Circular Polarizer Reduces Image Quality?
Jan 29, 2019 08:15:00 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
dandev wrote:
I did a headshot photoshoot last week and thought ... (show quote)
I have not noticed a softening but it does effect the final image. All filters do. I use a NiSi filter system now and my polarizer is at the back of the filter system allowing me to put up to three 100X150 mm filters in front of it. Have not noticed what you have experienced.
Not always, but sometimes the cost of the filter could have something to do with it. I used to use a B&W 77 mm polarizer and I was pleased with the results.
Jan 29, 2019 08:17:24 #
Retina
Loc: Near Charleston,SC
dandev wrote:
Hi Haydon - I think you are right about the shutter speed. I noticed that I had to shoot the headshots at a slower speed/higher ISO than expected. I didn't realize I was losing a stop due to the filter.
It's our mistakes that make us smarter - right?
It's our mistakes that make us smarter - right?
My least favorite thing about using a CPL is forgetting to remove it.
Jan 29, 2019 08:22:15 #
dandev wrote:
Full res JPRGS. Shot at 200mm.
Both images look good. Maybe if I saw them enlarged, side by side, I could see a difference. Even if there is a difference in sharpness, is it enough to matter? I've always appreciated the benefits of a CPL, and have not been disappointed with any loss of sharpness.
Jan 29, 2019 08:33:06 #
IMO, the better the filter glass the fewer issues with light transmission... anytime you introduce a piece of glass, any glass (even the best there is) that's not specifically designed with the lens elements package/group, there will be some sort of degradation. Perhaps not noticeable to the naked eye but via a sophisticated bench test. On the flip side I wouldn't doubt that it could actually improve a poor lens. Just like eye glasses improves our vision. I wear off the shelf non prescription Oakley Polarized sun glasses and it's almost as good as my mildly scripted glasses. I can notice a difference wearing them apposed to wearing no glasses at all. You will hear otherwise for sure, but physics is physics anyway you look at it.
Jan 29, 2019 09:04:51 #
Dikdik
Loc: Winnipeg, Canada
From the shadow, the light is striking the objects and an angle of 30 degrees (more or less). This would partially polarise the reflected image and the polariser may be 'trapping' or affecting this reflected light. That could give rise to the different images.
Dik
Dik
Jan 29, 2019 09:58:12 #
First thing first, it is never a good idea to shoot people with a polarizer. Manufacturers of cameras do not recommend using multi-pattern metering with those filters because the dark filter confuses the meter into getting erroneous readings.
Polarizers as you very well know are the filters that a majority of photographers use to shoot landscapes. Those landscapes shot with the filter are sharp. I use polarizers from my film cameras and I have no issues with them.
In short, the answer is NO, a polarizer of good quality with a clean surface should render sharp images.
Polarizers as you very well know are the filters that a majority of photographers use to shoot landscapes. Those landscapes shot with the filter are sharp. I use polarizers from my film cameras and I have no issues with them.
In short, the answer is NO, a polarizer of good quality with a clean surface should render sharp images.
Jan 29, 2019 09:58:30 #
dandev wrote:
I did a headshot photoshoot last week and thought ... (show quote)
Any and ALL filters have the potential for softening an image !
..
Jan 29, 2019 10:15:43 #
may be oversimplifying-but it would seem that the more pieces of glass the light travels through the more it will be affected-hence the point made often that 'prime' fixed lense will be sharper than a zoom lense with its additional layers of glass. same with filters?
Jan 29, 2019 10:24:42 #
I've never observed any degradation of the images I shoot when using a CP.
--Bob
--Bob
dandev wrote:
I did a headshot photoshoot last week and thought ... (show quote)
Jan 29, 2019 10:30:08 #
catchlight..
Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway
Not at all...
Many tests disprove what you you are saying.
https://improvephotography.com/2523/do-clear-uv-filters-hurt-image-quality-of-photos/
Quote (copy/ paste): The first part of the testing was to determine if the UV filter negatively impacts the sharpness of the image. My preferred way to test sharpness is to tape a newspaper to the wall and then take pictures of the newspaper with a camera locked down on a tripod. The small lettering on the newspaper makes it easy to analyze the sharpness of the picture.
As you can see from the photo, I could not replicate any reduction in sharpness from using a UV filter on my lens. In terms of sharpness, I could not see any difference at all in the amount of sharpness.
To ensure that I was not doing anything to impact the test, I put the camera on a sturdy tripod, used mirror lock-up, and wirelessly fire the camera so that my pressing the shutter button would not bump the camera and impact the sharpness.
Many tests disprove what you you are saying.
https://improvephotography.com/2523/do-clear-uv-filters-hurt-image-quality-of-photos/
Quote (copy/ paste): The first part of the testing was to determine if the UV filter negatively impacts the sharpness of the image. My preferred way to test sharpness is to tape a newspaper to the wall and then take pictures of the newspaper with a camera locked down on a tripod. The small lettering on the newspaper makes it easy to analyze the sharpness of the picture.
As you can see from the photo, I could not replicate any reduction in sharpness from using a UV filter on my lens. In terms of sharpness, I could not see any difference at all in the amount of sharpness.
To ensure that I was not doing anything to impact the test, I put the camera on a sturdy tripod, used mirror lock-up, and wirelessly fire the camera so that my pressing the shutter button would not bump the camera and impact the sharpness.
imagemeister wrote:
Any and ALL filters have the potential for softening an image !
..
..
Jan 29, 2019 10:43:50 #
Let your conscience be your guide ....as mentioned, Physics is physics - and some lens/filter combos exacerbate the degradation more than others.
Jan 29, 2019 11:29:15 #
imagemeister wrote:
Let your conscience be your guide ....as mentioned, Physics is physics - and some lens/filter combos exacerbate the degradation more than others.
Jan 29, 2019 11:38:53 #
dandev wrote:
I did a headshot photoshoot last week and thought ... (show quote)
As you know from other posts here that any filter destroys IQ especially if it is clear.
Again from the many posts in this forum you should never put anything in front of your lens due to horrific image degradation.
So your only option according to the many posts here of a decent photo is to never ever use a filter of any kind on your lens. If you do according to numerous posts here your pictures will always suck and be worthless.
Jan 29, 2019 12:02:15 #
dandev wrote:
I did a headshot photoshoot last week and thought ... (show quote)
I've mentioned this tip in the past but I'll repeat it since it's worth mentioning again. After taking your normal headshot which may include reflections in glasses, have the subject remove their glasses without moving significantly. Take another headshot with the glasses removed. Then in Photoshop you can layer the two images and using a selective mask you can clone the eyes from the layer taken without glasses to the layer taken with glasses.
Jan 29, 2019 12:38:30 #
nadelewitz
Loc: Ithaca NY
You're sure it was a CIRCULAR polarizer, and not a LINEAR polarizer? It says CPL on the filter ring?
Linears affect autofocus ability on DSLRs.
Linears affect autofocus ability on DSLRs.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.