Polarizers - Am I the only one?

Hello all, glad to find a photo forum where the emphasis is on taking pictures.

I am getting ready for fall vacation and trying to decide whether to buy yet another expensive circular polarizer, this time in 77mm. Last year I took shots of many scenes with and without a polarizer, and you know what, none of the polarizer shots made the final cut. To my eye the polarizer shots looked unnatural and flat compared to those without. I just didn't care for the banded sky effect, the dimensionless leaves or the water devoid of sparkle and reflection. On top of that, my Tiffen filter produced an odd color cast.

I would trust my own judgement if it weren't for the almost universally expressed opinion that a polarizer is an essential accessory for landscape work. My suspicion is that the recommendation is a carryover from film days that no longer carries as much weight in the digital age. Nowadays if I want a deep sky with bright clouds I will use blended exposures or maybe a digital gradient filter. And if the image is properly exposed, it is easy to boost saturation using any of the common image editors.

Is there something I am missing? Should I give polarizers another try?

Chuck

Banding is caused when you use a polarizer on an ultrawide. I submitted 30 images for a commissioned magazine article yesterday, and noted that of the day time shots, about 70% were made with a polarizer. I especially use a polarizer when there is water in the scene. A polarizer is the only thing that will cut glare off water so you can see the rocks underneath, BTW.

Kent in SD

If you have the discipline to take it off when you don't need it, then yes I'd recommend having one. I'm saying this because I am addicted to it (the sky and twisting effect is fascinating) and over-polarize more shots than I should. For water and forest shots for sure, I would recommmend them 100% though.

I solved the problem of having to get multiple polarizing filters by buying one Singh-Ray polarizer to slip in a cookin holder.

During the spring, summer and early fall, I almost always use a circular polarizer when shoots have vegetation in sunlight. I suspect the color problem may be a poor CP, though I have two Tiffens which have no problem. I had one I picked up in South Africa which had a green cast. The change from film to digital makes no difference to the light striking the photographic elements.

After initially using CPs, I quit as I could not see much difference. Then, I started shooting birds in vegetation, especially hummingbirds. All of a sudden I could see these almost white instead of green leave glaring through photos.

Get a really good, multi-coated CP such as those from B&W. A 77 mm is not cheap, but well worth the expenditure. If you want a little more texture, then turn the CP slightly off minimum reflection. I personally find that there is still plenty of reflection even when at the minimum here under the Texas sky.

Embarking on a photo trip, I would never leave home without my polarizer filter in my camera bag. Like Kent says, the polarizer filter cuts glare off the water. You can also adjust the filter so that you can retain some of the glare for just the right amount of sparkle while still showing the pebbles beneath the water. While the polarizer takes the glare off lakes and ponds it also takes the glare off wet foilage and rocks to give more saturation. Clouds take on more detail as well. I know you can get polarizer effects with photoshop but why not accomplish that in camera?

Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada

W

I got a 77mm multicoated Kenko CP from Filterhouse for about $100. It seems to be very good, especially for the price!

I never leave home without mine, for all the reasons given above. The time spent in PS to clean up what could be done easily in camera with a lot of creative flexibility isn't worth it. That's imho! Go get a good one and enjoy the results.

Hi Charles,

The good thing about a polarizing filter is that you get to control how much effect you want from the filter. Remember, you don't have to cut off all the glare or reflections. Dial in just the amount of filtration you need for your application.

I use one, but very selectively. It can be important for cutting reflections on wet rocks, for example, and when the light angle is just right you can actually use it to bring out sky reflections on muddy rivers, believe it or not. They're a problem with ultrawides as Kent points out, but at times they can be really nice for bringing up faint clouds that disappear without them. The problems come in when you use them full strength when only a little pola is called for.

Here's a trick I learned last year from I don't know where. In an offending image go to Image-->Adjust->Selective Color and use the black slider on the blue and cyan channels to adjust the affect of polarization in skies. It's pure magic for adjusting apparent "polarization" in skies after the fact.

I purchase filters to fit my largest lens which happens to be a 77mm I then place step up rings on all my other lenses so I can use the same filters on each lens. It has made life much simpler and less expensive.

