Circular polorizing filter or Nuetral density filter?? Which to buy?

[ltilley]

I had a CP filter, but I sctach the filter, so really it's no good unless I want to photoshop every image.

So, lately I've been photographing couples outdoors. And since I'm exposing for the subjects, the sky keeps getting blown out. Also, bodies of water behind them also get blown out....

So the people look great, and exposed and the back is stark white or a dull looking white sky.

Should I get a new CP filter or a graduated neutral density filter?

Also, the graduated ND filters I see don't rotate, so when I focus - my lens end does rotate, does that mean every time I focus, I'll have to remove the graduated ND filter and put it back on correctly?

I'm shooting digitally, but once I lose color and detail in the sky and/or water... I can't get it back.

Thanks in advance for your help. (sorry about all the posts) - I feel like the more I practice and learn, the more questions I have.

Thanks again, Lisa

[Spec A!]

I'd get another CP as it will act as a ND filter but also remove glare off of anything non metallic as long as you're at the right angle. The problem you get with sky's/highlights getting blown out really doesn't have much to do with using a filter to fix as it's an inherent issue with the sensitivity and tonal and contrast range of digital camera's sensors. The best way around this is to use multiple exposures for the highs, meds, and lows of the scene, and combine in post processing. The easier way is to use fill flash and graduated ND or polarizing filters, although they won't always do the trick, and you may not always want to use fill flash.
And yes, if your front element rotates when focusing, you'll need to re-orient the filter everytime...

[livin4lax09]

try a graduated neutral density filter, and set your camera's ISO as low as possible. the lower the ISO, the more dynamic range (the ability to capture both lights and darks in the same exposure) it has. Of course it doesn't compare to film at all, but it will help a bit. or you can take two seperate exposures, one for the sky and one for the ground, and combine them in photoshop using the HDR feature. Or you can do it manually.

[another view]

A polarizer and a regular neutral density filter (not a grad) are different filters for different situations, but you may be able to get by with only a polarizer if you had to choose one over the other. A polarizer needs directional light (sun, not overcast) to do much, but even on a cloudy day it can have some effect. A polarizer will lower the light level anywhere between one and two stops depending on the situation. An ND filter will only lower the light level but usually more - two and three stop ND filters are common.

A grad ND is a whole different deal. Using one for portraits sounds like a lot of work, especially with a lens when the front element rotates. I can't remember the last time I used one when I wasn't on a tripod and didn't take my time setting it up to get it exactly where I wanted it. They can be tricky to use, and keeping the people's attention while adjusting a grad ND sounds very difficult. BTW, a polarizer really isn't going to be a close substitute to this.

I guess I'd look at the situation differently - how about fill flash? You could expose for the ambient light so the sky doesn't blow out, but light the people with flash.

[Loupey]

I agree with the use of fill flash instead of filters. Or even changing the shooting schedule to correspond when the light levels are lower.

The CP will only work on selected areas (reflections, blue sky) if conditions allow as Steve mentioned. ND filters will affect the whole image (you will still have the differential problem). And graduated ND filters are difficult to use unless ALL your sky is completely above the people (i.e. nothing protrudes into the straight horizon) or else you'll have trees and people's heads a lot darker as well.

The HDR feature in Photoshop would be difficult as the scene has to be stationary while you make multiple bracketing shots. Any shifting in the clothes, hair, trees, etc. may ruin the process and you will not realize it until you get home, the people have left, tuxes have been returned...

So in other words, instead of trying to bring ambient light down, it would be better to bring the subject up by use strobes, reflectors, etc.

[Spec A!]

An Example of Fill Flash


I wish Snapfish would maintain saturation of what I upload.

[livin4lax09]

another example of fill-flash. this was completely back-lit.


fill-flash seems to be the way to go. Plus, when you use it, you'll get a little catch-light in the subject's eye, which makes the photo that much more interesting, because portraits' focal point should be the eyes.

[ltilley]

thanks guys for all the advice.... you know, I used fill flash and I still got a blown out sky... I'm guessing that day the sky was just that many stops brighter.

I'm thinking my CPL will give a little blue to the sky, and leave it at that.... I didn't even think that most of the portraits their heads will be within the graduated part of the ND filter, so that won't work....

Thanks... I continue to search for perfect exposure. I feel like when I get it, it's on accident... and when I strive for it, I'm way off...... oh woe is me.

Lisa

[another view]

A polarizer won't keep any blue in the sky if it's blown out. What camera are you using? It might be a case of putting the camera in manual mode based on ambient light exposure, then setting the flash to expose at -1.0 (flash, not camera) and let it do it's thing. This should work very well, actually - but if the ambient light changes you'll have to adjust your exposure.

[livin4lax09]

-1? I thought it should be + stops.

[another view]

The -1 was for the flash exposure only, not the camera's exposure. If the flash were left at zero, then it would look a little much. Actually your shot looks a lot like you get with this technique - it fills in the shadows and make the subject "pop" without looking obviously lit. Here's another example. Not an award winner, but there is blue sky.

Looking back thru this thread, one thing hasn't really been made obvious. With a CPL (circular polarizer) or a regular (not a grad) ND filter, you're lowering the overall light level of the frame. Your subjects start out maybe three stops lower in brightness (avoid the pun...) than the background, and stay that way. These filters will keep that same three stop difference (again, just for example) so it's not helping you.

[Ronnoco]

So, lately I've been photographing couples outdoors. And since I'm exposing for the subjects, the sky keeps getting blown out. Also, bodies of water behind them also get blown out....Thanks again, Lisa

Fill flash is one good answer. Another one is to simply shoot against trees or greenery that is in the shade so that the couple is in much more light than the background.

Ronnoco