polarizing
> filters which I use on my dsl, but it's a good idea not to stack
> filters. And when I do macro work I take all filters off (looking for
> a particular effect aside).

Anyone with the patience to use a pol will remove the UV filter first.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
April 18, 2005 1:40:44 PM

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

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Ken Palmateer <kenpalmateer@sympatico.ca> writes:
>
>
>>On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:13:00 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>You can't Photoshop a polarizing filter.
>>>
>>>There's no difference in the need for a UV filter -- either you want to
>>>use them to "protect" your lenses or you don't.
>>
>>I don't want to be too nit picky about this, but let's define what
>>everone who says you can't Photoshop a polarizing filter means. If
>>you've got a washed out blue sky it's no big deal intensifying that
>>sky using layers, using the gadient editor, or using curves and
>>masking (keeping the clouds white). Mind you, a polarizing filter will
>>save a lot of time and be "real", but.... Ken
>
>
> And save masking around that damned tree, don't forget.
>
> Also the real filter is much better for removing reflections from
> water and such -- in photoshop it's *really hard work* (depending on
> what the reflection is of).

Masking around the tree?!? Wow, you make things hard. I just hit <Ctrl>
U, select the blues and adjust my saturation, lightness, and hue. Then I
do the same for the cyans. Actually, most skies are more cyan than blue.
This method doesn't touch the trees - well, unless your trees are blue.

....Assuming that those reflections are bad. Most of the time, I don't
think so. A few minor reflections on leaves is pretty real looking. I
usually don't see water without reflections either. Lily pads and such
look a bit odd floating above the bottom of the pond. Most of my
experience says that the surface of the water is just as or more
interesting that the dark depths of the water.

Then again, I've done a lot of my nature shots with ultra wide angle
lenses. There polarizers aren't much help. Remember that the effect is
greatest at 90 degrees to the light source. You can't always get the
best shot at 90 degrees. With ultra wide angle lenses, you are likely to
get 90 degrees and a whole bunch of other degrees. That makes only part
of your picture polarized. That certainly looks odd. For example, if
half your sky is bluer than the rest, it does stand out as not-at-all-real.

The other thing I hate about polarizing filters is that 2 stops of light
loss. (Well, that and having to spend the time turning the filter to
adjust it.) I suppose if I shot everything on a tripod and the subject
never moved I wouldn't mind that cut in light. However, my real
photography isn't like that.

So, I seem to always own a polarizing filter, but rarely does it get used.

Clyde
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 1:52:33 PM

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

Diane Wilson wrote:

>
> Simple. Don't use auto white balance. Ever. Set the white
> balance for the type of light you're shooting in, and just go
> with it. Daylight white balance will give you about the same
> results that you're used to getting with daylight film.

I agree with Diane wholeheartedly. Sun and flash at 5500K, tungsten
lights at 2800K, flourescents seem to go from about 3500 - 4500 (a bit
of chimping helps). Shooting open shade leave it at 5500K and add an
81A filter, or set the light color as high as it will go up to about
10,000K.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 1:57:28 PM

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

Clyde <clyde@world.comedy> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> Ken Palmateer <kenpalmateer@sympatico.ca> writes:
>>
>>>On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:13:00 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>You can't Photoshop a polarizing filter.
>>>>
>>>>There's no difference in the need for a UV filter -- either you want to
>>>>use them to "protect" your lenses or you don't.
>>>
>>>I don't want to be too nit picky about this, but let's define what
>>>everone who says you can't Photoshop a polarizing filter means. If
>>>you've got a washed out blue sky it's no big deal intensifying that
>>>sky using layers, using the gadient editor, or using curves and
>>>masking (keeping the clouds white). Mind you, a polarizing filter will
>>>save a lot of time and be "real", but.... Ken
>> And save masking around that damned tree, don't forget. Also the
>> real filter is much better for removing reflections from
>> water and such -- in photoshop it's *really hard work* (depending on
>> what the reflection is of).
>
> Masking around the tree?!? Wow, you make things hard. I just hit
> <Ctrl> U, select the blues and adjust my saturation, lightness, and
> hue. Then I do the same for the cyans. Actually, most skies are more
> cyan than blue. This method doesn't touch the trees - well, unless
> your trees are blue.

They often have blue reflections of the sky in them, so they end up
looking really strange if I try to do simple things such as what you
suggest.

