C.C.P.I.C.S. - Class 04 - Using Filters

Welcome to:

No....you didn't miss 3 classes...I was struck by typelexia.

*sigh*

Dave

LOL. I am off to read your article, but I certainly did about 3 double takes.

Larry...........woh has never done that in my lufe.

Definitely need to get in on this one. I just finally got my Hoya Pro1 67mm for my 17-85 and 70-200. I'd like to get the 77mm for the 10-22, but that one was a lot more and I had to play the odds for what would get used more.

I'll try to get some test shots with it. I've only used it once or twice so far.

OK will check this out. :) I keep a UV Haze on the lens, and think I need to be able to learn more about AWB/Settings and enhancements with the Polarizing filter. Should be fun.

First, I must consess to not following instructions. I did not go out and buy a

polarizer filter. Before going digital, I used a Minolta XG-M manual-focus

SLR with a Kiron 28-210 zoom. Since I have not been able to give it away, let alone sell it,

it and all the accessories lives in a closet. In the bag are quite

a few filters, including a polarizer. The only problem is that it is a 72mm dia.

and my present camera is a 46mm dia. Undeterred, I went outside and took

the first picture, then simply held the 72mm filter in front of the lens, rotated

it by hand and took the second. Unfortunately, the EXIF data did not download

with the pics.

c-to-sea's photos certainly demonstrates the effect of a polarizing filter, and bring to mind a question. Any one see any down side to using a step down ring for filters to fit different lens? I have a 77mm warming polarizer for my telephoto and just purchased a simple step down ring so it will fit the lens using 67 mm filters. That saves a good $120 and I don't see any issues.

First, I must consess to not following instructions. I did not go out and buy a

polarizer filter. Before going digital, I used a Minolta XG-M manual-focus

SLR with a Kiron 28-210 zoom. Since I have not been able to give it away, let alone sell it,

it and all the accessories lives in a closet. In the bag are quite

a few filters, including a polarizer. The only problem is that it is a 72mm dia.

and my present camera is a 46mm dia. Undeterred, I went outside and took

the first picture, then simply held the 72mm filter in front of the lens, rotated

it by hand and took the second. Unfortunately, the EXIF data did not download

with the pics.

 

 

Wow! :eek: The difference is ... wow! I've never used a polarized filter but the intensity of the blue in the 2nd shot is incredible.

It sure is! The tree looks different too. What is the reference to rotating the filter?

Polarizing filters are directional. The one I have rotates within the mounting ring. Others fit

into a holder. Rotating the filter alters the light rays to get

the effect. (see pierces's article in the intro above). If you have a pair of

polarized sunglasses, hold them to the light and turn them 90 degress. You should see

a change. In the above shots, the filter was not mounted so I just rotated

it by hand while holding it against the camera lens. (Yes, I do use a UV filter

to protect it)

Oh my...I am confused. Do these not screw in like the UV filter on to the lens? I have some fun filters that I last used with a film camera, and those filters did have a need to be used with a holder. I wonder what it was I ordered last night then....I was following instructions:D

The only reason I hand-held my filter is that it is 72mm in diameter and my

current camera only has a 46mm diameter lens. The filter did screw into my

old SLR. Once screwed in, the glass part rotated within the screw ring to

polarize. Since I don't see that I will be using a polarizer a lot, I can live with this

arrangement for the time being. Maybe later I will invest in one the proper size for my Fuji Finepix S700.

I see. Thank you for the better understanding.:)

Once again, I extend my thanks to Dave for taking the time to share his expertise.

I was motivated to haul out the cameras to the airport where I figured things would be perfect for some pictures of little airplanes with a deep blue sky thanks to a polarizing filter.

My experiments are here: http://www.pbase.com/roffee/filters

I learned a lot, and need to add a regular polarizing filter to my bag.

Once again, I extend my thanks to Dave for taking the time to share his expertise.

 

I was motivated to haul out the cameras to the airport where I figured things would be perfect for some pictures of little airplanes with a deep blue sky thanks to a polarizing filter.

 

My experiments are here: http://www.pbase.com/roffee/filters

 

I learned a lot, and need to add a regular polarizing filter to my bag.

First of all, I envy the plane!

You were correct in assuming that a hazy sky isn't as susceptible to the benefits of a polarizer as a blue sky. There will be some effect, but not as much. In the movies, they often use a graduated blur filter to "fix" the hazy sky for wide shots.

A note on polarizers and planes. Because of the nature of plastics, they are often somewhat polarized already. Using a polarizer through a Lexan window can give you anything from weird rainbow effects to patchy dark areas. Tourist planes sometimes have optical glass windows in the passenger area for photographers.

