Polarisers, when to use?

Messages
153
Name
Roger
Edit My Images
No
I have used polarising filters for some years but notice some images that are using polarisers and various ND grad filters at the same time. I fully understand the principle of polarisers, 90° to the sun etc, so why do some use them when photographing sunsets/sunrise i.e looking straight at the sun? Is it just to cut the light down more? Or do they still work the same?
 
Yes so do I. To limit reflections in water etc. However when I looked at Flickr images and filtered "polariser" it came up with some impressive images of sunsets which prompted me to ask the question. Will they enhance a sky at sunset?
 
I have used polarising filters for some years but notice some images that are using polarisers and various ND grad filters at the same time. I fully understand the principle of polarisers, 90° to the sun etc, so why do some use them when photographing sunsets/sunrise i.e looking straight at the sun? Is it just to cut the light down more? Or do they still work the same?
ND grads perform a VERY different role to polarisers.
The 90 degree to the sun bit is irrelevant for every use I put my polarisers to. It's only relevant for getting the maximum darkening effect on skies. Which I very rarely use polarisers for at all, polarisers do so much more than just darken skies.
When looking towards the sun you will often get reflections (from water especially) these reflection can be reduced with a polariser. On other occasions the photographer may want to make reflections stronger again polarisers can do this.
ND grads specifically darken one side of the image (usually the sky)
 
As far as I was aware, polarisers can reduce some (but not all) reflections and increase colour saturation. I'm not aware of any effect (other than providing two more air to glass/polymer surfaces to increase flare) when pointing at the sun. I await enlightenment as well.
 
OK understand. But do you keep your UV filter on or is that redundant in this situation. I am thinking of all the glass the image has to contend with if you have ND filters on as well.
 
The angle of polarization is not necessarily 90˚ to the sun (it's actually Brewster's angle). As Mike said, it can be used to cut and enhance reflections; if the reflection is of the sky, then the sky is the source of the light, not the sun.

Also, both filters will (typically) add some color cast to the image... and Lee makes a polariser with a built in warming tint which could offset the typical magenta/blue tint of most ND's.
 
Last edited:
I only use a filter if it's necessary. In my case, that's coloured filters (I use black and white film almost exclusively) and never a UV.
 
Yes so do I. To limit reflections in water etc. However when I looked at Flickr images and filtered "polariser" it came up with some impressive images of sunsets which prompted me to ask the question. Will they enhance a sky at sunset?
OK understand. But do you keep your UV filter on or is that redundant in this situation. I am thinking of all the glass the image has to contend with if you have ND filters on as well.

I don't see much sky effect when shooting into the sun with a polariser. Probably just irrelevant tags I expect. I often see images tagged Somerset, Dorset, Devon and Wiltshire..... but I'm pretty sure only one of them is relevant ;)

I don't use UV filters. I only use weak ND's with waterfalls and the coast so I don't really see much colour casting.

I also very rarely shoot with the sun in the frame.
 
I don't use UV filters. I only use weak ND's with waterfalls and the coast so I don't really see much colour casting.

I think you may have misunderstood me. I thought it was general practice to keep a UV filter attached if only to protect the lens. Mine is on all the time.
 
OK understand. But do you keep your UV filter on or is that redundant in this situation. I am thinking of all the glass the image has to contend with if you have ND filters on as well.


I haven't used a UV filter since going digital, other than VERY occasionally if I feel the front element of the lens needs the protection and in those situations (flying dirt/sand/water), I'll probably leave the camera in the bag anyway (the exception being a couple of times I was shooting motocross). The only thing a UV filter is likely to add in a multi-filter stack is flare.
 
OK understand. But do you keep your UV filter on or is that redundant in this situation. I am thinking of all the glass the image has to contend with if you have ND filters on as well.

I don't use UV filters.
I think you may have misunderstood me. I thought it was general practice to keep a UV filter attached if only to protect the lens. Mine is on all the time.

I don't think I did any misunderstanding.
 
Just to be clear - I don't use UV filters on my lenses. There are arguments pro and con, and some that using a filter for protection can in some cases make things worse. What is true is that every image taken though a filter will have some degradation. Hence I never use a filter unless I need to.
 
I think you may have misunderstood me. I thought it was general practice to keep a UV filter attached if only to protect the lens. Mine is on all the time.
snapshotimagehandler_323513245.jpeg
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Sky
I think you may have misunderstood me. I thought it was general practice to keep a UV filter attached if only to protect the lens. Mine is on all the time.
It was general practice in film days. Since then it's become a hotly contested subject, some think it protects the lens, others have seen tests that show it can actually cause damage to lenses under impact.
I will sometimes fit one if photographing in salt spray or environments where there's a lot of airborne grit. More often I use them to hold something close to the front element.
I do have one or two lenses that have a UV filter permanently on, but that's because they don't want to come off, and it's not enough of an issue for me to dig out my filter wrenches. With my longer lenses I can see image degradation with affordable filters.
For routine lens protection fit a lens hood - when the right way round this protects from knocks, keeps fingers away & reduces flare without putting anything in the path of the light that's forming your image.
 
