File :-(, x, )
Hoya slim polarizer Anonymous
I need a polarizer for my sigma 10-20

I heard for wide lenses you need slim filters but others say you don't need them.

Which is it?
>> Anonymous
Are you sure? Polarizers don't work well on lenses this wide.
(A polarizer is most effective when shooting at 90 degrees to sunlight, and ineffective at all when shooting towards or away from it. Thus, on a lens having 100 degree FoV, the polarizing effect will vary wildly from one side of the frame to the other)
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>157692
The polarizer can still give you the advantage of cutting reflections from water, glass, leaves, etc.
>> Anonymous
>>157695
A polarizer doesn't eliminate ANY reflections, the effect is still dependent on angles. But yes, it is kinda useful if the reflective object isn't filling a big part of the frame.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Not the OP.
How much should I pay for this?

Want to know if the camera shop down the street is ripping me off.
>> Anonymous
>>157698
bh price + 5$ that you would have paid for shipping
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>157701
+$5 or so for
1. The convenience of getting it right then
2. Keeping your local camera store alive so you can go there when you need something else that you don't want to wait for or which it's not really economically worth it to buy online
3. Supporting your local economy.
>> Anonymous
>>157698
OMG that's a big fat PL filter!
>> Macheath !8b4g0BkNZg
I've always read that the Hoya green filters suck
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
I would suggest, at least when it comes to polarizers, to get a B&W. They're lovely.
>> Anonymous
>>157692
Will a polarizer be good for getting that pola-effect with deep blues and nice clouds in the sky, or is this eliminated in a wide-angle lens? I really dont care about removing reflections, I just want pola-skies.
>> Anonymous
My cheap Kenko polarizer got all smeary after I tried to wipe a fingerprint from it. WTF is with their coatings? It still works, though, and I don't see anything wrong with the images.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>157729
That's precisely what I was talking about.

You'll get deep blues and nice clouds in half of your image, and the other half will look like there was no polarizer at all. Something like this.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.Camera ModelE-500Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Color Filter Array Pattern702Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:04:11 00:39:44Exposure Time1/250 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/8.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, Auto, Red-Eye ReduceFocal Length11.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1024Image Height768RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessSoft
>> Anonymous
>>157733

Not the best example, since your sky is very uneven.
But I'm sure that's at least 72.4% better than the photo would have been without the filter.

What brand do you use, and what do you consider to be a "reasonable" price range?
>> Anonymous
>>157733
But.. wtf. So i should just not buy a polarizer for my 10-22? I was looking forward to it.. What kind of lens do you use a polarizer on, then? Cause I cant imagine shooting landscape-ish pics with a 30mm+
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>157733
>Not the best example, since your sky is very uneven.
The hell? The sky being uneven was exactly the thing he was talking about...
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
     File :-(, x)
>>157733
It really shows up in panoramics. Though I don't mind it.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:04:07 22:03:43Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1658Image Height600
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>157740
er, um... I just crudely imitated the effect of uneven polarizing in photoshop there.

This is the original pic without the filter.

>>157741
Polarizers work best with normal and tele lenses. Sad fact, I know. On the other hand, super-wide-angle lenses tend to produce quite contrasty skies even without polarizers.

Try using Selective Color in Photoshop. Bumping the black channel up for blues and cyans works as a ghetto polarizer replacement in 80% of pictures.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.Camera ModelE-500Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Color Filter Array Pattern702Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:04:11 00:51:11Exposure Time1/250 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/8.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, Auto, Red-Eye ReduceFocal Length11.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1024Image Height768RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessSoft
>> Anonymous
>>157750

Uneven up/down is expected and good. Light fringe along skyline, etc.

I'm talking about the left/right unevenness. The image looks like the upper left was burned in too much.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
I've seen some interesting tests on filters for how they alter image quality. The B+W filters have obvious advantages, such as being easiest to clean and good threads, but for the others below that level it often seems less clear. It being a multi-coated filter seems to be the most important part.

Matching the quality of the filter to the quality and price of the lens is the general rule of thumb for them that I've heard.
>> Anonymous
>>157754
self-correction:

Bumping the black channel up for blues and cyans works as a ghetto polarizer replacement *for skies* in 80% of pictures. (It won't affect reflections and other effects, of course)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Better example of awesomeness of polarizing filter.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.Camera ModelE-300Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsPhotographerKen MilburnMaximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Color Filter Array Pattern854Image-Specific Properties:Image Width2257Image Height3009Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution96 dpiVertical Resolution96 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2007:03:22 10:31:12Exposure Time1/100 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeSpotLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length14.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width500Image Height333RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>157759
Failing at color space isn't the best illustration for awesomeness.

Fixed image related.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution96 dpiVertical Resolution96 dpiImage Created2008:04:11 01:07:42Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width500Image Height333
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>157760
Also, here's what you can do with the left image using photoshop.
>> Anonymous
>>157760
Boy that's ugly and look unnatural
>> Anonymous
>>157762
However, that's how it looks.

The original image is in ProPhoto color space and should look dull and magenta-ish in all browsers except Safari.
>> Anonymous
What is this color space stuff and why does it matter?
>> Anonymous
>>157770
Simple: every time you see "color space" in your camera and software, set it to sRGB.
If you use something other than that and don't know PRECISELY what you're doing, you'll end up with colors looking dull and/or wonky in unexpected places.
>> Anonymous
>>157773

So does that mean I should rely on in-camera editing and never use PC stuff or the colors will go bad?
>> Anonymous
>>157778
No you just need to know how to calibrate your monitor, how to calibrate your photoshop, and how to convert the photos into another color profile. But most people don't give a shit anyway.
>> Anonymous
>>157764

Who doesn't use Safari?
Niggers?
>> Anonymous
>>157830

Oh, about 90% of the people out there?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>157832

90% of /p/ is niggers?!?

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution96 dpiVertical Resolution96 dpiImage Created2007:09:01 12:06:17Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width350Image Height405
>> Anonymous
>>157843

Just judging by EXIF info, there are a lot more people on Windows than OS X.

Although it's _possible_ someone is using Safari on Windows.
>> Anonymous
>>157785

Is there a reliable way of doing that that isn't going to require some high-end pro set up?
>> Anonymous
>>157762
Yeah it does look a bit darker than real life with the polariser but its up to you whether you want that look or not. I'd argue that the unshooped left image is too light and also looks unnatural.

A lot of PL filters let you adjust the polarisation, so it might have been possible to get the same shot as in>>157760R but with a slightly lighter sky.
>> Anonymous
>>157761

Way to change BOTH images, numbnuts.