Polariser & UV photo filters!

Fad3.In · #1 (**permalink**) 04-30-2007, 12:52 PM

Well,today I received my Polariser & UV photo filters for my Sony camera!
Any experience with these? Any samples using such filters?
Any tips in general regarding their use?
N.

nondescript · #2 (**permalink**) 05-01-2007, 08:25 AM

I really expected someone to reply by now...

Basically - I see no reason to ever _not_ use the UV filter... In general it will make your colors a little more vivid because the sensor only gets hit with light in the visible range... It also protects the lens from scratches if you bump into something... sure you may damage the filter, but that is much better than the lens.

Circular polarizer... One of my favorite things... It should have a notch on it... point that towards your light source... Example: If you are shooting a car driving towards you, and the sun is directly over head.. point the notch straight up... experiment... you can get some interesting effects by using this "incorrectly"... Example:

You can see the gradient created by the circular polarizer in the sky... not a "proper" use; but I like the result.

Fad3.In · #3 (**permalink**) 05-01-2007, 09:16 AM

Thanks for the reply man!

So,if I get this right,there s no use of these filters by night?
Most of my photography is done with no sun light,just
the use of ambient light and high aperture times...
N.

nondescript · #4 (**permalink**) 05-01-2007, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a3ternus

Thanks for the reply man!

So,if I get this right,there s no use of these filters by night?
Most of my photography is done with no sun light,just
the use of ambient light and high aperture times...
N.

Depends...

Again, if I had the UV filter on a lens; I wouldn't take it off just because it was night time... It's cheap protection for the important glass... But no; I doubt it will do much for you.

The polarizer is a little different... It limits the angle of the light getting in... most directly applicable to reducing reflections... (off water, glass, etc)... Instead of the sun, it could be lights reflecting off a glass building at night, etc... But if you are shooting the sky - you have a lot of different angles of light as well; due to the curvature of the earth and all... So it can be used there too...

Best thing I can tell you is experiment with what your applicaiton is...

NRZ · #5 (**permalink**) 05-02-2007, 11:37 AM

Poliarizers typically should be used during bright sunshine. Even cloudy days I wouldnt use mine. And as for Uv filters, if I left it on, I left it on. If not I just flip my hood around. No big deal.

M3_Boogie · #6 (**permalink**) 05-03-2007, 07:17 PM

This seems like a relevant time/place to ask this question I've had for a while:

What do people typically do to compensate for the underexposure caused by using a CP filter? Maybe it is just me & my setup, but almost all the shots I take with my CP filter are underexposed. I've tried Nikon's Exposure Compensation (D100) with mixed results.

NRZ · #7 (**permalink**) 05-04-2007, 05:39 AM

Like I said before, I only use the CP when in full sunlight, any haze/low light/ couldy skies, and it comes off. If should at most take off 2 stops from your exposure. So if you shoot at 350, should drop to about 180 with CP. Ive never had any of the problems you have had with it.

nondescript · #8 (**permalink**) 05-04-2007, 05:44 AM

^^ That... and you can also increase exposure time... Or go to a higher ISO...

I usually do it in that order; only because I hate ISO noise in digital cameras... But in truth, it should probably be prioritized as F-Stop; ISO; exposure time for most "normal" people.

corwyn · #9 (**permalink**) 05-07-2007, 10:54 AM

Weird that your exposure is thrown off by the circular polarizer. The meter is behind the filter, so it "sees" what's coming through after the polarizer has done its thing. I never noticed a need to do anything with exposure when using a polarizer on my D200 (or previously on my old D100).

M3_Boogie · #10 (**permalink**) 05-07-2007, 12:37 PM

Maybe I need a new circular polarizer? I currently have a Tiffen.

NRZ · #11 (**permalink**) 05-07-2007, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by corwyn

Weird that your exposure is thrown off by the circular polarizer. The meter is behind the filter, so it "sees" what's coming through after the polarizer has done its thing. I never noticed a need to do anything with exposure when using a polarizer on my D200 (or previously on my old D100).

Well I guess I worded it wrong. I meant to say my exposure time (shutter speed) is thrown off my having it on there. Meaning it slows my shutter time down which most of the time is not worth it.

Think of it this way. Polarizers are like sunglasses. If you have them on your head, pull them down, does the picture look better or worse (too dark). If it looks better use the CP if not, then dont.

Does that help?

corwyn · #12 (**permalink**) 05-07-2007, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M3_Boogie

Maybe I need a new circular polarizer? I currently have a Tiffen.

Tiffen doesn't make the highest quality filters (if you notice, the colors of your pictures change when you use your polarizer, right?), but they still shouldn't mess up your exposure readings for the in-camera meter. In fact, I used to use a Tiffen filter on my D100, but when I upgraded my lenses, I also upgraded to B&W filters.

corwyn · #13 (**permalink**) 05-07-2007, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NRZ

Well I guess I worded it wrong. I meant to say my exposure time (shutter speed) is thrown off my having it on there. Meaning it slows my shutter time down which most of the time is not worth it.

Think of it this way. Polarizers are like sunglasses. If you have them on your head, pull them down, does the picture look better or worse (too dark). If it looks better use the CP if not, then dont.

Does that help?

Well, yes, the CP does filter out some light, and thus changes the shutter speed and aperture for the correct exposure. My point was that they shouldn't throw off (i.e.-make incorrect) the in-camera meter in M3_Boogie's D100.

I generally use a circular polarizer for scenes where shutter speed is not an issue, taking landscapes (seascapes, cityscapes) where there's plenty of light and I want to improve the look of the sky/clouds/water. Or other times where a circular polarizer is both a help and a hindrance (such as in a museum where I can't use a flash but also need to cut down on the reflections off of glass), where I have to figure out which is more important.

It seems to go without saying for anything in photography that if something makes a picture look better, then do/use it. If it doesn't make the picture look better,then don't.

M3_Boogie · #14 (**permalink**) 05-07-2007, 06:05 PM

Ok, here is an example. Both shots were taken in aperture-priority mode and are untouched other than resizing.

B&W UV-haze filter, f/22, 1/30 sec, 24mm, Sunny WB, ISO 200, matrix metering

Tiffen circular polarizer, f/22, 1/25 sec, 24mm, Sunny WB, ISO 200, matrix metering

nondescript · #15 (**permalink**) 05-07-2007, 06:23 PM

Two things... there isn't a lot of light in that picture, so a polarizer isn't going to have much to work with... also - seems like you didn't change the exposure time very much at all - so the reduction in light makes sense given the reduction in light that does exist with a polarizer...

And it does look more hazy... either you filtered out an angle of light that showed what was in the air already or there was a quality issue going on with that polarizer... Hoya makes a good product, fwiw.

The one thing that it did do (what it is supposed to do) is reduce the reflection on the water surface (which also given the scene composition reduced the overall light of the scene even further, since about 40% of the original picture was reflected light off the surface)...