| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/27/2004 09:45:19 AM · #1 |
I wondering if it's possible to achive the result in photoshop that polarizer filter do?
How many of you use polarizer to take landscape photos.
Is it better to use filter or photoshop? |
|
|
|
08/27/2004 09:47:35 AM · #2 |
No, get a polarizer. You could achieve it in photoshop, but it would be a heck of a lot of work.
Also for reflections it would be even more work.
I promise if you get one, even a cheap one, try it for a day and you will never understating why you didn't have one sooner.
|
|
|
|
08/27/2004 10:02:25 AM · #3 |
| A polarizer is a must have, no two ways about it. |
|
|
|
08/27/2004 10:05:21 AM · #4 |
I don't use one for landscapes because I don't have one for the Nikon - but if I had I think it would rarely be off the camera. It's affect at reducing reflections is well known, but I think people realise less the efect it has on leaves - also simply reducing the reflections, but I don't think people realise how strong the reflections from leaves are, preventing the colour from properly showing.
Edit: and in some instances it would surely be impossible to achieve the effect in PS - the information would simply not be there to work on, and you'd have to modify each individual pixel - you may as well be strating from a blank screen.
Ed
Message edited by author 2004-08-27 10:06:38.
|
|
|
|
08/27/2004 10:05:51 AM · #5 |
Agreed.
I have had a polarizer since way back in the 35mm stone age ;^)
I have tried to reproduce using PS... after about 3 hours, I quit. |
|
|
|
08/27/2004 10:06:18 AM · #6 |
| I have to agree - there is no way to duplicate in Photoshop what a circular polarizer does. The polarizer even changes the light on the leaves! And enhances rainbows! My polarizers live on my lenses doing double duty to protect my more expensive lens and to be right there when I need them. |
|
|
|
08/27/2004 10:12:24 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by e301:
if I had I think it would rarely be off the camera. |
Even though a polarizer typically results in a 2-stop loss of light?
That's means instead of shooting at ISO 200, you'd have to shoot at ISO 800 to use an equivalent shutter speed and aperture... |
|
|
|
08/27/2004 11:00:22 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by e301:
if I had I think it would rarely be off the camera. |
Even though a polarizer typically results in a 2-stop loss of light?
That's means instead of shooting at ISO 200, you'd have to shoot at ISO 800 to use an equivalent shutter speed and aperture... |
Well have to give Canon and Nikon R&D something to work on. Have the grainness of shooting ISO 800 the same as the old ISO 200. :-) That way we can have our polarizer and aperture too. :-) |
|
|
|
08/27/2004 11:11:41 AM · #9 |
Or use a tripod :D
Message edited by author 2004-08-27 11:11:50. |
|
|
|
08/27/2004 12:20:07 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by e301:
if I had I think it would rarely be off the camera. |
Even though a polarizer typically results in a 2-stop loss of light?
That's means instead of shooting at ISO 200, you'd have to shoot at ISO 800 to use an equivalent shutter speed and aperture... |
He said for landscapes. If you are shooting landscapes and aren't using a tripod, I can't think of a suitably stupid analogy, but anyway, you get the idea.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/16/2026 07:02:58 PM EDT.
