same settings and similar equipment but different photo

i wasnt sure if i should post this here or in post processing, but here it goes anyway...

http://the-digital-picture.com/Pictu...10-02_03-21-17
http://the-digital-picture.com/Pictu...11-01_15-27-01
http://the-digital-picture.com/Pictu...11-01_15-32-56

i'm trying to reporduce deep blue sky as seen in photos above but i'm unable to do so
i'm using 60D, canon 15-85mm lens and marumi super dhg circular polarizer. before anyone replys different filter is to blame, you can find review of both filters in comparison test here http://www.lenstip.com/115.1-article...ters_test.html ; they should produce similar photos
i've took similar pictures in different times of day (from 14-20h) while making sure sun is behind me like it is in the photos above. i used same settings as bryan did (same iso, shutter speed and aperture)
my question is are these pictures above post processesed to look so good or are pictures on the site raw pictures? i'm asking cause i'm skilled with photoshop and i can reproduce this pictures if i edit them, but i thought pictures on site are raw pictures, it wouldnt make sense that bryan would put heavily edited pictures in something thats supposed to show off lens/camera/filter raw quality...

Actually, the best angle to shoot a sky with those deep blues isn't with the sun at your back--it's usually with the sun at about 90 degrees from where the camera is facing. That said, you can't always get wonderfully deep polarization. Sometimes the time of day or atmospheric conditions are less than optimal.

The best thing to do is to buy a pair of relatively cheap (less than $20) polarized sunglasses and wear them. By tilting your head one direction or the other, you can get a feeling for the best times of the day and best directions to shoot an image with the circular polarizer.

[QUOTE=ogrec;71498)
my question is are these pictures above post processesed to look so good or are pictures on the site raw pictures? [QUOTE]

I am sure these are relatively small JPEGs and probably reduced to 72 dpi for fast loading on the web. Since they are not RAW, some processing has been done, how much cannot be known unless Bryan comments. Also you may be using different "in camera" settings as far as picture style, contrast, color and sharpness etc...

The lens/camera reviews with sample images that I have read do not state anything one way or another about how the image was processed.

It may be a couple of things. The color saturation in those pictures is somewhat high. Camera settings can change the look of the sky.

But the main thing may be the sky itself. Those pictures are fall pictures; I know that I could get a more beautiful blue sky on a cool fall day than I can right now when it is over 100 degrees. The sun is at a lower angle in the fall and it is more direct overhead now.

I took this shot yesterday with a polarizing filter on the camera. It hasn't been heavily processed (I added a very slight bit of contrast, but I left the saturation alone). As you can see, there's an even deeper sky than in some of Bryan's examples above. The great thing about CPLs is that you can vary the effect by how much you turn the dial. That said, given times of day and atmospheric conditions that aren't optimal, you'll never get quite the same effect.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-R...4180_small.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Setters

I took this shot yesterday with a polarizing filter on the camera. It hasn't been heavily processed (I added a very slight bit of contrast, but I left the saturation alone). As you can see, there's an even deeper sky than in some of Bryan's examples above. The great thing about CPLs is that you can vary the effect by how much you turn the dial. That said, given times of day and atmospheric conditions that aren't optimal, you'll never get quite the same effect.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-R...4180_small.jpg

---

I really like this Sean. Love the light. It compliments and defines her face very well. Beauty Dish? The shadow has a really soft edge but the catch-light implies a smaller (or distant) light source.

Oops, another thread highjacking…err, were you 90 degrees to the sun in this picture :-)

thx, guys
i didnt take into account that sun position should not be 180 but 90 degrees, nor did i take into account the geographical location or season. i only got cpl recently so i dont have images from autumn to compare, will look into it later

i did manage to get similar effect using photoshop, i forgot to mention picture style was set to either neutral or faithful and auto light optimizer was off

here's raw image (only DLO was used to remove periperal illumination) Attachment 1184
and after post processing Attachment 1185

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark Elberson

I really like this Sean. Love the light. It compliments and defines her face very well. Beauty Dish? The shadow has a really soft edge but the catch-light implies a smaller (or distant) light source.

