I have both, as I use them in combination for a variable ND filter.[...]
I have a preference to the linear as I don't have to find the "sweet spot" every time, especially for those grab shots.
Hey everyone
It's a Hoya 77m circular polarizing filter.
I have always been under the impression that it was autofocus and not the meter that had problems with linear polarizers, hence the reason older manual focus cameras are fine with the linear variety.
Maybe I didn't explain that right..I was using a separate handheld light meter?Holly:
You shouldn't meter through a polarizing filter.
Just take a meter reading without the filter (ideally an incident meter reading), and then apply the fixed filter factor to that reading.
Generally speaking, the orientation of the filter should not affect the exposure setting you choose, although every once in a while you'll be working with a subject where there is so much glare from the (unfiltered) subject that a reflected light reading will be distorted.
The result (even if the overall appearance of the resulting image is not too dark) is a dull, flat looking image.But (in a worse case scenario) your entire scene is affected by the filter... If you do not like that, use less polarizer.
You are quite right. I don't want the whole thing to go dark, and it's quite possible that I did just underexpose a little, like by 2 tenths of a stop. Which might be enough to make a difference in that fading afternoon type of light. But for future attempts, how do you mean use less?
Thing is, I want to take out the kind of highlights that make an outdoor image look 'normal', because I'm aiming for a look which conjures up the kind of light you might only see in a weird dream, if that makes sense. These are art photographs I'm taking, I'm not a landscape photographer, but I use the outdoors as a 'set' for staged photographs I guess along the lines of Jeff Wall for want of a better reference. So I'm not too worried if I get a weirdly 'flat' light, but I don't want thin, crappy colours that are muddy and bland either.
(And I am phobic about post-production techniques, although I have that option for achieving the right light, but I'd way prefer to get it on film not through a computer.Hmph.)
I certainly don't want it to look underexposed! Maybe there is another filter option I don't know about which would be better for my type of look? I like what polarizer does to the sky, but not much else so far. Like you say, what's happening to the grass/earth/skin, they're just going to be flattened if I take it too dark.
Hmmm.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?