• JimKassonpanorama_fish_eye
    1738 posts
    2 years ago

    Normal

    _A731238.jpg

    Cross polarized:

    _A731236.jpg

    _A731236.jpg

    JPG, 120.1 KB, uploaded by JimKasson 2 years ago.

    _A731238.jpg

    JPG, 169.9 KB, uploaded by JimKasson 2 years ago.

  • TimRichardspanorama_fish_eye
    207 posts
    2 years ago

    Jim - serious question, which do you like better, and why?

    Tim

  • JimKassonpanorama_fish_eye
    1738 posts
    2 years ago

    I like the cross polarized one better, but if it weren’t a demo, I would have left a little specularity in the image.

  • CAcreekspanorama_fish_eye
    123 posts
    2 years ago

    Other way around for me.

    Did you use polarized flash in conjunction with a circular polarizer on your lens? (As in the shoe demo on YouTube.)

    When I look back at old film photos, I don't like the effect of my polarizer. Sky is too purple - opposite of ESPN where sky is too cyan.

  • JimKassonpanorama_fish_eye
    1738 posts
    2 years ago

    Polarized flash with straight polarizer on lens.

  • JimKassonpanorama_fish_eye
    1738 posts
    2 years ago

    That sounds like some kind of hue twist in the film.

  • IliahBorgpanorama_fish_eye
    976 posts
    2 years ago

    I use linear polarizers most of the times. In my experience they introduce less colour artifacts. The need in circular ones IMHO is overstated by marketing (the FUD thing).

  • petrochemistpanorama_fish_eye
    208 posts
    2 years ago

    I can see a reduction in the reflections on the leaves in the crossed polariser version, but that reduction is what I would expect to see with normal polariser use.
    How was your 'normal' shot taken, a polariser on the lens but unpolarised lighting, might explain my confusion.

    When I use crossed polarisers it's to get very different effects like this:
    live.staticflickr.com/890/41468699545_fca685c025_o.jpg

    stressed stencil by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr

  • 2 years ago

    I prefer the first picture: even though still, it has much more life in it.

    I have given up using polarizers, because I have started using wider angle lenses. But I must see if I still have linear varieties that will fit my current lenses and re-evaluate them.

    David

  • JimKassonpanorama_fish_eye
    1738 posts
    2 years ago

    No polarizers for lens or lighting for the normal shot. Light was turned down to compensate.

  • simplejoyhelp_outline
    1662 posts
    2 years ago

    Great demonstration! As I've mentioned in another thread, having a gallery with a kind of before/after or A/B slider would be a great thing to have for things like that...

    I feel like in some situations it's great to have a couple of versions like that so you can create different blends afterwards. I would probably go with something like this:

    _A731236_JimKasson.jpg

    The great thing about doing that after the fact, is that you can apply/limit a certain look to certain parts. I have a polarizer somewhere but not used it in ages. Need to go look for it though - it certainly can be a very effective tool.

    _A731236_JimKasson.jpg

    JPG, 171.9 KB, uploaded by simplejoy 2 years ago.

  • JimKassonpanorama_fish_eye
    1738 posts
    2 years ago

    Good idea.

  • TonyBeachpanorama_fish_eye
    208 posts
    2 years ago

    I like that the specular highlights are removed, but the colors seem overly subdued. I'm thinking some PP would restore the color and result in the best of both worlds.

  • SrMipanorama_fish_eye
    457 posts
    2 years ago

    Isn't PDAF sometimes hampered by linear polarizers?

  • IliahBorgpanorama_fish_eye
    976 posts
    2 years ago

    When I have time to tune in the polarizing angle I also have time for manual focus ;)

  • JimKassonpanorama_fish_eye
    1738 posts
    2 years ago

    I don't use autofocus for macro and still life work, which is where I sometimes use cross polarization.