That depends on what sort of polarizer you use... using a Nikon CIR PLII it's still as good on the brightness in my VF.Hewland said:
Anyone put on a polariser for outdoor actual day wedding shoot?
- Thread starter The Oracle
- Start date
- Status
espn said:
?? This I do not understand. I really do not understand.
If a polariser works to polarise light effectively, to my understanding, the amount of light must be reduced. These are "laws" of light physics, and I cannot understand how a Nikon made polariser will differ from a Lee, or Hoya, or Singh-Ray.
Of course if a polariser is set in such a postion that light is not polarised, then the light loss may not be significant. In which case what is the purpose of puting on a polariser?
Is there a difference in the way a Nikon CIR PLII is made to make light loss insignificant? I am serious! If there is such a thing, I will happily get rid of my Singh-Rays and Lees, and buy a Nikon!
It does reduce light input, but what I meant is, the light loss is not that significant. I understand the NCIRPLII loses 1/3 stop of light. And it's true that the VF is still as bright.student said:
As per light loss, you are correct, the polarizer works best when used at 90 degrees angle from the light-source, the light does get cut off from the polarizer, but that depends on how much. Probably I should have phrased it as such, and not mean that it doesn't lose light at all.
Hi Zerstorer, yep, that I know and I agree, perhaps I should have phrased it properly as "The brightness of the VF is still manageable with the Nikon CIR-PLII".Zerstorer said:
I've tried the Hoya, it acts like ND4 everything is all dark, I've tried B+W, 1st Gen Nikon CIR-PL and the current PL-II. I get good VF brightness from all three
Seriously this is the 3rd or 4th time you have stated this and I don't see how this can be. Even in indoor even lighting the CirPol II will cut about 1 1/3 stops of light without significant polarization. In out door directional light it can cut even more at its maximum setting.espn said:
Just look at the polarizor itself, its grey in appearance which should alone tell you that It should be more than 1stop of light loss.
Zerstorer said:
student said:
someone got stamped in the eyes :bsmilie: :bsmilie:
N :love1: ESPN
Without using the polariser to its intended effect - that is to polarise light, the amount of light will be reduced from 1/3 to 1/2, as what Zestorer mentioned.
Used to its full effect, it will reduce light by two stops, although for my black & white films, I will compensate by 3 stops.
However ESPN might be right in that, FOR HIM, the brightness of the VF is still MANAGEABLE.
There can be a simple reason for this. The brightness of the VF depends on two major factors. The type of glass used, and the speed of the lens. If one use a f1.4 lens, using a polariser will effectively reduced the brightness of the VF to something like f4. Something quite manageable. If one has a f2.8 lens, the brightness of the viewfinder will be reduced to that of f5.6. I think still manageable.
And of course better glass used for the VF does help. People who use exchangeable screens for cameras like the Hasselblads and Rolleiflex, as well as View Cameras will understand this.
Used to its full effect, it will reduce light by two stops, although for my black & white films, I will compensate by 3 stops.
However ESPN might be right in that, FOR HIM, the brightness of the VF is still MANAGEABLE.
There can be a simple reason for this. The brightness of the VF depends on two major factors. The type of glass used, and the speed of the lens. If one use a f1.4 lens, using a polariser will effectively reduced the brightness of the VF to something like f4. Something quite manageable. If one has a f2.8 lens, the brightness of the viewfinder will be reduced to that of f5.6. I think still manageable.
And of course better glass used for the VF does help. People who use exchangeable screens for cameras like the Hasselblads and Rolleiflex, as well as View Cameras will understand this.
espn said:
another example is using PL to make the sky blue....even my friend who just pick up photography also know that PL can make the sky blue, but he dunno why a PL can give such effect nor know how to use the PL properly
http://www.ephotozine.com/techniques/viewtechnique.cfm?recid=142
it's about sun rays hitting the atomsphere scattering and reflecting around the gases.
so that friend cannot be me.. :bsmilie:
EDIT: oops.. it's stated in the link posted that it's reflection from water droplets in the air..:think: now who is right..:think:
so that friend cannot be me.. :bsmilie:
EDIT: oops.. it's stated in the link posted that it's reflection from water droplets in the air..:think: now who is right..:think:
espn said:
Ok thanks. I learned something today. Anyway i hardly use one cos by the time I twist and turn the moment's gone.
After seeing this thread, i dont think i know much about polariser! Cheers guys and thanks for sharing! The more the better!:bsmilie:
The Oracle said:
so how is your wedding shot? or yr preparation for it?
how about shooting some pictures and share with us?
happy shooting!
Only this Sunday is the first day of eighth month of Luna calendar, rarely have any wedding event during seventh month (ghost month).
So I believe he have not shot the wedding yet.[FONT="][/FONT]
So I believe he have not shot the wedding yet.[FONT="][/FONT]
Is the shoot over? I did an experiment on the polarizer (posted under portrait) in case you're interested... it made the sunny but cloudy sky seems a bit ominous & moody by exaggerating the cloud shadow. Also used flash since its quite dark. It would work nicely with gothic/surreal mood but couples may not like it, as the comments I got are mood did not match facial expression. I used Tokina filter.
dawgbyte77 said:Is the shoot over? I did an experiment on the polarizer (posted under portrait) in case you're interested... it made the sunny but cloudy sky seems a bit ominous & moody by exaggerating the cloud shadow. Also used flash since its quite dark. It would work nicely with gothic/surreal mood but couples may not like it, as the comments I got are mood did not match facial expression. I used Tokina filter.
Hi guys! No, the photoshoot is in mid sept so not done yet. Now ghost festival leh! Care to show us your photo with the polariser? I will be interested! And i guess most of us here will want to see as well! Post Post!
Its in http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148727
Not sure if I used it correctly though... I can't remember where the sun is but I remember the face was already in the shadow from the start.
This is the actual weather..
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148742
Not sure if I used it correctly though... I can't remember where the sun is but I remember the face was already in the shadow from the start.
This is the actual weather..
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148742
dawgbyte77 said:
Thanks Dawgbyte77! You can see that the colour look natural and more saturation than the photo without polariser. The one without polariser is more harsh. Do you use flash for both photo?
- Status