Oops, another thread highjacking…err, were you 90 degrees to the sun in this picture :-)

---

Actually, I considered posting the setup picture because it shows something relevant, so here it goes:

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-N...s640/setup.jpg

Yep, beauty dish a little high above camera with an umbrella below for a bit of fill (basically a clamshell lighting setup). Noelle was also holding a reflector bouncing light on her left (camera right's) side for rim light. If you'll notice I'm also using an umbrella boomed above her for shade purposes. The sun was indeed off camera right, but fairly high in the sky. One important thing to note about this image is that I didn't turn the polarizing filter after taking some portrait shots. Therefore, the polarizing effect is almost nil for the setup picture. The difference in the coloring and saturation of the sky is substantial.

Sean, couldn't that also be from the metering? I would assume that the lighting provided for the portrait made the background drop off, regardless of the polarization.

Certainly; the background is indeed under exposed by about a stop or a little more (which intensifies the effect). However, the setup shot and the portrait were taken with the same exposure settings: f/3.5, 1/160 sec, ISO 100. That said, I did add a very small amount of brightness in PS, but not very much. The color variation in the sky between the two images is largely a result of the angle of the sun at which they were shot.

But I use a polarizer quite a bit, and what I'm saying is still accurate as far a I'm concerned--the amount of polarization achievable varies due to several circumstances; just because a person isn't seeing the same results on a given attempt, it doesn't mean that someone else's images must have been heavily post processed.

My advice concerning buying a pair of polarized sunglasses is honestly the best way to figure out when and where the best opportunities for maximum polarization can be found. If I'm wanting to use a polarizer, I'll go to a location on a bright, sunny day (cloudless days work best), and wearing my sunglasses I'll tilt my head in both directions. Then I'll repeat the process looking in different directions (at least those with acceptable background opportunities). The behavior may look strange to onlookers, but it's been invaluable when planning and executing one of these shoots.

I think that you need to define “heavily post processed”. It is obvious to me that Bryan’s pictures contain post processing. “Heavily” to me would imply that he went in Photoshop and manipulated the sky. I doubt this is the case in these pictures, what is more likely is he used DPP to convert the pictures from RAW and no doubt applied adjustments. I think if you want a lens by lens comparison you need to look at the ISO charts, not at samples that are used to demonstrate what a lens can do, obviously with Bryan’s skill level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Setters

My advice concerning buying a pair of polarized sunglasses is honestly the best way to figure out when and where the best opportunities for maximum polarization can be found. If I'm wanting to use a polarizer, I'll go to a location on a bright, sunny day (cloudless days work best), and wearing my sunglasses I'll tilt my head in both directions. Then I'll repeat the process looking in different directions (at least those with acceptable background opportunities). The behavior may look strange to onlookers, but it's been invaluable when planning and executing one of these shoots.

---

Now that would be an interesting set up shot.

Arnt

I'm off the subject a bit with this question, which is for Sean.

Sean, you obviously do a lot of strobe work outside. Do you ever use a gold umbrella, and shoot a Speedlite into it, for a warmer color on the subject? Or, with that Speedlite you show shooting through a translucent umbrella, do you ever cover it with a full or half CTO to warm the subject? Or, do you just warm the image up by increasing the color temp, in post? I would think the reflective umbrella would help maximize the light from the Speedlite, rather than through the white translucent.

What's your recommendation for the "warming?" I'm curious about how the best way would be for a Speedlite, not necessarily with a higher powered strobe. Thanks.

Generally speaking, I gel my strobe. Gelling is a better way to go because you can vary the color by using 1/4, 1/2, or full color gels. While I have silver reflective umbrellas (and use them occasionally), I prefer white umbrellas. I'm not a fan of the relatively cool, uneven light of a reflective umbrella when used as a mainlight. The light is harsher, I guess.

http://youtu.be/TVBX-6op3tY