[condor27596]

I currently do not use anything on top of my lenses. Do you think if I put a polarizing filter in my fa77 I would add some pop ?

[narual]

Yes. Go get a polarizing filter. Hold it up to your eye. Look at something that's sunlit. Rotate the filter. See the difference. Then go look at a pond or lake or river. Do the same thing. Watch the reflections disappear, and suddenly you can see into the water somewhat. You can't do that in post-production. You need a polarizing filter to do that.

The difference is most dramatic when the sun is not directly in front of you. It doesn't take a full rotation to see a difference- more like a quarter rotation.

[condor27596]

When I screw the filter onto lens how do I know what position is best ?

---------- Post added 08-16-15 at 03:21 PM ----------

What is size filter for the 77 ?

[MadMathMind]

Polarizers do a number of things.

1) Reduce glare. The effect is most dramatic on highly reflective surfaces, such as metal. See the image below for how big the difference can be.
2) Related to the above, the glare can bolden some colors, but only if the surface is reflective. It will have no effect on cotton or skin, but it does have a noticeable effect on plants, where it enriches the green color.
3) Eliminate reflections on glass or water. You can use it to see into the bottom of shallow streams or eliminate background reflection on windows.
4) Reduce atmospheric haze. The benefit is small here but often helpful. If you're shooting a citiscape or panoramic landscape, you can reduce, but hardly eliminate, some of the poor contrast dust and pollution in the air cause.

---------- Post added 08-16-15 at 01:34 PM ----------

When I screw the filter onto lens how do I know what position is best ?

---------- Post added 08-16-15 at 03:21 PM ----------

What is size filter for the 77 ?

Rotate it until you like the effect. You must do this for each shot. If you rotate it fully when shooting something involving sky, you'll find a position where the sky will be almost black. That's usually too much. Dial it back a bit from there. There are positions where everything comes out with a redish tint or cold blue tint. Usually those aren't good either.

The FA77 is 49mm.

Attached Images

 

[MJSfoto1956]

While most people use a CPL to darken skies, I find much more useful that it makes greenery "pop" (by eliminating the reflective glare on each leaf much like the example photo given above). In bright light you can pretty much leave it on most of the day. Gets trickier to use as the light begins to fall.

Michael

[Aaron28]

neat.....found some that my aunt and cousin had given me when they gave their old camera bags.......like the idea of cutting down/removing glare of reflective surfaces and never realized the filter can turn independently.......thanks for the info! helpful thread.......there have been several pics I have taken where i'm like.....man the grass is really lit up, wish it were green as I saw it......

---------- Post added 08-16-15 at 02:52 PM ----------

reading this now
Polarizing Filter Basics - Articles and Tips | PentaxForums.com

[condor27596]

Thank you. So if I am doing a portrait at 10 am with non harsh skies this will be a wasted $15 ?

[Aaron28]

another article
Cross-Polarization and the - Completely - Lost Reflexions

[Rondec]

Thank you. So if I am doing a portrait at 10 am with non harsh skies this will be a wasted $15 ?

15 dollars is too cheap (in my opinion) for a lens as nice as the FA 77.

Basically, I use polarizers for theses purposes: blue-ing up skies, greening up greenery, cutting down on glare off of reflective surfaces, and occasionally as a poor man's ND filter. I used to own a cheap tiffen, but it gave weird casts to things and didn't help anything get better. I own a Marumi now, but it definitely cost quite a bit...

[condor27596]

Don't get me wrong. I understand the polarizing filter for longitudal waves of light ( glare, sunglasses ). But I'm more thinking of how it relates to portrait photography for the 77 and 31. I don't want to buy stuff that ends up sitting in a drawer.

I appreciate the links to articles. I did go through.

But I am looking for really an opinion on whether to buy it not buy. My audience is outside portrait photography usually in a non harsh sun. I learned that one already ( here lol )

---------- Post added 08-16-15 at 04:39 PM ----------

Great reply. I'm on a super budget right now as my daughter is just starting school. Although in all honesty part of the crack down on spending was going to Disney twice. An ok shot at Disney is better than any shot at home.

[Rondec]

Don't get me wrong. I understand the polarizing filter for longitudal waves of light ( glare, sunglasses ). But I'm more thinking of how it relates to portrait photography for the 77 and 31. I don't want to buy stuff that ends up sitting in a drawer.

I appreciate the links to articles. I did go through.

But I am looking for really an opinion on whether to buy it not buy. My audience is outside portrait photography usually in a non harsh sun. I learned that one already ( here lol )

---------- Post added 08-16-15 at 04:39 PM ----------

Great reply. I'm on a super budget right now as my daughter is just starting school. Although in all honesty part of the crack down on spending was going to Disney twice. An ok shot at Disney is better than any shot at home.

I don't know if you would use it much. My wife shoots portraits and she does use one to add a little pop to the back ground and also to cut down off of glare from subject's glasses. But I don't think she would miss it a whole lot if she didn't have one either.

[condor27596]

This is great info actually. $15 one no good $50-100 one good. But may make no difference.

Keep in mind I am very satisfied with my 77/31 combo. I was just thinking to be a little better for not much money.

[MadMathMind]

Basically, I use polarizers for theses purposes: blue-ing up skies, greening up greenery, cutting down on glare off of reflective surfaces, and occasionally as a poor man's ND filter. I used to own a cheap tiffen, but it gave weird casts to things and didn't help anything get better. I own a Marumi now, but it definitely cost quite a bit...

Mirrors my experience with cheap polarizers. They add too much blue or too much red. It just doesn't come out very well.

Marumi is also my brand of choice. They used to be available fairly inexpensive, but that has changed since the Super DHG was seemingly discontinued. (Or just hard to find in certain sizes. Not sure which.) I think I paid $60 for my 72mm Marumi SuperDHG but couldn't find the Super in 58mm and settled on the Exus for $92. I did snag a 49mm Super DHG for $45 or so, I think.

[Aaron28]

I appreciate the links to articles.

cool.....I didn't know what they did but now have a better idea.....since I have some will try 'em out.............ya may consider one in regards to any reflections ya may or may not use in a portrait whether it be water or glass.....that's about what my limited knowledge has to offer after reading some articles.........glad ya brought this stuff up otherwise the interest would not have peaked

[narual]

Oh, please. Cheap polarizers aren't that bad. They're certainly far superior to no polarizer in any situation where you'd want a polarizer.