Eva,
The effect of a polariser in landscape photography is mainly a higher saturation of the colours, mainly due to reducing reflections.
By using the saturation slider you might achievn an almost similar effect. Probably you might have to apply this to various selections in a slightly different way.
Leen
Eva,
Another way to approach this is to increase contrast a little and reduce brightness slightly.
Robert Ash
I have been trying out my old polarizing filter by just holding it over my Coolpix lens and hopefully have it aligned correctly.
What a wonderful effect it does have on landscapes and especially clouds and also in some instances you can see under the ocean just like when you have on polarizing sunglasses.
Ive just gotten home from vacation and when I download my pictures, I hope to have some comparisons.
But I would like to simulate the polarize effect too, I shall try your instructions. Thanks,
Jane
I have been able to duplicate almost every photographic filter effect in Photoshop Elements with two exceptions. A polar and a neutral density filter. Wit the polar filter it is true that I can do some adjustment but the job is to time consuming and doesn’t give results as well as the filter does. So for my money went you have to put in more work and get poorer results then it’s time to have the filter in your gadget bag. The neutral density is a strange filter not to be able to reproduce but just think about it you use a this filter to slow down you shutter speed to capture things like running water ….. again you can use motion blur but not as convincing as the real thing.
Grant
Jane,
With the approaches suggested above you’ll be able to increase color saturation and darken the skies in a fair number of shots. However, there are polarizer effects like eliminating reflections and decreasing specular highlights on plants, etc. that impossible or difficult to do .
Regards,
Robert
Grant, there is a third filter: the Carl Zeiss Softar.
This brilliant soft focus effect is impossible to imitate in Photoshop. So, it is still in my bag.
Leen
Leen
Since I have moved to Digital I have not had to worry about soft filters. 🙂
Grant
Just looking at the comparisons, there is nothing like a polarizing lens! I must plan to use it more. Must learn about the strengths, as my darkest pol.sun.glasses are very pronounced. But our various camera lenses are vastly different.
This should be my next project.
Did remember when I got new pol glasses and spent some winter vacations in an area with shallow reefs,(Belize)many years ago, and I just hung over the bow ogeling the coral till we got to our site. The glasses made me think I could reach and touch what was actually 10 ft below the surface. Very calm conditions there most of the time, no wind. Must look for those old slides,,,,,,,
Jane
Jane, FWIW, Derrick Story says you can put your polarizing glasses over your lens as a pol. filter in an emergency. I use a UV filter, so I’ve never tried it.
Hi All,
This discussion reminded me of my first (and only so far) digital camera purchase (Olympus 2100 ultra-zoom). I wanted a versatile camera, but my main criterion was that the camera had to accept filters so that I could use my polarizing and star filters. I have never regretted it. I use it always for outside photos, especially to darken the sky. As a replacement, at the Photoshop download site one can get a set of sky gradients that can be used to replace a sky that is too pale.
John
Hi Barbara, Yes, I have done that too. I do have a very very dark pair that makes the picture come out with a strange effect. My new glasses are not the really dark heavy polarization as the old ones were, so the effect is less. But now I realize that I can get camera lenses with different levels of polarization, so I should get a darker one to use also.
Boy do I learn stuff here! You all are amazing, thank you again, Jane
Hi Barbara, I finally found the photos that I had used the dark glasses on, <
http://www.pbase.com/image/32553426>
The next one is without, and the last one is with. Sure can see down into the ocean when the glare is taken away. (Those are some of my kids and grandkids on the beach.)
They cut way down on the glare more than my real camera polarize lens. Now that you have brought this to my attention, I should get a darker camera lens. Probably can get one fairly cheap, a used one, because so many people are moving to digital cameras. I will try my local photo store next week.
Jane
Jane,
That’s great. You can really see the difference. Thanks for sharing those pictures. Makes me want to go to a tropical paradise somewhere.
A few additional tips on polarizers:
1) Please be sure to buy a circular polarizer, not a linear polarizer.
