Reading mode: Light Dark

Tiffen Low Light Polarizer - Do not buy!

Go to last post
Biological_Viewfinder said:
I meant non-metallic.

The answer to your question though is the only reason when it's wise to own something is when you'll make good use of it.

So if you can make money because you own a filter and it helps you for some reason, then great.
Click to expand...
If buying a piece of photo gear to make money from it was the main criteria, 95% of those here wouldn't even own a camera let alone the accessories that go with it.
 
Biological_Viewfinder said:
DaveInMD said:
For sky and clouds, we could debate filter vs. post-processing forever and not reach any agreement. But the effect of polarizing filters on reflections, as you've shown, isn't something you can recreate in Photoshop or any other photo editor.
Click to expand...
Actually, I can replicate the bottom right photographs fairly easy in photoshop. In fact, I could actually make the water and the reflections even if they weren't there at all. Like I said, when you're good at photoshop you can make pigs fly... convincingly too.
Biological_Viewfinder said:
Biological_Viewfinder said:
DjD_a700 said:
Biological_Viewfinder wrote:

I don't use a polarizer filter anymore. I can get the same result by using photoshop. My skies are not like this sky, they are what my eye sees (or what my brain remembers) when I look at it. It's a rich blue that has much more gradual gradient tonality than this look.

This look is what you get with a polarizer for sure. ANd to me, it's ugly.

But I can most certainly recreate the effect of a polarizer with photoshop. I can make pigs fly in an image with photoshop. Making a polarizer effect is easy by comparison.
Click to expand...
Do you realize there is a lot more use for a polarizer than blue sky? Look at these examples, left side is without polarizer and right is with it...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yes I realize this. And personally, I prefer the bottom left one and often times like the shimmer caused by ripples on a small lake or pond.
Click to expand...
Bio, I think you missed the point, in a subtle way...

I don't doubt for a moment that, given the shots taken with the polarizing filter (i.e., without glare or reflections) you could add the effect of glare and reflections. However, given shots taken without glare or reflection, you would not be able to remove them.

When I did a lot of SLR film photography, I often used polarizing filters to control the amount of reflection on glass automobile and building windows and on water in order to see through the reflecting surfaces...

There times when I want to use the filter for those purposes, and there are also times when I want to darken the blue of the sky, increase the contrast between sky and clouds, without changing the other elements of the composition. The filter is just another tool in the workflow, to be used carefully.

K.
 
If there is enough light in the sky for it to need polarization, then there is too much light for a "low light" polarizer.

"Low light" polarizers are for removing reflections from windows etc, when direct sunlight is not involved, also for removing glare from night shots...

My shot-gun wont fire a rifle bullet, but I dont feel cheated.

--
Larry
 
I would merely copy the tree, flip the tree, paste it over the water where the reflections are, erase the parts of the tree I didn't need because the light on the water didn't affect it, and alter the flipped tree until it had the water effect I was looking for. It would take all of 5 minutes.

Now if you took a photograph of starfish in a shallow pool of water and asked me to photoshop it, then that would be a much more difficult thing to reproduce. But for the most part, I don't need the filter. Most people do. I'm aware of it. I said, I don't need it.

--

There are 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
 
Biological_Viewfinder said:
I don't like the look of polarizers because they make the sky look funny. You get this akward dark blue blob and the edges are normal. It's really weird-looking to me.
Click to expand...
You are either 1. a rank amateur in the craft or 2. putting us on.

What you describe is precisely what a Polarizer is designed to do. ( You knew that right? )
Biological_Viewfinder said:
I think photographers like it because they are used to it. I just darken the sky in post if that's what is needed to make a photograph.
Click to expand...
Whatever you do to a shot in post will not give you the built-in efect a filter does.
Biological_Viewfinder said:
Same thing with gradient neutral density filters, and I can usually stop down enough to make the waterfalls look silky without a neutral density filter, and I don't see the need to protect my lens with a UV filter.
Click to expand...
Live and learn.
Biological_Viewfinder said:
I've never seen any damage before, and I'm very careful with my stuff. I guess I just prefer spending my money on more important things.
Click to expand...
Like lessons in photography?
 
Biological_Viewfinder said:
I would merely copy the tree, flip the tree, paste it over the water where the reflections are, erase the parts of the tree I didn't need because the light on the water didn't affect it, and alter the flipped tree until it had the water effect I was looking for. It would take all of 5 minutes.

