Polarizing filter versus Neutral Density Filter

I will headed to Hawaii for a week in December. I am hoping to take tons of photos (fair warning I will be asking for comments when I return). My question is which of the above referenced filters would you recommend? I will be shooting with a Nikon 300 with a 70mm-300mm f4.5/5.6 with Vibration Reduction primarily. What are the pro's and con's of each? Or would you recommend some other type of filter? Or perhaps no filter? Thank you all in advance for any suggestions.

Go Canon. (Sorry couldn't resist! j/k)

Different animals.. A polarizing filter will knock a stop or two, and if pointed in the right direction cut glare on water or reflective surfaces. And darken the blue in a sky.. thus increasing contrast with the nice white clouds. A ND will just knock off X number of f stops.. A graduated ND is nice in that you can darken the sky to match the landscape.... Go with a polarizing filter..
I have used both together. Polarizer and a Graduated ND. I use the square(ish) Grads with a soft transition. Sometimes with a holder, but most time none.. just hold it in front of the lens and move up and down to get the right place. This is a very simple explanation. I am sure someone else will chime in with more detail.

Duke Beattie said:

Different animals.. A polarizing filter will knock a stop or two, and if pointed in the right direction cut glare on water or reflective surfaces. And darken the blue in a sky.. thus increasing contrast with the nice white clouds. A ND will just knock off X number of f stops.. A graduated ND is nice in that you can darken the sky to match the landscape.... Go with a polarizing filter..
I have used both together. Polarizer and a Graduated ND. I use the square(ish) Grads with a soft transition. Sometimes with a holder, but most time none.. just hold it in front of the lens and move up and down to get the right place. This is a very simple explanation. I am sure someone else will chime in with more detail.

Click to expand...

Let me add to Dukes comments,

Graduated neutral density filters are really a thing for film, although they can be wonderful to use if the skyline is straight. However, today, with digital cameras and auto exposure bracketing, we can resolve the difficulties of high dynamic range scenes. So now we can in grasp detail both in the sky as well as in the deepest shadows from rock, buildings, people, animals or trees.

Now, it's a relatively simple matter to use blending in Photoshop or other programs by hand or automatically. Reindeer Graphics, Photomatix and others have great solutions for a range of high dynamic range blending solutions that are superior to using a graduated ND filter.

The Normal ND filter allows one to evenly reduce light from everything in front of the camera. This allows one to use wider apertures in the bright sunlight than would normally be possible. This is valuablr, for example

1. Using wide apertures in great soft focus lenses for example any of Jim Galli's collection of LF lenses: this allows the character of the lenses rendering of out of focus areas to come alive. Anyone who has not visited Jim's website, should do so forthwith to get a great mind expansion! He also has a soft focus lens of amazing character in a mount for his DSLR!
   
   
2. Allowing use of slow shutter speed in sunlight: some photographers like to write the character of moving water or waterfalls as a complex of wonderful blurs. Another use might be to drag the shutter while using flash to have movement of a background with the sharp imaging of the main subject.

Hope this helps

Asher

a straight ND filter won't do anything accept let you keep the shutter open longer (or use a wider aperture). Image quality wise, an ND will not affect the image accept for possibly a slight color cast, and increased chance of flaring. I'd leave the ND at home unless you plan on long exposures, or fast shutterspeeds with wider apertures at mid-day if your camera has limited fast shutter speeds. Contrary to what alot of people seem to think (and I gather you think this as well, since you are comparing it to a Polarizer) an ND filter does NOT cut down glare or have any of the other effects that Polarizer does (accept for knocking down the total amount of light)

Daniel Buck said:

Contrary to what alot of people seem to think (and I gather you think this as well, since you are comparing it to a Polarizer) an ND filter does NOT cut down glare or have any of the other effects that Polarizer does (accept for knocking down the total amount of light)

Click to expand...

Daniel summed it up perfectly.

Curiously I've heard the same question asked several times in several different forums over the past year. It's always something like "which should I get, an ND or a polarizer"? Except that they're both usually dark and have high filter-factors the two can't really be compared.

I wonder if Rick, the original poster could specify why he wants (or thinks he wants) one or the other.

Thank you all for your input. It has been a real education (some over my head but I'll catch up). To answer Scott's question. In several conversations I have had with sales folks (first mistake I know) about some of my photos that were "blown out" they have asked if I had ever used one or the other. In my early, early, early days of using film slr's I also remember hearing talk of these two filters. I guess my next question would be what do any of you recommend for shooting in bright sunlight at or around water?

Rick Greely said:

In several conversations I have had with sales folks (first mistake I know) about some of my photos that were "blown out" they have asked if I had ever used one or the other.

Click to expand...

Yeah - I've heard it all

I guess my next question would be what do any of you recommend for shooting in bright sunlight at or around water?

Click to expand...

Sunlight? Nothing. Absolutely no filter. There's no need. A Neutral Density filter would lower the amount of light entering the camera, but unless you're planning on visiting Mercury there's really not a modern camera out there that can't handle the kind of light you're going to see.

The huge exception is when you're trying to do certain things with the camera. Let's say you specifically want a really shallow depth of field and therefore want to leave the aperture wide open. On a really bright day your camera might not be capable of a high enough shutter speed to compensate (I doubt that, but let's just assume). In that situation you might use a really dark neutral density filter.

A more common situation is when people want a very slow shutter speed in bright light, maybe for shooting a waterfall with blurred water. Again, the neutral density filter would cut the amount of light down so you can use a very slow shutter speed.

Those are somewhat extreme situations though. A "bright sunny day"? You don't need a filter for that.

The polarizing filter is a different story. It's dark because it's dark - not because it needs to be - in fact Hoya makes a polarizing filter that is designed to be about half the darkness of the typical polarizers...anyway, the polarizer blocks light coming from different directions. So, if you're shooting water the polarizer can, in many situations, cut the glare off the water. They work the same way on every other surface light gets reflected off of but water and glass are the most pronounced examples.

Anyway - the point is, I can't imagine anyone without a specific need running out to get a neutral density filter. A polarizing filter is another story - some people use them every day.

Scott,
Thank you