Beware of Filter pack from CKCPower

Nelson,

I agree that with these filters, the "sweet spot" of maximum polarization is smaller, but to me it's clearly visible.

With your photos it would have been most obvious when viewing the shots with tree reflections in the water. I just did a quick test, with some asphalt roadway photos, and what I saw in the viewfinder was pretty much what I got on the image. When the filter was oriented so that the road looked light, it was light, and when oriented so the road darkened, it's darker in the photo.

Maybe it's just that I'm looking for the filter to do specific things.

I haven't tried the flourescent filter yet, but using it would probably be preferable to using the flourescent white balance setting alone.

If (and this is a big if), the ccd is optimized for a daylight source, a filter that sends light to the ccd that best approximates that source will yeild better colors than post processing that tries to guess at the intended wavelenghts.

That was the reason I posted a question a month or so ago asking if anyone has compared the colors achieved with high color rendering index flourescent tubes (daylight balanced, CRI of 91+) as opposed to tungsten lights with incandescent balance.

I haven't made these tests yet myself.

Nelson.

Have you tested the flourescent setting in the white balance?
The pictures have a green tone.

Nelson Ford said:

Based on a recommendation here, I ordered the filter pack from CKCPower.
It includes three filters (UV, polarizer, and flourescent light
correction filter) and a case for about $25 plus shipping.

My impression of the kit is that the flourescent filter is a waste since
it is easier to change the white balance in the camera.

The UV is probably ok. Don't know how to judge a UV filter.

The polarizer sticks out far enough that in full optical zoom, there is
some vignetting in the corners. Also, it is difficult to determine the
effect of the filter by looking at the display. Finally, it appears to
affect the exposure lock. I've taken lots of panorama pics with exposure
lock on and it works fine. Some panos I did with the polarizer filter had
signficant exposure/color variation from one pic to the next.

Click to expand...

Nelson Ford said:

My impression of the kit is that the flourescent filter is a waste since
it is easier to change the white balance in the camera.

Click to expand...

IN GENERAL, Nelson, you are right. But, my experiense shows that
the WB feature is not always smart enough, and, as a result,
I bought a number of color correct filters, including a FL-D.
This help me retend some yellowish/redish tough in my image.
By the way, I use the sunny setting so that I can easily figure
out which filters should be used.

Member said:

The UV is probably ok. Don't know how to judge a UV filter.

Click to expand...

Most UV filters are just OK for protection perpose. I am doing
a comparisons and will post on my page sometime this month.

Member said:

The polarizer sticks out far enough that in full optical zoom, there is
some vignetting in the corners. Also, it is difficult to determine the
effect of the filter by looking at the display.

Click to expand...

There is a simple rule of using PLs withough even look at the LCD.
Please check my page http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam for
some details of PL and other filters.

Member said:

Finally, it appears to
affect the exposure lock. I've taken lots of panorama pics with exposure
lock on and it works fine. Some panos I did with the polarizer filter had
signficant exposure/color variation from one pic to the next.

Click to expand...

Yes, it will affect exposure lock to some extent. This is because
the exposure of the sky and any refexive surface will be changed
when viewing direction changes. Check my page and will know why.

C-K Shene

I'm curious... if you look at an LCD watch or clock face through your camera's display, don't you see the clock face black out when the polarizer is at 90 degrees to the axis?

I'm using this as an extreme example of polarization, and that the effects do show up in the camera's display if you know what to look for.

Granted, outdoor shots are more subtle than this, but the "polarizer effects are not visible in the camera display" comments that I've read in many messages and web sites are a bit skewed.

Thanks for your ear.

Yes, I have taken some pics (not a lot) using the flourescent setting and thought they were okay. They definitely weren't green. Most of my photo work is outdoors though, so I don't have much experience in this area. I don't believe that I've previously heard anyone say that it wasn't working for them.

David said:

Have you tested the flourescent setting in the white balance?
The pictures have a green tone.

Click to expand...

I just tried the watch-face trick and you're right - the change is obvious. Of course you are also right that outdoor shots are more subtle. Again, you only have to look at the pics at http://www.hsv-life.com/isabella/golf to see the how much variance there can be in the final pics which is not easy to see when taking the pictures.

OTOH, I can see from your example that if you primary interest in the PL filter is to reduce reflections from glass, etc., then the filter is indeed much more useful.

Alan Z. said:

I'm curious... if you look at an LCD watch or clock face through your
camera's display, don't you see the clock face black out when the
polarizer is at 90 degrees to the axis?