Now if you took a photograph of starfish in a shallow pool of water and asked me to photoshop it, then that would be a much more difficult thing to reproduce. But for the most part, I don't need the filter. Most people do. I'm aware of it. I said, I don't need it.

--

There are 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with good photoshop skills but there becomes a point where a photograph becomes a digital composite... Nothing wrong with that but for a photographer it circumvents elements of the photographic experience... On top of that you can say you can replicate the effect in 5 minutes but that is about 4 minutes 59 and 99/100s of a second slower than it took me with the polorizer...

To each his own!
--
Dennis
 
Respectfully I think scam is a little harsh. If you're sincere about wanting to protect others, fee free to return to the page in your post and write a product review.

--
Henry Posner
B&H Photo-Video
 
brownmichael said:
MusicDoctorDJ said:
Somehow I doubt it is a "scam" . . .

Are you sure that you were using it right?

--
J. D.
Click to expand...
Yes, quite certain. And I just tried it again after reading the post saying that polarizers don't work if mounted backwards.
Click to expand...
? How do you, can you mount a Polarizer “backwards”?
brownmichael said:
BTW, after playing with my good polarizers for thirty seconds I can tell you that is true for circular polarizers but not linear ones.
Click to expand...
? What is “true”? Mounting them backwards?
brownmichael said:
Very interesting! It makes sense since a circular polarizer is a linear polarizer with a quarter wave retarder on the back to depolarize the light after it passes through the filter. (According to the Tiffen FAQ.)
Click to expand...
Huh? To what end is that information?
brownmichael said:
If you use it backwards the light gets depolarized prior to entering the polarizer.
Click to expand...
You just noted Tiffen said the light gets Polarized before it (light) enters the Polarizer.
brownmichael said:
To clarify my results with the Tiffen Low Light Polarizer:
Click to expand...
? What is a “low light Polarizer”?
brownmichael said:
There is just a hint of darkening visible on rotation, so I guess technically they can call it a polarizer without it being outright fraud.
Click to expand...
Or you simply do not know what Polarizers are-or what functions they fill.
First and foremost a Polarizer is a 1-1 1/2 stop Neutral Density filter .
Did the Tiffen book tell you this:

Point your finger directly at the light source. Next, raise your thumb until it forms a 90 degree angle with your finger./
Next, rotate your wrist in a semi-circle.

You will note the end of your thumb makes an arc that is 90 degrees to your light source .

Polarization is most efficacious along that arc and to a lesser degree as the arc (angle) nears thirty degrees. Even at angles where the Polarizer loses maximum efficacy, it nonetheless remains a 1-1 ½ stop ND filter.

So the first lesson is: Polarization happens along a 90 degree angle to the light source and its Polarizing efficacy lessens as the angle decreases.
brownmichael said:
One easy way to test a polarizer is to look through it at your LCD monitor. A good polarizer will turn the screen almost perfectly black at the right rotation angle.
Click to expand...
Which "rotation" angle?
brownmichael said:
Just to be sure though, I tried the Tiffen Low Light Polarizer in several other "real world" situations where polarization should be evident and got the same result.
Click to expand...
You may br a great photogpraher, but you don’t know beans about some of the techniques in the craft. What you described above says so.
brownmichael said:
I'm just as surprised as everyone else. Who ever heard of a polarizer that didn't polarize?
Click to expand...
Apparently you are the only person “surprised” by your lack of knowledge about Polarizers and what they are ( ND filters ) and what they do ( Polarize, the only ND filters that can )
brownmichael said:
I guess somebody in the marketing department at Tiffen doesn't actually use polarizers.
Click to expand...
Do not blame your ineptitude with Polarizers on “somebody”: it’s you who didn’t-don’t know.
 
Biological_Viewfinder said:
I would merely copy the tree, flip the tree, paste it over the water where the reflections are, erase the parts of the tree I didn't need because the light on the water didn't affect it, and alter the flipped tree until it had the water effect I was looking for. It would take all of 5 minutes.
Click to expand...
A couple of points:

1. with a polarizer it takes all of 5 seconds.

2. if you've ever actually tried that (copying and flipping the tree) you would know the fatal flaw in that 'logic'. That being - the water is showing the tree viewed from underneath - your vantage point shows the tree viewed from straight ahead.
 
iMac said:
1. with a polarizer it takes all of 5 seconds.
Click to expand...
It also requires that you spend money on it. The time spent working on photoshop is photoshop experience, which makes me better at the craft of post-processing. I really don't mind the extra time.
iMac therefore iAm said:
2. if you've ever actually tried that (copying and flipping the tree) you would know the fatal flaw in that 'logic'. That being - the water is showing the tree viewed from underneath - your vantage point shows the tree viewed from straight ahead.
Click to expand...
You bring up a very good point. And you're absolutely right. However, I guarantee you that no one will notice the difference.

