Polarizing Filter

[pgowder]

When shooting the Castle (or other Disney icons) during the day, are you finding you need a gradient filter?

What has been your experience with getting good exposures of the Castle in bright sun?

 

[ukcatfan]

The best option is to either be there early enough or stay late enough to get the good light. Mid day light is not going to give you much more than a snapshot. You could go extreme with a strong ND filter and blur the motion around you while keeping the architecture still. A tripod would be need though.

 

[pgowder]

The best option is to either be there early enough or stay late enough to get the good light. Mid day light is not going to give you much more than a snapshot. You could go extreme with a strong ND filter and blur the motion around you while keeping the architecture still. A tripod would be need though.

With the family I don't think I'll be able to get there early for photos. We'll be in the park, but DD is going to be driving the agenda at that point. So midday or late afternoon light is probably all I'll get to see.

I will be doing some night work after she goes to be though!

 

[boBQuincy]

Our cameras (and yours) can get a good exposure in very bright light, no filter should be needed for that. A polarizer can help to saturate the colors and bring out the blue sky. Careful examination of the histogram will show if we have overexposed, losing data.

After that, HDR can really work to capture all the bright *and* dark parts of a scene but it is more work and does not work well with moving subjects.

 

[pgowder]

Our cameras (and yours) can get a good exposure in very bright light, no filter should be needed for that. A polarizer can help to saturate the colors and bring out the blue sky. Careful examination of the histogram will show if we have overexposed, losing data.

After that, HDR can really work to capture all the bright *and* dark parts of a scene but it is more work and does not work well with moving subjects.

Thanks!

 

[Chikabowa]

So your first question... do you use a gradient fliter? The answer is No.

The second question... how to get a good exposure in bright sunlight?
Are you familiar with the "Sunny 16" rule? If not, then google that term "Sunny 16" and read up on it. It's a GREAT place to start to learn how to shoot in full sun and where you keep your settings. It's just a handy little trick that works a good amount of time - if it isn't working, you can always do a few adjustments and then it does work.

But essentially, when shooting in fully sun, position yourself so that the sun is at your back, shining directly onto your subject. This is difficult it if your subject is human as you'll get too much shadowing in the eye sockets, not to mention a TON of squinting, and it makes for a horrible portrait. BUT... when shooting static objects at Disney... this works perfectly.

This was taken in full sun and is completely straight out of camera with no adjustments other than a resize/sharpen for web and a watermark. (excuse the dirty sensor, the lens vignette, and how un-straight the horizon is... I think my head is on crooked because I can't take a straight picture if I tried).

Anyway, as you can see from my example, in looking a the shadows, you can see that the sun is pretty high up in the sky, it is over my left shoulder, and I'm shooting in that direction. Had I been standing on the other side of the castle, only a few feet away, my shot would not been terrible. So look for your positioning when you are taking a shot!

 

[pgowder]

So your first question... do you use a gradient fliter? The answer is No.

The second question... how to get a good exposure in bright sunlight?
Are you familiar with the "Sunny 16" rule? If not, then google that term "Sunny 16" and read up on it. It's a GREAT place to start to learn how to shoot in full sun and where you keep your settings. It's just a handy little trick that works a good amount of time - if it isn't working, you can always do a few adjustments and then it does work.

But essentially, when shooting in fully sun, position yourself so that the sun is at your back, shining directly onto your subject. This is difficult it if your subject is human as you'll get too much shadowing in the eye sockets, not to mention a TON of squinting, and it makes for a horrible portrait. BUT... when shooting static objects at Disney... this works perfectly.

This was taken in full sun and is completely straight out of camera with no adjustments other than a resize/sharpen for web and a watermark. (excuse the dirty sensor, the lens vignette, and how un-straight the horizon is... I think my head is on crooked because I can't take a straight picture if I tried).

Anyway, as you can see from my example, in looking a the shadows, you can see that the sun is pretty high up in the sky, it is over my left shoulder, and I'm shooting in that direction. Had I been standing on the other side of the castle, only a few feet away, my shot would not been terrible. So look for your positioning when you are taking a shot!

Thanks I'm reading up on Sunny 16 now!

 

[pgowder]

So your first question... do you use a gradient fliter? The answer is No.

The second question... how to get a good exposure in bright sunlight?
Are you familiar with the "Sunny 16" rule? If not, then google that term "Sunny 16" and read up on it. It's a GREAT place to start to learn how to shoot in full sun and where you keep your settings. It's just a handy little trick that works a good amount of time - if it isn't working, you can always do a few adjustments and then it does work.

But essentially, when shooting in fully sun, position yourself so that the sun is at your back, shining directly onto your subject. This is difficult it if your subject is human as you'll get too much shadowing in the eye sockets, not to mention a TON of squinting, and it makes for a horrible portrait. BUT... when shooting static objects at Disney... this works perfectly.

This was taken in full sun and is completely straight out of camera with no adjustments other than a resize/sharpen for web and a watermark. (excuse the dirty sensor, the lens vignette, and how un-straight the horizon is... I think my head is on crooked because I can't take a straight picture if I tried).

Anyway, as you can see from my example, in looking a the shadows, you can see that the sun is pretty high up in the sky, it is over my left shoulder, and I'm shooting in that direction. Had I been standing on the other side of the castle, only a few feet away, my shot would not been terrible. So look for your positioning when you are taking a shot!

Did you use a polarizer on this?

 

[Chikabowa]

Nope. I just have a simple UV filter on my lenses in order to protect the glass - I'm hard on my equipment and bump it a lot. I also had a sun shade on the lens.

It's totally straight out of camera with tools ANYONE can use on ANY camera. It's just simple technique and being able to read the light enough and putting your body in the right position for the light.