> ...Assuming that those reflections are bad. Most of the time, I don't
> think so. A few minor reflections on leaves is pretty real looking. I
> usually don't see water without reflections either. Lily pads and such
> look a bit odd floating above the bottom of the pond. Most of my
> experience says that the surface of the water is just as or more
> interesting that the dark depths of the water.
>
> Then again, I've done a lot of my nature shots with ultra wide angle
> lenses. There polarizers aren't much help. Remember that the effect is
> greatest at 90 degrees to the light source. You can't always get the
> best shot at 90 degrees. With ultra wide angle lenses, you are likely
> to get 90 degrees and a whole bunch of other degrees. That makes only
> part of your picture polarized. That certainly looks odd. For example,
> if half your sky is bluer than the rest, it does stand out as
> not-at-all-real.
>
> The other thing I hate about polarizing filters is that 2 stops of
> light loss. (Well, that and having to spend the time turning the
> filter to adjust it.) I suppose if I shot everything on a tripod and
> the subject never moved I wouldn't mind that cut in light. However, my
> real photography isn't like that.

I use mine for a neutral density as often as for polarizing.

> So, I seem to always own a polarizing filter, but rarely does it get used.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 5:46:16 PM

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

John Francis <johnf@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <U7B8e.1049725$Xk.320320@pd7tw3no>,
> Dirty Harry <NOJUNK@FU.ca> wrote:
>>
>>How well do polarizer work with auto white balance? I can't seem to get the
>>super blue skies like I used to on film...
>
> I never rely on my DSLR to do all the work for me - that's what
> Photoshop (and the like) are for. But here's one recent shot
> (tweaked to give Velvia levels of saturation):
>
> <http://panix.com/~johnf/temp/DeathValley.jpg&gt;
>

That looks remarkably like the Vegas sands/gravel and the color is way
gray .... but that might be your desired output.

> You probably don't want anything bluer than that!
>
> Here's another shot, this time practically straight from the camera:
>
> <http://panix.com/~johnf/temp/DesertScape.jpg&gt;
>

The entire picture has a blue tinge to it, even the Joshua trees.
Still, it is a pretty nice picture.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 5:55:27 PM

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

Brion K. Lienhart wrote:

> Are these still worth getting for D-SLRs? I'm pretty sure I can skip all
> the color filters, special effects, etc, but I'm not sure about those 2
> types.

Well, sounds like good stuff. I guess I'll be getting the UV &
Polarizing filters at least. I've got 2 lenses so far, but they're both
58mm front diameter, so I can get by with only 1 polarizing filter.
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 9:36:59 PM

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

Brion K. Lienhart wrote:

> Polarizing filters at least. I've got 2 lenses so far, but they're both
> 58mm front diameter, so I can get by with only 1 polarizing filter.

You can always get by with a pol that is larger. Just get a step down ring.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 10:03:35 PM

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

Alan Browne wrote:

> You can always get by with a pol that is larger. Just get a step
> down ring.

My largest lens diameter is 77mm and I bought one good quality B+W polarizer
and a bunch of step down rings to adapt 77mm accessories. Buying 77mm
filters is expensive, but it's a lot cheaper when you only need one of each.



Rita
April 18, 2005 10:03:36 PM

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

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>
>>You can always get by with a pol that is larger. Just get a step
>>down ring.
>
>
> My largest lens diameter is 77mm and I bought one good quality B+W polarizer
> and a bunch of step down rings to adapt 77mm accessories.


Me too. One thing I discovered though, is I need another 77mm lens cap
when I walk around with the small lens with the filter attached.



> Buying 77mm
> filters is expensive, but it's a lot cheaper when you only need one of each.
>
>
>
> Rita
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 6:23:00 AM

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

paul wrote:
> Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
> > Alan Browne wrote:
> >
> >
> >>You can always get by with a pol that is larger. Just get a step
> >>down ring.
> >
> >
> > My largest lens diameter is 77mm and I bought one good quality B+W
polarizer
> > and a bunch of step down rings to adapt 77mm accessories.
>
>
> Me too. One thing I discovered though, is I need another 77mm lens
cap
> when I walk around with the small lens with the filter attached.

I need a lens cap that will fit over my 68mm thin circular polarizer.
The original cap snaps on the inside edges of the lens or filter. Those
don't exist on this filter which is thinned down to eliminate
vignetting at 16mm settings (at least on my Pentax 16-45mm lens).
April 19, 2005 1:22:54 PM

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

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Clyde <clyde@world.comedy> writes:
>
>
>>David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>
>>>Ken Palmateer <kenpalmateer@sympatico.ca> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:13:00 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>You can't Photoshop a polarizing filter.
>>>>>
>>>>>There's no difference in the need for a UV filter -- either you want to
>>>>>use them to "protect" your lenses or you don't.
>>>>
>>>>I don't want to be too nit picky about this, but let's define what
>>>>everone who says you can't Photoshop a polarizing filter means. If
>>>>you've got a washed out blue sky it's no big deal intensifying that
>>>>sky using layers, using the gadient editor, or using curves and
>>>>masking (keeping the clouds white). Mind you, a polarizing filter will
>>>>save a lot of time and be "real", but.... Ken
>>>
>>>And save masking around that damned tree, don't forget. Also the
>>>real filter is much better for removing reflections from
>>>water and such -- in photoshop it's *really hard work* (depending on
>>>what the reflection is of).
>>
>>Masking around the tree?!? Wow, you make things hard. I just hit
>><Ctrl> U, select the blues and adjust my saturation, lightness, and
>>hue. Then I do the same for the cyans. Actually, most skies are more
>>cyan than blue. This method doesn't touch the trees - well, unless
>>your trees are blue.
>
>
> They often have blue reflections of the sky in them, so they end up
> looking really strange if I try to do simple things such as what you
> suggest.
>
>

I do my color correction before I adjust the saturation, etc. That way
my trees are blue when I do the saturation.