I'm using this as an extreme example of polarization, and that the
effects do show up in the camera's display if you know what to look for.

Granted, outdoor shots are more subtle than this, but the "polarizer
effects are not visible in the camera display" comments that I've read in
many messages and web sites are a bit skewed.

Thanks for your ear.

Click to expand...

I've read your polarizer page and don't see anything there about how to use the PL filter when you cannot see the effect of it on the display. There are some comparison shots showing no PL, max PL, etc., but if the difference is not visible on the display, how can you tell when the PL filter is at max or not?

C-K Shene said:

Nelson Ford said:

I'm genuinely intersted in having someone explain to me how you use the
PL filter when you cannot see the effect of it on the display.

Click to expand...

There is a simple rule. Please check my site

http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam

There are discussions about other filters.

C-K Shene

Click to expand...

Nelson ,

See my post about the correct alignment: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1007&message=267296
Have fun!
Lonnie

Nelson Ford said:

C-K Shene said:

Nelson Ford said:

I'm genuinely intersted in having someone explain to me how you use the
PL filter when you cannot see the effect of it on the display.

Click to expand...

There is a simple rule. Please check my site

http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam

There are discussions about other filters.

C-K Shene

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Nelson Ford said:

I just tried the watch-face trick and you're right - the change is
obvious. Of course you are also right that outdoor shots are more subtle.
Again, you only have to look at the pics at
http://www.hsv-life.com/isabella/golf to see the how much variance there
can be in the final pics which is not easy to see when taking the
pictures.

Click to expand...

Nelson,

I can see the polarizing effect in all my outdoor pictures -- then again, I shoot outdoors mostly with the sun at the right angles for it to affect it.

I do a lot of panos and, with the right software, the variations between exposures using a polarizing lens are no problem. I wouldn't shoot panos showing a lot of sky without my polarizer.

I shoot a lot of panos, too. Results such as in the one below asks a lot of the software if you expect it to adjust that much difference:



As for seeing the effect -- maybe I need to use the Extend-A-View. I don't use it much because it seems cause the display to be washed out and of course it enlarges the "grain" of the display to a disconcerting level. (Hope I don't get castigated for this comment, now.) But without some kind of display cover, I don't know how you can see ANYTHING in bright sun, much less a polarizing effect.

Mike Kelley said:

I can see the polarizing effect in all my outdoor pictures -- then again,
I shoot outdoors mostly with the sun at the right angles for it to affect
it.

I do a lot of panos and, with the right software, the variations
between exposures using a polarizing lens are no problem. I wouldn't
shoot panos showing a lot of sky without my polarizer.

Click to expand...

Nelson Ford said:

I shoot a lot of panos, too. Results such as in the one below asks a lot
of the software if you expect it to adjust that much difference:

Click to expand...

I do two things -- I use the best pano software around (which can handle the image you posted) and then I bring my resultant pano into Photoshop (5.5), which can do much much more than handle that simple pano.

Your image would take me about two minutes to fix in PS -- but that's really just the start. With my polarizer I get pretty dramatic clouds -- then I mask and curve them so they are really dramatic. Yeah, I guess it's cheating, but I'm not so much for "realism".

Member said:

As for seeing the effect -- maybe I need to use the Extend-A-View. I
don't use it much because it seems cause the display to be washed out and
of course it enlarges the "grain" of the display to a disconcerting
level. (Hope I don't get castigated for this comment, now.) But without
some kind of display cover, I don't know how you can see ANYTHING in
bright sun, much less a polarizing effect.

Click to expand...

Well, in the first place (and not to sound preachy here because I'm sure you know this) you really aren't going to get very good landscapes when the sun is high in the sky. Oh, there are always exceptions, but there's no doubt the best time is in the morning or late afternoon, as the shadows scuplt the trees and mountains. Now, the sun can definitely be bright during those times, but not nearly as bright as in the middle of the day. I have no trouble seeing the viewfinder (and the results of the polarizer) during the optimum pano times.

But with the sun at the correct angle to your sky (for the polarizer to have maximum effect) you can see it even at high noon. I swivel the LCD around so at waist level it's not in direct sun (did I mention I do all my panos without a tripod? The software I use handles this just fine.) and then rotate the PL until the sky becomes darkest. I then shoot away.

I keep meaning to get some kind of extend-a-view, but the longer I go the less reason I find to deal with it. Yes, accurate framing of very tight shots is a problem in bright sun, particularly using the 2X tele. But that isn't a factor for panos.