Polarising Filters - do we still need them?

RaphaelSamad

RaphaelSamad

Suspended / Banned
Messages
797
Edit My Images
Yes
In the good old days of film, I used to really like using Polarising filters. However, now in the digital era, do these still have a place? Can we not get the effect of a polarising filter using Photoshop or something simlar rather than juggling around with filters?
What have you found?
 
Still need a PF.

Photoshop does not play with lightwaves, only the light recorded at that instant.

Edit.

I believe there is a way of simulating it using channels but a PF is better.
 
petebarnes said:
CPL's are the only filters CS3 can't replicate so I'd say hell yes
Click to expand...


I don't think any software package will ever be able to do this :-

polarizer.jpg










*but I do think you'll be able to get a PS filter to sort out 'bathroom' glass :naughty:
 
Absolutely necessary. Essential for landscape, particularly snow or anywhere there is a lot of reflected light.
 
CPL are not the only filter you can't replicate properly in PS.

ND grads are still pretty essential for landscape stuff as once the sky is blown or the foreground is underexposed you'll never be able to bring back the detail.

Yeah CPL's are pretty good, wish i could afford one!
 
MichaelPlace said:
CPL are not the only filter you can't replicate properly in PS.

ND grads are still pretty essential for landscape stuff as once the sky is blown or the foreground is underexposed you'll never be able to bring back the detail.

Yeah CPL's are pretty good, wish i could afford one!
Click to expand...

You can use exposure bracketing then HDR the results instead of a ND grad :thumbs:
 
Yes, but is this photography or fiddleing with computers??:thinking::thinking:
 
George said:
Yes, but is this photography or fiddleing with computers??:thinking::thinking:
Click to expand...

and how is a ND grad any different ?, you're using tinted glass to fiddle with the image.

Hardware / Software , it's still fiddling :D


You've still got to compose the shot & expose it correctly in both methods , that's the bit called photography ( IMO etc. :thumbs:)
 
Well, I knew this would start a discussion for which there is no answer....always the best ones I think and if there was a little smilie which showed him stirring it up I'd use it here...:lol::lol: but my view up to a point is that really we're in to two branches of a hobby, one to try and pretty much replicate what the eye sees eg landscape photography or we can create an image which it is impossible to see in real life. Now the reason I use NDs is to try and create what the eye sees with its greater ability to see light and dark in the same image, and to an extent a polariser also does this by taking away spurious reflection, but when we get to changing a sky from dull grey to beautiful fluffy clouds and blue, my own opinion is that's a stage too far.

I will now go and await the flack.....:thumbs:
George
 
I think there is a place for both George. I do tend to stick to the more purist approach myself but then I came from film so was pretty much schooled in that approach. There is a new generation who have never shot film and happily replace skies and backgrounds etc. There is also a lot of crossover with people discovering new ways of working digitally. Is one right and the other wrong?

No I don't believe there is a right and a wrong except to the individual. Dodging and burning in a darkroom is still manipulation and all things computer are not evil but where photography ends and digital art begins is also a very blurred line. IMHO.
 
I pretty much agree with that, Ali, reminds me of my youth and the discussion re artificial climbing aids!!
 
George said:
Well, I knew this would start a discussion for which there is no answer....always the best ones I think and if there was a little smilie which showed him stirring it up I'd use it here...:lol::lol: but my view up to a point is that really we're in to two branches of a hobby, one to try and pretty much replicate what the eye sees eg landscape photography or we can create an image which it is impossible to see in real life. Now the reason I use NDs is to try and create what the eye sees with its greater ability to see light and dark in the same image, and to an extent a polariser also does this by taking away spurious reflection, but when we get to changing a sky from dull grey to beautiful fluffy clouds and blue, my own opinion is that's a stage too far.

I will now go and await the flack.....:thumbs:
George
Click to expand...

