Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,553   Posts: 1,544,983   Online: 723
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28
  1. #21
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob-D659 View Post
    1.7 stops would be the minimum exposure change for your filter. Depending on how you rotate it and the scene it could easily drop the light another 3 stops or more. All depends on the polarization of the light before it tries to pass thru the filter. This is where ttl metering really helps. There are some very good pol filters made where the extinction of crossed pol filters is nearly 100% of visible light, but they are not usually sold for general photography. The effectiveness of pol filters for general photography vary quite a bit, the usual indication of effectiveness is the brand and retail price.

    Metering with an external reflected or incident meter just isn't going to work very well. You could get a second filter and mount it in front of a reflected light meter and set the rotation angle to match the one on your camera, but it is a pain and you would really need matching filters with degree markings on the perimeter for it to work very well.

    End of ramble.
    What? 3+stops? No. Why is there consensus that between 1.3-1.7 is the standard filter factor for circular polarizers? TTL metering automatically compensates and it ain't 3 stops or more. Dialing in 1.3-1.7 stops more exposure on a incident meter works for me, too. If you couple two polarizers together, it is possible to get a variable ND filter effect by rotating one. Not sure what you're advising makes much sense practically.

    The OP should probably do some research on how polarizers work.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    You don't want to meter through the filter, and also catch the effect of the filter.
    The filter is used to block light. Selectively.
    If you don't want the parts that get darker as a result to get darker, don't use that filter.

    So only use the fixed filter factor of the polarizer. The one that compensates for the overall, non-selective blocking of light.
    So no TTL, through-the-filter metering to include the effect of the filter. If you think that the polarizer makes things look too dark, ask yourself: why are you using that filter?

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Winnipeg, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,301
    Some scenes, esp backlit ones, can have a huge amount of polarized light from glare off of objects when the sun is close to the horizon. You can't easily use an incident meter, and the glare makes the reflected meter think the scene is much brighter than reality. Somewhat similar to taking photos in bright sun with lots of fresh snow where you meter and overexpose by a couple of stops. Rotating the pol filter for max extinction completely changes the lighting balance compared to the neutral density type light loss at minimum extinction. As you found this can give you somewhat underexposed negatives, all depends on what you are shooting.

    Try metering a similar scene thru your pol filter with various angles of rotation from minimum to maximum extinction. I think you will see some major changes in the expose the meter calculates.

    As an example, using a pol filter to remove the glare from the surface of a pond so you can photograph the bottom, you can't use incident metering as there can be substantial light loss from the light traveling thru the water in both directions. Besides, most incident light meters are rated as waterproof. Your only real option in this situation is ttl metering after adjusting the pol filter to remove the glare from the surface, metering thru the filter will be close, but it is awkward to do at best.

  4. #24
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,797
    "Try metering a similar scene thru your pol filter with various angles of rotation from minimum to maximum extinction. I think you will see some major changes in the expose the meter calculates."

    C'mon, 1.5-1.7 stops isn't exactly "major." Not sure what you're doing to necessitate a +3 stop exp. compensation with a circular polarizer.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Valley Stream, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,216
    It's really simple. When you meter through the lens with a polarizing filter, the readings will change as you rotate the filter. However this is just the meter being fooled by the polarizer. Don't go by that. Filter factors for a polarizing filter are usually 1.3 to 1.7 stops. I use 1.5 stops and I'm happy with that. Take your meter reading without the polarizer (or use a hand held meter) and add 1.5 stops more exposure. That's all you need to know, and it works every time. The amount of polarization you dial in doesn't matter. The filter factor is constant. To the OP, since you already have a circular polarizer, you can use it with anything and it works exactly the same as a linear polarizer.
    Frank Schifano

  6. #26
    Holly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    99
    thanks guys! I have been shooting recently with the pol filter on and exposing at about 1.8 stops over. It might be the dierction of my light, but anything from 1.3-1.7 just looks too under. The sunlight here is very harsh so it could even be a hemispherical thing, but I think the light demands basically a 2 stop comp factor.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Toronto ON Canada
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    547
    I think there is another factor that needs to be considered in the discussion and that is the type of in-camera metering pattern. A spot meter and an averaging meter that meters a much larger area will each be affected differently. As with most photographic calculations, the ranges suggested are only a beginning point and the owner will need to experiement with each camera to see what factor is needed for each camera/meter used.

    I have a circular 62mm Nikon for my Bronica that is an averaging meter in the AEII and the suggested compensation factor is pretty close but using the same filter, by holding it in front of the lens, on my Leica CL with a spot meter the factor is more variable de[ending on where and how I use the spot meter. If I meter a grey card it comes close to the Bronica but if metering a scene, it can be as far of as an 1/2 stop.

    The circular polarizer was developed because of the AF and not the in-camera light meters just to add some clarity.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianL View Post
    The circular polarizer was developed because of the AF and not the in-camera light meters just to add some clarity.
    It was developed to be usable on a camera having any built-in system that uses a beam splitter or other reflecting surfaces, be it for AF or metering purpose.
    (Though some of such cameras are not affected by polarized light, and do not require a circular polarizer.)

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin