This an example of my issue. I have a 77mm circular polarizer for my 17-35 and when I use the polarizer with the lens at the wide end I get this dark area in the sky. Now I realize that darkening the sky is what a polarizer will do but my problem is that the effect is not even across the entire sky. I really like what the filter does for my color in the marsh and trees but the sky kills it. Is there a better type of polarizer that will give a more even result or is that just the way it is with polarizers and wide-angle lenses.

Nope thats what happens when you go wide...the amount of sky you are filling the frame with is too many degrees to be polarized. You stand between 45-90 degrees in order to get the most out of your polarizer. But when you have this much sky you are seeing the unpolarized to polarized to unpolarized all in one shot...shoot it in vertical =)

yea unfortunately I experience the same problem when using a polarizer i'm assuming this was at 17 mm? My problem goes away at 24MM on my tokina

Hi Larry,

Wally gave some good information, though going vertical isn't really a solution, because if you wanted to shoot it vertical, you would have been doing it anyway.

There are two ways to deal with this and still keep your shot.

1st, take the polarizer off... Often when shooting wide like that, the sky seems to naturally look darker with that wide angle. So maybe you don't even need it.

2nd, adjust it to it's minimal setting. Or adjust it to balance the natural polarization you are seeing with such a wide angle. As Wally mentioned about the angles, it will naturally polarize based on your angle to the sun. So you can then potentially use the polarizer to balance the polarization effect where it wants to create that blob, and by slowly adjusting and watching, you can balance the sky, or atleast provide a uniform gradient from dark to light in the shot.

You don't want to throw the polarizer away, cause even though I don't normally use it because of the blob effect, I will definately use it when there is minimal sky in the shot, or for sure when shooting water.

Jim

Wally's right. It's not the quality of the filter, it's a quality of the filter

Yeah maybe vertical isn't the right answer haha but you know...

I guess I find that photography is a lot of the time about compromise between your surroundings/the cameras limitations/ and your skill

I will be realizing these polarizer limitations when I go FF in a couple days or so but I have experienced this before (17mm - so 27mm FOV for me) and I just won't accept an uneven sky and won't accept taking my polarizer off as we are married. So I will change my approach to the scene/find a different foreground subject and bring it in close vertically/ etc etc

Maybe shoot the scene vertically as three images, trying to match the strength each time and stitch them together in CS3 haha, it would be difficult but maybe doable?

I shoot with the Hoya Super Quality Pro 1 circular polarizer with the Nikon 17-35 at 17mm and don't have this problem.

Sharon

depends on where you stand relative to the sun and the strength your polarizer is set to, also this only happens with the sky

If you are using a circular polarizer, try taking multiple (horizontal) shots with the same exposure, rotating your polarizer for each shot, then over lay them in Photoshop and see how it turns out.

Thanks for the responses...lots of good info and suggestions.

If you're skilled at creating graduated masks in PS, you can remove the effect from the sky.

I have found that some selective dodging and burning in LAB mode, as well as controlling tones in ACR's HSL panel (Hue, Saturation, and Luminance) can control sky color problems like this. I love the HSL panel because now you can, a lot easier, make an image look just like it had a strong polarizer effect, as well as take the look away when it was shot too strong. Usually some tweaks of the blue will do it for you.

While that is true mark, you must be very careful when doing this as darkening the luminance of a blue sky/adding sat to it etc will almost always leave a while barrier between tree branches/leaves etc off in the background. You may not be able to notice it on web but printed at 11X14 + and when viewed at 100% it is clearly visible.

This isn't and never will be a way to mimic the effects of a CPL , hopefully no one will argue that haha

I think extra-wide CPLs exist for wide angle shots or maybe a linear polarizer would be effective for wide-angle landscape shots. Just a thought not a suggestion based on experience.

JohnJos wrote:
I think extra-wide CPLs exist for wide angle shots or maybe a linear polarizer would be effective for wide-angle landscape shots. Just a thought not a suggestion based on experience.


I really don't really think you're going to find a polarizer that alters the laws of physics. They all work the same way --- when you shoot toward the north (in the northern hemisphere) with a wide lens, you're going to have this effect.

not sure but i remember reading somewhere that linear polarizers don't work on digital. But i could be completely wrong on that.

Wallybud wrote:
While that is true mark, you must be very careful when doing this as darkening the luminance of a blue sky/adding sat to it etc will almost always leave a while barrier between tree branches/leaves etc off in the background. You may not be able to notice it on web but printed at 11X14 + and when viewed at 100% it is clearly visible.

This isn't and never will be a way to mimic the effects of a CPL , hopefully no one will argue that haha




I'll humbly argue that masterful handling of the newest version of ACR (mainly in the blues) along with advanced masking in LAB mode can get results that often mimics a strong polarizer effect in a sky, and can also reverse the overly polarized sky excellently in large to very large gallery quality prints. All I do is large gallery quality prints (24 inches up to over 100 inches) and often I can get the results I am after with no quality loss whatsoever. But yes, you do have to be very "careful" if not masterful.

You should be able to see the polarizing effect in the sky before you take the shot. If you have a dark blue spot in the middle of the sky you need to keep turning your polarizer until it looks even across the frame. And yes, the further away from 90 degrees you are to the sun the worse the problem will be. It's take some practice, but soon you will be able to avoid the dreaded blue blob

Al

mark70x70 wrote:
Wallybud wrote:
While that is true mark, you must be very careful when doing this as darkening the luminance of a blue sky/adding sat to it etc will almost always leave a while barrier between tree branches/leaves etc off in the background. You may not be able to notice it on web but printed at 11X14 + and when viewed at 100% it is clearly visible.

This isn't and never will be a way to mimic the effects of a CPL , hopefully no one will argue that haha




I'll humbly argue that masterful handling of the newest version of ACR (mainly in the blues) along with advanced masking in LAB mode can get results that often mimics a strong polarizer effect in a sky, and can also reverse the overly polarized sky excellently in large to very large gallery quality prints. All I do is large gallery quality prints (24 inches up to over 100 inches) and often I can get the results I am after with no quality loss whatsoever. But yes, you do have to be very "careful" if not masterful.

I stand corrected then.

However, darkening a blue sky is only ONE of the things we use our faithful polarizers, so my statement stands, "There isn't and never will be a way to mimic all the effects of a CPL "

BTW I wrote "This" in the beginning of that sentence however meant it to be "there" so I have now changed around the structure lol...

PS how much does it cost to get an image printed at around 100 inches? I might do one for the hell of it...to test my limits haha