Why EVERYONE needs a Polarizer

[Bill Ng]

Was fooling around with my #25A red filter this weekend and paired it with my circular polarizer. Was pleasantly surprised (again) at the difference and decided to take two photos outlining why everyone who uses a camera outdoors should have a polarizing filter.

You all know that a polarizer can be used to darken a sky. You also know (or maybe you don't) that a polarizer can be used to reduce reflections off objects (most think of glass, or smooth water) ... but many forget that all objects give off a certain amount of glare and this glare can be reduced significantly with a polarizer:

I hooked up my circular polarizer to my Sigma 105 f/2.8, manually set exposure (so it wouldn't change at all between shots) and shot both of these photos in RAW. There is absolutely no post processing done to either of these images, they were converted from RAW with Photoshop CS resized to 800 pixels wide, saved as largest possible JPG (I do not "save for web"), and uploaded. The first photo was shot with the polarizer rotated so that it had no affect, the second so that the polarizer had as much affect as I could get. For the record, I own the cheapest polarizer I could find at the time. I think it's a Hoya but its not in front of me and I might be wrong. Please excuse the images, I wasn't going for a National Geographic prize, I just shot out at my backyard:

http://www.half-lime.com/uploads3/1802768023457d94a43f2ab-p.jpg

http://www.half-lime.com/uploads3/1743795613457d94b2bce59-p.jpg

Most noticible to me is the color difference, with much richer browns and greens that actually pop. There is more contrast in the photo now and it has lost a lot of the "washed out" look the first pic had. You can also compare the sky and notice the difference the filter makes there.

The polarizer is essentially removing the reflected glare off all of the objects in this scene ... the little grass that's still alive, the dead leaves, the sky, even the tree trunks. A polarizer would benefit almost any object in outdoor light. If you can afford the two stops of light it removes ... its worth it to have it in your shot (unless you need a reflection in your photo)

Bill

[Broncobear]

although there is sometimes of an uneven look when yoru doing a whole clear sky, depending on where the light is comming from, but it can be easily corrected.

[05Xrunner]

you could easily make that first image look like the 2nd in Photoshop in 30sec

[gasrocks]

Doubt I would post a thread telling everyone to do something just 'cause I discovered some "trick." Sorry, but not everyone uses a poliz or needs to for "all" pictures. I can think of more pictures that do not need it than do.

[basroil]

you could easily make that first image look like the 2nd in Photoshop in 30sec

far from it.. not every picture can be fixed up in photoshop, especially when it comes to reflections and darkening the sky. on top of that, the contrast and color boost offered by a filter will alway be more natual and pleasing than what can be done by photoshop alone... how about we see your photoshopping of the first to look like the second and put your money where your mouth is.. and i can tell when you've cheated:rolleyes:

[Bill Ng]

Doubt I would post a thread telling everyone to do something just 'cause I discovered some "trick." Sorry, but not everyone uses a poliz or needs to for "all" pictures. I can think of more pictures that do not need it than do.

Actually ... I didn't discover this trick recently, it's not a trick at all. And try reading the subject again .... it's titled, "Why EVERYONE needs a Polarizer" .... I never once said its needed for every shot. The implication was that it is an essential item everyone should have in their bag.

Bill

[Bill Ng]

you could easily make that first image look like the 2nd in Photoshop in 30sec

Even if you could .... why bother? Take the best picture you can in the first place. Living to the idea that you're going to create a mediocre image with the hopes that you can hack it up later to make it better is striving for mediocrity.

Bill

[kcp1377]

I just ordered my polarizer for my 10-20mm earlier today. I can't wait to get it and play with it! I went back and forth as to whether I needed one or not. Then I did a shoot of an interior of a home and I got some glare off windows and some artwork on the walls. Can't wait to see if it helps! I shoot with a tripod for these shots, so I can afford to lose a few stops. :)

I'm a huge fan of Photoshop and have been using it every day for years, but it does have it's limits (especially with glare on artwork - that's tough to remove without damaging the image underneath the glare).

