Mark Schaefer
New member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2003
- Messages
- 1,301
- Reaction score
- 172
This is a photo topic. However, it may be of interest to the general hiking public. So I am posting this in the "General Backcountry" forum rather than the special, sign-up "Exposure - Nature Photography" forum. Also many VFTT members (not merely the photo types) may use a filter capable camera. Polarizers are easy to use with a "through the lens" viewfinder where you can see the effect of rotating the filter in the viewfinder. Otherwise you could try to read the general direction of the light, and rotate using the markings on the filter.
One reason to use a polarizer. The reflections of sun light on foliage and other reflective surfaces may wash out the colors in photos. Often these washed out colors can be restored to their natural, full intensity with a polarizing filter (a.k.a. polarizer). An artist would simply paint in those washed out highlights to saturate the image, but a photographer often needs the help of this filter.
You will achieve the maximal effect of the polarizer on a sunny day and when shooting in a direction that is 90 degrees to the direction of the sunlight. I have a hazy, sunny day example later in this post. However, the workings of a polarizer are more readily seen in photos of broad leaf plants shot on cloudy days so I will start there. In fact you will find that a polarizing filter can greatly enhance photos shot in the diffuse light of cloudy days.
The workings of this filter to restore and enhance the sweet light of nature to a photo remind me of a Carole King song: Sweet Seasons (YouTube video link, not mine but I like it). Note: all of the images (art and photos) in that YouTube video were sweetly saturated and polarized to their full potential. A relevant excerpt follows:
Here are a few photo comparisons that I shot recently. The conditions were about 2 hours before sunset, heavy overcast, quite humid, a thunderstorm approaching, with much diffuse and scattered light. The locale is a swamp in the midst of a forest. The subjects are somewhat unattractive, insect munched, broad leaf plants (whose names I don't recall). The subject matter is not great, but they are convenient subjects for these comparisons. I used a polarizer filter to eliminate some of the large reflections on the shiny surfaces of the broad leaf plants. All of the 12 photos in the gallery were straight JPEG images out of the camera without any post processing.
There are two comparison pairs with the polarizer rotated to settings that are 90 degrees from the other. For completeness I should have collected a third photo without the polarizer on the lens. I will repeat this exercise in the future to fully illustrate the effect, but the most important aspect of the polarizer filter can be seen in the comparison pairs below.
Click on any of the thumbnails to see a larger photo or use this Slide show, the first four photos in the slide show. You may pause the slide show and move through the slide show in forward and reverse, and this is perhaps the best mode for seeing the differences in the photos. The slide show contains other polarizer comparisons (side/90-degree versus direct light, sunny day color saturation, and water reflections). The slide show also contains an unrelated white balance comparison. You may also view thumbnails of all the comparisons in the photo gallery.
In the first comparison the leaves are rather uniformly oriented toward the gray sky (light source). I was able to achieve minimal and maximal effects of the polarizer filter.
Polarizer set for minimal color saturation, few reflections eliminated; below:
Polarizer set for maximal color saturation, most reflections eliminated; below:
In the second comparison the leaves are oriented in widely diverse directions (in relation to the sky); I used two rotations (90 degrees apart) which each eliminated some and different reflections. But no rotation setting could eliminate enough reflections to produce an ideal, "maximal" effect of the polarizer. The missing unpolarized photo would show reflections on all areas of the broad leaves.
One setting eliminated some reflections from some surfaces; below:
Rotated 90 degrees from the first setting eliminated other reflections from other surfaces; below:
OK, the hazy, sunny day example of the polarizer employed to intensify the color saturation. In the photos (from autumn 2006) the individual leaves are infinitesimally small compared to the above broad leaves. However, the effect on each leaf is the same as the broad leaves (you just cannot see the individual leaves). Note this is a slightly back lit side light. That is necessary to achieve the most vivid, translucent, autumnal reds of blueberry, huckleberry, hobblebush leaves (as the sunlit side of these leaves reflect a duller shade of red). Areas of the sky are also becoming more saturated/darker blue. That is because some of the atmospheric haze (sunlight reflections on each suspended, minuscule water vapor droplet) is eliminated.
Unpolarized, below:
Polarized to maximum, below:
Another point. If the sun is directly at your back or if you are shooting directly toward the sun (not side or overhead light, sunrise, sunset, etc.) there is very little if any benefit from a polarizer filter. The direct sunlight cannot be polarized.
