B+W C Polariser

F

Fossegordon

Suspended / Banned
Messages
35
Edit My Images
No
Hi all

Wonder if anyone could give me any advice about these polarisers. Bought one recently and had my first go today. I know the polarisers work best at 90 degrees to the sun but I have to say I found it really difficult to see the effect of the polariser. Some times if I chose a compsotion with just sky and white clouds I could see the effect coming and going as I rotated the front ring but but generally I found it quite difficut. I must admit I wasn't really expecting this. I tried with both a telephoto and WA lens.

Is that usual?? - any advice?? Thanks in advance for any commens.
 
The effect can be quite subtle - if you have a bright blue sky, you can almost turn it dark navy, which isn't what you want.

If you have a "wishy washy" sky, say a pale cyan colour, thats when a Pol can really help - it'll darken the sky nicely, and make the clouds pop out.

They don't really work on overcast days - and as you've found out, the sun needs to be behind you to work.
 
thanks Puddle duck, I'll try with the sun behind me, it was more at the side today. Let me ask you another question, many of my lanndscapes have a hazy look to them, the green hills etc just seek to go a bit grey and loose colour through the haze. I've tried a bit of PP saturation but anything more than a touch and it starts to look quite fake andnot verynice. With a polariser help or is this something else?? Again I get it with different lenses. Will try and post an example at some point.
 
jerry12953 said:
....the man who knows.....;)
Click to expand...

I think both replies are correct, but cross-polarised so to speak. 180 degrees to the sun is pointing at the ground!

If you form a right angle with your finger and thumb, then point your finger at the sun and rotate it around that axis, your thumb will point to an arc of maximum polarisation. So by definition, the sun must always be slighly behind you, never in front.

Polarsiers can help cut certain kinds of haze, if it has some polarised light in it, maybe from dust particles. A bit.
 
The effect is also a bit 'hazy' (sorry) on a UWA lens too... There's just too much sky about. :)

Si
 
HoppyUK said:
I think both replies are correct, but cross-polarised so to speak. 180 degrees to the sun is pointing at the ground!

If you form a right angle with your finger and thumb, then point your finger at the sun and rotate it around that axis, your thumb will point to an arc of maximum polarisation. So by definition, the sun must always be slighly behind you, never in front.

Polarsiers can help cut certain kinds of haze, if it has some polarised light in it, maybe from dust particles. A bit.
Click to expand...

Sorry, Hoppy, I can't quite work out which definition of "at right-angles to the sun's rays" you're referring to here.....:thinking:

If you were (one was) on top of a precipice and able to look almost vertically downwards to the ground far below you, and the sun was directly ahead of you (one), would there be a zone of maximum polarisation if you pointed the camera straight downwards? I suspect you would, although I've never tried it specifically.
 
Fossegordon said:
thanks Puddle duck, I'll try with the sun behind me, it was more at the side today. Let me ask you another question, many of my lanndscapes have a hazy look to them, the green hills etc just seek to go a bit grey and loose colour through the haze. I've tried a bit of PP saturation but anything more than a touch and it starts to look quite fake andnot verynice. With a polariser help or is this something else?? Again I get it with different lenses. Will try and post an example at some point.
Click to expand...

What you can do nothing about is the actual colour of the landscape at this time of year. It has lain dormant for several months and is almost "greyed out". You need to wait until well in to the spring to start getting any kind of vibrant colours at all. No filter will help with this!

I suggest also that a polariser is not much help with real haze either. It consists of murk and dust particles in the atmosphere which you often get with easterly winds in this country.
 
jerry12953 said:
Sorry, Hoppy, I can't quite work out which definition of "at right-angles to the sun's rays" you're referring to here.....:thinking:

If you were (one was) on top of a precipice and able to look almost vertically downwards to the ground far below you, and the sun was directly ahead of you (one), would there be a zone of maximum polarisation if you pointed the camera straight downwards? I suspect you would, although I've never tried it specifically.
Click to expand...

You've lost me Jerry. The angle of maximum polarisation is at 90 degrees to the sun. It doesn't matter where the camera is pointing.

If the sun was directly overhead (though it appears to be at the bottom of the precipice in your example :thinking: ) then maximum polarisation would be on a band running just above the horizon, and equal all around 360 degrees - that is the arc described by the finger and thumb method previously.
 
jerry12953 said:
Well I did and came to that conclusion.....people could get confused....;)
Click to expand...

If the sun sat there constantly then we wouldn't have a summer or winter....half of which sounds appealing at this moment :(

Bob

Appologies to the OP for turning his simple question into a geography lesson
 
HoppyUK said:
You've lost me Jerry. The angle of maximum polarisation is at 90 degrees to the sun. It doesn't matter where the camera is pointing.

If the sun was directly overhead (though it appears to be at the bottom of the precipice in your example :thinking: ) then maximum polarisation would be on a band running just above the horizon, and equal all around 360 degrees - that is the arc described by the finger and thumb method previously.
Click to expand...

I think we all know where we're at.....

If you look through the viewfinder and either one of your ears or your bald patch is burning then you'll get maximum effect. If you forehead or your arse is on fire then you can forget it.

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
I think we all know where we're at.....

If you look through the viewfinder and either one of your ears or your bald patch is burning then you'll get maximum effect. If you forehead or your arse is on fire then you can forget it.

Bob
Click to expand...

You'd know all about that sort of thing living in France I suppose.... Round here we have to make do with good old common sense....ee bah gum....
 
Canon Bob said:
If the sun sat there constantly then we wouldn't have a summer or winter....half of which sounds appealing at this moment :(

Bob

Appologies to the OP for turning his simple question into a geography lesson
Click to expand...

No need to apologise for that at all. These things are actually genuinely useful for the photographer to know about. You can't solve every landscape photography problem using filters or software. It's really useful to know how things work, and when things will look their best! That involves knowledge of geography, ecology, geology etc etc.....

One thing that really confused me was when I first went to the southern hemisphere. I was so used to the sun rising in the east (roughly) and moving through the south before setting in the west. I couldn't get my head around the idea that it went the other way round south of the equator.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top