[Bill Ng]

The point of my post was to remind everyone of the not-often-discussed benefits of polarizers ... not to pyss on anyone's parade. The most common reasons we see polarizers used are for reducing the reflections off cars (lots of that in the auto forum here) and for darkening of the sky. Even then, we oft see the finished photo with no comparison of what it would have looked like without the polarizer's help.

I was hoping to show those who've never used a polarizer some of the added benefits they would see if they added one to their bag.

Bill

[Curtis N]

manually set exposure (so it wouldn't change at all between shots)Besides the sky, the most noticeable difference between these two shots is that the second is exposed darker, which is what happens when you turn a polarizer to maximum effect.

... and colors can appear more saturated when they're exposed darker.

The polarizer helped make the sky bluer in that shot, but the other differences that I can see are more likely just due to a darker exposure.

[cjm]

you could easily make that first image look like the 2nd in Photoshop in 30secI could probably do that and more in photoshop. Everyone doesnt need a CP but everyone should get a CP, including myself. I am finally in the position to buy one as all my lenses are 77 filter size.

[Bill Ng]

I could probably do that and more in photoshop. Everyone doesnt need a CP but everyone should get a CP, including myself. I am finally in the position to buy one as all my lenses are 77 filter size.

Don't forget, you can buy the correct size to fit your largest lens and use step up rings for the smaller lenses.

Bill

[cjm]

Don't forget, you can buy the correct size to fit your largest lens and use step up rings for the smaller lenses.

BillNo that is complicated and ugly and now that I have 4 lenses, two of which are my mainly used ones I will probably buy the best of the best CP sometime.

[Tony-S]

Foliage is more saturated with a polarizer because plants secrete a waxy substance (fatty acids) to form their cuticles. Although it's great for plants because it decreases water loss to nearly zero, it's bad for photographers because it is a reflective substance. Thus, a polarizer has the same effect on it as it does on reflective water surfaces.

[Pinto]

Doubt I would post a thread telling everyone to do something just 'cause I discovered some "trick.

Why would you slam someone for trying to be informative and helpful? That's what this forum is supposed to be all about.

Maybe you've had a bad day.

[fWord]

Yes, circular polarizers are useful especially for landscape photography. That, and ND graduated filters also. Had both of these in my bag on a recent trip to NZ and they were priceless possessions.

When used together they saturate colors (especially blues and greens, which is lovely), reduce reflections and also help selectively darken one half of the image to keep the exposure of more elements in the photo within the dynamic range of the sensor/ film.

No more blown-out skies! ;)

[curiousgeorge]

I agree with the OP, and I don't see what the problem is with trying to demonstrate the benefits of a CP.

I for one would swear by one and never go landscape shooting without one.

Re difference in filter sizes. I have a 77mm CP for my main landscape lens and if I need to use it on my 67mm lens for landscapes I just hold it over the end. No problem!

[TenaCJed]

First I want to say that I am not saying the OP example is not correct, I just have some questions and statements of how I believe a CP works. If I am wronge please correct me, as I am still learning.

From what I understand a CP will reduce the light coming in to the sensor, not just on bright objects, but all light. The CP allows you to adjust the amount it blocks. If that is the case this example isn't the best example. If you use the same exposure settings then the exposure without max setting would be over exposed compared the the exposure with max setting. This is what the picture looks like to me, the first one looks overexposed and the second one looks good.

I am not saying that a CP does not have uses. I used to use one on my old P&S camera, I just don't have one for my current rebel XT, but would like to get one. I just want to make sure I understand a CP properly.

[pilot1962]

Just want to leave my comment on CP...
I've had it on my 24-70 ALL the time and to be honest never learned how to used it to my advantage. but when I bought 17-40 and LEARNED how to apply it correctly - it blew my mind away!
What a differense it makes and you won't be able ever to simulate CP with PS.

[René Damkot]

The polarizer helped make the sky bluer in that shot, but the other differences that I can see are more likely just due to a darker exposure.

Sorry, but I don't agree: Have a look at the brick wall at the left. Exposure differnence there is almost zero.

From what I understand a CP will reduce the light coming in to the sensor, not just on bright objects, but all light.

Yes.
The CP allows you to adjust the amount it blocks.

