Polarizing filter at high altitude.

[robert goldstein]

I will be travelling around the highlands of Peru for about two weeks

and am unsure about using a polarizing filter at high altitudes (up

to 12,000ft above sea level). Will the sky be excessively darkened?

 

My film will mostly be Astia 100f.

[ted_marcus1]

If you're not careful the sky may indeed turn black. The way around that is to adjust the polarizer so it's not at "maximum." Another problem you might have is excessive blue because there's more ultraviolet (and blue) light at high altitude. There are warming polarizers available that include the equivalent of an 81A filter.

[david_henderson]

Suggest you consider nd grads to intensify the colour of skies rather than a polariser. That said, I have used polarisers successfully at over those altitudes in Colorado and the Alps, albeit very carefully. The effect on the film is often more than you seem to see through thre viewfinder.

[manjo]

I think you should consider an ND filter and a Haze filter. The problem at higher altitudes are mostly due to Haze. Also depends what you will be shooting at that altitude. From your film choice seems like you are going to take portaits. If you are going to shoot environmental portaits then you should consider velvia 100F colors are a little bit more staturated, I tried it and liked it. I like astia 100F too.

[SCL]

I just came back from hiking in the Andes in June and found the Polarizer was definitely not needed during this season. I took a gradient filter as well and generally didn't use it either. However, if you are going to be photographing on glacier ice...you should take both due to glare and to reduce the range of intensities. You might also consider a ND filter, depending on the kind of work you're doing. The photo I've attached was at 11,900 ft...pretty dummied down to put on the web (lost saturation, color shift,etc), but you can get a rough idea of sky color vs surface...this was with no filtration. Enjoy your trip.<div></div>

[User_1172872]

There's some basic physics at work here. The sky is basically a prism and our old friend roygbiv is at work. If you go high enough (something like 50,000 to 80,000 feet) the sky is violet, not blue. (Or so I was told by someone with a PhD in physics.) My experience from Colorado is that at high altitudes the sky can appear unnatural in photos even without the polarizer. I second the advice about the UV filter - buy a good one, not just any old "haze" filter. Do a google search, I know I have seen at least one web page on the effectiveness of various "UV" and "haze" filters.

[freehueco]

When I was up high in the Himalaya a few years ago, I found that the polarizer ruined a lot of

my shots. I would suggest not bringing the thing.

[philippartridge]

<p>Robert, As you see there are a variety of opinions on pola (and other) filters for high-alt mountain scenery. First up, RAP (Astia) is a great choice for its ability to tame the high contrast ratios of the mid-day hours, and realistic palette under these conditions.</p>

 

<p>I used a pola filter commonly on a recent trip to Zanskar (4-5,000 metres), specifically to tame the massive volume of <em>reflections</em> in a dry, rocky environment flooded with light. I researched photography of the area widely, and the only decent (non blown highlight) images I found were digital ones - that flat light digi effect has its benefits after all! You can see the light flood I mention in the image kindly attached by Stephen, in the reflections off rocks - I don't like the impact on saturation, and colour balance. Much depends on lighting direction as well, obviously.</p>

 

<p>You can control the extent of blue sky darkening by turning the knurled ring on the filter. Certainly RAP does not overdo blue skies. And use the correct filter factor (the manufacturer's one of you have not tested it for your setup) - if using an auto meter, you may need to take a non-pola reading then add the factor as exposure compensation. </p>

 

<p>Always found grad ND filtered images very artifical and contrived, even if done well, technically; the 'where is that extra light coming from' syndrome. But it is a matter of taste, of course. Unless you are using large format, try bracketing on filter usage; you may not get back anytime soon and roll film or 35mm is cheap. cheers. </p>

[joseph_smith3]

At high elevations in the US Rockies, like 5,000 to 12,000 ft, I use a B+W KR 3 filter, an 81C warming filter. I have found that using a polarizer at these high elevations darkens the skies so much that they look unreal and rarely use it for cloud shots. I might use it for removing reflections from foilage and water. Go to this site for more info: http://www.schneideroptics.com/filters/filters_for_still_photography/uv_&_warming/

 

 

Joe Smith

[joseph_smith3]

At high elevations in the US Rockies, like 5,000 to 12,000 ft, I use a B+W KR 3 filter, an 81C warming filter. I have found that using a polarizer at these high elevations darkens the skies so much that they look unreal and rarely use it for cloud shots. I might use it for removing reflections from foilage and water. Go to this site for more info: http://www.schneideroptics.com/filters/filters_for_still_photography/uv_&_warming/

 

 

Joe Smith

[robert goldstein]

Thanks to everyone for these responses. As my camera is a rangefinder (Contax G2), the use of a graduated filter is out of the question. Also, since my intention is to scan my transparencies, I can easily warm the image in Photoshop, making a warming filter unnecessary. The message that I am getting with regard to a polarizing filter is that it must be used judiciously, if at all. I definitely want to avoid the sky appearing blue/black. I really hate that.