HDR Efex Pro?

[Mike Buckley]

For the record...

I wasn't regurgitating anything about the use of circular polarizers. I was explaining the results I regularly obtain in situations such as this one, so I'm not surprised that others who are far more accomplished than me have written about obtaining similar results.

I have no issue with the assertion that some of the benefits of using a polarizer filter can be obtained during post-processing and with relatively little time or skill required to do so. That, however, is very different than saying that the only thing that will happen when using a polarizer when photographing a scene such as this is to reduce the amount of light entering the lens. It's just plain wrong to write that.

To write that people are shooting at the wrong time of day when making landscapes is insensitive at best. When I was hiking the Lofoten mountains and came upon a scene I wanted to photograph -- the one and only time in my life that I would probably see that scene -- there is no wrong time of day. That was the best time of day because it was the only time of day I would capture the scene. We need to be more sensitive to the varying needs of photographers rather than to declare that there are right and wrong times of the day to make photos.

The assertion that landscape photography is usually associated with wider fields of view that can be adversely affected by a circular polarizer is unhelpful and misleading. First, like any tool, one has to know when and why to use a circular polarizer or not. Second, there are lots of great landscape photos that have been captured with focal lengths generally regarded as telephoto lengths. Very few of my landscape photos have been used with anything shorter than a 35mm lens.

I have nothing to prove, so I also have nothing to add to the discussion. I, like lots of informed photographers, am going to keep using my circular polarizers, as I have one for every lens in my bag.

[Colin Southern]

For the record...

I wasn't regurgitating anything about the use of circular polarizers. I was explaining the results I regularly obtain in situations such as this one, so I'm not surprised that others who are far more accomplished than me have written about obtaining similar results.

I have no issue with the assertion that some of the benefits of using a polarizer filter can be obtained during post-processing and with relatively little time or skill required to do so. That, however, is very different than saying that the only thing that will happen when using a polarizer when photographing a scene such as this is to reduce the amount of light entering the lens. It's just plain wrong to write that.

To write that people are shooting at the wrong time of day when making landscapes is insensitive at best. When I was hiking the Lofoten mountains and came upon a scene I wanted to photograph -- the one and only time in my life that I would probably see that scene -- there is no wrong time of day. That was the best time of day because it was the only time of day I would capture the scene. We need to be more sensitive to the varying needs of photographers rather than to declare that there are right and wrong times of the day to make photos.



I have nothing to prove, so I also have nothing to add to the discussion. I, like lots of informed photographers, am going to keep using my circular polarizers, as I have one for every lens in my bag.

Mike,

You're missing the points completely.

Lets put it this way; if you have a student who wants to improve the type of shot that we're talking about - and I have a student with the same goal - and your advice to your student is to "use a polariser" and my advice to my student is "throw the polariser away and come back to re-photograph the scene at sunrise or sunset" then I know which student is going to come back with the better photo - and it isn't going to be close. That's what we're talking about HERE - not some alternative scenario where someone may only have 5 minutes in the middle of the day to take the shot before the tour bus leaves.

Saying that "the only thing that will happen when using a polarizer when photographing a scene such as this is to reduce the amount of light entering the lens" isn't "just plain wrong" - it's spot on. The CPL would have contributed absolutely nothing to that shot. Zilch. Nada.

The assertion that landscape photography is usually associated with wider fields of view that can be adversely affected by a circular polarizer is unhelpful and misleading. First, like any tool, one has to know when and why to use a circular polarizer or not. Second, there are lots of great landscape photos that have been captured with focal lengths generally regarded as telephoto lengths. Very few of my landscape photos have been used with anything shorter than a 35mm lens.

