Polarizer vs. Shooting vivid

[tony12tt]

<p>Folks,<br>

Do you think it makes a difference getting a circular polarizer for enhanced colour saturation if you're already shooting using the "Vivid" pic control setting? I fully understand the added benefit of reducing/eliminating glare and reflections with the CPL. I was just wondering if the colour saturation effect of the polarizer was any different from shooting vivid.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>HUGE difference. the polarizer is actually altering the light that comes into the sensor, the vivid control is merely adjusting saturation and stuff like that.</p>

<p>Do a test. Nothing like knowing the difference yourself! In fact, I plan to do that, too!</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>In addition to darkening blue sky and open water, a polarizer removes reflections of the sky from trees, rocks and weeds, which lends a blue or grey cast to these things. Increasing the saturation merely adds more blue or grey cast where it occurs.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Sometimes using a polarizer and "vivid" at the same time can product results too over the top. I use a polarizer for most of my outdoor shots, at least during the day. I use it mostly to get rid of glare. I especially like to use them with shots that have water in them. The color saturation generally is different. I prefer the look I get from the polarizer.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[walterh]

<p>You can always increase color saturation independent of the fact that you use or do not use a pol filter :-) So it is clearly different.</p>

<p>Of course shooting in automatic mode and vivid setting is one easy thing to do.</p>

 

[tony12tt]

<p>Agreed. Was in the process of contemplating the purchase. Does anyone have experience with the Hoya Moose Petersen 81A warming and CPL filter as compared to a normal CPL only filter?</p>

[curt wiler]

<p>"Does anyone have experience with the Hoya Moose Petersen 81A warming and CPL filter as compared to a normal CPL only filter?" ... this filter has received good comments, but bear in mind that you can warm the image either in-camera or PP to get the same results. As a matter of fact, automatic white balance would negate the warming effect of the 81A tint. I would rather spend the extra money on a really good, multi-hard-coated filter like Nikon's own, or B+W to mention two brands I use myself.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Those warming filters for color photography were mainly for film photography. If you shoot digital, color correction and alteration is mainly done in post processing.</p>

<p>A polarizer will block about 2 stops of light. That is a fairly significant loss. If you have to use one to remove reflection/glare, that is fine. Otherwise, if you can get similar effects without the loss of light, I would much rather not lose those two stops.</p>

<p>In these days I use polarizers only sparingly.</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>Purchase a polarizing filter for the largest diameter lens you have and then buy inexpensive step-up rings to attach it to your smaller diameter lenses.</p>

<p>Most amateurs dial in the maximum polarizing effect which in most cases makes the resultant image look like you obviously used a polarizing filter. Dial in the effect sparingly for the most natural looking results.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Purchase a polarizing filter for the largest diameter lens you have and then buy inexpensive step-up rings to attach it to your smaller diameter lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That problem with that approach is that using a step-up ring prevents you from using a lens hood in most cases.</p>

[tony12tt]

<p>Thats not a bad idea. So far its just one lens (50mm) and I've already noted that the other lens I intend to get as a 52mm thread size so I'de be able to double duty one polarizer if needed. I've had experience using polarizers on my last camera (Panasonic Lumix) a compact/bridge. So I know how an overly colour saturated shot can look. You're right, it cant be used all the time.</p>

[alex_lofquist]

<p>Before you use a polarizer, you should ask yourself why do I want to use it? To remove glare? To remove surface reflections? To enhance rainbows and clouds? if your answers to these are "No", don't use it.</p>

[SCL]

<p>My recommendation is to shoot RAW, not some "marketing hyped up supersaturated JPEG". You can achieve that look in post processing if you want - but far better to have a choice and the RAW materials to work with. As far as the polarizer goes - the advice others have given is pretty much in line with my thoughts.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Shun--</p>

<p>Some of the newer, pro-oriented polarizers eat a lot less light. With camera ISO going higher and higher, using a polarizer is pretty easy now.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Kent, the problem is that my Nikon 77mm polarizers take away 2+ stops. Under bright sun light, it is not a big deal.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that any (front) polarizer automatically adds two extra piece of glass in front of the lens. For those who are so concerned about the effect from protective filters, I would imagine that polarizers should be a major no no.</p>

[tony12tt]

<p>I do shoot in RAW and pretty much dont settle for just JPEGs. I was hoping to achieve some decent colour saturation with the Polarizer. I live in Trinidad and there is a tendency for light to become pretty harsh very early in the day. I dont foresee losing 2 stops to be a big problem. But even the quality of morning light can cause the flora to look washed out and faded unless the subject is wet. I like the variation a CPL can offer when the front element is rotated. I also love shooting sunsets and in our dry season sunsets can become quite colourful because of the amount of dust in our atmoshpere. Losing 2 stops for a sunset can limit my shooting time though but I do estimate Id get richer colours with the filter. Of course thats also achievable in RAW processing. I havent yet dont much shooting of sunsets over water but intend to start scouting some locations. In this instance I can see the filter being useful for reducing the harsh reflections off the surface.</p>

