They cost around $60 and up, so I'm wondering if its worth it. For those of you that have one, how useful is it, how often do you use it?
DSLR people: Do you use a polarizing filter?
- Thread starter Martin
- Start date
They are extremely useful for landscape shots, especially when it's bright out.
Unless you have a specific need for a linear one, get circular.
And I'm not a DSLR user but I'm still giving you my opinion.
Unless you have a specific need for a linear one, get circular.
And I'm not a DSLR user but I'm still giving you my opinion.
sukhoi wins teh thread
borrow a polarizer and try it out before you buy. take some pics of the sky with the filter on and off for a taste of what it does
borrow a polarizer and try it out before you buy. take some pics of the sky with the filter on and off for a taste of what it does
- Jan 2, 2006
- 10,455
- 35
- 91
I don't own one right now, but I DEFINITELY will get one in the near future. For landscape shots they would be almost indespensible - I would use it nearly all the time. I would also use them all the time for scenes with glare and reflections.
When getting a filter, get one with a filter thread size that is at least as big as your largest diameter lens. That way, if you want to use it on your smaller lenses all you have to do is use some really cheap step up/down rings.
Also, I would go for quality over price. Hoya HMC / S-HMC is good. B&W is good. Sigma makes some that are also probably pretty good, and at a good price too.
And like what Sukhoi said, get a circular polarizer.
When getting a filter, get one with a filter thread size that is at least as big as your largest diameter lens. That way, if you want to use it on your smaller lenses all you have to do is use some really cheap step up/down rings.
Also, I would go for quality over price. Hoya HMC / S-HMC is good. B&W is good. Sigma makes some that are also probably pretty good, and at a good price too.
And like what Sukhoi said, get a circular polarizer.
I have one for my best lens, a 28-75 f/2.8, and it really does some amazing work. I took some shots of a lighthouse down on the North Carolina coast, and the sky is incredible with it -- deep, deep blue. The next time I noticed its effect (haven't used it much) was when I took some pictures of pumpkins in the sun. First shot showed strong glare off the pumpkins. Twisted the polarizer, and the glare disappeared, leaving perfectly orange (and perfectly lit) pumpkins.
Mine is even a cheap one from Best Buy for $20, and I've been impressed with it. I'll be replacing it soon with either a Hoya or a B+W. I've not seen any degradation in contrast, sharpness, or saturation with it.
Uh, nope, polarizers create an effect which by the accounts I've read is not reproducible with Photoshop. Pretty sure I've seen that from Luminous Landscape as well as an article in Outdoor Photography.
I've always heard the "filters reduce image quality" argument, but no one has ever been able to show me a concrete example. If it's not perceptible with the human eye, does it matter?
Mine is even a cheap one from Best Buy for $20, and I've been impressed with it. I'll be replacing it soon with either a Hoya or a B+W. I've not seen any degradation in contrast, sharpness, or saturation with it.
Uh, nope, polarizers create an effect which by the accounts I've read is not reproducible with Photoshop. Pretty sure I've seen that from Luminous Landscape as well as an article in Outdoor Photography.
I've always heard the "filters reduce image quality" argument, but no one has ever been able to show me a concrete example. If it's not perceptible with the human eye, does it matter?
Anubis
No Lifer
I don't want to afford one. 77mm CPL is expensive! Also, it's cold out and I'm lazy to go take photos. Maybe next spring. I already have a Hoya Super-HMC Pro1 UV to cover my lens.
Cheap filters do make for slightly worse photographs. Once I borrowed a Canon 28-135IS with Tiffen UV filter. I did an experiment with camera and subject stationary on my table and with the filter on and off. I did notice differences with the filter on. Easier to notice on the printed text at 100%.
In case anybody is interested in buying filters, I used www.tradingoo.com before and it's cheap. A lot cheaper than any other place I've looked. 77mm CPL Hoya Super-HMC Pro1 is only $105. I found it a while back on a deals/photography site. I bought my 77mm filter from there. It's real as far as I can tell. (I am not connected in any way to company besides being customer.)
Cheap filters do make for slightly worse photographs. Once I borrowed a Canon 28-135IS with Tiffen UV filter. I did an experiment with camera and subject stationary on my table and with the filter on and off. I did notice differences with the filter on. Easier to notice on the printed text at 100%.
In case anybody is interested in buying filters, I used www.tradingoo.com before and it's cheap. A lot cheaper than any other place I've looked. 77mm CPL Hoya Super-HMC Pro1 is only $105. I found it a while back on a deals/photography site. I bought my 77mm filter from there. It's real as far as I can tell. (I am not connected in any way to company besides being customer.)
Anubis
No Lifer
yes cheap ones do degrade image quality some, but the good ones Hoya, Nikon, B+W, Heliopan dont
i have heliopan filters, they kick ass, but they cost a bunch i think my 77MM polarizer was like 140$
Yes but get a good one, especially if you are putting it on good glass like Canon's L-series.
They are very useful when doing landscape photography.
Also if you like to photograph cars they can be useful because they can remove the glare on windshields and paint.
They are very useful when doing landscape photography.
Also if you like to photograph cars they can be useful because they can remove the glare on windshields and paint.
GTaudiophile
Lifer
- Oct 24, 2000
- 29,767
- 33
- 81
Yes, I own two. One UV and one circular polarizer.
B+W 77 mm Circular Polarizer Multi-Coated (MC) Slim
B+W 77mm UV Haze 010 (MRC) Multi-Resistant Coating Glass Filter Slim
B+W 77 mm Circular Polarizer Multi-Coated (MC) Slim
B+W 77mm UV Haze 010 (MRC) Multi-Resistant Coating Glass Filter Slim
That photo does not look realistic.
You will not lose image quality if you use the right filter. You can imitate the effect in photoshop, but you cannot reproduce the true effect that a CPL will have on a particular scene.
On that tower picture, one thing that a CPL could have done was to remove some of the glare from the windows. Combine that with shooting at an angle that would have eliminated the sunspot in the window and you would have a better looking image than an imitation made in photoshop.
I bought a CPL + UV combo set and paid a LOT less than 60 for both. (~$15, iirc)
It's the low-end brand "SunPak" -- and there's nothing wrong with it, as far as I can see.
disclaimer: I've never tried high-end filters, so I might not know what I'm missing.
My non-dslr camera: Panasonic DMZ-FZ1
It's the low-end brand "SunPak" -- and there's nothing wrong with it, as far as I can see.
disclaimer: I've never tried high-end filters, so I might not know what I'm missing.
My non-dslr camera: Panasonic DMZ-FZ1
You probably won't with that camera. But with a lens that costs $1600 you don't want to put a $15 piece of glass in front of it.
As mentioned, that pic looks fake, and it is.
I forgot to put in my post that if you use a polarizer you'll probably need to use a tripod a lot more. They cut out a significant amount of light.
Wrong. :thumbsdown:
A common blue polarized sky can be sort of faked if you're really good and are intimately familiar with how real polarizers behave, but it is simply impossible to simulate what a polarizer will do for example on an overcast day shooting a waterfall under tree cover. Leaves reflect the sky frighteningly well, which gives them a white filmy look on overcast days (wet rocks can have this problem too). You can not duplicate in Photoshop the way that a polarizer largely eliminates those reflections, making the leaves more saturated and contrasty.
Polarizers also have the "advantage" of eating about 1.5 stops of light - a problem if you're shooting handheld, but it can work to your advantage if you need long exposures during the day for blurring moving water by doubling as a neutral density filter.
On the quality issue: if your polarizer harms image quality that much, you either bought an incredibly cheap one, or you can't keep your fingers off it. The reputable brands mentioned (Hoya, B&W, etc.) won't have any noticeable impact on resolution, and certainly none that outweighs the benefits one will get from using the filter when the scene would be captured better with it.
I'll let Michael Reichmann respond to this allegation, since he knows more about photography than all of us combined:
Read the entire article here about what they can do for you.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter