How many of you use a polarizer regularly?

[PaulDB]

Hi all,

Im still pretty new to this but I've just been doing some reading up on polarizers and I was wondering how many of you actaully use them and what your oppinions are?

Is it something everyone should own?

[Jon]

Yes. I don't use mine as much as I should - gotta re-arrange the old camera bag so they're easier to get to.

[Scottes]

If you shoot landscapes and other such natural shots, or building or cars where glass can cause reflections, then Yes, you should own a polarizer.

If you shoot a lot of action, or wildlife, or indoors, or flash then you will probably never use it.

Do you have a need or desire to reduce glare or reflections? Can you live with a 2-stop reduction in shutter speed? If the answer is Yes to both then again, Yes, you should own a polarizer.

[PaulDB]

I do wildlife and nature shots mostly at the moment so I think I will get one. Thanks for the advice!

[Bodryn]

They can also be useful for wildlife shots where water reflection is an issue: you can practically eliminate water surface reflection when shooting at about a 45 degree angle into the water. For example, your subject may be on top of the water and a polarizer gives you choices about the brightness of the surrounding water. If your subject is under the water, it may make the difference between a clear image of the subject and no image at all. I routinely keep a polarizer on my camcorder and 35mm cameras and I would on my digicams if they allowed it. Also, when your subject is at about at a 90 degree angle from the sun, the sky brightness can be nicely controlled. You may like the sky bright or you may like it dark: the polarizer gives you a choice there, too. I love it for what it can do to bring out clouds that otherwise would look hazy.

[robertwgross]

In the summer season when the sky is nice for landscapes, the circular polarizer resides almost permanently on my workhorse lens. I take it off for dim light, do the shot, and then put it right back on.

However, when you are jammed for speed, you will want to get those two stops back, so the polarizer comes off.

---Bob Gross---

[FlyingPete]

Used mine heaps on my G3 (with adaptor), have used it a bit on my 20D in the last week, however I'm not that impressed with the results as they all appeared over exposed, this could be due to dark skies and dark foliage though.

On my G3 I always set AE lock before positioning the filter into the correct orientation, perhaps I need to do the same on the SLR?

One nice thing though would be an autopositioning CPL :lol:

[robertwgross]

One nice thing though would be an autopositioning CPL

When I first started using a circular polarizer, I routinely twisted it around to the maximum effect. Much later on, some friends viewing the prints said,"that doesn't look real" or something like that. After that, I noticed that I can get a good effect with it without twisting all the way to maximum. Maybe 50-75% can work good.

So, when I am taking some once-in-a-lifetime landscape shot, I do bracketing of exposure and also the polarizer (50%-75%-100%). Then I pick the one that I like best.

---Bob Gross---

[shniks]

I think a polariser is a must if taking landscape shots. I would definitely recommend one. Colours are more saturated and more pleasing. I have a G5 and I have a really good comparison example, settings were exactly the same, taken seconds apart.

Without polariser:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v68/shniks/nopolarizer1.jpg

With polariser:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v68/shniks/polarizer1.jpg

[Mike Panic]

^^ for the above shots i think you would have got a better result from an ND filter

i use my cp filter pretty often... mostly outdoors when im looking to saturete an already blue sky just a bit more, or when im shooting at angle to water or glass that i want to be able to see thru

[Jon]

No, ND wouldn't have taken out/down the reflection off the water or the leaves. Would have made a longer exposure possible, perhaps, but you'll notice that the greens are more intense in the shot with polarizer, and there's less reflection off the wet rock in the foreground and from the tree branches extending across the creek.

[FlyingPete]

^^ for the above shots i think you would have got a better result from an ND filter

I thought a ND was only good for reducing the light levels to achieve narrower depths of field or slower shutter speeds, the actual contrast saturation not affected, with the exception of graduated ND's.

[Bodryn]

I went into a Future Shop one day awhile back (Canada) and asked if they had an attachment for my Canon S1 IS so I could use a circular polarizer. He said they didn't carry that in stock but suggested I might obtain the same effect using a good photoediting program like Adobe Photoshop saying they would have a polarizing filter built into the software. :rolleyes: Naturally I was incredulous so I grilled him further about this to see what he knew about it. After a bit he relented and admitted he had never used it and couldn't answer my questions on it.

Moral? Maybe it's that you shouldn't believe what they tell you in a store that's trying to sell yo something?? But it was lots of fun seeing him try to squirm out of that one. :lol: