How do you feel about Polarizing Filters
Jun 19, 2018 21:54:56 #
tomcat wrote:
It takes me less than 5 sec to move those 2 sliders, so it's not that much of a sacrifice. But thanks for your point.
Wow! That’s impressive! Can I hire you to do some retouching for me? I’m looking for someone skilled like you who I can hire to do some retouching for me. PM me with your rates. ;)
But keep in mind, that accounts for the sky, you cannot eliminate reflections by retouching, as the underlying information is not there. You could replace the reflection with something else which has creative merit on it’s own...
Jun 19, 2018 23:59:36 #
JD750 wrote:
Wow! That’s impressive! Can I hire you to do some retouching for me? I’m looking for someone skilled like you who I can hire to do some retouching for me. PM me with your rates. ;)
But keep in mind, that accounts for the sky, you cannot eliminate reflections by retouching, as the underlying information is not there. You could replace the reflection with something else which has creative merit on it’s own...
But keep in mind, that accounts for the sky, you cannot eliminate reflections by retouching, as the underlying information is not there. You could replace the reflection with something else which has creative merit on it’s own...
I agree 100% about the underlying reflections, but the two pictures above do not show evidence of the reflections being removed. I know that you cannot replace reflections, but anyone half skilled in LR can add the saturation and boost the color to make the original into the edited one in a jiffy. So that's not using polarization to remove the reflections.
Jun 20, 2018 00:14:24 #
tomcat wrote:
I agree 100% about the underlying reflections, but the two pictures above do not show evidence of the reflections being removed. I know that you cannot replace reflections, but anyone half skilled in LR can add the saturation and boost the color to make the original into the edited one in a jiffy. So that's not using polarization to remove the reflections.
Can't argue with that.
In fact the photos you refer to seem to me to show evidence of different exposure settings more than polarization.A polarizing filter also reduces the light, so with/without a filter using M settings you will tend to get richer colors with the polarizer due to the reduction in exposure. The "unpolarized" shot seems a bit overexposed IMHO. So the "Polarized" shot is IMHO a better exposure. But that is all very subjective, thus the IMHO part.
Jun 20, 2018 16:07:52 #
JD750 wrote:
Can't argue with that.
In fact the photos you refer to seem to me to show evidence of different exposure settings more than polarization.A polarizing filter also reduces the light, so with/without a filter using M settings you will tend to get richer colors with the polarizer due to the reduction in exposure. The "unpolarized" shot seems a bit overexposed IMHO. So the "Polarized" shot is IMHO a better exposure. But that is all very subjective, thus the IMHO part.
In fact the photos you refer to seem to me to show evidence of different exposure settings more than polarization.A polarizing filter also reduces the light, so with/without a filter using M settings you will tend to get richer colors with the polarizer due to the reduction in exposure. The "unpolarized" shot seems a bit overexposed IMHO. So the "Polarized" shot is IMHO a better exposure. But that is all very subjective, thus the IMHO part.
In case there are any Hogs still following this thread, I just tried out a new Singh-Ray LB Polarizer ColorCombo filter that I received this afternoon. These 3 images are a quick and dirty trial with and without the filter, plus my attempts to duplicate the effects. The jpegs in the viewfinder were much better at showing the differences than my LR adjustments. Some of the important things to note: Both the originals with and without had the same color temp of 4,850 K. I noted that the polarized image was at +13 tint and the unpolarized one at +5, which could account for the color pop. My adjustments were temp set to 4,510K and tint of +40, which accounts for the magenta background.
Jun 20, 2018 16:48:33 #
tomcat wrote:
In case there are any Hogs still following this th... (show quote)
Quite a difference in the color.
I just looked that filter up. It's not a cheap filter! So the "ColorCombo" part is also a warming filter, which explains the shift in color.
Jun 20, 2018 17:39:18 #
JD750 wrote:
Quite a difference in the color.
I just looked that filter up. It's not a cheap filter! So the "ColorCombo" part is also a warming filter, which explains the shift in color.
I just looked that filter up. It's not a cheap filter! So the "ColorCombo" part is also a warming filter, which explains the shift in color.
No, it's not cheap but it will fit 3 lenses I have, so I'll have to stretch out its usage. If you had seen the differences in the jpgs in the viewfinder, it might make you switch from raw to jpg. I usually don't shoot both, but for the next week, I'm going to give it a go and see if I can come close to the jpg from my LR raw adjustments.
Jun 20, 2018 21:23:03 #
tomcat wrote:
No, it's not cheap but it will fit 3 lenses I have, so I'll have to stretch out its usage. If you had seen the differences in the jpgs in the viewfinder, it might make you switch from raw to jpg. I usually don't shoot both, but for the next week, I'm going to give it a go and see if I can come close to the jpg from my LR raw adjustments.
I shoot JPEG a lot. The reason is I don't have to fuss around behind a computer "developing" a raw file. I shoot raw too. When the occasion merits it.
Jun 20, 2018 23:11:19 #
JD750 wrote:
I shoot JPEG a lot. The reason is I don't have to fuss around behind a computer "developing" a raw file. I shoot raw too. When the occasion merits it.
I used to shoot both raw and jpg files simultaneously, but when I got a D800, I stopped because that camera was chewing through my external hard drives. Now, I think I will go back to raw + jpg for vacation shots. For the Apple Photo Books, I don't need to process a raw, just to reduce the images back down to 3x5's. I never realized the stupidity of doing that until this discussion this evening........
Jun 20, 2018 23:51:41 #
tomcat wrote:
I used to shoot both raw and jpg files simultaneously, but when I got a D800, I stopped because that camera was chewing through my external hard drives. Now, I think I will go back to raw + jpg for vacation shots. For the Apple Photo Books, I don't need to process a raw, just to reduce the images back down to 3x5's. I never realized the stupidity of doing that until this discussion this evening........
Exactly.
And if your really brave, just shoot JPEG for those vacation shots.
You have to pay more attention to exposure when shooting JPEG format. But that is not a bad skill to learn.
Jun 21, 2018 08:37:50 #
Jul 18, 2018 12:35:38 #
johnbee418
Loc: Manchester Conn.
Nice article. I do not like at all the depiction of running water as glop. Cannot understand anyone deliberately slowing down the shutter to achieve this effect. If your eyes actually see water as glop then I think you need to see an opthomologist.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.