Slim polarizers ??

[Mark von Kanel]

I'm not about to throw away a $55 filter!

You got away lightly mine was $152

[Mark von Kanel]

Carol did you watch the utube vid on the use of CP's? it covers the use of them on omages with sky in and the use of wide angle lens's.

[csa mt]

So you can still use the filter at the longer focal length and not have reason for concern?

John, I honestly haven't tried it, except at the 20mm. It's completely overcast now, so I'll have to wait to try it at different focal lengths.

[csa mt]

You got away lightly mine was $152

I couldn't afford to pay more than what I did; but still got a good brand that's been recommended by others. I definitely wouldn't throw away a $152 filter!!!

[csa mt]

Mark, I did watch it, but it just lightly touched on the blotchy sky. I think with practice, I will get some good use out of the filter. Worse problem is, in bright daylight, the LCD is useless, and the viewfinder is too small to really see the effects of the filter.

[Mike Buckley]

in bright daylight, the LCD is useless

Consider getting a Hoodman Loupe to solve that problem.

[csa mt]

Mike, that's way too bulky for me to take walks with the camera cinched against my chest. What would help is an eyecup hood; but they are not available for my camera.

But thanks anyway, I appreciate it!

[Mike Buckley]

Mike, that's way too bulky for me to take walks with the camera cinched against my chest.

You would keep the Hoodman Loupe attached to your belt or hanging around your neck until you use it. I could be wrong but I think it would be no more difficult using the Loupe than looking in the viewfinder regardless of the apparatus you're using to hold the camera to your body.

[Colin Southern]

Hi Carol,

A CPL filter will (has!) created more issues for this type of shot than it solves. Or put another way, "there's zero advantages to be gained in using one for this kind of shot - only disadvantages".

If you're after a more saturated sky look then take the filter off and simply apply Exposure Compensation of around -1 stop to the camera; that will saturate the sky nicely, but leave some areas looking a little under-exposed -- which you simply fix with a fill-light and/or brightness sliders during post production.

[Mark von Kanel]

Hi Carol,

A CPL filter will (has!) created more issues for this type of shot than it solves. Or put another way, "there's zero advantages to be gained in using one for this kind of shot - only disadvantages".

If you're after a more saturated sky look then take the filter off and simply apply Exposure Compensation of around -1 stop to the camera; that will saturate the sky nicely, but leave some areas looking a little under-exposed -- which you simply fix with a fill-light and/or brightness sliders during post production.

I too have had no luck using a cpl in this sort of shot with that focal length 99% of the time ive ended up with a blotchy sky, i now only use my cpl to remove reflections. its just easier to "do" the sky in post and you can see what your getting, or as Colin says expose for the sky and "do" the land in post. even with my beguinner pp skills....

[csa mt]

You would keep the Hoodman Loupe attached to your belt or hanging around your neck until you use it. I could be wrong but I think it would be no more difficult using the Loupe than looking in the viewfinder regardless of the apparatus you're using to hold the camera to your body.

This http://optechusa.com/straps/stabilizer-strap.html is what I use. I don't wear belts, and to have something else hanging around my neck bouncing around would not work out for me. It's just too large & cumbersome for my liking. But again, I thank you for the suggestion! It's too bad my camera does not have the tilt LCD; that would help.

[Manfred M]

My comments - what you are seeing in that shot is commonly referred to as "banding" and this is related to how sunlight is polarized. Angles that are at 90 degrees to the sun get the strongest impact from a polarizer and those that are directly in line with the sun have no impact. This means that with a wide angle lens that has a field of view that shows up a lot of the sky, you will definitely get this effect that you see in your image. As Kodiak has pointed out, you can also get this impact from a reflection of the sky.

So, why thin polarizers; well I shoot with one quite frequently, even on wide angle lenses to "kill" reflected light on leaves (improved contrast). Depending on how I compose (for instance trees blocking part of the sky, I will get very good images, even with a wide angle, and of course, the thin polarizer reduces the risk of vignetting with wider angle lenses.

[William W]

Following on from Colin's comment . . .

. . . A CPL filter will (has!) created more issues for this type of shot than it solves. Or put another way, "there's zero advantages to be gained in using one for this kind of shot - only disadvantages". . .

Unfortunately there are many sources of misinformation that encourage photographers to buy a CPL filter for the (main) purpose of ‘enhancing a blue sky’, but those sources often do not define the limitations apropos the limit of FoV of the scene – or at least the limit of the width of the sky, in the scene.

There are other reasons to use CPL and these are often glossed over or not mentioned.

To reduce or eliminate unwanted reflections in a scene: when used for this purpose and when a Wide lens is employed - there is still the limitation of the effect of the filter not being even across the frame – as can be seen here where the reflections are not evenly attenuated – this is a 24mm lens on 135 format:



Another, but less often employed use of a CPL, is this:


And also this:


*

An example of a real shooting situation:

These two images are shot at the same pool, from the same side of the pool, but at different ends of the pool.

Both are shot at the time of day when the sun is coming at the direction into the camera and the sunlight is shimming off the water.

In the top image (without a CPL) there is the tell-tale blown out shimmer of the sunlight on the water.

In the bottom image there still remains a little shimmer and a little reflection, but the hands and the left arm are all quite clear, underneath the water, on swimmer who has already submerged.

Using a CPL for this shot enhances the action and makes for a better photograph which otherwise would have had to be cloned meticulously to repair the missing limb and hands. This was shot with a 70 to 200 zoom on a 135 Format Camera and thus the Photographer had great control of the effect of the CPL Filter:



WW

[csa mt]

Bill, thanks for a great, informative post. Many, many years ago I used Polarizers on my gear, but I've forgotten all I knew (old age ). Your post has juggled my memory re/polarizers, so I thank you!

[William W]

"experience" is the new "old age"

[csa mt]

I certainly qualify on the last! LOL!

[William W]

[jcuknz]

The "slim" poarizer is recommended for wide angle use!!!

Only becuase its slimness is likely to reduce the chance of vignetting corners

EDIT .. one of the advantages of a smaller lens is it only costs $52 instead of the slightly bigger glass which cost $152 ie 55 versus 77 or so. Actually the 55mm can be only $25 depending on what they are [ both B+W ]