Polarizing Filter

[brittany_r._dunks]

<p>I am debating on purchasing one, but if I do, it seems that the legit ones are pretty pricey, so I want to be sure I even want/need it!<br>

I shoot a lot of weddings, sometimes in intense sun, as well as many outdoor portraits, many times on the water as well. <br>

Do any of you find that having a polarizer has made a big difference in your outdoor portrait work? I see what the benefit is, just want to make sure my $150-$200 investment on a good one is worth it!</p>

<p>thank you</p>

[kevin_delson]

<p>For longer range shots I use a polarizer if it truly enhances the shot; often it does.</p>

<p>For close up portraits I personally steer clear of them for (2) reasons.</p>

<p>1) A close up rarely shows background anyway. (sky etc)</p>

<p>2) More importantly; the filter is unpredictable on the many variances on human skin, oft giving a "ruddy" "blotchy" look.</p>

<p>There are others reasons to avoid the filter for (close) portrait work.</p>

<p>Natural light striking the eyes + eye socket depending on the angle can look un-natural.</p>

<p>Should you get one?</p>

<p>Yes! For many other good reasons. The polarizer is a must have in the photographers arsenal.</p>

[brittany_r._dunks]

<p>thank you. I agree, I think I will just buy one and it would be for my wide angle/sky/water shots, not for my close up work. I know my skies tend to get washed out from time to time. </p>

[davewilky65]

<p>A polarizing filter is a must have in any camera bag, its better to have one and be able to use it than not having one at all. if possible read as many reviews as you can before you spend your cash. I picked mine up for about £24 and its not the best in the world but it does what i wha it to do.</p>

[john_deerfield]

<blockquote>

<p>I think I will just buy one and it would be for my wide angle/sky/water shots</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Just a word of warning that using a polarizer on a wide lens can give you uneven results:</p>

<p>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/polarizers.shtml</p>

<p>A good polarizer is very useful in landscape/cityscape photography. Seldom useful in portrait photography.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Brittany - if you're not sure you want one, why not risk the slightly reduced quality of a cheap one? If you find you use it a lot and want to get a high quality one, at least you'll have a spare. I'm assuming you're looking at a large filter size to cost the amount of money you suggest, but budget options are usually very reasonable at most common filter sizes (although I admittedly don't have an 86mm one for my 150-500).</p>

[brittany_r._dunks]

<p>I did read that is it isn't recommended for wide shots, and when I say wide, for me it means about 24mm or higher, not super wide....I see that it may not have an even effect but maybe still worth using. <br>

Below is a typical issue I deal with: hazy, back lit sky, on the water, there was a lot of cloud cover but I definitely feel that I could have saved some of the blueish sky/clouds had I had a polarizer. <br>

<img src="http://www.dunksprints.com/Weddings/2011/Jenna/i-Fv8bkz9/0/XL/Childress-429-XL.jpg" alt="" /><br>

But what if I then switched from this shot above (with filter) to this close up?: Would their skin tones look bad, or what would the effect have (if any) on them? Of course when shooting formals at a wedding, speed is an issue, so I'd hate to have to shoot then take the filter off and on... or what do you do in a scenario like this? another option is to just have the polarizer on my wide (24-70 or 50) and not on my portrait lens (70-200 or 85) while shooting portraits. In this scenario I shot almost all on my 24-70 though, given the space I had to shoot.<br>

<img src="http://www.dunksprints.com/Weddings/2011/Jenna/i-K3WSLxD/0/XL/Childress-440-XL.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[brittany_r._dunks]

<p><<if you're not sure you want one, why not risk the slightly reduced quality of a cheap one?>><br>

Yes, I was considering doing that. I just read some reviews of different levels of quality, the one I would get is a 77mm. Hoya seems to be the best, but there are plenty in the $50 range, so I was thinking about those. <br>

And I will be getting a circular one, since I use TTL meter and focusing. </p>

[john_deerfield]

<blockquote>

<p>hazy, back lit sky, on the water, there was a lot of cloud cover but I definitely feel that I could have saved some of the blueish sky/clouds had I had a polarizer.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Why's that? A polarizer won't "fix" backlighting. It won't "fix" a hazy sky. And it could mess with your skin tones... again, not generally useful in portrait photography. Especially weddings. Th "solution" to your issues is to learn lighting. The more you know, the better you will get. However, not all situations have a quick and easy answer, again especially at a wedding where we frequently get a whole 5-minutes or less for a shot (as opposed to any other portrait situation where we get more time). Sometimes Photoshop is you Ally. </p><div></div>

[henryp]