--

There are 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
 
Biological_Viewfinder said:
You bring up a very good point. And you're absolutely right. However, I guarantee you that no one will notice the difference.
Click to expand...
I guarantee you that at least 80-90 percent of picture viewers (photographers or not) when asked to study that image, would know that "something" was weird about it...

--
Whatta Hobby this Photography stuff is! Expensive!
 
Polarizers aren't just about darkening the sky by any means!

They also take reflections off objects --such as the sun reflection on trees making for richer greens. They also enhance whites in snow covered mountains. And of course, they're irreplaceable if you're attempting to photograph fish in a reflective water body. And if I were going to Yosemite to photograph, say, El Capitan on a sunny day -- gotta have a polarizer...the red peaks in Utah and Arizona...definitely need a polarizer if you don't just want reflective objects.

And I have the Tiffen 77 mm (but not the low light version). I think it does a great job for what I need.
 
I already used the phrase "I guarantee you". When you use it back at me, it's like Pee-Wee Herman saying, "I know you are but what am I?"

If you don't think that people have absolutely, incredible, outstanding skill that will boggle your mind and make you realize that ANTHING ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING can be faked given enough time and effort, then just go poke around the Retouching forum for awhile and see what people with post-processing skills are capable of. You'll be amazed.

Until then, go take your pathetic little comebacks (I wasn't even talking to you in the first place) somewhere else...
7DVancouverite said:
7DVancouverite said:
You bring up a very good point. And you're absolutely right. However, I guarantee you that no one will notice the difference.
Click to expand...
I guarantee you that at least 80-90 percent of picture viewers (photographers or not) when asked to study that image, would know that "something" was weird about it...

--
Whatta Hobby this Photography stuff is! Expensive!
Click to expand...
--

There are 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
 
Bio, I don't think 7DVancouverite was doing anything more than responding to one unsubstantiated I-guarantee-you with another. These forums are filled to the brim with sarcasm, insults, and the like...really, his response was pretty innocuous, and he made a point other than the guarantee.

Anyway, I've definitely hit the agree to disagree threshold here. My opinion: at the end of the day, someone familiar with using a polarizing filter can use it to capture the photo he/she wants in less time than it takes CS5 to even load on my dinosaur of a PC. So the fact that anything can be faked in post-processing given enough time and effort, in my opinion is immaterial when you can use a different tool -- a filter -- to do the job in a fraction of the time, even if you're a Photoshop expert.
Biological_Viewfinder said:
I already used the phrase "I guarantee you". When you use it back at me, it's like Pee-Wee Herman saying, "I know you are but what am I?"

If you don't think that people have absolutely, incredible, outstanding skill that will boggle your mind and make you realize that ANTHING ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING can be faked given enough time and effort, then just go poke around the Retouching forum for awhile and see what people with post-processing skills are capable of. You'll be amazed.

Until then, go take your pathetic little comebacks (I wasn't even talking to you in the first place) somewhere else...
7DVancouverite said:
Biological_Viewfinder said:
You bring up a very good point. And you're absolutely right. However, I guarantee you that no one will notice the difference.
Click to expand...
I guarantee you that at least 80-90 percent of picture viewers (photographers or not) when asked to study that image, would know that "something" was weird about it...

--
Whatta Hobby this Photography stuff is! Expensive!
Click to expand...
--

There are 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Click to expand...
 
Okay then. I'll expect you to only spend 3 minutes per picture on post-processing because you should learn how to get it right when you take the picture. Got it?

If I see you talking about post-processing a photograph then I know you are a hypocrite, because you just said that a person with a filter should get it right from the time the shutter is released. So should you then get the photo right every time and you won't have to post-process at all; because you did it right the first time. Thanks!!!

Also, by the way; when I post-process and insert a false inverted reflection and make it appear as if it is water (complete with ripples), then that is a form of art. If you study photography, then you'll understand that it is basically the instaneaous painting of a scene. Nothing is actually accurate from the exposure to the white balance to the dynamic range and so on. It is all what a camera does to take a picture. But the picture is never ever near the capability of our own human eyes to see and understand the scene, therefore a camera is merely a very fast brush that paints an interpretation of a scene for us. If you are that blind to understand this basic principle, then no wonder you can't stop arguing a simple point about whether someone who is capable enough to replicate a filter should use one or not...
DaveInMD said:
Bio, I don't think 7DVancouverite was doing anything more than responding to one unsubstantiated I-guarantee-you with another. These forums are filled to the brim with sarcasm, insults, and the like...really, his response was pretty innocuous, and he made a point other than the guarantee.

