Polariser or not?

[JoeSheffer]

FreeBird Goes .... @18,634ft - The highest so far - Page 3 - ADVrider

In this thread the INDIA photos...? Do you think they were taken using a polarizing filter or is it impossible to tell.

If they were i better pick one up in Quetta!

[Matt Cartney]

Can't see the pix due to office web restrictions, however, I would say a polarising filter is an essential piece of kit. They exponentially improve pix of blue sky scenes, espcially if there is a lot of haze in the sky. Wouldn't leave home without mine.

Important to use it wisely though, you see some pix with the polariser set too dark, the sky looks almost black and therefore unreal, ruining the shot. I usually fire off several shots with thee polariser turned to different settings to ensure a good deep sky colour without it being excessive.

Matt

[colebatch]

I have seen that write up extensively ... yes I would be pretty sure of a polariser in there and not only because of the very blue skies. Freebird is a bit of a fotographer himself. i doubt he would leave home without one.

As Matt says, if you want to take decent outdoor fotos, its an essential piece of kit.

Also consider a "moose" filter ... its a combined circular polariser / warming filter ... tho that might be hard to find in Quetta

[Xander]

Originally Posted by JoeSheffer

FreeBird Goes .... @18,634ft - The highest so far - Page 3 - ADVrider

In this thread the INDIA photos...? Do you think they were taken using a polarizing filter or is it impossible to tell.

If they were i better pick one up in Quetta!

i would also say yes.. that or he post processed them to mimic a CPL filter.... My advice (although i have not heard about moose ones before and am quite intrigued), if you are going to get a CPL filter ... get a good one.. pay the extra!! they are much thinner and and "lighter".. a cheap CPL can cost you 2-4 stops.. a good one (I just go a new Hoya PRO CPL) can only cost you 1.5 stops (according to the package, although I have yet to test the accuracy of this claim by shooting both with & with out.. cus it is a PITA)..

I got a good deal from Amazon.uk (from a sub-company called digi-quick)

[Samy]

Yes, they are shot with polariser.

If you are going to buy one there is two choices: 1. Linear, 2. Circular
Go for circular and learn how to use it well, as you must rotate to find best effect of polarising.

You may need a softening/warming filter as polariser tend to cool/blue the view.

If you have enough money and want to have a good piece you can go for B+W. Othervise Kenko, Hoya, Tiffen can do the job. If you have only one lens (let's say 52 mm) you can buy an 52 mm screw-in filter. If you have more than one you will need adapter rings.

If you use polariser at all pics, it will have lack of warmth. Learn how to decide using polariser at a scene.

Good luck

[Samy]

I checked the pictures again. When I looked carfully and read that pictures are taken at high altitudes, I see polariser is not used with this pictures.

How you can get polariser effect?:
1. If the sky is clear or with partial clouds (like cumulus), if you take picture with a wide angle lens (14-35 mm), you can get polariser effect.

2. If you take picture at high altitudes (higher than 2500-3000 ms) you can have polariser effects. Because the sky is very thin, there is not enough air and you have very clear sky.

If you have doubt, you may ask to person who taken this pictures. ;-)

[pecha72]

A circular polarizer is a great help anytime, when theres lots of light coming from the sky. Used correctly, it will take the reflected part out from the photo, giving you lots more room to get the exposure right without blowing out the highlights in the sky.

Just get a GOOD one, they are expensive, but cheaper ones may eat up several F-stops, and they might even mess up the camera´s autofocus. For the same reaso, it needs to be circular type.

[Bjorn]

If you're shooting digitally: you could shoot in RAW format and then darken the blues in RAW processing. Works quite nice (for example with Photoshop CS3's new RAW engine).

I do like polarizers & always carry one with me for the skies. But what I don't like about them is that they can 'flatten' the image, especially on leaves & foilage: take out the reflections from the leaves & they'll look very 2-dimensional – much nicer WITH the reflections.

Also: no need for a warm-up polarizer. You could simply increase the colour temperture in RAW (or if you're shooting JPG, set a warmer white balance).

[jljones]

Originally Posted by Bjorn

Also: no need for a warm-up polarizer. You could simply increase the colour temperture in RAW (or if you're shooting JPG, set a warmer white balance).

I shoot RAW with Kasseman warm tone polarisers and they make a huge difference if used sensibly. Although there's plenty of flexibility in RAW to process and alter the image as mentioned above it works best for me. I'm now using a Nikon D3 and a mix of Nikon and Zeiss glass which does make a difference. The Kasseman filters are the best I've found, otherwise known as Heliopan.

FWIW and IMHO...