 

[annebolyard]

Good advice - thankx.

 

[GrillMouster]

Often the difference between great photographers and mediocre snapshooters is that great photographes exercise a degree of patience and willingness to do things that others are just too lazy to do.

One example, as Chikabowa mentioned, is waiting for the light to be in the right place. You might want to get the safety shot now, and plan to return later in the day when the sun is in a better spot to get the image you envision in your head.

Other examples of things that most of us are just too lazy to do is to use a tripod, move distracting objects from the background, walk in and around a scene to get the best angle, move the subject to an area with better light, etc.. There will always be elements that we can't control, but ther are also a whole lot of things that are most certainly within our control.

I jokingly use the term "lazy", and I hope no one takes offense. The fact is that for most of us here photography is just a hobby, not a career. That being the case, we usually have other things that take priority. We may have constraints that prohibit us from doing the things mentioned above, especially while we're on vacation at WDW with our families. But if you have the inclination and the time (or can make the time), I encourage you try one or more of the above.

 

[pgowder]

Often the difference between great photographers and mediocre snapshooters is that great photographes exercise a degree of patience and willingness to do things that others are just too lazy to do.

One example, as Chikabowa mentioned, is waiting for the light to be in the right place. You might want to get the safety shot now, and plan to return later in the day when the sun is in a better spot to get the image you envision in your head.

Other examples of things that most of us are just too lazy to do is to use a tripod, move distracting objects from the background, walk in and around a scene to get the best angle, move the subject to an area with better light, etc.. There will always be elements that we can't control, but ther are also a whole lot of things that are most certainly within our control.

I jokingly use the term "lazy", and I hope no one takes offense. The fact is that for most of us here photography is just a hobby, not a career. That being the case, we usually have other things that take priority. We may have constraints that prohibit us from doing the things mentioned above, especially while we're on vacation at WDW with our families. But if you have the inclination and the time (or can make the time), I encourage you try one or more of the above.

Thanks! I now I'm going to have opportunities to do some shooting where I take my time at night. But during the waking hours of the 5 year old, I'm at her command!

 

[pgowder]

I didn't get a chance to shoot the Castle much at all during the day. We were running from here to there all the time!

But I did have a couple of nights where I did some night shots:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/96077153@N00/sets/72157622432091532/

 

[gokenin]

What filters do you use on your lens when you are at Disney? Looking back at my pictures I tend to notice that most of the skies are blown out. Do you use Circular polarizers or Neutral Density filters?

 

[VVFF]

What filters do you use on your lens when you are at Disney? Looking back at my pictures I tend to notice that most of the skies are blown out. Do you use Circular polarizers or Neutral Density filters?

I've been using a circular polarizer if its mostly sunny outside or I plan on shooting water. I would take this off if I went into a situation where shutter speed was of importance.

Neutral density filters are a bit more "specialized" in use. I could see throwing one on in bright daylight if I wanted to use my lens at F1.4. Or I would use one if it was too sunny to adequetly get the smooth water effect I wanted. But other than that I wouldn't just walk around with one on.

Graduated filters are interesting and are useful to some Landscape shots. But they are problematic if you don't have a fairly straight skyline as they make objects darker that jut into the sky. the effect of a Graduated filter can be done in photoshop with a well exposed raw file(or bracketed RAW file).

 

[Groucho]

Circular polarizer for sure... an ND filter won't help with blown-out skies, it will render the entire scene darker. Once you increase the exposure to compensate, you're right back to blown-out skies - bleah!

The effectiveness of the CPs depends on where the sun is in the sky but by and large, they can make a pretty big difference.

If you're using a manual focus lens, you can use an old-fashioned polarizer, too...

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

Does anyone have any experience with the Sigma filters. I've used Hoya and Tiffen in the past. I've also looked at the B + W's. There doesn't seem to be very many reviews on the Sigma's. I'm just curious if anyone has used one, good, bad or indifferent. Any info would be greatly appreciated.

 

[medicjch]

Would anyone recommend getting one? I've got a D50. I've heard that they can help with the outdoor shots. Thanks for any help/advice.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I would strongly recommend getting one. They are very useful when shooting flat surfaces that reflect light (water, glass, etc). They can also cut down on the glare in situations that you wouldn't expect (damp leaves on trees). They are also good at darkening blue skies.

One drawback to a polarizer is that it cuts out about 1.5 stops of light, so you will have a lower shutter speed or need to use a higher ISO or lower f-stop. They also require that you rotate them to get the best effect.

One limitation of a polarizer is that the effect decreases if you are shooting towards or away from the sun. It works best when the sun is at a right angle to you and your subject. If you use a really wide angle, you can have the problem that the effect varies significantly across the frame with a deep blue sky on the side that is at a right angle to the sun and a light blue sky on the other side.

If you have more than one lens, make sure that you get a polarizer that fits your largest filter size. You can then by "step up" rings to use it on the smaller lenses. Another option is to by a Cokin style filter system that uses square filters that slide into holders.

If you are already using a UV filter on your lens, you will probably want to take it off when you put on the polarizer. If you don't, the stacked polarizers can block light on the edges of your picture, making your corners look unusually dark. This is called vignetting.

Make sure that you buy a circular polarizer and not a linear polarizer. That has nothing to do with the polarizer's shape. It has to do with how it is made. A linear polarizer won't work well with modern cameras.

You can also buy a linear polarizer to stack on top of the circular polarizer and use the combination as a variable neutral density filter, but I'll leave that discussion for another day.

 

[Shutterbug]

Polarizers are great for removing reflections and useful in lowering the shutter speed when needed