Pap of Glencoe

[Alastair S]

Using a decent circular polariser (I'd put emphasis on decent - I've tried the £20 ones and they just give photos a blue or yellow sheen) can completely transform a photo when used correctly in the right conditions.

An interesting point. I've got a good circular polariser but most of my landscapes are shot with a fairly wide angle lens (15mm, equivalent to 24mm on a full frame camera) and I don't like the partial effect it has on the sky. Clearly seem in this example:


Catterline Bay by Alastair S, on Flickr

I also would only get the polariser out if the sky was mostly blue. As a result I tend to only use it on water shots now. So would you recommend using it when there is little or no blue sky about? The only way I can see to get over the wide-angle problem is not to go wide-angle

I haven't gone down the graduated ND filter route because a) you need a tripod with you all the time & b) it takes time. I tend to snap & crack on when I'm out walking and then balance the sky in post-production. The latter probably takes more time that using a grad filter in the first place but its time at home & not time on the hillside.

[Frogwell]

Hi Alastair,

The circular polariser does tend to have that uneven blue sky effect in certain conditions or at certain angles, even with my 18-70mm lense. I've got to admit though, unless it's overly pronounced it doesn't bother me that much. The sky in your picture, while clearly varying in colour depth, is perfectly fine to me, but I suppose that's down to personal taste. You can of course minimise, or move, the variation by turning the filter to reduce the effect. Damn nice picture by the way!

I do tend to leave the polariser filter on even when it's not really doing much, but that's more laziness than anything. That said, even without blue sky I find it can have positive effects on landscapes as long as there is a decent amount of rich colour in the scene already. Not so good on landscape without much variation in colour though. It's particularly good on wet landscapes - after rain, or in the morning dew etc even without much direct sunshine.

As often as not I use the ND grad filter, even without a tripod. Admittedly the results are much better on a tripod, but for handheld stuff I generally just keep a couple of stops dialed in using the exposure compensation feature on the camera. This is of course at the expense of some depth of field, but as long as the light levels aren't really low I find I don't have to go to a really shallow focus. I might think different if I were trying to make a living out of it, but for my snaps it's an acceptable trade off.

[Alastair S]

Mark, thanks for that. Thinks I'll start playing about a bit more with my polariser. I'd read before about using one on wet landscapes but never actually tried - so its about time I did.

[skuk007]

Great pics as has already been said.

Never mind what camera you use, a lot of taking a good photo is spotting the initial composition. I always think it's not fair when I show a photo to someone and they say "That's great, you must have a really good camera!"

I also use Photoshop but only to Crop, tweak Levels, and Sharpen. I might occasionally combine one or more RAW files into one to get the same view I seen on the day. My camera can't cope with the difference in contrast between a dark foreground and a bright sky in the same way my little brain can.

My daughter is looking to visit Scotland with her boyfriend for the first time at the end of April. I suggested she pick the Glencoe area and I will show them these photos to try and convince them. Thanks for posting.