I'm shaking my head is bewilderment here. I agree that "like any tool, one has to know when and why to use a circular polarizer or not". In fact - not only do I agree with it, I ACTUALLY SAID AS MUCH IN MY SECOND SENTENCE ABOVE. Additionally, NO WHERE did I say that good landscape cannot be shot with longer lenses (and why would I say that when I'm one of the one doing it! Heck, I'm the one who's had an article published on the world's premium filter manufacturer's blog arguing the case for "why wider isn't always better when shooting landscape") - but - the fact remains that for the MOST PART, landscape IS associated with wider fields of view and that CPL filters give uneven skies in those shots (or they're shot at a time of day where they don't, but in which case they don't do anything anyway). So given that (a) I was actually the first to say "it's a tool you need to know how / when / when not to use" and (b) that landscape IS unquestionably shall we say "over represented by wide angle lenses" then how the heck is my assertion "unhelpful" and "misleading"? To the contrary; (a) pointing out that if - like most people - using a CPL filter with the type of lens that most people use to shoot landscape (rightly or wrongly) is probably going to work against them neither unhelpful nor is it misleading, and (b) pointing out that if people are trying to capture a quality landscape then time of day has a HUGE influence is neither unhelpful, misleading, nor is it insensitive.

Bottom line Mike is that I'm here to help people make better photos; teaching how to read the dynamic range of a scene helps. Advising on best time of day to shoot helps. Rubbish about the (non) effects of CPL filters for scenes like this don't help. If people want to use one on a longer lens to shoot something in the middle of the day then great - go for it if they wish, but if they're trying to learn how to shoot world-class landscapes then I'll tell you now - it isn't going to help them one little bit.

[Colin Southern]

That apparently bears worth repeating.

Pity the "nothing to add to this discussion" bit didn't kick in before your "confident" post accusing me of "unintentionally exaggerating" things.

[Mike Buckley]

Now you're getting personal, Colin. Bring it to an end.

[Colin Southern]

Now you're getting personal, Colin. Bring it to an end.

Now you're starting to piss me off.

We were doing just fine until YOU (not me) decided to attack with your presumptuous post. I point out the errors of your ways and you have the audacity to come back with the equivalent of a "fingers in your ears - singing la la la la la - not listening".

Are you here to learn or are you just here to troll?

[ajohnw]

One probably fact is that a circular polariser wont work as well as the earlier linear ones which I believe can't be used on a dslr. I am wondering about m 4/3 though.

John
-

[Mike Buckley]

Folks,

Part of this exchange has been immensely dissatisfying to me and I'm sure to many others as well. I apologize to all for whatever contribution I might have made to the discussion that has made it so dissatisfying even though I truly don't know what that might have been. If I did know, I would explicitly apologize for whatever that would be. I believe I know how to prevent my own dissatisfaction from happening in the future and hope that also has a positive effect on everyone else.

This is my last post in this thread.

[ajohnw]

Don't worry Mike ??it happens.

John
-

[PrintMan]

Yeah this thread ended on a less-than-satisfying note but was basically very educational all around.

[ShaneS]

I agree Steven. It is a post that I will return to as the discussion was valuable overall.

BTW welcome to CiC!

[DanK]

I got to this thread late. On the positive side, it was one of the most informative I have read in some time. Colin's step-by-step explanation of the dynamic range was particularly helpful. Up until near the end, this thread showed the best of CiC: people generously contributing their expertise to an informative discussion of a photographic problem.

Manfred wrote this:

Shane - this type of isuse it the primary reason I don't use HDR very often any more; lack of control and dissatisfaction with the final output. The way I've started to work high dynamic range image about a year ago is to take at least 3 shots, with the middle one properly exposed for mid-tones and the others to get the highlights and shadow details. I then manually merge them using layers and hide or expose the appropriate highlight details and shadow details.

I'm in the same camp. I never use HDR software. When I encounter a scene with more dynamic range than the sensor can handle, I blend areas from bracketed exposures, without tone mapping. An easier way to do it is with exposure fusion software. I use Lightroom Enfuse for this, at its default settings. Anyone unfamiliar with this can just google exposure fusion to see comparisons with HDR.

Unfortunately, the thread really deteriorated at the end. I re-read the thread, and I really do think that the anger at the end was entirely avoidable. Some amount of misunderstanding is common in electronic forums and e-mail. More often than not, it is not cause to start a fight.