Well, it allows you to decide what *wave direction* of light (hope I translated this correctly) is blocked. You can see it as a fence; only light oscillating parallel to the 'fence' can pass through.

If that is the case this example isn't the best example. If you use the same exposure settings then the exposure without max setting would be over exposed compared the the exposure with max setting. This is what the picture looks like to me, the first one looks overexposed and the second one looks good.
Not exactely. There may be a bit of exposure difference between one direction or the other, but that is because in this case quite a lot of light is reflex, which is removed by the CP.
Normally light is made up of equal amounts of light oscillating horizontal or vertical.
(Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizer) on wikipedia is an image, and some text in better English)

[cosworth]

Yes, circular polarizers are useful especially for landscape photography.

There is a lot of BS in this thread. The above isn't BS, but it's incorrect. It is far more useful than just for landscapes. I use a polarizer on all my glass all day long. I shoot a lot of portrait and sports, and not neccessarily by the ocean either.

Polarizers work wonders for removing bad skin reflections from people. Especially black or latino skin.

I use my polarizers for adjusting my exposure as well. Thesc ientists on here will tell me otherwise, but my polarizer set to a 1/250th sync speed gets me a lot of distance form from flash when shooting trapeze. I take it off, the sky blows out easy (of course) and my flash distance (full power) is reduced and it's a lot harder to get my fliers to stand out from the sky. Any sky. Blue or overcast. It just simply works.

Everyone should own a polarizer for every thread filter size they have. To do so is to rob yourself of photographs. Take the picture right the first time. Photoshop is not a verb.

[kcp1377]

Photoshop is not a verb.

LOL! Very true! It is quite useful though! :)

[sapearl]

Well, as long as we're having this nice warm and friendly discussion on polarizers, I'll digress things with another question. Has anybody purchased one of the Kaeseman Circular Polarizer filters? These are the models that are totally edge sealed, and a bit more expensive. It's kind of like "L" weather sealing, but on a filter.

For a 77mm B+W it adds about $25 in cost. I was just curious if anybody thought it was worth the extra investment. - Stu

[adam*]

I need to get myself one of those ultra thin polarizors for my 10-20.

[sapearl]

Do the "ultra thins" all lack front threads? I was considering that myself, but don't want to lose the functionality of the lens cap having nothing to grip.

I need to get myself one of those ultra thin polarizors for my 10-20.

[ggw2000]

Well, as long as we're having this nice warm and friendly discussion on polarizers, I'll digress things with another question. Has anybody purchased one of the Kaeseman Circular Polarizer filters? These are the models that are totally edge sealed, and a bit more expensive. It's kind of like "L" weather sealing, but on a filter.

For a 77mm B+W it adds about $25 in cost. I was just curious if anybody thought it was worth the extra investment. - Stu

Heck, I'm trying to figure out what brand to buy! The 77s are not cheap. But on another note- if the lens/camera is not weather sealed i'm not sure what a sealed CPL is going to do- save itself;) .
On another note, can someone tell me if a normal thickness one will work on a canon 17-55 or is a specific one needed? Thanks, Gerry

[Bill Ng]

First I want to say that I am not saying the OP example is not correct, I just have some questions and statements of how I believe a CP works. If I am wronge please correct me, as I am still learning.

From what I understand a CP will reduce the light coming in to the sensor, not just on bright objects, but all light. The CP allows you to adjust the amount it blocks. If that is the case this example isn't the best example. If you use the same exposure settings then the exposure without max setting would be over exposed compared the the exposure with max setting. This is what the picture looks like to me, the first one looks overexposed and the second one looks good.

I am not saying that a CP does not have uses. I used to use one on my old P&S camera, I just don't have one for my current rebel XT, but would like to get one. I just want to make sure I understand a CP properly.

No, what you're describing is a Neutral Density filter. ND filters are basically sun-glasses for your lens. A polarizer changes the direction of light as it comes through the filter. To get the maximum affect out of a polarizer, you need to be standing perpendicular to the sun (one of your shoulders pointing to the sun) and as you rotate the polarizer you can physically see the effect it has through the viewfinder. A polarizer is, by nature, a dark piece of glass. Because of this, you will lose two stops of light by using it, but it's purpose is not to decrease the amount of light ... it's purpose is to remove the inherant glare that is relfected off all objects.

It makes a blue sky bluer not by darkening the sky, it make a blue sky bluer by removing the glare that is coming from the sky. It made the leaves and plants pop with color not by darkening them, but by removing the glare that comes from them.

There are much better threads in these forums that will explain how a polarizer works exactly ... but I can tell you that it does not just reduce the amount of light.

Bill

[narlus]

Do the "ultra thins" all lack front threads? I was considering that myself, but don't want to lose the functionality of the lens cap having nothing to grip.

i can only speak to the B+W 77mm ultra thin, and yes, you can't use a lens cap w/ the filter on. that said, the filter comes w/ a rubber cap which effectively acts as one.

[Bill Ng]

Heck, I'm trying to figure out what brand to buy! The 77s are not cheap. But on another note- if the lens/camera is not weather sealed i'm not sure what a sealed CPL is going to do- save itself;) .
On another note, can someone tell me if a normal thickness one will work on a canon 17-55 or is a specific one needed? Thanks, Gerry

You could do us all a favor and answer the age-old question once and for all, "Is a more expensive CP filter worth it?"

Buy two, the cheapest one you can find, and a quality one that you would otherwise buy. Compare the two and return the one that isn't worth it. Post the results here.

That would rock ...

Bill

[TenaCJed]

Thank you both (Rene Damkot and Bill ng) for clearing that up for me. Bill ng was right and I thought it was the same as a ND filter but allowed you to change the intensity.

[Scuff]

I use my polarizers for adjusting my exposure as well. Thesc ientists on here will tell me otherwise, but my polarizer set to a 1/250th sync speed gets me a lot of distance form from flash when shooting trapeze. I take it off, the sky blows out easy (of course) and my flash distance (full power) is reduced and it's a lot harder to get my fliers to stand out from the sky. Any sky. Blue or overcast. It just simply works.


I often use CP filters but only when needed. The 2 stops loss in light can be a pain though.

http://i5.pbase.com/o4/83/482183/1/64071783.7VEYLsPX.GTMSIOM017.jpg

I am somewhat confused by cosworths statement with regard to using flash.... If you take off the polariser, your full power flash distance will increase, not reduce. Please correct me if I have misunderstood ......

[basroil]

your flash distance will be the same no matter what. what changes is the amount of light your camera detects on the way back. as long as you adjust for the 1-4 stop loss of a polarizer (some things get quite dark while others don't, that's how it works after all), then you're fine. in this case, the poster was confusing the effects of the polarizer and the effects of the fill flash.

[cosworth]

with a sync speed of 250 and f/4.0 I can shoot into the sky and light the trapeze flier and they stand out nicely with great fill flash on their faces. Speedlights read 9-13 metres.

I take the polarizer off and I get washed out sky and a flat, half lit face. Speedlight says 4 metres.

Polarized light I swear is metered differently for a given exposure. And flash exposures gain distance with this. This is assuming that most people are using a polarizer for what I assume most do, shooting skies.

I kill the harsh skylight, can allow more subject (foreground) light to be picked up by the sensor. Metering a viewfinder with %80 sky and a subject is not a DSLR's strong suit.

[In2Photos]

with a sync speed of 250 and f/4.0 I can shoot into the sky and light the trapeze flier and they stand out nicely with great fill flash on their faces. Speedlights read 9-13 metres.

I take the polarizer off and I get washed out sky and a flat, half lit face. Speedlight says 4 metres.

Polarized light I swear is metered differently for a given exposure. And flash exposures gain distance with this. This is assuming that most people are using a polarizer for what I assume most do, shooting skies.

I kill the harsh skylight, can allow more subject (foreground) light to be picked up by the sensor. Metering a viewfinder with %80 sky and a subject is not a DSLR's strong suit.
When you remove the polarizer are you still shooting at 1/250 and f/4? Or does your shutter speed go up causing you to go to HSS?

[Scuff]

your flash distance will be the same no matter what. what changes is the amount of light your camera detects on the way back. as long as you adjust for the 1-4 stop loss of a polarizer (some things get quite dark while others don't, that's how it works after all), then you're fine. in this case, the poster was confusing the effects of the polarizer and the effects of the fill flash.

Thanks, but I am assuming that ETTL-2 will make adjustments for the loss of light through the lense.....

I agree otherwise, but of course, as the sensor will recive less light, to get the same exposure, the aperture will have to be opened. So it follows as the flash is already on full power the distance to give a correct exposure will be reduced with a polariser......

[Bill Ng]

When you remove the polarizer are you still shooting at 1/250 and f/4? Or does your shutter speed go up causing you to go to HSS?

I think what he's saying is that the overly bright sky washes out his subject ... by reducing the brightness of the sky, he can more clearly define the person he's shooting out and not blow anything out.

Bill

[ggw2000]

You could do us all a favor and answer the age-old question once and for all, "Is a more expensive CP filter worth it?"

Buy two, the cheapest one you can find, and a quality one that you would otherwise buy. Compare the two and return the one that isn't worth it. Post the results here.

That would rock ...

Bill

Informative answer, thanks for your thoughts- not...

[cosworth]

When you remove the polarizer are you still shooting at 1/250 and f/4? Or does your shutter speed go up causing you to go to HSS?

It has to go up of course. And this reduces my flash fill distance. All the armchair math in the world can be thrown at me. I keep the polarizer on until sunset when shooting trapeze. Without it I have to reduce go to a shutter speed around 640th or stop it down. I then lose flash distance and the fill flash is not near as effective.

This is more a discussion about metering sky, how a polarizer can fool a meter, etc, than just straight talk about how many stops of light equals this n that.

If it wasn't raining today I'd love to take some examples for everyone. Possibly tomorrow.

[In2Photos]

It has to go up of course. And this reduces my flash fill distance. All the armchair math in the world can be thrown at me. I keep the polarizer on until sunset when shooting trapeze. Without it I have to reduce go to a shutter speed around 640th or stop it down. I then lose flash distance and the fill flash is not near as effective.

This is more a discussion about metering sky, how a polarizer can fool a meter, etc, than just straight talk about how many stops of light equals this n that.

If it wasn't raining today I'd love to take some examples for everyone. Possibly tomorrow.
Well there is your answer. HSS requires the flash to fire the entire duration the shutter is open, greatly reducing its effectiveness.

[Bill Ng]

Informative answer, thanks for your thoughts- not...

I wasn't making a joke or trying to be an ass ... I meant what I wrote. Do a search and you'll see many arguments about whether or not a $200 polarizer is worth the upgrade from a $50 polarizer of the same size. Everyone of course has their own budget and opinions, but no one has ever actually compared, side by side, the difference between an expensive and cheap polarizer.

Since you're in the market ... I was hoping you wouldn't mind.

I'm sorry you took offense.

Bill

[Tony-S]

I need to get myself one of those ultra thin polarizors for my 10-20.

Do the "ultra thins" all lack front threads? I was considering that myself, but don't want to lose the functionality of the lens cap having nothing to grip.

I use Sigma's (http://www.adorama.com/SG77CPLEXW.html?searchinfo=sigma%2077mm%20polarize r&item_no=1) on my Sigma 10-20 and Canon 17-40L. It is multicoated and has threads. No vignetting and no flaws with this filter.

[kcp1377]

I use Sigma's (http://www.adorama.com/SG77CPLEXW.html?searchinfo=sigma%2077mm%20polarize r&item_no=1) on my Sigma 10-20 and Canon 17-40L. It is multicoated and has threads. No vignetting and no flaws with this filter.

I'm glad to hear that. That's the one I just bought and am waiting on. Should be here soon! I didn't even think of it not having threads - I'm glad it does! (Of course that wouldn't be my main concern when buying a filter, but it is nice.)

Bill - I wish I had the money and the knowledge to do something like that! I would love to see how they compare. Wouldn't it be awesome if the $50 was just as good? It would save us all a lot of $$!

[Bas]

Why is it that some of the pictures taken with my Polarisation filter turn out very Gray-ish then ?