Both do polarization to the naked eye and both work with film cameras but linear polarizers do not work with digital cameras. Professor Grant can explain why in detail 🙂
If you used a linear polarizer on a digital camera, that may explain why your glasses gave you better polarization than your filter, just a guess.
2) Polarizers also work on overcast days(!)
This isn’t widely known, and you heard it here first 😉 Obviously reflections happen on overcast days so polarizers always help there as long as it’s glass or water and not a reflection in metal. But it also turns out that vegetation reflects a lot of polarized light that creates millions of specular highlights. The effect is to wash out the color. That’s why many overcast day shots that include grass and trees don’t have rich, saturated color. A polarizer can make a noticeable difference.
3) Polarizers can cause significant vignetting when used with wide-angle lenses under 35-40mm or so.
The best answer is to use a step-up ring to allow you to mount a bigger polarizer onto your lens, e.g. 49-62mm if your camera uses 49mm filters. The polarizers are a bit more expensive but well worth it.
Another tip is to buy a slim polarizer. The only difference is that a slim polarizer doesn’t have the threads in the front that allows you to stack another filter on top of it (which you don’t want to do anyway with a polarizer, so nothing lost) so the polarizer rim is thinner and thus vignettes less.
You can buy step-up rings (only $20 or so) and/or slim polarizers at bhphotovideo.com and other good web stores if you can’t find them locally.
4) Remember to take your polarizer off after sunset
More than once I’ve lost 2-3 stops of light after sunset for no valid reason by forgetting that, making handheld photography much more difficult than it needed to be.
5) Polarizers can sometimes be used as neutral density filters (see point #4 above)
God bless,
Robert
polarizers do not work with digital cameras.
That’s only true for some dSLRs.
Robert
Just a slight clarification! The choice of circular polarizer or not is not a digital vs. film based decision. All polarizers behave in the same way but once the light is polarized a circular polarizer filter then uses a quarter-wave retarder to "spin" the light, thus maintaining the advantage of the polarization and scattered light. Now why is this done? A high percentage, if not most modern, auto focus cameras, film base or digital, require non modulated light to focus properly! I suspect it is because of something to do of the use of beam splitters. At this point many manufactures also use the same process to take light meter readings. If your camera is one of these types and you use a linear polarizer you will probably get unpredictable results in focusing and lightmeter readings.
How do you know if your camera needs a circular polarizer? Well first and best way is to check with the camera manufacture. Second way is install a liner filter and check the light level, then rotate the filter 90° if you notice a reading of greater than half a stop you probably need a circular polar filter. If more than a full stop you do need a circular polar filter. IF in doubt spend the extra and get a circular polar filter.
Now how do you check to se if you have a circular or liner polarizer in you gadget bag. One way to tell is to look at it in a mirror. Hold the polarizer so you can look through it and see the reflection of the polarizer in the mirror. A linear polarizer will appear light grey. If you flip the filter over such that the side that was facing the mirror is now facing you, it will still appear light grey. A circular polarizer, on the other hand, will be light grey if you look through it one way, but noticeably darker if not almost black when reversed.
For what it is worth my last digital didn’t require a circular polarizer.
Grant
That’s only true for some dSLRs.
That’s true, but I would expect more would than wouldn’t. Depends on the design of the optical path and whether it contains polarization sensitive internals like folded light paths and beam-splitters.
Circular polarizers work with all cameras and if you are in doubt about whether your camera is polarization sensitive, that’s the one to get. Linear polarizers on a polarization sensitive camera can cause problems with your internal light meter and/or the auto focus.
Circular polarizers are actually made from linear polarizers but have a special birefringent layer known as a "quarter-wave plate" bonded to the back that converts the polarization to circular. That’s why the circulars cost more than the linears.
Bob
That’s only true for some dSLRs.
That’s true, but I would expect more would than wouldn’t. Depends on the design of the optical path and whether it contains polarization sensitive internals like folded light paths and beam-splitters.