[vikingman]

<p>Not sure how effective a polarizer will be for sunsets, but you will not regret buying one. For everyday shooting, if you can cope with losing a stop or two, it will give you a much richer rendition of colours, particularly with nature shots, with lots of grass, trees, flowers etc in it. Just be careful of shooting too wide with it as you can get a dark blue centre in the sky with lighter edges - a sort of reverse vignetting! Despite what Alex says you don't need a good reason to use a polarizer other than 'does it look better'. There is nothing to lose, as long as you can cope with less light and don't have glare problems.</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>Anthony,</p>

<p><a href="http://www.great-landscape-photography.com/polarizing-filter.html">You may find this article useful.</a></p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>As I pointed out earlier, a polarizer contains two pieces of glass. When you use one, you are putting two additional pieces of optical glass in front (or towards the end of the lens if you are inserting one inside those big teles that have an internal filter slot).</p>

<p>If your sunset includes the sun inside the frame, two extra pieces of glass can generate extra ghosting. I wonder why you need a polarizer for sunset. Reflection of the sun over water is typically a desirable effect; most people would not use a PL filter to block such reflection. Saturation, etc. is now adjusted in post processing.</p>

<p>Again, in these days I only use PL for blocking reflections. We can now darken the sky easily in post processing.</p>

<p>For landscape photography, losing a couple of stops is not a big deal. You are using a tripod, right? Since your subject isn't moving, you can always use a slower shutter speed.</p>

<p>I never bought those internal PL filters for long lenses. I tend to use those lenses wide open at f4 and cannot afford to lose a couple of stops.</p>

[tony12tt]

<p>Excellent resource from the link Robert.<br>

Thanks.</p>

[jay_drew]

<p>>That problem with that approach is that using a step-up ring prevents you from using a lens hood in most cases.<br>

Not actually, Shun, one can use a larger, longer lens shade, or perhaps better yet, is to use step-down ring(s).<br>

Best, JD</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>>That problem with that approach is that using a step-up ring prevents you from using a lens hood in most cases.<br /><br />Not actually, Shun, one can use a larger, longer lens shade, or perhaps better yet, is to use step-down ring(s).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A cumbersome, way oversized lens hood to work around an oversized PL filter is not a set up I would choose. IMO that mostly defeats the whole purpose for using a hood to begin with. But your mileage may vary.</p>

<p>Today, almost every new Nikon lens comes with a dedicated lens hood that uses a bayonet mount directly onto the lens barrel. A hood block stray light as well as protects the front of the lens from impact.</p>

<p> </p>

[jphotog]

<p>When shooting landscapes with my wide angle zoom, I most often use a circular polarizer <strong>and</strong> set the camera to Vivid. My usual routine is to rotate the polarizer until I get the max effect and then turn it back about 1/8 - 1/4 turn.</p>

<p>Most negative and positvie critisisms about my photos are about colours. Some say it is too much and others like the richness of the colours. My personal preference is the latter way.</p>

<p>On my AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8, I use a Nikon slim polarizer. It´s great, because it only looses 1 1/3 stop of light. Another polarizer I´ve seen many positives reviews of is the Hoya HD, which supposedly lets even more light through.</p>

<p>Try and see what you like for yourself. Good luck!</p>

<p>Jonas </p>

[walterh]

<p>I want to see the measurement that the Nikon pol filter offers much better transmission than say a B+W filter unless the pol effect is also smaller.<br>

Hoya claims 25% more transmission (than regular filter - compared to what kind and brand?) - nothing relevant since hardly noticeable if it is true.<br>

Turning the pol filter "1/4 turn back" eliminates the effect. 1/4 turn is 90 degrees! For me it would not be worth the effort to use the filter this way but if it works for you its just fine.<br>

Of course 90 degrees is just perfect if you change from landscape to portrait format :-)</p>

<p> </p>

[jphotog]

<p>Walter Schroeder, I am sure that you understand my point even if you have the need to show off how smart you are by pointing out mistakes. I turn the filter back to reduce the effect slightly.</p>

<p>I just verified what I stated above. I set my D700 to aperture priority. Without filter, the camera chooses to expose at 1/640s and with at 1/250s. Not far away from 1 1/3 stop.</p>

<p>I have never stated that the filter offer better transmission than a B+W filter. </p>

<p>Searching the internet I found the following statement by the controversial Ken Rockwell:<br>

By comparison, the superb Nikon circular polarizer loses 1-1/2 stops, while common polarizers lose about 2 stops of light. </p>