I prefer filters in the field for the simple fact that I would rather make the adjustment out shooting than sit at the computer correcting my images. Plus, and this may or may not be true, I feel that the more manipulation done to an image after its been shot the more quality you loose. As far as price is concerned I have done the same thing as Stephen.

I just didn't care for the banded sky effect, the dimensionless leaves or the water devoid of sparkle and reflection. On top of that, my Tiffen filter produced an odd color cast.

Chuck, I have no idea how you manage to get a bland "bland sky" with a polarizer unless, possibly the sky was hazy in which case a polarizer isn't going to help much. Properly used, under a clear sky and at optimum angle to the sun a polarizer dramatically deepens the cyan saturation and that increases the contrast between the darkened sky and the white clouds.

Your concern about no sparkle in the water is valid but you don't have to go for "all or nothing". There are degrees of rotation where you can accomplish what you want without it doing what you don't want.

The green cast is a problem with some lesser quality filters and Tiffen is one of them. You can easily see whether a filter is neutral when you are selecting one at the store. Buy a Hoya or a B&W.

My suspicion is that the recommendation is a carryover from film days that no longer carries as much weight in the digital age. Nowadays if I want a deep sky with bright clouds I will use blended exposures or maybe a digital gradient filter.

Film or digital, a camera is a camrea and they all respond to filters the same way UNLESS you are using auto white balance. But I think you know better than to do that!

Polarizers increase contrast and, consequently, color saturation by reducing polarized light reflecting from an object. Experiment. Try it on different things.

Richard and Hank both raise good points regarding disipline and less than obvious uses.

Bob

Chuck:

I would trust my own judgement if it weren't for the almost universally expressed opinion that a polarizer is an essential accessory for landscape work.

Let me modify that with the caveat ... When properly used.

After all, it is a tool, for a purpose. But just like getting addicted or taking too much medicine, over use can have some negative side effects.

About two weeks ago I made a post on my weblog that talks about how to 'soften' that nasty sky banding by making different choices with your tools and composition. I hope you might find it at least a little helpful.

Check out http://www.2filters.com/ for a good price on Hoya filters. I just bought a 77mm Hoya HMC for just over $100. It works great on my 24-105 with 1DMK2

I used polarizers alot way back in my 35mm SLR days and learned to avoid them for the kind of natural appearing landscape images I prefer. The already quite blue High Sierra skies I often photograph don't need a polarizer. However keep them in my bag for closeup work where they certainly cut out glare. I didn't use a polarizer on any of the large format images I market on my website. Selectively used on specific landscapes they can offer some benefits though I don't bother because when a scene looks good it ought to film so as well. ...David

Thanks for all the replies. There was a pretty good consensus until Dave chimed in at the end. Well, at least I now know that I am not the only one who has some reservations about the use of polarizers.

I suppose it might have helped to describe some of the situations where I found a polarizer to not be very helpful, so I will now.

Situation 1: Hazy skies like we often get in Michigan are already very light in the direction of the sun. Using a polarizer darkens most at 90 degrees, making the problem worse.

Situation 2: It is true that using a polarizer will cut surface glare on a lake and make bottom features visible. But this is at the expense of the reflected image of the sky that gives the water that shimmering blue color.

Situation 3: Yes, using a polarizer on a waterfall shot allows the colors of the rocks to show through. But then the rocks just look wet and you lose the effect of the rocks being covered by a film of flowing water.

However, some excellent points were brought up that have convinced me to go ahead and buy a good polarizer, probably the Hoya Digital Pro, and experiment some more this next trip. I think the trick might be to find the intermediate setting that increases saturation while still leaving enough reflection to keep the image looking natural.

Thanks again all,

Chuck

You do not always have to adjust the angle of the polarizer for minimum glare. You may actually want to increase the effect by rotating it to exaggerate it. One situation could be a lake in the foreground with a blue sky in the distance. The angles would probably be different for maximum effect on each, but one setting might give the desired results.

Another application for a polarizer in scenics is to enhance rainbows. (Or you can extinguish them entirely!) You should generally not use it with a wide angle lens as the polarizing effect may then vary along the length of the bow.