Use of polarising filter in portraits
Stephens
controlling reflections. Some of my best outdoor portraits have a
gorgeous blue sky that could not have been achieved without a
polarizer.
In many cases, however, the polarizer is not necessary. Of course,
the effect of the polarizer depends on the relationship between the
direction of the sun and the direction in which you are shooting. In
some cases, the effect of the polarizer is negligible. If you need
the polarized sky, you can alter the direction of shooting.
Ken
Rob Geraghty wrote:
>
> Does anyone have any feelings on the use of polarising filters in
> portraiture? Obviously outdoors - modelling style photos for
> portfolios.
>
> Rob
> --
> http://wordweb.com
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
zeitgeist
Rob Geraghty wrote:
>
> Does anyone have any feelings on the use of polarising filters in
> portraiture? Obviously outdoors - modelling style photos for
> portfolios.
>
Since there are so many other, perhaps more important concerns in
lighting, in control of direction, contrast, etc, by the time these
issues are resolved, either by finding an ideal site, or modifying the
location with scrims, reflectors, or even fill flash, what would be the
point of using a polarizing filter?
a polarizer can darken sky, but if you are getting that much sky in your
image then you are shooting in direct sun (if you are in open shade, a
prefered situation, then the sky would be overexposed to much for the
polariod to effect) and have some significant other problems to contend
with, (well, some might say other opportunities.) Here's a trick if
you have a leaf shutter lens, shoot at a high shutter speed and a strong
flash, use the flash for a key light and the sky will take a dark blue
color as it will be slightly under exposed.
Rob Geraghty
blkhat...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Since there are so many other, perhaps more important concerns in
> lighting, in control of direction, contrast, etc, by the time these
> issues are resolved, either by finding an ideal site, or modifying the
> location with scrims, reflectors, or even fill flash, what would be
> the point of using a polarizing filter?
In the particular photos I took recently; reducing contrast to improve
saturation, and eliminating the reflection from the ocean to again
improve colour. I'll have to post a couple of examples on my web site
so you can see what I'm talking about.
> a polarizer can darken sky, but if you are getting that much
> sky in your image then you are shooting in direct sun (if you
> are in open shade, a prefered situation, then the sky would
> be overexposed to much for the polariod to effect) and have
> some significant other problems to contend with, (well, some
> might say other opportunities.)
If I have to find open shade, I lose the seascape which I was using as
a backdrop. Like I said, I probably need to provide examples.
> Here's a trick if you have a leaf shutter lens, shoot at a
> high shutter speed and a strong flash, use the flash for a
> key light and the sky will take a dark blue color as it
> will be slightly under exposed.
What difference does the shutter type make?
One of the problems with using a polariser is that is can darken the
sky unevenly, depending on the angle, and it's not always possible to
change the angle the photo is taken at.
JustaPawn
Different shutters sync at different speeds.
zeitgeist
> "What difference does the shutter type make?"
>
> Different shutters sync at different speeds.
A leaf shutter allows for much faster sync speeds. I know that most
35mm cameras sync at much faster speeds than the 1/60th my 40 year old
nikons do, and all my medium formats are limited to 1/60th. So I was
always compromised with what I could do out in the noon day sun.
A curtain shutter requires that the entire curtain be completely open
(well, there is that cool gimick of rapid pulse flashing with some top
of the line cameras, but that ain't gonna give you f/22 at any
distance) so they have a sync speed that is often considerably lower
than the max shutter speed available. Leaf shutters sync at any speed,
one less factor to consider, that's all. the techique of using flash
as a key or main light while outside so the noon day sun is actually
under exposed one stop is possibly available to those with shutter syncs
of 1/250th which i understand is common to many 35mm systems.
zeitgeist
Rob Geraghty wrote:
>
> In article <3A82555...@yahoo.com>,
> blkhat...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Since there are so many other, perhaps more important concerns in
> > lighting, in control of direction, contrast, etc, by the time these
> > issues are resolved, either by finding an ideal site, or modifying the
> > location with scrims, reflectors, or even fill flash, what would be
> > the point of using a polarizing filter?
>
> In the particular photos I took recently; reducing contrast to improve
> saturation, and eliminating the reflection from the ocean to again
> improve colour. I'll have to post a couple of examples on my web site
> so you can see what I'm talking about.
>
> > a polarizer can darken sky, but if you are getting that much
> > sky in your image then you are shooting in direct sun (if you
> > are in open shade, a prefered situation, then the sky would
> > be overexposed to much for the polariod to effect) and have
> > some significant other problems to contend with, (well, some
> > might say other opportunities.)
>
> If I have to find open shade, I lose the seascape which I was using as
> a backdrop. Like I said, I probably need to provide examples.
>
Usually a photographer is looking for a light that is soft, semi
directional, which fits the film's capability to record detail within
the highlight and shadow range. Trying to capture a subject and
background is difficult, whether it is beach bunnies, or weddings in a
park, or a family on their deck with Mt Ranier in the background.
My usual solutions are to soften the light on the subjects, but that
usually takes its toll on the background. I have used a translucent
scrim, this takes a full stop off the subject, which is just enough to
soften the harsh light of the sun, and by exposing for the subjects
leaves the background overexposed by one stop, but within range of the
film to print without manipulation (IE custom printing) I also employ a
ND vignette but for the most part the background lightens up quite a
bit, sort of a hi key effect, but since most of the beaches available
have people and often trash, old campfires, etc, the pastel colors help
rather than hinder. This is opposite of your intentions.
