When using film I frequently used polarizers to deepen the sky and reduce the highlights for landscape shots around the beach. I know that they provide great flexibility in reducing the reflections but are they necessary if the primary use is to saturate the sky and bring out the clouds? I usually follow the philosophy of getting it right in the camera and minimizing the post processing . Interested in some viewpoints.

You should continue to use a polarizer for digital for the many reasons one would apply one (sky intensity, foliage saturation, glare reduction, ND, etc.).

Film-versus-digital is not any different. There is no computer-based post processing algorithm (yet) that has been able to replicate in software what a polarizer does.

If the ONLY reason is to saturate the sky and bring out the clouds, no, not necessary.

But that's never the only reason, best practice is to use the polarizer.

There's a debate over the use of GND filters, but I've never witnessed any suggestion of controversy over the use of polarizers.

There are some main reasons to use polis besides darken the sky and lightening the clouds. For me there are following reasons:

- loose one stop
- clear reflextions
- clear fog
- saturate the colors
- open the view in water

and what polarizer filter do you suggest (as neutral as possible for my taste) ? Singh Ray. Lee , Tiffen ? what are yours ?
thank you

Well, not Tiffen.

Singh Ray, B&W, better Hoyas, and Nikons come to mind as being popular with those that desire quality. Don't know what to make of Lee.

thank you
yes I have heard that Singh Ray are supposed to be the best one can find

Thanks for the input on the need for polarizers verse using post processing. This follows my instincts. Get it as right as you can in the camera and use the post processing to improve form there.