On the times when it is a good idea, add in airshows. I knew a photographer who photographed a lot of them, and junked the filter after every season as the residue couldn't be removed.
 
On the times when it is a good idea, add in airshows. I knew a photographer who photographed a lot of them, and junked the filter after every season as the residue couldn't be removed.
From the fuel? Probably best not to wonder what it might do to your lungs!

Some polarisers eventually die when moisture gets into the glass/foil 'sandwich'. The more expensive Kaesemann polarisers are sealed at the edges to avoid this.
 
On the times when it is a good idea, add in airshows. I knew a photographer who photographed a lot of them, and junked the filter after every season as the residue couldn't be removed.
What residue? I've never seen any signs of anything.
It wouldn't be fuel, that's typically Avtur (a grade of kerosene) for jets & Avgas 100LL (basically high octance petrol) for piston engines both are easy to remove from glass.
 
What residue? I've never seen any signs of anything.
It wouldn't be fuel, that's typically Avtur (a grade of kerosene) for jets & Avgas 100LL (basically high octance petrol) for piston engines both are easy to remove from glass.

No idea. I've never been in that environment, and was simply reporting what I was told. I always assumed it was some sort of oil or other vapour from the engine exhaust, but even there I'm assuming aeroplanes have exhausts.
 
If you are careless and likely to damage your lens then it makes good sense to protect it. However, I have never damages a lens or filter and so I am not prepared to add a filer that will deteriorate the IQ in many circumstances. It is particularly poor practice to use more than one filter which just multiplies the surfaces and flare. An easy experiment is to take a scene in Raw with filter(s) on and off. You will in many situations find smaller raw files when filters are used which is a reflection of the detail lost. Having said that I carry a plain filter in my bag for very risky situations but have never used them. Even when attending a motocross, it was not necessary as I photographed bikes either side on approaching a bend but not from behind which might have been a problem. The only other filter I have is a polariser but almost never use it. I would for dealing with a reflection if necessary but not for darkening sky which I can do better in LR.

Dave
 
There is certainly damage from aircraft. I used to sail and a boat cover at my local club would last for years, at another club I regularly visited under Heathrow flight path, covers on boats there, two years and it was rotten.
 
There is certainly damage from aircraft. I used to sail and a boat cover at my local club would last for years, at another club I regularly visited under Heathrow flight path, covers on boats there, two years and it was rotten.
Two years of sun light will be quite enough for that. Less than one year left out in the garden was enough kill my family tent.
 
Last edited:
No idea. I've never been in that environment, and was simply reporting what I was told. I always assumed it was some sort of oil or other vapour from the engine exhaust, but even there I'm assuming aeroplanes have exhausts.
Of course aircraft have exhausts, they burn fuel like any other engine. In general they all use the general reaction hydrocarbons + air -> energy, carbon di oxide & water.
There will be some unburnt fuel in any exhaust, and jets with after burners might increase this considerably, but they are fairly trivial to remove from filters.
I suppose there could be some acids created by trace sulphur in the fuel, but acid rain from this sort of route normally takes some time to form (typically well away from the site of combustion) and with modern fuels sulphur levels are heavily controlled.
 
Last edited:
Thanks to everyone, from filters to sweet popcorn(?) to aircraft exhaust. I think we have covered it all. If not read THIS.
 
I stopped using UV filters when I found out they don't do anything. I think it's more of a lens protector than anything else.
 
I think it's more of a lens protector than anything else.
The evidence I've seen suggests it's more of an easy profit for camera stores than anything else. There are times when it might give useful protection, but there are others where it increases the risk of lens damage. They were definitely required for many films, but now it is very hotly debated if they offer anything.
 
It's possible that the people you've seen online using a polariser to photograph a sunset don't really know what they're doing. In my (extensive) experience a polariser will have no effect at all other than cut out 1 - 2 stops of light.

The popcorn post relates to a very thorny subject among photographers - to use a UV filter / protector or not. It has been heatedly discussed here at great length!
 
From my limited experience, if it is not bright sunshine with you photographing shiny or reflective surfaces then I agree with @jerry12953 all you are getting is that small reduction in light from a polariser. It really depends on what the scene is so look at your histogram and you may notice whether there is an effect.

If you are thinking to use it to improve cloud contrast and detail then know that it works in some situations. You will definitely get more consistent results with a ND filter in my opinion. They both have their place of course.

A small experiment, TV screens are polarised. If you test your circular polariser on it you will have a better understanding of the effect. The other thing I would do is take pictures of reflections off a car’s windshield and body. Last one is off a body of water. This will give you an idea of how it works and what the result looks like.
 
TV screens are polarised.
Actually its LCD screens that are polarised. Most but not all TV screens are LCD, as are laptop & tablet screens....
They make a great polarised light source when photographing stress patterns in clear plastics (using a CPL on your lens set to darken the LCD screen):
Stressed filter by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr
 
Actually its LCD screens that are polarised. Most but not all TV screens are LCD, as are laptop & tablet screens....

Absolutely, I should have been more precise but as you mentioned to my mind most screens are LCDs. You would think I’d know better considering I’m in the market for an OLED TV :facepalm:
 
Back
Top