Polariser yes or no?

woody12

woody12

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,452
Name
paul
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi, do i really need a polariser for my landscape photos, or can i do the work in photoshop? Seen one that is hoya make and had good reviews and is 52mm. Will this screw to my 18-55 kit lens on nikon 3100? Sorry to sound so stupid but don't want to waste money. Thanks for any advice.
 
Poloriser will help with reflections and blue the shy, CPL is the way to go if you are going to tho.

Hope this helps.
 
There's no need, you'll probably find you spend a lot of time correcting strange things it can do. In a few situations they can be useful.
I've had one to use with previous lenses but won't buy one for my current set up as it was hardly ever used.
For the sizing it will say on the end of the lens what size filter will fit.
 
A polariser gives an effect that's pretty well impossible to replicate in post. For landscapes it's a very useful lens to have available. I consider it pretty much essential to have available for landscapes, although you won't need it all the time.

What strange things are you getting from your polariser 4wd?
 
Yes, get one.

You can't recreate it in post, it not only saturates skies and enhances clouds, but as others have said, they can also cut out reflections. This isn't only useful for water, but also glass, grass, leaves etc etc. It just makes everything richer.
 
Last edited:
4wd said:
There's no need, you'll probably find you spend a lot of time correcting strange things it can do. In a few situations they can be useful.
I've had one to use with previous lenses but won't buy one for my current set up as it was hardly ever used.
For the sizing it will say on the end of the lens what size filter will fit.
Click to expand...

As above, what strange things do you experience? You say "few situations" but I'd use one whenever I'm shooting landscapes, buildings, cars, its useful for almost everything!
 
Thanks for all the advice, have seen a Hoya cir filter for around £25 its all I can afford at present. Is it worth waiting or will this do a job for me?
 
Circular polariser is the only filter i use with any regularity - its on the lens maybe 90% of the time for landscape.
Anything with blue skies, reflections, water, foliage it can help with. Hoya should do to start with provided its genuine not one of the ebay fakes.
The thread size will be listed on the lens, a circle with a line through it symbol followed by the size in mm next to it.
I *believe* its a 52mm thread but you want to check.
 
Polariser yes or no? Sometimes is my answer :)

A little bit more seriously, it's very useful and quite honestly you just won't get the same effect with post processing at all. You certainly won't need it or even want it all the time but it's well worth having one.

cheers
 
odd jim said:
You can't recreate it in post, it not only saturated skies and enhances clouds.. It just makes everything richer.
Click to expand...

Just spotted this thread. I have little experience with filters despite having experimented with different photographic techniques so I'm pleased I've found it! I've been thinking about investing in a filter that can retain the details in my skies rather than whitening them out or overexposing them. Looks like a polarising filter might be the one to go for!
 
Last edited:
IamAshlyRose said:
Just spotted this thread. I have little experience with filters despite having experimented with different photographic techniques so I'm pleased I've found it! I've been thinking about investing in a filter that can retain the details in my skies rather than whitening them out or overexposing them. Looks like a polarising filter might be the one to go for!
Click to expand...

If you want to even the exposure out (ie, avoid blown skies) a graduated ND filter would be more suitable. I use the two together sometimes!
 
IamAshlyRose said:
Just spotted this thread. I have little experience with filters despite having experimented with different photographic techniques so I'm pleased I've found it! I've been thinking about investing in a filter that can retain the details in my skies rather than whitening them out or overexposing them. Looks like a polarising filter might be the one to go for!
Click to expand...

Polariser, definitely. Use it with a 1 stop grad as well for maximum realism, I find.
 
jerry12953 said:
Polariser, definitely. Use it with a 1 stop grad as well for maximum realism, I find.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the suggestion.
 
Polariser is the 1st filter i would buy, lots of uses for it, Cuts down glare on glass and water and brings out saturation.

Screw in filters work very well but if using with filters maybe consider on which would fit on end of filter holder.
 
Hotshots said:
Polariser is the 1st filter i would buy, lots of uses for it, Cuts down glare on glass and water and brings out saturation.
.
Click to expand...
This is what they say, however how many times are you actually taking a shot where you need to reduce glare from glass or water?
You can change saturation up or down in a controlled way later.
I'd rather have control of the wonderful things polarisers are supposed to do when I have the file on the computer.