<p>Brittany -- John is right. I've never used a pol filter at a wedding nor for any portrait. The images you posted needed different exposure -- flash illuminating the couple and a faster shutter speed reducing the background exposure.</p>

<p>Henry Posner</p>

[zensphoto]

<p>Here is what I did with this lower photograph. You can use Photoshop to added a layer and use the Gradient Tool on the new layer. Make sure the color is black. In the center of the top of the photograph draw a line straight down using the Gradient Tool. When you have the line where you want it left the mouse button go and you will see a black gradient shadow at the top of the photograph.<br>

Now to to the drop down box right above the layer and select overlay. The color of the gradient will turn to the color you have in the photograph. You can then adjust it by using the Opacity which is at 100% I usually put it at 50% that makes the sky look natural. Example below of your photograph after the person above used photoshop to add some sky for you.<br>

<img src="http://www.quantumd.com/images/00Z3ZB-380847584.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[zensphoto]

<p>In this example you can see you do indeed have information in the photograph because when I added a 50% Gradient to it, some detail comes out. It really does help you enhance the sky when there isn't a lot of sky showing due to a hazy day. You probably should play around with the Gradient Tool a little bit to get the hang of it.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.quantumd.com/images/Childress-429-XL.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="683" /></p>

[zensphoto]

<p>The polarizer doesn't always help with the sky. If it is a truly hazy day with not a lot of blue sky to filter, and the location of the sun to the left of this photograph, you might have to seek another angle in order to fine a better patch of blue sky to work with. I do like the photograph, however, you are also finding you do have to sacrifice sometimes when you want the shot because of the environment.</p>

<p>You could have maybe moved them to the left a lot more then moved to the left still keeping the the helicopter in the photograph. The sky may have had more blue farther to the right of this photograph and then you would have had a better sky result. Though we do not know what is to the right could be a gas station for all we know. Great shot with some sacrifice due to the positioning of the Bride and Groom and the Helicopter.</p>

[brittany_r._dunks]

<p>this was<br /> a)bad time of day 3-4pm for lighting, not that I have much control over that, at a wedding<br /> b)everything was way behind schedule (not my fault!) so I had less than 10 minutes<br /> c)they wanted the damn bridge in every photo<br /> d)second photo was on a dock, about 12 foot wide, so not much room to move!<br /> e)OCF/flash set up to counteract the backlit. I believe in some I did use fill flash, not sure about this wider shot. This was a stop along the way from the ceremony to reception, which we were late for, so it was a very fast portrait session, so, yes, this is less than ideal.<br /> I am aware I could burn the sky in PS, not as much familiar with the gradient tool, so thank you<br /> So, all of this polarizer talk came up in discussion with my videographer friend over the weekend, who shoots with the same camera I do (5D mark ii). We were photographing a very sunny wedding, (although not backlit) and he used his polarizer filter for the video. Now, I am not a videographer so I don't know if it is different, but it got me thinking about using one....<br>

so it seems though, even when my subject is small, relative to the sky/water, I should not go with a polarizer filter for any portraits. That is primarily what I shoot, so thanks for saving me some $$.</p>

<p>thank you</p>

[zensphoto]

<p>I use Quantaray C-PL, and they don't cost an arm and a leg and do very well with my film and digital blue skies I like to bring out. You could try a linear polarizer for wedding photography and it may be more for what you need. </p>

<p>Just so you know your a) Bad time of the day, nothing is a bad time of the day, Photographers work with what we have and utilize the lighting as best as we can, so no problem there.<br>

b) I have never shot a single wedding that was ever on time with anything. Sometimes there are parts of the wedding that are on time, but a lot of it us use a schedule and wing it. As the photographer you are working with counter parts of the wedding such as the DJ and others that help make it move along.<br>

c) You can only do your best to give them what they want. Not ever photograph is going to come out the way you want it to. I know the hidden artist is always looking for the best shot even when the customer says I want this in every shot. Make sure you remember to go with the inner instinct if there is time to get your own shots in during the session so you have alternate photographs for them. I know it never seem to play in your favor all the time. I missed a ideal sunset shot for my Cousin's wedding because he was to busy screwing around and his Bride couldn't find him in time.<br>

d) Well with the dock, you're right it was definitely a tight shot with only 12 feet to work with.<br>

And the rest well we work with what we have and make it look good. Your photographs here are great you did an excellent job with your creativity. </p>

[henryp]

<blockquote>

<p>You could try a linear polarizer for wedding photography and it may be more for what you need.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>While there's been some debate about this, the rule of thumb is that for auto-focus / auto-exposure cameras a circular, not linear, pol filter is recommended.</p>

<p>Henry Posner<br /><strong>B&H Photo-Video</strong></p>