Dave

Thanks Dave, I gave up trying to use a polarizing filter through an airplane plastic window from experiences in my film days. Add a scratched and crazed old window and its a mess.

As to plane envy, stop by Maryland sometime in your travels, and a photo flight is easy to do.

Larry

Well, learned something here:rolleyes:

wondered why my polarizer messed up my auto focus. I had been trying one that is at least 30 years old and evidently is linear. I bought a circular polarizer and it had made a world of difference!

c-to-sea's photos certainly demonstrates the effect of a polarizing filter, and bring to mind a question. Any one see any down side to using a step down ring for filters to fit different lens? I have a 77mm warming polarizer for my telephoto and just purchased a simple step down ring so it will fit the lens using 67 mm filters. That saves a good $120 and I don't see any issues.

Big filter to smaller lens = good

Small filter to bigger lens = bad

Your step-down to 67mm from 77mm should work fine.

Well, learned something here:rolleyes:

 

wondered why my polarizer messed up my auto focus. I had been trying one that is at least 30 years old and evidently is linear. I bought a circular polarizer and it had made a world of difference!

Been there myself! Believe me when I say that circular polarizers weren't either widely available or cheap in 1986 when I got my first autofocus camera!:eek:

Happy shooting!

Dave

...As to plane envy, stop by Maryland sometime in your travels, and a photo flight is easy to do.

 

Larry

Careful....

That kind of talk could get you a knock on the door! ;)

Dave

Careful....

 

That kind of talk could get you a knock on the door! ;)

 

Dave

Hey, I'll trade an ariplane ride for a photo lesson.

I have to re-read this lesson. Just didn't sink in the first time around. A question, we are doing a "leaf-peeping" cruise next month. Will I benefit from a polarizing filter? I shoot with an XTi. I have a UV filter on each lens, kit 17-55, 50mm 1.8, and 70-300. These aren't doing anything extrordinary for me, right? Just mainly "protection" for the lens? That's how I took it.

Also, if you don't mind...a few ideas or examples of composition for some great foliage shots?

I have to re-read this lesson. Just didn't sink in the first time around. A question, we are doing a "leaf-peeping" cruise next month. Will I benefit from a polarizing filter? I shoot with an XTi. I have a UV filter on each lens, kit 17-55, 50mm 1.8, and 70-300. These aren't doing anything extrordinary for me, right? Just mainly "protection" for the lens? That's how I took it.

Also, if you don't mind...a few ideas or examples of composition for some great foliage shots?

A UV filter is commonly used for protection but it will help to reduce the effect of distance haze in scenics to some degree.

As for fall colors with a polarizer...absolutely! the leaves retain some reflectivity when they turn and the polarizer will cut reflective glare and allow more color to show through. A warm polarizer (my personal favorite is the Hoya "Moose" Warm CPL) is highly recommended by the top nature photographers for enhancing reds, yellows and earth tones in fall scenics.

As for composition...I, sadly, don't have any good examples since the only fall colors I have toured were in Alaska (link to Denali day) and the terrain is sooo different.

In general, though, don't be afraid to break a few composition rules and just fill the frame with foliage. Fallen leaves on a stream bank or against contrasting earth or rock are more subject to rule-of-thirds and can be very striking. Take a tripod, find a rocky stream with leaves in and around it and take a long (1s or longer) exposure. Tele shots, perhaps with a house or lodge in it, straight up in a grove of trees, fallen carpet of leaves with only the trunks of the trees visible...Just go nuts! My favorite thing in a new photo environment is to walk a little off the beaten path, then turn around slowly looking up and down at everything and wait for a picture to hit me!

We have booked a 13 day fall colors next year and I intend to wear out my camera on it! Consider yourself envied!

Dave

Ok, I have an example. It is NOT a necessarily a picture of beauty, BUT I think a very good example anyway.

I forgot my filters on our 1st port stop of Ketchikan. The Salmon were out and running in full force. It didn't take long for me to know I had to go back to the ship!

This one was taken at aprrox 08:30 WITHOUT a filter.

This one was taken right at one hour later WITH a filter.

Ok, I have an example. It is NOT a necessarily a picture of beauty, BUT I think a very good example anyway.

 

I forgot my filters on our 1st port stop of Ketchikan. The Salmon were out and running in full force. It didn't take long for me to know I had to go back to the ship!

This one was taken at aprrox 08:30 WITHOUT a filter.

This one was taken right at one hour later WITH a filter.

Now there's an illustration!

Way to go!

Dave

My filter finally came today!