I can do without spending about £100 minimum on a filter that will mainly make the subject darker.
Polarisers are not going to magically improve anything very much and all too often make skies look freaky 2nd only to HDR.
 
Last edited:
4wd said:
This is what they say, however how many times are you actually taking a shot where you need to reduce glare from glass or water?
You can change saturation up or down in a controlled way later.
I'd rather have control of the wonderful things polarisers are supposed to do when I have the file on the computer.

I can do without spending about £100 minimum on a filter that will mainly make the subject darker.
Polarisers are not going to magically improve anything very much and all too often make skies look freaky 2nd only to HDR.
Click to expand...

Lets just say this would be a minority opinion.......

Polariser is the one filter whose results cannot reasonably be replicated in software.
 
4wd said:
This is what they say, however how many times are you actually taking a shot where you need to reduce glare from glass or water?
You can change saturation up or down in a controlled way later.
I'd rather have control of the wonderful things polarisers are supposed to do when I have the file on the computer.

I can do without spending about £100 minimum on a filter that will mainly make the subject darker.
Polarisers are not going to magically improve anything very much and all too often make skies look freaky 2nd only to HDR.
Click to expand...

How many times do I want to reduce glare? Every time!

Sorry but your post sounds as if you don't know what a polariser really does or how to use one. You can't saturate something in post that has been subjected to reflection or refraction, which is why everything looks richer and more defined via a polariser.

Most of what it does cannot be replicated in post.
 
Last edited:
Polariser is the only filter I possess - back in the halcyon days of film I had a second gadget bag in which my Cokin Filters were filed... I decided when I went digital to only replace the ones that I actually used. So far in 8 years that's one C-Pol (actually I've replaced the C-Pol due to buying lenses with bigger front elements...)

My 2c - buy one but don't weld it to the front of your lens. The joy of digital is that you can *try* it - if you don't like it on *that* shot, take it off and try again (or rotate it and see if you get a more pleasing effect)
 
Last edited:
the polariser effect depends on the direction of the light as well, reflective surfaces ( and the sky ) polarise light when it reflects at low angles, the filter can reduce this glare, but if the light reflects at high angles, it wont have much effect. to see if it has any obsvious effect i simply hold it up and look through it while rotating. I sometimes use it on the coast, but if the light is too high it won't have much effect.
 
I find a polariser really helpful for getting rid of glare from the sun onto the sea, what NGrads do people use? Got a general ND but not a gradient!
 
sp0rk said:
I find a polariser really helpful for getting rid of glare from the sun onto the sea, what NGrads do people use? Got a general ND but not a gradient!
Click to expand...

Most usefull grad pref imo hitech or lee ND 0.6 Hard Grad and Soft Grad, you can just about get by with these 2. If your serious about landscape's you probably will want a full set of both and some warm up grads as well.
 
I couldn't manage without my CPL, in the lake district last weekend for example, sometimes I wanted reflections in the water, other times I wanted some detail in the rocks on the shore, without a CPL I couldn't have got the foreground rocks, I'd have just got a lot of reflections and glare. No amount of PP would have sorted that (unless of course I layermasked a new foreground in!!).
 
As has been said, a Polariser is one of the few filters which can't be replicated in Photoshop.

Sometimes the effect can be dramatic, sometimes it's minimal depending on the direction of the light source in relation to the camera.

I have mine on most the time, because I like the effect most of the time, and if I don't like the effect it's a simple twist of the filter to reduce the effect. Or a second or two to take it off. :shrug:

For ease of use a screw on Polariser is best imho. Get one for the largest diameter of lens you have, and get step down filters for any smaller diameter lenses to save a bit of money. Luckily both my lenses have the same diameter.

If you want to use a Polariser with something like a 70-300mm lens, then you may need a higher quality one. (though always try and get the best you can afford ;)) I bought a cheap Polariser which was fine until I tried to use it on me 70-300mm lens, then the view through the viewfinder was distorted, and the AF wouldn't work. The shop I got it from gave me my money back.


Only Circular Polarisers work with digital cameras btw, Linear Polarisers stop the Auto Focus from working.
 
Read through but might have missed it,CPL will give bad results on wide angle lenses, some of the sky will be a lot darker than other parts.
But I for one use them a lot.

