Polarizer filter - interesting comparison

[24Peter]

Visiting the East coast and while searching for some remaining fall foliage, I created this interesting comparison of photos with a polarizer on/off (Sigma 18-200 OS)

Polarizer on:
http://photos.imageevent.com/24peter/uploads/upload2/large/IMG_2855.JPG

off:
http://photos.imageevent.com/24peter/uploads/upload2/large/IMG_2856.JPG

on:
http://photos.imageevent.com/24peter/uploads/upload2/large/IMG_2823.JPG

off:
http://photos.imageevent.com/24peter/uploads/upload2/large/IMG_2824.JPG

[Gintaras]

when i bought my XTi i also thought i would need polarizer. so i bought CP Hoya digital pro. after later switching to kit lens i am not using this (not possible for polarizer on rotating front element of lens). and to my surprise i do not miss polarizer at all. some situations may call for CP filter in bright light, but this is not obligatory IMO.

[drama]

I like the colors with the polariser on, reminds me I should use mine :)

[mcenut]

I still own a polarizer filter for all my lenses, but I really enjoy using Neutral Density filters instead.

[RichNY]

Peter- Nice images. Love those Second Empire style houses with their Mansard roofs.

Q. I'm a bit confused by those images. The angle you shot from only changed slightly between these images and the lighting and exposure change was very significant (especially considering there appeared to be no clouds in the sky and the time showed to be virtually the same on both clocks)

[RichNY]

I still own a polarizer filter for all my lenses, but I really enjoy using Neutral Density filters instead.

I can understand using an ND to shoot falling/flowing water/etc. but how might a ND have been used to an advantage for these shots or was your comment made in general?

[24Peter]

Q. I'm a bit confused by those images. The angle you shot from only changed slightly between these images and the lighting and exposure change was very significant (especially considering there appeared to be no clouds in the sky and the time showed to be virtually the same on both clocks)

The shots were done handheld within 10 seconds of each other. The stark difference is what got me going on this thread. The polarized shots really "pop" which is probably why Christian uses one so often.

Here's another example:

No polarizer: (1/250th F 5.6)

http://photos.imageevent.com/24peter/uploads/upload2/large/IMG_2887.JPG

polarizer: (1/160th F 5.6)

http://photos.imageevent.com/24peter/uploads/upload2/large/IMG_2888.JPG

The polarized shot looks (to my eyes) much more vivid and pleasing.

[Rooz]

i prefer not to use a polariser on a clear blue sky becasue i don;t like the uneven blues so i try to keep as much sky out of the shot as possible. where CPL's really shine for sky shots is when there's lots of clouds.

[droopy1592]

I use the polarizer when there's a haze in the sky or when there are clouds also. If they are already blue I don't use it.

[herc182]

Polarisor stays on my lenses permanently. Even when the light dies down you still get good effect from reflections etc.

outside its invaluable and your comparison shows it only too clearly. Imagine trying to replicate that on photoshop.... you couldnt.

I agree with rooz with cloudy skies. I find that my wide angle, polarisor and high F number (say f22) give good depth to the clouds....