After years of thinking about picking up this filter, i finally did pick it up this summer.

I've got a few questions. I liked the filter's effect when looking through the viewfinder, but later when processing my raw files, I had a hard time trying to replicate what I saw throught he viewfinder.

I tried playing around with with the WB setting in DPP when processing my raw file, but just couldn't get what I wanted. Is there anything else I should be doing

ANy suggestions on processing raw files when using this filter would be appreciated (note i do all my processing in DPP not CS3).

I love the filter. I can't help on the PP, because I shoot JPEG. But my shots come out pretty much how I see them through the VF. Was shooting on a D2X, and will be using it on a D3, although no experience on that yet. But isn't the whole idea of using a filter, to capture the shot then, and not have to try to fix it in PP ?

Maybe this post on Singh-Ray's blog is useful:

http://singhray.blogspot.com/2007/07/getting-what-you-see-with-gold-n-blue.html

The Singh Ray GoldnBlue is a great filter. I find it best to use on those days where conditions or light isn't great. It can make a ho-hum shot really sing. Sometimes I like the artistic spin it can add to images and the super saturated colors. Other times, you may like to "color-correct" a bit with the eye dropper tools to tone things down a bit.

I used it quite a bit during my recent trip to Canada (Yoho, Banff, Jasper, Kootenay) and enjoyed using it there.....

Man $220 for this filter? Is it really worth it?

Cokin makes a much cheaper version, if you just want to play with one before dishing out the big bucks.

E

davewolfs wrote:
Man $220 for this filter? Is it really worth it?

It is what it is. *sniff*

But worth it once you get used to your much lighter wallet.....

Singh Ray makes great quality filters. Not many companies out there that you can call and actually talk to someone about your filter concerns. I called Singh Ray before my trip to Alaska---and they were able to rush an order out to me before my departure. Great customer service. I like my CPs on a filter ring, but everything else is a "Z" filter or 4x6.

I've since decided to stop "skimping"---and have shifted to using Singh Ray filters. (And yes, my wallet is much much lighter...)

you haven't looked at their expensive filters yet.

Herb...

davewolfs wrote:
Man $220 for this filter? Is it really worth it?

I haven't bought anything from them other then the reverse ND's simply because they are the only ones who make them. Lee 4x6's work great and so does my $120 Nikon CPL.

But this gold and blue is interesting, do you find this affect useful? Some examples would be great.

i spent alot of time with the goldnblue in death valley. i just didnt care for the results. like the OP, i couldnt get descent results out of camera, and i DID read and use the mini tutorial provided by the canadian photog, Darwin Wiggett. Ill stickto my nd's

Wouldn't using the eye-dropper tool to make W/B changes negate the effects of the filter? Sorry if I'm not seeing things clearly, but my experience with "color casts" (which in this case is implemented by the filter) was to correct them by using the eye dropper tool. By using the Singh Ray filter and then correcting the colors in post processing seems backwards to me...

Can anyone supply a sample image taken with the Gold & Blue filter that has been color corrected using the ACR dropper tool and one without the Gold & Blue filter?

JasonJ wrote:
Wouldn't using the eye-dropper tool to make W/B changes negate the effects of the filter?

Yes - no - it depends on what you put you click the WB eye-dropper on! The Gold-N-Blue polarizer tends to give an overall magenta cast to an image. If you have a neutral color object in the image that is not polarized (say white water, white clouds, grey tree bark, asphalt, grey card, etc..), then clicking on that will neutralize the magenta cast and give the proper overall white balance. But this will not neutralize the gold or blue polarization that occurs.

JasonJ wrote:
Can anyone supply a sample image taken with the Gold & Blue filter that has been color corrected using the ACR dropper tool and one without the Gold & Blue filter?

Sure can!

Normal polarizer:

Good stuff! I was about to post, asking the same question as the OP, when I found this thread.
I have had my Gold-n-Blue for quite some time, used to use it on my old Pentax film camera and loved it. Since switching to digital, the RAW images are so outta whack for colour I hardly ever use it anymore. I'll try the AWB to daylight swith, and the eyedropper in Bridge. Thanks for the replies above.

CampX wrote:
Good stuff! I was about to post, asking the same question as the OP, when I found this thread.
I have had my Gold-n-Blue for quite some time, used to use it on my old Pentax film camera and loved it. Since switching to digital, the RAW images are so outta whack for colour I hardly ever use it anymore.
You're in luck. I posted a new entry on my blog yesterday that talks about the the proper way of converting RAW files of images when using the Singh-Ray Gold-N-Blue Polarizer...

The blog post is here http://www.sojournsinnature.com/blog/?p=381 (Hum... web server appears very slow right now - not sure what's up with that!)

Please give me some feedback on whether or not you find this blog entry useful.

Rob

If anyone is looking for one of these - I have one for sale:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/724343/0#6552804

I don't have one of these filters but I have been interested in them for a while now.

Seeing as they work fine with film, couldn't you just set a manual white balance with an Expodisc (or similar) without the filter, then put the filter on and take your shot? Surely that would have to be more accurate than randomly clicking around a picture with a gray dropper until you get something that looks like you remember it. Or am I completely missing something here?

Dan Martin wrote:
Seeing as they work fine with film, couldn't you just set a manual white balance with an Expodisc (or similar) without the filter, then put the filter on and take your shot?
Surely that would have to be more accurate than randomly clicking around a picture with a gray dropper until you get something that looks like you remember it. Or am I completely missing something here?

There are a few things to point out...

1) The Expodisc works best when it's pointed from the subject towards the shooting location. Ideally, you go to the subject's location, and use it from there. If you're shooting waterfalls, sunsets, from a shore, or a place when the light on your subject is different than the light where' you're using the Expodisc, the results will be off.
2) Using a custom white balance with the Expodisc will completely neutralize the light temperature. This is not always what you want to do, such as when the sun in low in the sky (sunsets, dusk, dawn, etc...). In these situations, you want the light to be warm, not neutral!
3) a 77mm Expodisc costs $100, and not everybody has one.
4) There's no point in "randomly" clicking with the eyedropper - the idea would be to "smartly" click on something that you want to be neutral.
5) White balancing in RAW is as accurate as using an Expodisc in my opinion. But you have the added bonus of understanding how to tweak your white balance in RAW, letting you adjust as desired. Once you learn how to color balance (temperature and tint) a shot done with a Gold-N-Blue polarizer in your RAW converter, it becomes very easy to do.

I'm not trying to knock the Expodisc, BTW. I think it's a great product, but I not sure it's always practical to use for nature photography...

EDIT: Wanted to add: Dan, the Expodisc may work just fine for you with the Gold-N-Blue. I was just meant to explain why I prefer to WB in RAW. I personally don't want to have to fiddle with an additional filter in the field, particularly in cold weather.

Rob

Interesting. I guess its one of those things that you have to try it to understand it.

I used to do the "click on something that should be gray" white balance in ACR, but I've grown to use my Expodisc wherever possible. I was hoping there would be a more "scientific" way of using this filter, but I'm fine with it either way.

Dan Martin wrote:
Interesting. I guess its one of those things that you have to try it to understand it.

I used to do the "click on something that should be gray" white balance in ACR, but I've grown to use my Expodisc wherever possible. I was hoping there would be a more "scientific" way of using this filter, but I'm fine with it either way.



If you're used to using an Expodisc, then you should be fine! I can't imagine why it would not work. I guess it all depends what tools you prefer to use, what locations you shoot from, and whay your choice of landscapes are. I'm happy with the ACR white balance route, but you should be able to get good results in different ways.

Rob

Don't use AWB!

E