I think both are equally important. Certainly polarisers/ND's, etc are still important and can reduce the amount of computer processing needed afterwards, but equally, it can be fun doing that processing afterwards. Certainly the ability to replace a grey sky with a blue one can be important if for instance, its for advertsing [for instance, I did some shots last year for a cousin at her holiday lets, but as I had to go over there on a certain day that was blue skies looking out to sea, but grey clouds behind the apartments, I made a few 'changes' to the sky in those shots]. However, just changing a sky or whatever to make a more appealing landscape shot is noy something I could actually be bothered with quite frankly, but using HDR to merge bracketted shots is, especially as I only have a polariser for one lens, and no ND's yet ;)
 
Yes, Yvonne, that is absolutely correct and I wouldn't disagree at all.
 
Filters have their pro's and cons but I still believe in getting as much as possible right as early as possible in the process.

That is why I have and use several ND and other grad filters.

Adds to the fun too
 
I have a circular polarising filter and it's great for water - I'm not sure I could produce the same effect in photoshop. I'm now looking for a ND filter as I want to be able to take long exposures of moving water without over exposing and burning out areas of the picture.
I have to say though that I wouldn't use things like warm up filters though as the colour temperature is so easily changed in the RAW conversion and the faff of using a graduated filter has always put me off them so being able to replicate that in photoshop is great.
 
Polarisers and full ND filters can't be replicated afterwards in PP. If you want their effects, you need to use them when you take the shot.

Warm-up filters etc are easily replicated in PP, indeed you almost have to to just process the RAW file in the first place, so there really isn't much point in using them.

The contentious ones are the ND Grad filters. You *can* recreate their effect in PP if you know you'll need to and take the proper shots, and you have more flexibility in PP for things other than straight horizons, where using the filter can be almost impossible. It's certainly a useful technique.
The downside is that it's extra work in PP, and it can be hard to keep a "real" style to the picture without wandering off into the neon technicolour of HDR.
It comes down to a personal choice, do the work with the filter at the time or do the work with multiple shots later. There is no "right" or even "better" way there, you do what you get most enjoyment out of doing. It's no skin of anyone else's nose which technique you chose and we do this stuff for fun, so do whichever you are happiest doing.

A crappy picture isn't made better just because you used a filter in the field, and likewise a crappy picture isn't made any better just because it's got a large dynamic range and is made up of 47 different shots.
 
Just answering the scope of the original question... yes, you cannot replicate the effect of the CPL in PS.

The rights and wrongs of doing anything to the photo other than extracting it from the camera I will leave for another discussion :)
 
desantnik said:
The rights and wrongs of doing anything to the photo other than extracting it from the camera I will leave for another discussion :)
Click to expand...

Very murky waters those;):D
 
Yes, Woodsey, I think that is absolutely true, and is coming out loud and clear on this thread. The other points although interesting, really are not relevant to the original question posed, although I share a responsibility for their inclusion! It's always good to play devil's advocate!!
 
Just couldn't be without my polariser, it's essentail for landscape shots and can make all the difference between an average looking shot & something that really grabs the attention

simon
 
Thank you all for your useful and insightful comments. I already have a CP filter for one of my lenses and it does rather look look I will need to get one for the other lens too.
Thanks again.
Raphael
 
Well, depends on whether you need the effect on your other lens... I have several lenses and some I own a CPL for and others I do not - because that is not the sort of shot I will take with those (ie no sky/water with them - the main use of the CPL). Sometimes I get that happy position whereby a 77mm just happens to be the right size for other lenses, but its not intentional!
 
desantnik said:
Well, depends on whether you need the effect on your other lens... I have several lenses and some I own a CPL for and others I do not - because that is not the sort of shot I will take with those (ie no sky/water with them - the main use of the CPL). Sometimes I get that happy position whereby a 77mm just happens to be the right size for other lenses, but its not intentional!
Click to expand...

Which is why I use the Lee system, with an adaptor ring on each lens and I can slot NDs in and I also have a holder with a polariser in permanently, but I admit it's expensive initially, however once you have made the initial outlay, that's it.
 
Or just get lenses that take one size filter... 77mm :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top