Circular polarizers work with all cameras and if you are in doubt about whether your camera is polarization sensitive, that’s the one to get. Linear polarizers on a polarization sensitive camera can cause problems with your TTL internal light meter and/or the auto focus.
Circular polarizers are actually made from linear polarizers but have a special birefringent layer known as a "quarter-wave plate" bonded to the back that converts the polarization to circular. That’s why the circulars cost more than the linears.
Bob
Hi Grant,
Your message wasn’t up when I started writing mine <g>. I don’t know why mine "hiccoped", I only sent one message.
I’m glad you included the mirror test.
Bob
Jane,
Got it now? 🙂
Actually, this is very educational. Grant’s and Bob’s explanations complement each other very well. Helps to have real electrical engineers explain such details to us simpleminded software folk.
Robert
This has all been very educational! I’m sure glad I posted the original question :-).
I’m now thinking about getting a circular polarizing filter for my Kodak DX6440. I *think* the adapter that Kodak sells will allow me to purchase a 37mm filter to fit the adapter. I looked at the BHPhotoVideo.com site. The prices for the 37mm filters vary from $19.50 up to several times that. For my basically point and shoot camera, would the inexpensive filter be adequate? And if so, is there much difference between brands?
Thanks. Eva
Eva
Ah … the question how good is good enough. Polar filters are not rocket science so most manufacturers can make a good one. Once you get past the cheapest filter I think you age going to find a diminish return on your investment. That is not to say a filter costing twice what lesser version does will not going to deliver better results but it will probably not deliver twice as good results. I have high end and a middle value polar filters and the results they deliver are equal from what I can see. What is different is the higher value one is wonderfully well made, in fact it looks hand machined.
My recommendation is not to buy the cheapest, do without instead of going that route. Not to buy the most expensive unless you are like me and find and excellent one that is an estate sale. But to buy one of the mid range filters form a reputable manufacturer.
Grant
Eva,
The main difference between a cheap and an expensive polarizer is mainly in the way it has been manufactured, The polarizing foil is highly hygroscopic, so if you are living in a dry area like a desert, go for the most inexpensive ones. If you however live in an area with a lot of moisture in the air, get a good one like B&W. Moreover, these high quality filters usually have been made from better glass. Why spoil the high quality of a camera lens with cheap glass?
What I think about polarizers?
In my opinion, the need for a polariser is very much overrated. Yes indeed, I do have a polarizer too, but I can hardly remember when I used it the last time. Must have been when I had to photgraph a garden for a magazine.
It is in the bottom of my bag and I suppose it will stay there for another few years until I really need it again.
I know it is very popular these days, just like about 30 years ago, but I hate these exaggerated blue skies with one side much darker than the other.
Probably this will go by too, just like all other hypes.
Leen
Hi Eva,
Actually, your Kodak DX6440 is a piece of gear worth respecting — 4MP with a 4x Schneider-Kreuznach Variogon lens, not bad 🙂 It may be basic in functionality but it’s still high quality so I wouldn’t skimp too much on the filters.
My personal philosophy is if I’m buying cheap, don’t buy dead bottom, buy one or two up from the bottom. So I’d go for the Sunpak Twin Pack (get 2 for 1) or the Hoya.
With its zoom range 33-135mm your camera hopefully shouldn’t need a stepup ring or a slim polarizer. However, as soon as your filter arrives please shoot some test shots with your lens at its most wide-angle setting. If you don’t see dark spots in all 4 corners then you’re ok. Otherwise return the filter and buy a step-up ring 37-49mm or 37-52mm plus a 49mm or 52mm polarizer instead.
Robert
Eva,
Leen makes a valid point. However, it depends a lot on the photography you do. If it’s vegetation, water, windows, etc. where you want better saturation and to eliminate surface reflections like you did in your tropical ocean photos then polarizer is the only way to go.
For skies you often don’t need it. Turns out that polarized light tends to be in the parts of the sky that are already darkest and richest-looking so filters are often not needed.
