PDA

View Full Version : Polarizer Filter Question



derekinla
02-10-2006, 07:47 PM
Let's say you're on vacation somewhere where you will be shooting both indoors AND outdoors.......... is there any downside to simply leaving a polarizing filter on the camera the whole time? In otherwords, is there a downside to shooting some pics indoors with the filter on (other than the loss of some light)? Screwing on and off and on and off a polarizer seems a bit tedious. Suggestions?

JTL
02-10-2006, 09:17 PM
Let's say you're on vacation somewhere where you will be shooting both indoors AND outdoors.......... is there any downside to simply leaving a polarizing filter on the camera the whole time? In otherwords, is there a downside to shooting some pics indoors with the filter on (other than the loss of some light)? Screwing on and off and on and off a polarizer seems a bit tedious. Suggestions?The loss of some light??? You mean two stops worth of light! Two stops indoors is an incredible amount of light to give up if you don't have to. Bad idea. Very bad idea. Plus, I hate to sound harsh, but laziness and photography never mix very well. If you're serious enough to be using a polarizer, then you should be serious enough to use it properly and put the appropriate care into your photography and do it right. Otherwise, why bother with a polarizer in the first place? :)

derekinla
02-10-2006, 10:04 PM
If the only penalty is a loss of 2 fstops, then I could potentially compensate with flash/change in ISO. If a particular indoor scene would be best served by going without flash,then I would then consider unscrewing the filter. If there were other penalties (? distortion of indoor colors etc..) I would then definitely take it off. In that case, I would default to leaving the filter off and then only screw it on outdoors as needed. I normally use a digital P&S on vacation so carrying around a dSLR is actually a step up from the laziness of carrying around a P&S. ;)

JTL
02-10-2006, 11:52 PM
If the only penalty is a loss of 2 fstops, then I could potentially compensate with flash/change in ISO. If a particular indoor scene would be best served by going without flash,then I would then consider unscrewing the filter. If there were other penalties (? distortion of indoor colors etc..) I would then definitely take it off. In that case, I would default to leaving the filter off and then only screw it on outdoors as needed. I normally use a digital P&S on vacation so carrying around a dSLR is actually a step up from the laziness of carrying around a P&S. ;)Raise the ISO and you raise the noise...why needlessly punish your images like that? The polarizer will also definitely have a negative impact on your autofocus. And, your camera better have a TTL flash, otherwise there will be no way for the flash to accurately compensate for the loss of light due to the polarizer. Plus, anytime you add something between the lens element and the subject, you run the risk of degrading the image. Why do that unless absolutely necessary? But, now that I think about it, there actually might be a specific purpose benefit...if you wanted to cut reflections in glass, such as windows...

Hey, do whatever you like...they're your photos...but you asked! ;)


In that case, I would default to leaving the filter off and then only screw it on outdoors as needed. Now, you see, that makes perfect sense...for all cases...:D

Glenn Kennedy
02-12-2006, 05:46 AM
Take it off. Always.

I left my polariser on my D70 on a dull day on holiday a year or so back. The images were really dreary - making the Nikon's tendency to produce underexposed images in dull weather even worse.

yzershanafan
03-07-2006, 10:06 AM
soooooo...would getting a polarizer to deal with glare on glass while shooting hockey be a good or bad idea? (on a fuji 5200)
Im not a pro, and I dont have a press pass...so i'm not going to get one of those cool little holes to stick my lens through :(

ktixx
03-07-2006, 10:24 AM
soooooo...would getting a polarizer to deal with glare on glass while shooting hockey be a good or bad idea? (on a fuji 5200)
Im not a pro, and I dont have a press pass...so i'm not going to get one of those cool little holes to stick my lens through :(
Bad - Hockey is fast motion on top of being indoors. You need as much light as possible - adding a polarizer would counteract glare, but your images would be grainy from High ISO and your motion would be blurred.

Here's the question - would you rather have sharp, stopped action with low noise and proper exposure or would you rather have dark, blurred photo's with lots of noise an No Glare....gee..thats a hard one :rolleyes: :D
Ken