Seeing videos of photogs on the beachs of Daytona and other spring break
sites, I notice that they either use open shade of a pier, (with the
deeper shade of the pier, water or sand under it or along side it as the
background) a large scrim, (actually a tent, one of those art/craft show
booths with a ripstop nylon cover) OR, they wait for very late
afternoon, twilight time when the sun is almost down, the light is
softened by the atmosphere, the contrast is low and the subject and
background light are compatible.
If you have to work against that, your options are to over light, use a
softbox or a scrim (ala Dean Collins) and blast a light through it, so
you have one stop over the background exposure. Expose for your key
light, the background, being one stop under, will be deeper and darker,
and more saturated, water and sky, and rocks and wandering people. And
that ranger from the state parks department coming over to ask about
your media site/day use permit....
> > Here's a trick if you have a leaf shutter lens, shoot at a
> > high shutter speed and a strong flash, use the flash for a
> > key light and the sky will take a dark blue color as it
> > will be slightly under exposed.
>
> What difference does the shutter type make?
To do that 'syncro-sun' you need to be able to shoot at a high shutter
speed, a leaf shutter can sync at whatever the hightest shutter speed is
available. since I'm a medium format shooter with a curtain shutter,
my max is 1/60th. I realize that some modern 35mm's have flash sync as
high as 1/250th, that may suffice, you just need a flash that can give
you f/16 with your ISO 100 or 125 speed film. This is not fill flash.
You may need to do that too.
>
> One of the problems with using a polariser is that is can darken the
> sky unevenly, depending on the angle, and it's not always possible to
> change the angle the photo is taken at.
use a longer lens...
z-prophoto, a yahoogroups.com mailing list for pro photographers.
>
Rob Geraghty
just...@aol.com (JustaPawn) wrote:
>> "What difference does the shutter type make?"
> Different shutters sync at different speeds.
I'll have to see what shutter speeds I can sync at with the dedicated
flash.
Rob Geraghty
blkhat...@yahoo.com wrote:
> My usual solutions are to soften the light on the subjects, but that
> usually takes its toll on the background. I have used a translucent
> scrim, this takes a full stop off the subject, which is just enough to
> soften the harsh light of the sun, and by exposing for the subjects
> leaves the background overexposed by one stop, but within range of the
> film to print without manipulation (IE custom printing)
I presume a scrim is like a large diffuser? I have a 5 way round
reflector diffuser which is fine for head and shoulders. It can be
used to soften the light, block it, or as a gold or silver reflector.
> I also employ a ND vignette but for the most part the
> background lightens up quite a bit, sort of a hi key effect,
Now that's interesting, because the thing which prompted me to ask this
question was the reaction of photographers to a photo I took with a
polariser that had vignetting in the sky - caused by variations in how
effective the polariser is on different parts of the sky. Of course an
ND vignette would be more consistent and predictable. :)
> but since most of the beaches available have people and often
> trash, old campfires, etc, the pastel colors help
> rather than hinder. This is opposite of your intentions.
:) I live in Australia, and those things are not a significant issue.
Thanks for the ideas. I'll have to experiment more.
zeitgeist
Rob Geraghty wrote:
>
> In article <3A83704A...@yahoo.com>,
> blkhat...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > My usual solutions are to soften the light on the subjects, but that
> > usually takes its toll on the background. I have used a translucent
> > scrim, this takes a full stop off the subject, which is just enough to
> > soften the harsh light of the sun, and by exposing for the subjects
> > leaves the background overexposed by one stop, but within range of the
> > film to print without manipulation (IE custom printing)
>
> I presume a scrim is like a large diffuser? I have a 5 way round
> reflector diffuser which is fine for head and shoulders. It can be
> used to soften the light, block it, or as a gold or silver reflector.
>
I used to use a Larson 3x6 reflector panel, part of their line that
opens like an umbrella with four stiff staves, they have a translucent
fabric available too. The advantage is that the center post is easier
for an assistant to hold, they can grap one corner and the center post,
( which has a pivot in one direction so it is partly stiff but bends out
of the way) so it is easier to manuver in the breeze. Those twist and
fold round things are ok if they are hung vertically, but are near
impossible to use horizontally as a scrim (yes a diffuser) also the
retangular shape is more practical in arranging, you can easily do a
couple, or a sexy swimsuit shot with the model stretching her legs out
while sitting on her hip, and you can even do a small family group
huddled together under it while an assistant stands close and holds the
'x' frame over them and struggles with the breeze.
> > I also employ a ND vignette but for the most part the
> > background lightens up quite a bit, sort of a hi key effect,
>
> Now that's interesting, because the thing which prompted me to ask this
> question was the reaction of photographers to a photo I took with a
> polariser that had vignetting in the sky - caused by variations in how
> effective the polariser is on different parts of the sky. Of course an
> ND vignette would be more consistent and predictable. :)
>
vignetting is one of the most cost effective enhancers you can do, and
that big black bellows make the photographer look so cool it's worth
having just for that.
this post echoed to the z-prophoto mailing list at yahoogroups.com
Rob Geraghty
blkhat...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I used to use a Larson 3x6 reflector panel, part of their line
> that opens like an umbrella with four stiff staves, they have
> a translucent fabric available too.
Thanks for the suggestion. I'll have to check this out.
Eric Scott
I just need a neutral density filter and all I have is a polarize. Works
great.
Eric