Even so, sometimes they really do add punch that is very dramatic. Just don’t overuse them or the results can look trite or artificial. It’s often educational to take the same picture with and without the polarizer and compare the results, and it’s good practice to refine your use of them.
Another tip, for skies you don’t always have to set the filter to its maximum setting, just use it to darken the skies a little bit instead of a lot. That subtle change can produce great results.
I use polarizers pretty regularly but not as much as I used to years ago. I’ve found a balance that works for me and still experiment regularly to refine my use of them.
Regards,
Robert
wrote in message
: In my opinion, the need for a polariser is very much overrated.
: Leen
Yes … Yes … Yes … a thousand times YES! It is a great tool to be used but not abused.
Grant
Wow, my brain is spinning,,,,,,,,
I have learned so much today about this, thank you all! It is still sinking in to the old brain slowly,,,,,,,,
First, my camera is a little Coolpix 4300 so I have to hold the lens with my fingers while I take the picture. I have to spin it to see the correct alignment.
The sunglasses work without having to see where it should be. The sunglasses made a better(more polarized) picture.
I do try to take one with and one without.
Trial and error.
What would you all recommend for this little camera? The one I am using is a HOYA PL 49degrees(perhaps this is not a degree sign) I would like it to be stronger? This is fun, learning about this. I have always liked the polarized sunglasses when out on the boats or at the beach.
Thanks again,
Jane
That’s only true for some dSLRs.
That’s true, but I would expect more would than wouldn’t.
dSLRs, perhaps. Digicams, it’s not an issue.
Jane,
Looks like your camera might use 28mm filters. Nikon website doesn’t say for some reason but found a wide-angle accessory lens for it on Amazon.com:
<
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00005218D/ref =pd_sbs_p_2/104-6288826-5679167?v=glance&s=photo&n=5 07846>
Scroll down to where it says –> Rear mount diameter: 28mm — the rear mount is what clamps against the lens to attach that accessory.
Not sure what that 49 means on your Hoya PL. It may mean 49mm which is oversized for your lens but can’t say without seeing it.
Also, since it says PL instead of Cir-PL it’s probably a linear polarizer and not a circular polarizer but again can’t say for sure (my polarizer is a different brand). If so, then that is probably why its effect doesn’t appear as strong.
Best bet for you is to take it to a good, knowledgable local camera store and buy a circular polarizer that fits. Hoya and Tiffen are good, safe choices in a reasonable price range.
Unfortunately, since the Coolpix 4300 is a rangefinder camera you’re always looking through the viewfinder, never through the lens, so you’ll need to manually find the right orientation for the filter then hand-hold it flat against the lens without rotating it, then take the shot. Looks like you’re doing that now, so you know a lot more about this than you think!
However, given that you have to hand-hold the polarizer anyway you might as well buy a larger one like a 49mm even if your camera takes 28mm filters. The 49mm filter will be easier to handle and should cost the same, plus you’ll never need to worry about that sized polarizer vignetting the corners of your photos.
One last point – your sunglasses may have extra darkening, shading or color casting in them in addition to polarization. If so, then polarizer filters won’t give exactly the same effect. But with a circular polarizer you’ll be guaranteed that the polarizer is doing its job correctly for you even if it doesn’t quite match your glasses.
Robert
I use a linear polariser on my G3 – it’s a Hoya which is a reputable brand, but it isn’t multicoated – and as (I think) a result it does increase the incidence of red/cyan chromatic aberration on high contrast edges. Now the CS RAW converter gets rid of this fairly efficiently, but it’s easier if it isn’t there in the first place. It also seems to increase lens flare, so I’d recommend paying the bit extra for a multicoated version of the filter which should reduce both problems. (I’ve only seen multicoated circulars advertised). The advantage of linear polarisers, if your camera can use them, is that the advent of auto focus SLRs made them unusable for many photographers – I paid virtually nothing for my second hand one!
