I read resently that while doing beach photography a polarize lens filter should be used. Binged the topic and lots of pros and cons as well as prices low as $100.00 up to $500.00.
Any thoughts or bits of wisdom to share with me?
What I understand is that polarizers cut the glare in sky and water and give you wonderful blue skies... And these are things you can't fix in post processing
Filters are very trendy at the moment, but they're not essential, it's perfectly possible to get a great beach shot without one. Just watch your exposure, especially if you use "auto" (maybe do some trial shots first). If it's bright and sunny the camera can be tricked into closing the lens down and underexposing the shot. I always use manual, so I don't have this problem. If you want to try filters consider ND grad filters which start off dark at the top and get lighter towards the bottom. Then you can just filter the bright sky and leave the lower part of the shot unfiltered. I have 3 of these- a 0.3 (lightest) 0.6 (medium) and 0.9 (darkest). and paid about £60 sterling for all 3, so not overly expensive. Don't be talked into using an expensive piece of kit just because everybody else does.
I use circular polarisers for almost all of my beach shots -- they are extremely useful in controlling reflections from the water and on rocks. Here's a couple of examples:
Depending on how you rotate the polariser, you can dramatically alter the appearance of the photo. These two photos were taken with identical settings, the only difference being to rotate the circular polariser by 90 degrees:
It's a very powerful effect and one that can certainly help enhance beach photography, as well as landscape photography in general. As @northy says, it's one of the few types of filters whose effects can't be truly replicated in post-processing.
Price-wise, I wouldn't start off with an crazily expensive filter. Look at getting a relatively decent multi-coated filter, as filters without multicoating can be very prone to flare and reflections. Something like the Marumi DHG filters are good quality, multi-coated and very reasonably priced, costing under $100 for even the largest sizes when bought online:
2filter are an excellent filter supplier if you are in the US, carrying a very wide range of filters all at excellent prices.
If you go pro and want the absolute best quality possible you might see advantages in buying more expensive filters -- my polariser cost $220, but realistically the difference is pretty minimal as long as you consider multi-coated filters.
I would never buy filters from a camera shop (except big shops like B&H or Adorama if you live in NY) -- they rarely stock a wide range of filters, and place a huge markup on them.
If you have multiple lenses with different filter thread sizes, buy a filter that will fit your largest lens, and then buy step-up rings to fit the same filter to your other lenses -- this is much cheaper than buying multiple filters.
@abirkill thyanks Alexis, I learned from this. I give it a try. You said as landscape in generaly. To use a a polar filter is it at the best when there is water involved, or do you mean also landscape without water and a sky with big clouds?
I have polarizing filters (secondhand, inexpensive, decent quality) and no idea how to use them. I notice that there's a distinct change in colour as you turn the filter once fitted to the lens, but I haven't figured out what I'm supposed to use when.
@tstb Absolutely -- polarisers will make a sky more blue and cut through haze more effectively than any UV filter (on digital cameras), despite UV filters often being sold with claims that they reduce haze.
This is a pretty bad example as I didn't have anything handy, so I just shot these out of my window to show the difference:
Without polariser:
With polariser:
(Click for larger)
You can see that not only have the reflections on the water altered, but the sky is a much deeper blue, the trees appear greener and more lush, and the mountains have lost the blue tint from the haze.
As I say, this isn't a great example, but gives you an idea of what a polariser can do.
A couple of things to remember:
1. A polariser blocks between 1.5 and 2.5 stops of light, so you will need to account for that. The non-polarised shot used a shutter speed of 1/800th, vs. 1/160th for the polarised shot. If you have limited light then you may need to increase the ISO, especially if you are hand-holding, and hence your shots will be noisier.
2. Polarisers affect the colour of the sky in relation to the position of the sun. If you shoot with a ultra-wide lens, this can result in undesirable 'banding' of the sky, like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/donavanmehl/2631401679/.
I use a Kenko ($109) polarizing filter for a lot of my outdoor scenery shots. Not all, but a lot. It certainly makes the clods stand out and the sky a beautiful blue.
Circular polariing filters are wonderful and they never leave my lenses. They are worth the investment. Many will say, buy a CPL that a little bigger than you biggest lenses and use step rings so one will fit all you lenses.