True I do sometimes have something else that is blue in the picture. In
that case I use Quick Mask and a Brush to quickly mask out that object.
I don't even have to care about the edges of the object. Then the
saturation of the blues will affect only the sky.

Clyde
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 3:18:42 PM

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

"Ken Palmateer" <kenpalmateer@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:ioj5619tjq8tvkbbnejk25brappa9amvr4@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:13:00 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >You can't Photoshop a polarizing filter.
> >
> >There's no difference in the need for a UV filter -- either you want to
> >use them to "protect" your lenses or you don't.
>
> I don't want to be too nit picky about this, but let's define what
> everone who says you can't Photoshop a polarizing filter means. If
> you've got a washed out blue sky it's no big deal intensifying that
> sky using layers, using the gadient editor, or using curves and
> masking (keeping the clouds white). Mind you, a polarizing filter will
> save a lot of time and be "real", but.... Ken

The polarizer will also reveal a lot of texture in non-blown-out clouds (not
to mention reflections from leaves) that gradients, levels, and curves can't
possibly mimic. Of course, you could always hire an artist for a couple of
hours to create polarizer-filter-like textures in your shots, but I'd think
that would be prohibitively expensive and somehow less fulfilling than just
screwing on a polarizer to start with.

But, hey, as is the case with forks, fingers were made before photos, too,
so you can indeed turn your shots into French hand-colored postcards, if you
like. Me? I'll just use a polarizer, thanks all the same.
:-)
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 3:33:08 PM

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

Owamanga wrote:

>>You can always get by with a pol that is larger. Just get a step down ring.
>
>
> You mean step *up* ring.

Whatever allows mounting a larger filter on a smaller lens. It's all
relative. (I was too lazy to check thr correct term).

> I used to use a step-up, but it introduces extra hassle:
>
> 1) There is still a possibility of vignetting due to the extra
> distance the stepping ring introduces between the lens and the filter.

Mine are pretty thin, though the bayonnet/step for Hasselblad is a bit
deeper.
>
> 2) You need to carry a lens-cap to fit the larger filter diameter.

Nah. Filter goes back in the box when done.

>
> 3) Standard hoods become really tight, or don't fit at all.

See above.

> So, I ended up buying a polarizer for each lens that I thought I would
> use it on. In my case, only 1 more.

I have a 55 circ pol from an earlier lens, long since sold, so I bought
a 55-49 ring to use with my 50mm lens. No vignetting (I've only used it
a few times, for landscapes, so vignetting is not likely to occur).
My 72 circ pol fits three other lenses (20, 28-70, 80-200). The only
lens I can't put a pol on is the 300 f/2.8. That requires a rather
pricey Minolta drop in pol.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 2:39:14 AM

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

"Paul H." <xxpaulhtck@zzcomcast.yycom> wrote in message
news:UuudnbsNuKHn1vjfRVn-oA@comcast.com...
>
>
> "Ken Palmateer" <kenpalmateer@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:ioj5619tjq8tvkbbnejk25brappa9amvr4@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:13:00 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >You can't Photoshop a polarizing filter.
>> >
>> >There's no difference in the need for a UV filter -- either you want to
>> >use them to "protect" your lenses or you don't.
>>
>> I don't want to be too nit picky about this, but let's define what
>> everone who says you can't Photoshop a polarizing filter means. If
>> you've got a washed out blue sky it's no big deal intensifying that
>> sky using layers, using the gadient editor, or using curves and
>> masking (keeping the clouds white). Mind you, a polarizing filter will
>> save a lot of time and be "real", but.... Ken


Let's see you Photoshop what's behind a highly reflective surface (window,
sea surface, etc) when otherwise you can't discern anything. Polarizers are
NOT just to darken skys.
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 5:11:56 PM

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

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:D 438bk$q0p$3@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Owamanga wrote:
>
> >>You can always get by with a pol that is larger. Just get a step down
ring.
> >
> >
> > You mean step *up* ring.
>
> Whatever allows mounting a larger filter on a smaller lens. It's all
> relative. (I was too lazy to check thr correct term).

Ahhh... then you meant a "side-step" ring. :-)
!