Anyway, I've definitely hit the agree to disagree threshold here. My opinion: at the end of the day, someone familiar with using a polarizing filter can use it to capture the photo he/she wants in less time than it takes CS5 to even load on my dinosaur of a PC. So the fact that anything can be faked in post-processing given enough time and effort, in my opinion is immaterial when you can use a different tool -- a filter -- to do the job in a fraction of the time, even if you're a Photoshop expert.
Biological_Viewfinder said:
I already used the phrase "I guarantee you". When you use it back at me, it's like Pee-Wee Herman saying, "I know you are but what am I?"

If you don't think that people have absolutely, incredible, outstanding skill that will boggle your mind and make you realize that ANTHING ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING can be faked given enough time and effort, then just go poke around the Retouching forum for awhile and see what people with post-processing skills are capable of. You'll be amazed.

Until then, go take your pathetic little comebacks (I wasn't even talking to you in the first place) somewhere else...
7DVancouverite said:
DaveInMD said:
You bring up a very good point. And you're absolutely right. However, I guarantee you that no one will notice the difference.
Click to expand...
I guarantee you that at least 80-90 percent of picture viewers (photographers or not) when asked to study that image, would know that "something" was weird about it...

--
Whatta Hobby this Photography stuff is! Expensive!
Click to expand...
--

There are 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--

There are 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
 
Biological,

I was going to let your childish response go without reply...but since I have unintentionally "poked the bear" so to speak...you wanted it...you got it....

Here we go...

For the record...usually when someone tells me that they have such incredible, outstanding skills at anything, that will "boggle my mind"...I usually pretty quickly ring the "BULL$H1T" bell and say prove it....I GUARANTEE YOU THAT 99% OF THE TIME...THEY CAN'T!

In this case, I won't...because it is obvious to me already that you can't...you already admitted as much yourself...

There was no comeback pathetic or otherwise...merely an observation..I said 80-90 percent of people would know something is weird about the photo...As far as me using the same words you used....Sorry allow me to rephrase...

I am convinced that 80-90 percent of people, photographers or otherwise would look at the photoshopped image and know that something was weird about it...

Is that better for you now?

Your non-provoked attack is obviously a defense mechanism hoping that everyone would back off instead of asking you to prove it...

As far as time and effort goes, if a polarizer helps me to get it right out of camera so all I have to do is convert my RAW's to JPEG's or TIFF's...so be it....thats my workflow and my opinion...

Oh and by the way....you say ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING CAN BE FAKED given enough time and effort...proper composition, exposure, use of equipment (i.e Talent) cannot be faked...

Thanks for your $0.02 though, crawl back to your little hole now...
Biological_Viewfinder said:
I already used the phrase "I guarantee you". When you use it back at me, it's like Pee-Wee Herman saying, "I know you are but what am I?"

If you don't think that people have absolutely, incredible, outstanding skill that will boggle your mind and make you realize that ANTHING ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING can be faked given enough time and effort, then just go poke around the Retouching forum for awhile and see what people with post-processing skills are capable of. You'll be amazed.

Until then, go take your pathetic little comebacks (I wasn't even talking to you in the first place) somewhere else...
7DVancouverite said:
Biological_Viewfinder said:
You bring up a very good point. And you're absolutely right. However, I guarantee you that no one will notice the difference.
Click to expand...
I guarantee you that at least 80-90 percent of picture viewers (photographers or not) when asked to study that image, would know that "something" was weird about it...

--
Whatta Hobby this Photography stuff is! Expensive!
Click to expand...
--

There are 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Click to expand...
--
Whatta Hobby this Photography stuff is! Expensive!
 


First image from google "pigs fly".
Just because you lack photoshop skills doesn't mean I need a filter...

--

There are 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
 
It's nice that you had to get a bad PS job off google images...

Put something in your gallery...let's see your work...prove it!...

I have lots of great Post processing in mine...and am happy to show it...
Biological_Viewfinder said:


First image from google "pigs fly".
Just because you lack photoshop skills doesn't mean I need a filter...

--

There are 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Click to expand...
--
Whatta Hobby this Photography stuff is! Expensive!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top