You should be able to get a CP for a lot less than you quote. Tiffen are a decent middle of the price range option. You can rotate the lens to get different degrees of "coherence" of the light and you can cut unwanted reflections and scatterings. Note if you do want reflections you will have to "dial them back in." Colors tend to be more vibrant the more coherent is the light. Blues (at the short end of the visible specturm) particularly benefit because the shorter wavelengths scatter more and need this "extra" coherence correction.
CPF (or an old fashioned linear polarizer) is an essential part of the kit for film (color) shooters, but can be useful for digital shooters particularly if you aren't into a lot of post-processing or shoot mostly JPEGs out of the camera.
You will lose about 1 1/2 - 2 EV stops - the incoherent part of the light is blocked - so you may have to dial up the ISO, or otherwise increase the exposure. As Alexis said above. This is in addition to the normal compensation for the bright sand/snow whites in the "beach" scene modes where the camera meter can be fooled to under-expose, the result being whites not white but a shade of grey. (The old 18% grey issue. Well cameras usually calibrate for 12% grey, but that's another whole debate. :) ) Check out many "winter snow shots" here on 365 and elsewhere when folks don't correct for this effect, or distain the specific "scene" mode that handles it properly specific for your camera.
Also, consider using Center Weighted Metering on the main subject if you do have a lot of sky and use a CP. The meter in modern digital cameras is a lot smarter than just measuring light and chosing an exposure based simply on that (smart algorithms built in to the style of the image based on a database of thousands of "typical" shots), and can be fooled if the sky is darker than "normal" when using matrix metering across the whole frame. This of course depends on just how clever your camera is.
Contrary to what others have said above, you can correct for all of this in "post" if you are shooting raw and you haven't blown shadow or highlight detail. Some corrections being trickier than others, of course, and perhaps even having to resort to adjustment layers and masks at times.
Welcome to the word of CPF. I use one almost all the time in almost all styles of shot, except for really bad light conditions, and even then, only if I am hand holding.
As I turn mine, what I see in the viewfinder changes from a kind of yellowish tint to a kind of bluish tint, and back again. It doesn't seem to make a huge amount of difference to the photos as far as I can see. They are circular polarizers, but what position is best for what kind of situation? Any advice welcome, I'm a complete beginner where these filters are concerned.
@mercuria Is it definitely a standard circular polariser? Coloured polarisers used to be quite popular a few years ago, and a yellow/blue polariser is something that does exist:
They're kinda specialised and if you do have one, I'm not surprised you're finding it hard to use!
A standard (non-coloured) polariser will generally alter reflections and increase colour saturation as you rotate it, but shouldn't impart any colour tint. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' way to use it, it's personal preference -- in my beach photo example above, the two shots are very different, but not necessarily better or worse.
To start with, I'd try taking a shot with the polariser in one position, and then rotate it 90 degrees and take a second shot. Compare the two and see which you like best, then you can make smaller adjustments (if desired) and keep comparing until you find the effect you like most of all.
@mercuria It shouldn't do that either, really. Is it definitely a circular polariser? (Note that a circular polariser doesn't mean it's circular in shape -- that would be far too obvious!)
Older cameras used to be able to use a linear polariser (typically marked as a polariser, or PL, on the filter edge). However, modern cameras have problems with linear polarisers that affect the way that autofocus and metering modules work, so for best results you should use a circular polariser (marked CPL, CIR-PL, C-POL, or similar). If it doesn't have markings such as this (with a C or Circular written on it somewhere) it's probably a linear polariser.
You can still use a linear polariser but you may need to focus and expose manually for the best results. The way that a linear polariser works could also interfere with the viewfinder colours in the way you suggest.
It's very hard to buy a linear polariser new these days, but there's loads of them floating around on the second-hand market.
It is definitely labelled as a circular polarizer, though one of the cheaper kinds. Thanks for the tip! I'll try using it as a linear one and see if that helps.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Tamber
Depending on how you rotate the polariser, you can dramatically alter the appearance of the photo. These two photos were taken with identical settings, the only difference being to rotate the circular polariser by 90 degrees:
It's a very powerful effect and one that can certainly help enhance beach photography, as well as landscape photography in general. As @northy says, it's one of the few types of filters whose effects can't be truly replicated in post-processing.
Price-wise, I wouldn't start off with an crazily expensive filter. Look at getting a relatively decent multi-coated filter, as filters without multicoating can be very prone to flare and reflections. Something like the Marumi DHG filters are good quality, multi-coated and very reasonably priced, costing under $100 for even the largest sizes when bought online:
http://www.2filter.com/marumi/marumidigitalHG.html
2filter are an excellent filter supplier if you are in the US, carrying a very wide range of filters all at excellent prices.
If you go pro and want the absolute best quality possible you might see advantages in buying more expensive filters -- my polariser cost $220, but realistically the difference is pretty minimal as long as you consider multi-coated filters.
I would never buy filters from a camera shop (except big shops like B&H or Adorama if you live in NY) -- they rarely stock a wide range of filters, and place a huge markup on them.
If you have multiple lenses with different filter thread sizes, buy a filter that will fit your largest lens, and then buy step-up rings to fit the same filter to your other lenses -- this is much cheaper than buying multiple filters.
Any questions, let me know!
This is a pretty bad example as I didn't have anything handy, so I just shot these out of my window to show the difference:
Without polariser:
With polariser:
(Click for larger)
You can see that not only have the reflections on the water altered, but the sky is a much deeper blue, the trees appear greener and more lush, and the mountains have lost the blue tint from the haze.
As I say, this isn't a great example, but gives you an idea of what a polariser can do.
A couple of things to remember:
1. A polariser blocks between 1.5 and 2.5 stops of light, so you will need to account for that. The non-polarised shot used a shutter speed of 1/800th, vs. 1/160th for the polarised shot. If you have limited light then you may need to increase the ISO, especially if you are hand-holding, and hence your shots will be noisier.
2. Polarisers affect the colour of the sky in relation to the position of the sun. If you shoot with a ultra-wide lens, this can result in undesirable 'banding' of the sky, like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/donavanmehl/2631401679/.
CPF (or an old fashioned linear polarizer) is an essential part of the kit for film (color) shooters, but can be useful for digital shooters particularly if you aren't into a lot of post-processing or shoot mostly JPEGs out of the camera.
You will lose about 1 1/2 - 2 EV stops - the incoherent part of the light is blocked - so you may have to dial up the ISO, or otherwise increase the exposure. As Alexis said above. This is in addition to the normal compensation for the bright sand/snow whites in the "beach" scene modes where the camera meter can be fooled to under-expose, the result being whites not white but a shade of grey. (The old 18% grey issue. Well cameras usually calibrate for 12% grey, but that's another whole debate. :) ) Check out many "winter snow shots" here on 365 and elsewhere when folks don't correct for this effect, or distain the specific "scene" mode that handles it properly specific for your camera.
Also, consider using Center Weighted Metering on the main subject if you do have a lot of sky and use a CP. The meter in modern digital cameras is a lot smarter than just measuring light and chosing an exposure based simply on that (smart algorithms built in to the style of the image based on a database of thousands of "typical" shots), and can be fooled if the sky is darker than "normal" when using matrix metering across the whole frame. This of course depends on just how clever your camera is.
Contrary to what others have said above, you can correct for all of this in "post" if you are shooting raw and you haven't blown shadow or highlight detail. Some corrections being trickier than others, of course, and perhaps even having to resort to adjustment layers and masks at times.
Welcome to the word of CPF. I use one almost all the time in almost all styles of shot, except for really bad light conditions, and even then, only if I am hand holding.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/94167-REG/Hoya_S58YBPL_58_mm_Vario_PL_Color.html
They're kinda specialised and if you do have one, I'm not surprised you're finding it hard to use!
A standard (non-coloured) polariser will generally alter reflections and increase colour saturation as you rotate it, but shouldn't impart any colour tint. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' way to use it, it's personal preference -- in my beach photo example above, the two shots are very different, but not necessarily better or worse.
To start with, I'd try taking a shot with the polariser in one position, and then rotate it 90 degrees and take a second shot. Compare the two and see which you like best, then you can make smaller adjustments (if desired) and keep comparing until you find the effect you like most of all.
I'll try this out over the weekend :)
Older cameras used to be able to use a linear polariser (typically marked as a polariser, or PL, on the filter edge). However, modern cameras have problems with linear polarisers that affect the way that autofocus and metering modules work, so for best results you should use a circular polariser (marked CPL, CIR-PL, C-POL, or similar). If it doesn't have markings such as this (with a C or Circular written on it somewhere) it's probably a linear polariser.
You can still use a linear polariser but you may need to focus and expose manually for the best results. The way that a linear polariser works could also interfere with the viewfinder colours in the way you suggest.
It's very hard to buy a linear polariser new these days, but there's loads of them floating around on the second-hand market.
http://www.lenstip.com/115.4-article-Polarizing_filters_test_Results_and_summary.html