Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Tour of gippsland final stage.jpg/Polarizer


 * Composition aside, the image is more like a mobile phone snapshot. Not dynamic, ver bright and lacking depth and nasty reflection off the steel in the foreground. A tip, use a circular polarizer. Adds depth, removes glare and ensures crisp, saturated images. See my edit (which needs creator info added, didn't have time). And what is with the size, coupled with the image quality it really does suggest it was taken on a mobile Capital photographer (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip but I'm quite familiar with polarizers. A polarizer wouldn't done much on this angle at this time of day - from my experience it only really kicks in on a sunny (summer) day at about 11:00am and three hours before sunset with the sun behind you. Often it actually makes the colours worse IMO - accentuates cyans/blues. Incidentally the sharpening you applied as simply butchered it - it's either that or your upscaling. I don't know what your problem is capital/canberra photographer - but stating this came from a mobile phone is just getting plain ridiculous. Please keep your comments mature/sensible --Fir0002 10:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The use of a polariser has nothing to do with the time of day. I haven't heard such a belief since year 8 photography class. You use it when appropriate, which requires and understanding of the characteristics of light energy. If you think their use is ideal at 11am and 3 hours before sunset, you would do well to listen to the advice of photographers such as Steve Parish, Ken Duncan and Rob Blakers, among others. I won't go into all the details, but the polarising foils remove glare, hence the same technology is used in "glare foil" sunglasses. The reflected light on the metal would have been reduced, the sky would have had a crisper blue and fine detail improved. With regards to sharpening, it didn't work to well. There wasn't much to work with, the corner sharpness and sharpness of mountains is terrible, I would say the optics of the lens are not great. With regards to my comparison to a mbile phone camera, I genuinely beleive the quality of the image is more comparable to a Nokia N95 than a dSLR. The N95 takes good pics, but the softness and small dynamic range are quite noticeable and very similar to the characteristics of this shot.  Capital photographer (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm impressed - you had photography class in year 8? But ugh light energy has nothing to do with a polarizer at all. Light energy is dependent on wavelength (as no doubt you'll recall from year 8 physics class), something which is not relevant to a polarizer! Advice is fine and dandy but doesn't beat practical experience, and from my experience a polarizer would have done very little in this scene. Sharpness/detail is likely to be degraded if anything through a polarizer for the simple reason that the filter is not perfect - the more "layers" of glass you make the light go through the lower your quality. I would say you're talking complete rubbish if you think the optics are not great, the lens is superb. And so I'm sorry but I find it difficult to take photographic advice from someone who is unable to tell the difference between L quality glass and a mobile phone and is yet to produce an FP quality image despite owning a mark III! I've said enough actually probably too much --Fir0002 11:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This shot taken with L glass. Gosh, you really had to do something special to degrade the definition and colour so much to make it look more on par with Sigma or Tamron... or Nokia. I pity those poor lenses, it's sad to see them wasted. You do make a good point about images being degraded if going through more glass, that is cheap glass, hence it's essential to use only the best quality optics and photographic filters. I personally use B+W filters, and choose their Kaeseman Circular Polarisers. At present, I have 2, each costing over AU$400. They don't degrade image quality at all, perfect definition and colour transmission. Again, maybe you should invest in some decent kit. I have plenty of practical knowledge and experience to back up the theory as well as the published experience of some of Australia's leading nature photographers. Every source and my experience disagrees with your recommended use of a circ-pol... I thin I know whose more trust worthy and it ain't he who is the self-proclaimed home of the "photographic masters guild". I don't need to give my self a fansy title, just some awards on a shelf... why do you need a title? Grow up, read a few books and learn how to use your kit. You'll learn all about polarisation, light and electromagnetic waves and how to use lenses. Capital photographer (talk) 11:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "The use of a polariser has nothing to do with the time of day" What a complete load of nonsense. For a given angle of shooting it has everything to do with the time of day as it has everything to do with the angle of incident light from the sun. Polarization is most effective at 90 degrees to the sun. That means that the subject that you are shooting will display maximum polarization at right angles to the sun's position. With the sun right behind you (180 degrees), polarization is almost non-existent. Try it, go outside and face four different directions with respect to the sun whilst twisting the filter. Mfield (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What ignorance. Amateurs trying to be more than the sum of their knowledge and experience. Narrow minded too. YOU CAN USE A CIRC-POL AT ANY TIME OF THE DAY!!! If you don't believe me, ask some real photographers. Circ-pols are great for adding depth to a sky, removing glare and reflection off water during the day, removing reflection and glare off car windows... I could go on. I have read so many books, articles and forums. Information from established professionals, people who shoot for Lonely Planet, National geographic, people who publish their own books like Steve Parish. Are they wrong? No. And given the results in my own images using a circ-pol, neither am I. Capital photographer (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am no amateur, and you are rapidly digging yourself a huge hole out of which you going to have to climb. Sure you can use a polarizer at any time of day, I never said you couldn't, but the very way it works means that at certain times of day and angle of incident light, it will have almost zero effect. That is scientific fact. I am a real published photographer, I have been shooting for 20 years, I knew this when I owned my first CP filter at the age of 10. Like I said, try it - go outside and try with the sun right behind you, then turn 90 degrees and repeat. Now as you keep bringing it up, lets see some of these awards you claim you have, or even some of your award winning images? Mfield (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, now your talking fact. The effect of a Circ-pol will differ throughout the day. I find the effect is appreciable throughout the day, though agreed, it is stronger earlier and late. That said, Fir is arguing the circ-pol wouldn't work in this image. I have taken similar shots with reflective objects in the fore ground and the sun in a similar position in broad daylight. The circ-pol works 99% of the time in removing that glare as seen on the steel crash barrier. Capital photographer (talk) 12:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well maybe you'd like to retract "The use of a polariser has nothing to do with the time of day" and meanwhile apologize for "What ignorance. Amateurs trying to be more than the sum of their knowledge and experience. Narrow minded too." while you are at it? That all reads like a lot of misdirected anger. Mfield (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I shall apologise for and retract the latter statement. Regarding the first statement about the use of a polariser, I mean the use as in to use at all. You can use a polariser whenever required no matter what time of the day. However, yes, how and for what the polariser is used is dependant on the time of the day. Capital photographer (talk) 12:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. Meanwhile I am seriously thinking about shooting a pano later on with a CP just to add it to the Polarizing filter article. Mfield (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah would be a useful contribution. Here's what happens if you don't adjust the CP as you pan - and personally I'm doubtful that you can fully compensate as you pan. --Fir0002 13:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ... or even a FP worthy image! Seriously back up your CP talk with some images. Go take a 180 degree panorama with a CP filter and see what happens! --Fir0002 12:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I really would like to upload my best pics, but (and I say this sincerely), I'm not as generous as you. You take a lot of great shots and are willing to share under GNU licence. I prefer to retain full rights over my images and my income suggests it's for the best. I did take a 360 pano last month with a circ-pol. It can be difficult, but with some patience, quite simple with a tripod when you adjust the filter ring for each shot. The results were great. Capital photographer (talk) 12:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Surely if you're earning plenty off your photos you could afford to release two or three reasonable ones at reduced resolution for the cause of wikipedia...? But thanks for the compliment --Fir0002 13:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)