[cosworth]

Well there is your answer. HSS requires the flash to fire the entire duration the shutter is open, greatly reducing its effectiveness.

Well not to sound odd but duh. Most of us talking here know this (I hope!). I'm saying that the polarizer doesn't just reduce light and allow a snyc speed of 250th whish is nice and tasty, I'm saying that it reduces unwanted light the camera mis-meters for and allows the flash greater distance. Not a mystery to me since I do it every day.

I'm just saying that a polarizer helps in allowing flash throw when used in it chosen environment, shooting at or neat sky.

[Bill Ng]

Why is it that some of the pictures taken with my Polarisation filter turn out very Gray-ish then ?

Examples? Are you rotating the polarizer to get maximum effect? How is your body positioned in relation to the sun?

Show us some pics and we'll be able to get an idea of what's wrong.

Bill

[In2Photos]

Well not to sound odd but duh. Most of us talking here know this (I hope!). I'm saying that the polarizer doesn't just reduce light and allow a snyc speed of 250th whish is nice and tasty, I'm saying that it reduces unwanted light the camera mis-meters for and allows the flash greater distance. Not a mystery to me since I do it every day.

I'm just saying that a polarizer helps in allowing flash throw when used in it chosen environment, shooting at or neat sky.
How does the metering determine the effectiveness of the flash? You said that your flash LCD showed 9-13 meters with the polarizer yet without it the LCD shows 4 meters. You have yet to meter anything without pressing the shutter or the FEL button. The flash's greater distance is simply because you have dropped the shutter speed below the sync speed.

[cosworth]

With the polarizer on, I can set it to 4.0 and 1/250th. I get 9-13 metres showing on the speedlights. Picture looks simply grand. Love how the flier pops out from the background. Camera meters about 2/3rds - 1 stop underexposed, but the shot isn't underexposed.

Put polarizer on the bench. Shoot naked. The settings are now all over the map. Meter flails about and it inconsistent due to the sky. I put my settings the same. About 2/3 or 1 stop underexposed. Flash is still full power. It reads about 4 metres with my wildly fluctuating settings. Shot is dull, overblown sky with dark face.

I say mis-meters referring to the underexposure showing in the viewfinder meter but the shot is fine.


I can type this a million times and still probably not get what I'm trying to say across. I'll have to take some shots and post 'em.

[In2Photos]

With the polarizer on, I can set it to 4.0 and 1/250th. I get 9-13 metres showing on the speedlights. Picture looks simply grand. Love how the flier pops out from the background. Camera meters about 2/3rds - 1 stop underexposed, but the shot isn't underexposed.

Put polarizer on the bench. Shoot naked. The settings are now all over the map. Meter flails about and it inconsistent due to the sky. I put my settings the same. About 2/3 or 1 stop underexposed. Flash is still full power. It reads about 4 metres with my wildly fluctuating settings. Shot is dull, overblown sky with dark face.

I say mis-meters referring to the underexposure showing in the viewfinder meter but the shot is fine.


I can type this a million times and still probably not get what I'm trying to say across. I'll have to take some shots and post 'em.
Now I see what you are saying. Before, when you said metering I thought you were refering to flash metering, ETTL, not the camera's meter. I can certainly see how the camera's meter would be all over the map. I don't however see how your flash settings would change, just by removing the polarizer unless the camera then reverts to HSS. ??? This has me confused.

[deadpass]

you could easily make that first image look like the 2nd in Photoshop in 30sec


do it then, lets see how close you can get the first one to look like the second with using PS, the OP has image editing OKed.

[Bas]

Examples? Are you rotating the polarizer to get maximum effect? How is your body positioned in relation to the sun?

Show us some pics and we'll be able to get an idea of what's wrong.

Bill

I'm not rotating the filter in any way, i've just put it on like you put on the UV filter. Haven't had any recent pictures with the Polarisation filter on, and i've deleted all the bad ones I took that day, but I can remember I've been taking the photo with my body turn slightly into the sun making the sky way to much over-lightend (If that's the right word for it??).

I'll take some pictures soon and if they're still bad i'll post them up.

