[quiz] Polarizer

[Dikkie]

I made some pics in the middle of the day. With and without polarizer.

You have to say which are with and which are without.

Afterwards I'm going to say the results:

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

Mostly, when shooting in RAW, I can manipulate everything so it's mostly the same photo, with not much differences. Sometimes the picture even looks worse with polariser. I'm doubting if I'm still going to use my polariser ...

 

[Bifurcator]

Well of course only the photographer on location would know for sure but I'll bite:

2, 4, 6 are without and 1, 3, 5 are with.

PS: Are 3 and 4 from different sides of the bridge?
And 5 and 6 are Sun behind and out from the clouds.

 

[tirediron]

2, 4, 5 with, 1, 3, 6 without.

Sometimes the picture even looks worse with polariser. I'm doubting if I'm still going to use my polariser ...

Granted a CPOL isn't appropriate for every circumstance, but are you familiar with what produces the best results? For the deep blue sky/high-contrast white clouds, and most deeply saturated colours, you need to shoot when the sun is low in the sky (early morning or evening; morning is generally a little better) and with the sun at 90 degrees to the axis of your lens. The higher in the sky, and/or closer you shoot to the sun, the less of an effect you will have.

The quality of the filter also makes a difference. May I ask which one you're using?

 

[Syndac]

1,4,5 with. It's really hard to tell in the first couple. I'm not sure if it's just the polarizer you're using or if it's not rotated properly, but generally my results are much more obvious than these.

 

[RyanMillerPhoto]

Of course, sometimes the polarizer doesn't do much if you are not close the "90 degrees to the sun" position. Seems you get the best results when the sun is to the side...

 

[ksmattfish]

With color film I found the difference a polarizer made for the sky was significant. I would agree that with digital it's pretty easy to duplicate in Photoshop.

Photos #5 and #6 demonstrate why I still use a pol. Polarized foliage, grass, flowers, etc... look more lush and color saturated with the pol. The difference when shooting flowers, even on overcast days, is significant. Notice how the grass in #5 (with pol) looks lush, yellow green. Notice how it looks drab, blue green in #6 (without pol). Vegetation is very reflective to avoid water loss from the sun shine. Often the glare on the surface of plants can actually look almost white.

On the other hand if you want to get color reflected from the sky on the surface of the water don't use the pol.

How to polarize the sky in PS (or add extra contrast if you used a pol):
1) Make 2 extra copy layers of the background.
2) Use the channel mixer to convert the topmost layer to BW. Go heavy on the red channel.
3) Convert layer to luminosity blend.
4) Use curves or levels to adjust cloud/sky contrast to your liking. Don't worry about what happens to the foreground.
5) Merge the top 2 layers.
6) Adjust saturation if necessary, as the above manipulations may have reduced saturation.
7) Mask together the sky from the upper layer with the foreground from the bottom layer.

This photo used a pol, and the technique above.

 

[reg]

I always kinda feel like these "quiz" threads are kinda dumb, especially when a Cpol isn't any good in some situations/ if you don't know how to use it. It's not like being able to tell which photo used which filter makes you a master photographer.

Just post your photos - quit making me guess at things.

 

[Garbz]

They are all polarised, some of them randomly, some with a single linear component polarised circularly

 

[tirediron]

They are all polarised, some of them randomly, some with a single linear component polarised circularly

Touche!

 

[Dikkie]

The results:

Okay, number 2, 3 and 6 are with pola.
All the rest without.

I didn't make these testshots for the mirror-effect on water or windows, just to see the white clouds and the blue skies.

But, it seems if I shoot in RAW, I can change it so fine for the cloud/sky option, so you don't see lots of difference. Sometimes it's just better without polarizer. Because the polarizer makes the foreground also darker...

I'm maybe thinking of not using my polarizer at my coming vacation... I'm still hesitating.

I'm using a Sigma circular polarizer.

 

[Dikkie]

Photos #5 and #6 demonstrate why I still use a pol. Polarized foliage, grass, flowers, etc... look more lush and color saturated with the pol. The difference when shooting flowers, even on overcast days, is significant. Notice how the grass in #5 (with pol) looks lush, yellow green.
Notice how it looks drab, blue green in #6 (without pol). Vegetation is very reflective to avoid water loss from the sun shine. Oft

That's just where you are wrong.
5 is made without filter.
6 is made with filter.

And this shows that I actually don't need a filter at all when shooting in RAW and having all postprocessing options.

 

[Dikkie]

1,4,5 with.

Lots of people seem to think it's the wrong one... 1 4 and 5 were without filter.

So that really tells that there's something... hmm I don't know.

It was with a Sigma circular polarizer, for you information.

 

[Bifurcator]

See, told you that ONLY the original photographer could tell.

It was kinda fun but I don't see any actual point to the thread. Other than the fun part I mean.

 

[Syndac]

Lots of people seem to think it's the wrong one... 1 4 and 5 were without filter.

So that really tells that there's something... hmm I don't know.

It was with a Sigma circular polarizer, for you information.

Were you rotating it correctly or just slapping it on and taking pics? It seems to have very little effect in your pictures. My post here shows a more obvious effect which I get every time: http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1350124&postcount=2

 

[Dikkie]

Yes I was turning it so I had the darkest blue effect. It was darker than without filter.

But in RAW I could postprocess it as dark as the filtered one, without filter.