[Lak]

I've been looking to get one, I'm just wondering if anybody has photos taken with a circular polarising filter? Lets see them!

[Petographer]

I just went through all my posted photos and cannot remember which ones I used a polarizer on. Get one anyway. They are good to have. I'll be buying another to fit my 28-200mm.

[Toad]

I use it a lot. Any landscapes I have posted use one pretty much.

The only thing to remember is that if you shoot with a lens wider than about 35mm you can get dark spots in the corner due to uneven polarization across a wide scene.

[EnglishBob]

This is one of the more extreme blue skies that a polariser will produce. There has been no saturation or color changes to this picture.

[slejhamer]

I've got a good example of the wide-angle problem that Toad mentions. I'll post it this weekend. Cheers,

[Don Schaeffer]

I used to use one. I had it behind my auxillary lens. It vignetted slightly at the 21 mm setting. It was also very wobbly when I turned the lens. It may my camera feel even more ricketty and thrown together thanusual. So I stopped using it. Most of the effects of the polarizer can be duplicated in software.

The greatest filter I ever used is a yellow filter with black and white photography. That really dramatizes the clouds.

[Peted]

Don't agree at all Don, polariser is not available in post. If you blow any higlights, no matter how small you have lost image information, if the polariser has reduced at least some of that loss then you are better off.

[Paul.R.Lindqvist]

Circular Polarizer and nd filters isnt really possible to simulate in post.

I think you will find it more then useful.
/P.L

[patch17]

one suggestion, if you want to avoid viginetting, buy a big polarizer. I use a 72mm even though the biggest lens I have is a 62mm. step up rings are cheaper than 2 or 3 polarizers to suit different lens diameters.

[shuttertalk]

Don't agree at all Don, polariser is not available in post. If you blow any higlights, no matter how small you have lost image information, if the polariser has reduced at least some of that loss then you are better off.

Plus, they can cut reflections from water and glass - which is impossible to simulate is PS.

[matthew]

I partly agree with Don -- the colour effects on the sky can be emulated in photo-finishing. My technique is to select just the sky, and then create a brightness/contrast adjustment layer to bring out the hues. (Adjust the contrast to darken, and the brightness to keep the highlights from blowing out.) A non-CP photo is here, as an example. It's not as good, and it doesn't affect reflections, and it doesn't bring out the clouds... but it's a start for the colour.

CP filters are great for landscapes and tripods, but can be a bit of a hassle for my more mobile shooting. I do have a 52mm that fits my 'p&s' compact (28-200, f2-2.8) and one lens for my DSLR (80-300, f3.5-4.5, rotating front element). I find the light loss is okay for the f2.8, but the f4.5@300mm suffers badly. I have no plans to get one for my all-purpose lens (28-108, f2.8-3.5).

Here's a better question than should a CP be used: given a choice between a decent hood and a CP -- let's face it, they don't work together -- which would you choose and when/why?

[EnglishBob]

I only use a polariser on my short lenses, 18-55 and 28-80.

[adam]

I've been looking to get one, I'm just wondering if anybody has photos taken with a circular polarising filter? Lets see them!

You can see that the amount that the amount that the sky is blue-end, depends on the position of the circular polariser and the position you are facing (relative to the sun).

[slejhamer]

Well this isn't as extreme as I remembered, but you can definitely see the tonal difference between the sky at left and the sky at right. As Adam said, the position relative to the sun is critical. I tend to shoot vertically (if I remember) when shooting a wide angle lens with a polarizer.

But you can see how colors can get very saturated when using a polarizer - this image has had no color adjustment. WB was set to daylight in-camera.



The benefit of using a polarizer that can't be replicated with software is glare reduction.

And to Matthew's question, if I had to choose only one, it would be the hood.

[Lak]

wow! thanks for all the feedback guys! I shall definately be getting the circular polariser then on my shortly coming Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L.

[Don Schaeffer]

If I could use the filter in front of my auxillary lens (it has no screw-in mount) I would agree whole heartedly. I loved the effect of the polarizer on the sky. It made everything clearer. But it is such a pain on my camera.

I always underexpose my photos by at least one stop. The underexposure reduces the chance of blow out and darkens the sky.

--Don

[Kombisaurus]

I looooooooove my Polariser Lak.. and almost always use it where light permits unless I particularly want to capture a reflection in an image.

As Toad mentioned, you'll get a kind of grad-filter effect in the sky when you use it with very short focal lengths, but I actually really like this effect and often use it to selectively darken or increase/reduce contrast in a particular part of the image. This is really handy when, say, photographing a shiny car. You can selectively cut through some reflections more than others, so the car still looks very glossy without being blinded. It can also give an otherwise bland cloudless sky a bit of interest.
It's interesting what Patch says about using an overly-large filter to counter this gradation effect.. I'd never thought about it, but it kind of makes sense I guess.

As far as some samples go, well almost all the shots here were taken using one:
http://users.tpg.com.au/abrought/photos/...index.html

And most of these were too:
http://users.tpg.com.au/abrought/photos/...index.html

Cheers
Adrian

[EnglishBob]

There are some great shots in there Kombi.

[Kombisaurus]

Thanks Craig

[Lak]

Thanks for all the info!! Well as you know i got a polariser with the lens i just bought, so i can't wait until i give it a shot! Damm Kombi...those shots makes me want to go to tasmania!! Superb!

[Zig]

I see what Don means in that it's possible to do an "erzatz" polariser with software, (though I'm still trudging away with PS 5LE at present)..a dollop of saturation and contrast would get one roughly there. If one adjusted highlight contrast and shadow contrast separately(I can only do this if I do it to the RAW image at present), it would approach the glarecutting properties of a polariser maybe...what do you think?
It's a habit of mine to always have a polariser on instead of something like a skylight: I can always roll it "off" if not needed.
The more puristical one is, I suppose the more problematical the pol. can be in terms of use with a wideangle lens, as the sky polarises in a naturally maddening way: more on one side the wider one's angle is.
For thge digi-photographer it'd appear that circ pols are very expensive bits if one wants to be vignette-free; the cost of slimline ones is around about the same price as a prime 50mm lens(or so I've found).
I'd echo the thoughts of a colleague above re step-rings(though this means bigger and dearer pol) for an existing larger polariser. I breathed a sigh of relief as I could use a step-up on my 10-20, so as to use an 82mm one I already have.
I've found I lose about a stop and a half using a pol. I don't mind this as I'm used to long shutter times anyway, and actually prefer them for landscapes, as softening of moving textures adds a lot of appeal for me.
Below(surely I can get it right this time!) is a local shot where I need the polariser to help me "say" what i wanted with the sky; sure, shadow detail goes but I justify this to myself by telling myself that it helps me work in shapes better!

[Don Schaeffer]

Under-exposure is another trick. They say that software can correct underexposure better than overexposure because the information is retained in an underexposed photo better. The sky is very much darkened if the photo is underexposed by a stop or a stop and a half.

--Don