I have made this comparison before about a CPL on a lens,on a sunny day look at the scene then slip on a pair of sunglasses and see how much richer the view is.:thumbs:
 
towershot said:
Read through but might have missed it,CPL will give bad results on wide angle lenses, some of the sky will be a lot darker than other parts.
But I for one use them a lot.

I have made this comparison before about a CPL on a lens,on a sunny day look at the scene then slip on a pair of sunglasses and see how much richer the view is.:thumbs:
Click to expand...

Not always true, in fact not usually true. Can sometimes be a problem if the sun is low. In which case, rotate to reduce the effect, or take the filter off - but always try it first.
 
This just occured to me, can you use a cpl to remove reflections from glasses in a studio? i.e. with strobes/modelling lights
 
Jackypoos said:
This just occured to me, can you use a cpl to remove reflections from glasses in a studio? i.e. with strobes/modelling lights
Click to expand...

If you get the angle right, yes - ie 30-40 degrees from the surface plane. On a wine glass for example, you could lose some, but not all.
 
I too was not convinced of the usefulness of a polariser filter until I saw some amazing results and what it can do to water, glass buildings, bright skies. I have just ordered a sigma 77 mm polariser for my sigma 77mm 17-50 os lens.

I took a classic photo of a lake in a nearby park with a line of trees at the end and a blue sky. the scene was overwhelmed by the blue sky and the reflection from the water. When the filter arrives I will be taking the same scene again and hopefully it is worth the investment.
 
HoppyUK said:
Not always true, in fact not usually true. Can sometimes be a problem if the sun is low. In which case, rotate to reduce the effect, or take the filter off - but always try it first.
Click to expand...

I've found over *many* years of experience (too many.....) that the most pleasing results from a polariser are when the sun is at a particular height in the sky - in UK that tends to be about 2 or 3 hours after sunrise or before sunset. (not applicable in winter)

Closer to sunrise or sunset it gives less pleasing results and I would tend to use one less then. I'm not sure if that is related to what you are suggesting, Hoppy?
 
gnirtS said:
It causes patchy sky in *some* circumstances but far from common on wide/ultra wide. 90%+ of the time it doesnt do this, the sun has to be at just the wrong angle relative to the subject etc.
Click to expand...

For maximum effect use a polariser at 90 degrees to the angle of the sun's rays. With a wide-angle this can cause a dark area in a blue sky but this can often be masked or minimised if the sky is partially cloudy. Pure blue skies are uninspiring and frustrating anyway......... like the last 5 days!
 
jerry12953 said:
I've found over *many* years of experience (too many.....) that the most pleasing results from a polariser are when the sun is at a particular height in the sky - in UK that tends to be about 2 or 3 hours after sunrise or before sunset. (not applicable in winter)

Closer to sunrise or sunset it gives less pleasing results and I would tend to use one less then. I'm not sure if that is related to what you are suggesting, Hoppy?[/QUOTE]

I'm just responding to comments that you can't use a polariser with a super-wide or that the results will automatically be poor. Because it's simply not true - just one of those myths that gets propagated on the web.

It's about the angle of the sun, direction of the camera, degree of filter rotation, how stongly polarised the sky is, clouds and other subjects in the frame etc. Lots of variables. (For the benefit of others - I know you know this Jerry ;))

My rule with landscapes is quite simple - always give the polariser a try, and it will always do something, somewhere in the image. Sometimes a lot, sometimes a little, but usually good.

Here's an example using a super-wide at 10mm (Canon 10-22mm). The sun is directly overhead, therefore the band of polarisation runs evenly right around the horizon 360 degrees and on a superwide looks a bit like a grad effect but without any darkening of the white church. It also shows just how dark the sky can go with a polariser when it's really clear blue.

IMG_0253-1.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
quick question about using polariser filters, should you set a custom white balance with the filter in place or set the white balance before the filter goes on?
 
I'm with the majority here, definitely yes to the polariser...

They can cause uneven polarisation at wider focal lengths so you need to be a little careful sometimes (Hoppy covers that perfectly)... they typically reduce light levels by 2 stop which can also make them really useful as an ND filter to create some motion in shots - 2 filters for the price of one:thumbs:

Simon
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top