[Hellashot]

you could easily make that first image look like the 2nd in Photoshop in 30sec

This is a line I see often in interviews/articles in Outdoor Photography magazine from experienced pros that give classes/trips. They say too often they hear someone say the same thing, where they would highly recommend capturing the picture correctly in the field then trying to fix it later and the term is "trying" as it cannot always be fixed.

[canonphotog]

I'm not rotating the filter in any way, i've just put it on like you put on the UV filter. Haven't had any recent pictures with the Polarisation filter on, and i've deleted all the bad ones I took that day, but I can remember I've been taking the photo with my body turn slightly into the sun making the sky way to much over-lightend (If that's the right word for it??).

I'll take some pictures soon and if they're still bad i'll post them up.

Bas, polarizing filters are multiple piece filters. Once you have screwed it into the end of your lens, you should be able to apply gentle pressure to the outer forward edge of the filter and continue to turn the polarizer without tightening it on your lens. Most polarizers have a white dot some where on the ring that you are supposed to turn. It allows you to note the position for various reasons.

As far as the angle between your shot and the sun, it's already been explained that the polarizer works best at 90 degree's to the sun, however, it will work in almost all angles to the sun, it just will not provide optimum results.

You see the effect applied by the filter while turning the filter and looking through the viewfinder. The scene in your viewfinder will darken when the polarizing effect is being applied. The glare from any objects in the scene will be reduced or removed depending on the severity of the glare.

Skys with clouds look bluer and have better defined clouds. Clouds heavy with water vapor will really pop in your photos. Reds, greens and browns are brought out.

For me, this filter is not for everyday use, but it is definitely one to keep in the kit. It's the perfect filter when on the water shooting from a boat.

COSWORTH,

Don't need to see the photo's. Your explanation makes perfect sense. :cool: If I ever have the opportunity to shoot trapeze artists outdoors in the daylight, I'll have to remember to use the polarizer.

Ken

[Bill Ng]

I'm not rotating the filter in any way, i've just put it on like you put on the UV filter. Haven't had any recent pictures with the Polarisation filter on, and i've deleted all the bad ones I took that day, but I can remember I've been taking the photo with my body turn slightly into the sun making the sky way to much over-lightend (If that's the right word for it??).

I'll take some pictures soon and if they're still bad i'll post them up.

As was just explained ... you need to rotate the polarizing filter to get the effect out of it. There is a very fine window of rotation (approx 10 degrees) where the polarizer works its best.

Bill

[Bas]

Cheers!!

I Didn't knew that, thanks alot, i'm sure it will go much better next time ;)

Bas

[Mike R]

Even if you could .... why bother? Take the best picture you can in the first place. Living to the idea that you're going to create a mediocre image with the hopes that you can hack it up later to make it better is striving for mediocrity.

Bill

I agree and think that you must have switched from film, It seems as if the majority of people who switched from film are more concerned about getting it "right"in the camera whenever possible as opposed to thinking that they can use software to turn a snapshot into a photograph.

[cosworth]

Now I see what you are saying. Before, when you said metering I thought you were refering to flash metering, ETTL, not the camera's meter. I can certainly see how the camera's meter would be all over the map. I don't however see how your flash settings would change, just by removing the polarizer unless the camera then reverts to HSS. ??? This has me confused.

I change the settings and the flash get to light the subject. You get a balanced picture with th epolarizer, unbalanced without it.

It's just a lot easier for me to get a good shot with the polarizer on. The face is lit, the shadows have good depth.

[Bill Ng]

I agree and think that you must have switched from film, It seems as if the majority of people who switched from film are more concerned about getting it "right"in the camera whenever possible as opposed to thinking that they can use software to turn a snapshot into a photograph.

Actually ... I still shoot film the majority of the time =) My Elan 7N kicks my 300D's arse up and down the block.

Bill

[Rumrunner]

Thanks for the testing you've done. The most important difference I notice between the two is that the polarized lens has eliminated the small patches of blown highlights encroaching the small tree branches. Also, the satruration is greatly improved giving you a better image straight out of the camera. I am a big fan of the circular polarized filters myself I use one outdoors whenever possible.