Substitue for Polarizer...?

[kevinbriggs]

As we all know, using a polarizer filter on a wide angle lens will often produce

the common "banding problem".

 

Is there any known solution to this? Any filter that can be used along with the

polarizer to minimize this banding? Or what about a substitute for the polarizer?

 

I've tried substituting the graduated neutral density filter, but it doesn't

produce quite the same results. (But maybe this is as close as it gets...)

 

Living in Alaska, some of the most spectacular landscape shots a wide angle lens

can capture are often ruined by this ongoing banding problem. Perhaps I'm

hoping for the impossible, but I would like to think that there is some

substitute out there, either in methodology or in actual filters/optics.

 

Thanks for all input!

 

K.

[Ed_Ingold]

Banding occurs because polarization in the sky occurs in a band 90 degrees from the sun. There is no magic filter or cure - it is a fact of life. It becomes obtrusive when you use a wide angle lens.

 

The only work around is to adjust the angle of the polarizer so that the sky is darkened less (or not at all). Although a polarizer is often touted as a way to darken the sky, the best use is actually to reduce or eliminate reflections from the foreground. Every non-metallic surface tends to polarize light it reflects. When you remove these reflections with a polarizer, the colors become more intense and you see more details in the surface. This works on trees, rocks, dirt and grass, not to mention water, glass and buildings.

[edgreene]

A Polarizer <i><b><u>is</u></b></i> a 2-stop ND filter.<p> Try .3, .6 or .9 ND filters.

[jonathan_ratzlaff]

There is no substitute for a polarizing filter, however you could try to be more subtle with its use. You can eliminate the most drastic sky effect while maintaining the saturation that the filter provides.

[ilkka]

"Try .3, .6 or .9 ND filters"

 

This is not really helpful at all. .6 is the same as 2 stops, so very much the same as a polariser in its ND effect. Of course, polariser does more than an ND. And ND does not darken the sky unless it is a split ND.

[pvp]

You already got the quick answer: there is no substitute.

 

The reason for the banding problem with wide angle lenses, is that the amount of polarization varies across the sky. The maximum amount of polarized light from the sky, and thus the maximum effect of the polarizer is at 90 degrees from the sun. At the other end of the scale, when you shoot directly away from or toward the sun there is almost no polarization of the light and so the polarizer has no effect in those directions. In between, it varies according to the sun angle.

 

Maybe someone will come up with a graduated polarizer. Until then, we're stuck with uneven skies.

[david_henderson]

It really does depend on what effect you want from the polariser. If it's to darken a blue sky then an ND grad will do that without increasing the amount of variation in tone that occurs naturally as the angle with the sun changes across the frame. I've also used a very soft-edged grad angled across the frame to reduce the impact of particularly bright parts of the sky as one nears the sun. Be careful with flare though.

 

Other than this I'm not aware of anything you can do at the time of making the photograph to reduce the degree of variation in "blueness" with or without a polariser fitted

 

If your use of a polariser is to reduce reflections /increase saturation elsewhere, then a grad won't help directly except that the extent to which you darken the sky can be altered to fit with how you want to expose the foreground.

[edgreene]

Ilkka:<i>(quote: "Try .3, .6 or .9 ND filters</i>")<p><i>This is not really helpful at all.</i><p>First, you quoted me <I>totally out of context</I>.<br>Next, the OP asked for possible substitutes for a Polarizer and my (entire, in context) suggestion is dead on the money (<i>left in its original context</i>).<p><i>.6 is the same as 2 stops,</i><p>As if I didn't know that. Again, you picked out .6 (<I>and again totally out of context</I>) to comment on.<p><i> so very much the same as a polariser in its ND effect.</i><p>I said and inferred that.<p><i>Of course, polariser does more than an ND.</i><p>As if I didn't know <it><u>that</u></i>.<p><i> And ND does not darken the sky unless it is a split ND.</i><p>Your astounding lack of knowledge of the characteristics of ND filters (all) is showing.<br> <I><b>Every</b></I> ND filter darkens <I><b>every sky</b></I>, including the Polarizer whenever it is acting as or used as a ND filter.<p>While I may not know dick about Photoshop, Photography and ND filters have been in my bailiwick since 1956.

[alex_lofquist]

When the sun is high in the sky, the 90 degree polarized light band may be close to horizontal and so a polarizer can be effective with a wide angle lens. Unfortunately, the sun seldom is high in Alaska. With a digital image, unsharp masking could be the answer. With a 35mm slide, you are stuck!