It’s almost impossible to reproduce the efffect of a polariser with PS – you can’t really cut out reflections that you don’t want any other way. The other use for a polariser is as a neutral density filter as it does reduce the light a bit – I have a built in ND filter in my camera (a great addition to the feature set!) and when that doesn’t slow things down quite enough putting the polariser on as well usually gets me to the shutter speed that I want.
I have been studying all your advice here and also found these, <
http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/polarizers.shtml> <
http://www.warehousephoto.com/newpage4.htm>
and I think that today after the downpours end, that I shall head over to my local camera store and get a circular Hoya.
Just found another one, a Canon 52mm in Richie’s camera bag. It has a little handle on it too. They were both used, one was $6 and the other was $13.
I wonder how you determine the strength of the polarization of the lenses? I can see now how my dark glasses had the extra darkening, so that was why the effect was so much more pronounced.
Maybe I have what I need with these 2 Hoyas, the 49 and Richie’s 52mm? If there is no choice on the strength, then I guess I dont need to buy more. I assume they are coated?
My eye doctor explained that there are several different strengths of sunglasses, but I dont know if this applies to camera lenses?
I cant begin to thank you all for the education that I am getting with this forum! Jane
Hi Jane,
To get the extra darkening in your sunglasses just put your camera into manual mode, fiddle with the exposure settings and observe the effect in your LCD before taking the shot. No need to buy another polarizer filter just for that.
Don’t buy two of them unless you just want a spare one. A problem with stacking polarizers is that not only can you degrade your image a lot, you can also black out all light altogether in some cases!
My eye doctor explained that there are several different strengths of sunglasses, but I dont know if this applies to camera lenses?
I think you mean ‘polarizer filters’ not camera lenses 🙂
The consumer brands are pretty similar in strength so don’t worry about that. Just get a multi-coated circular polarizer filter, plus use a lens shade whenever you can to avoid flare (see Susan’s note above). If you’re handholding the filter you can’t use a lens shade at the same time very well but get one anyway for your other pictures. A lens shade will help with color saturation and for some shots it could make you think you had a polarizer on your lens when you didn’t 🙂
Robert
Hi Robert and everybody, Thanks for all this info. The 2 filters that we have should fill the bill then. I did call them lenses by mistake.
With the glasses, I got some really neat shots, but now with the filter and having a computer and PSE, I can darken them later if we want.
Now to find some of the old slides that we took in Belize from the boat before we actually got into the water. Those I took thru the dark glasses and the shallow reefs were beautiful even before we got where we were going to dive!
Some of our days there were windless, flat calm, and so beautiful. We can do so many things with PSE, but as you say, we cant create the polarizing effect. Jane
Hi Jane, sounds great. To fiddle w/ exposure settings you need to put the camera into manual mode, but other than that you should be all set now.
Blessings and good shooting,
Robert
Nice! Thanks, Leen, I just bookmarked this tutorial.
Jane
Yes, nice tutorial. Actually I thought the sky looked just fine in the original photo 🙂 but still very educational.
You can do the same thing in Elements. Where the channel mixer step appears in the original tutorial, instead do these steps:
1. Add a Levels layer abouve the background copy. Don’t change any of the settings.
2. Add a Hue/Saturation layer on the top of the stack. Move the Saturation slider all the way to the left.
3. Go back to the Levels layer you added in Step 1 and adjust the R, G, and B channels individually. For dramatic skies, move mid-tone slider on the R channel to the right.
4. Select the Background copy layer and merge it with the layers you added in steps 1 and 2.
You can also fool around with different blending modes. Try Overlay and Hard Light as well as the Soft Light recommended in the tutorial.
Excellent discussion! That’s all I have to say. Well except that that was all I had to say, and, er now this. 😉
Joe
Actually, a modification to what I posted might be advisable.
In steps 1 and 2, group the layers with the background copy layer and eliminate step 4.
That will let you retain the ability to adjust the R, G, and B settings in the Levels layer if you later change your mind, whereas merging them into the BG layer eliminates that option.
