Comments on: Adobe Photoshop Lightroom vs. Polarizing Filter

By: indra satriani

indra satriani — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:54:43 +0000

i use both :)

By: judy mallen

judy mallen — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 06:36:43 +0000

im interested in getting more clearity in my photos of teeth ,top of the line canon with ring lens. but the internal characteristics of the tooth are not very notiable. thought polarization would be the key.

By: linty

linty — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 18:01:33 +0000

Polarizing filters are the among the few exceptions to the rule (along with neutral density filters and some special effect filters). Most filters are better applied digitally when using digital cameras. It’s a bit complicated, but look up a bayer filter on wikipedia and you will see the pattern that most cameras use in capturing light. Individual pixels on the sensor are filtered to be sensitive to either red, green, or blue light. These pixels are arranged by color sensitivity into a grid. Using algorithms the camera (or raw processing software) gives each pixel a final color which based partly on the colors of neighboring pixels.

in effect, applying a colored filter to a digital camera changes the incoming light (by removing information) in a way that the algorithms aren’t designed to process. It will usually still produce a decent picture but if you are able to photograph in raw (which is likely if your camera accepts filters) then you’d be better off applying most filters digitally.

By: Scott in Japan

Scott in Japan — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 06:51:52 +0000

I think you should clarify what exactly a circular polarizer is. IE: L-PL filters vs C-PL filters. A circular polarizer is not called a circular polarizer because of its shape or that it spins. Please do some research on the matter.

By: JHG

JHG — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 11:18:46 +0000

Very interesting thread and article. Since I’ve just purchased myself a 77mm Hoya Linear Polariser with a circular scale, I’m even more keen on saving more time on computer and spend it more outside shooting! Just that finding a 77mm is not that easy, but I got it for less than 70USD brand new! Now it will stay on my Sigma 10-20mm for long!
Cheers
Julien

By: Vimal

Vimal — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:37:43 +0000

Though Photoshop can create wonders, it can not do everything the polarizer can do eg. the polarized under water, behind the glass etc. So I suggest the use of polarizer.

By: Ted

Ted — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:56:31 +0000

@andz:

Why? How is it different from darkroom processing? Couldn’t the original digital file be considered comparable to a negative?

By: andz

andz — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 13:52:00 +0000

@Ted: no, they are not the same

By: Ted

Ted — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:53:32 +0000

Using a polarizer instead of PROPER color correction is ridiculous. Using a polarizer in order to make sure you don’t have to do something difficult or sensibly time consuming is lazy. That said, a good cpl (I have one at 72mm) is a fantastic tool in some situations, and belongs in your camera bag along with step-down rings for each lens in your kit, along with cheap protective UV filters for each lens.

My feelings might be a bit skewed by my preference for capturing as much data as possible of a perfectly-composed image and worrying about the colors later, knowing that I’ll be performing extensive work later anyway. I do agree with Andy that this is largely “painting,” although I would argue (as a fellow analog user and the owner of a darkroom) that it is certainly photography as well. A print isn’t a direct copy of a negative any more than a final JPEG is a copy of your RAW file, and the manipulations along the way are often essential to producing a good result. I feel the same way about selecting a filter or plugin as I do about mounting a lens–it’s just a matter making an artistic choice.

Here’s a rather extreme example of what I mean. Here’s an image shot from the inside of a car (without a CPL–I accidentally left the step down lens at home!):
http://i36.tinypic.com/oub2oz.jpg

Here it is after enhancements. Significantly different? Certainly. A little data has been lost in the tree–which has received a contrast boost to suggest the effects of flame–and rocks, but the overall image has been very tweaked. Isn’t it still the same image?
http://fc02.deviantart.com/fs20/i/2007/230/c/a/Burnt_by_Semiquaver.jpg

By: Loose_Canon

Loose_Canon — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 19:13:56 +0000

Thanks for the post. You mentioned “Attempting to remove the haze from the distant cliffs proved problematic.” Actually haze in the background separates the front from the back and is desirable in scenes like this. If the back were important, such as a photo of the Matterhorn or Mount Rushmore, the polarizer would be more useful.

For me, I don’t like giving up 2 stops because of a polarizer unless reflections are a distinct problem. I simply rev up the saturation in camera a bit and am very happy with the results.