Also a caution. Sometimes the maximum effect of the polarizer is "too much". It might render an overly intense, unnatural appearance. On very clear days and or sometimes at high elevations the sky may be rendered so intense that it becomes black. In such cases you may still get benefit some polarization, just don't rotate to the maximum position, 90 degrees from the direction of the sun light. However, on most hazy days in the northeast you will probably not go wrong with the maximum polarized setting.
So remember that with a polarizer filter and based on the direction (and/or diffusion) of sunlight:
One reason to use a polarizer. The reflections of sun light on foliage and other reflective surfaces may wash out the colors in photos. Often these washed out colors can be restored to their natural, full intensity with a polarizing filter (a.k.a. polarizer). An artist would simply paint in those washed out highlights to saturate the image, but a photographer often needs the help of this filter.
You will achieve the maximal effect of the polarizer on a sunny day and when shooting in a direction that is 90 degrees to the direction of the sunlight. I have a hazy, sunny day example later in this post. However, the workings of a polarizer are more readily seen in photos of broad leaf plants shot on cloudy days so I will start there. In fact you will find that a polarizing filter can greatly enhance photos shot in the diffuse light of cloudy days.
The workings of this filter to restore and enhance the sweet light of nature to a photo remind me of a Carole King song: Sweet Seasons (YouTube video link, not mine but I like it). Note: all of the images (art and photos) in that YouTube video were sweetly saturated and polarized to their full potential. A relevant excerpt follows:
Here are a few photo comparisons that I shot recently. The conditions were about 2 hours before sunset, heavy overcast, quite humid, a thunderstorm approaching, with much diffuse and scattered light. The locale is a swamp in the midst of a forest. The subjects are somewhat unattractive, insect munched, broad leaf plants (whose names I don't recall). The subject matter is not great, but they are convenient subjects for these comparisons. I used a polarizer filter to eliminate some of the large reflections on the shiny surfaces of the broad leaf plants. All of the 12 photos in the gallery were straight JPEG images out of the camera without any post processing.
There are two comparison pairs with the polarizer rotated to settings that are 90 degrees from the other. For completeness I should have collected a third photo without the polarizer on the lens. I will repeat this exercise in the future to fully illustrate the effect, but the most important aspect of the polarizer filter can be seen in the comparison pairs below.
Click on any of the thumbnails to see a larger photo or use this Slide show, the first four photos in the slide show. You may pause the slide show and move through the slide show in forward and reverse, and this is perhaps the best mode for seeing the differences in the photos. The slide show contains other polarizer comparisons (side/90-degree versus direct light, sunny day color saturation, and water reflections). The slide show also contains an unrelated white balance comparison. You may also view thumbnails of all the comparisons in the photo gallery.
In the first comparison the leaves are rather uniformly oriented toward the gray sky (light source). I was able to achieve minimal and maximal effects of the polarizer filter.
Polarizer set for minimal color saturation, few reflections eliminated; below:
Polarizer set for maximal color saturation, most reflections eliminated; below:
In the second comparison the leaves are oriented in widely diverse directions (in relation to the sky); I used two rotations (90 degrees apart) which each eliminated some and different reflections. But no rotation setting could eliminate enough reflections to produce an ideal, "maximal" effect of the polarizer. The missing unpolarized photo would show reflections on all areas of the broad leaves.
One setting eliminated some reflections from some surfaces; below:
Rotated 90 degrees from the first setting eliminated other reflections from other surfaces; below:
OK, the hazy, sunny day example of the polarizer employed to intensify the color saturation. In the photos (from autumn 2006) the individual leaves are infinitesimally small compared to the above broad leaves. However, the effect on each leaf is the same as the broad leaves (you just cannot see the individual leaves). Note this is a slightly back lit side light. That is necessary to achieve the most vivid, translucent, autumnal reds of blueberry, huckleberry, hobblebush leaves (as the sunlit side of these leaves reflect a duller shade of red). Areas of the sky are also becoming more saturated/darker blue. That is because some of the atmospheric haze (sunlight reflections on each suspended, minuscule water vapor droplet) is eliminated.
Unpolarized, below:
Polarized to maximum, below:
Another point. If the sun is directly at your back or if you are shooting directly toward the sun (not side or overhead light, sunrise, sunset, etc.) there is very little if any benefit from a polarizer filter. The direct sunlight cannot be polarized.
Also a caution. Sometimes the maximum effect of the polarizer is "too much". It might render an overly intense, unnatural appearance. On very clear days and or sometimes at high elevations the sky may be rendered so intense that it becomes black. In such cases you may still get benefit some polarization, just don't rotate to the maximum position, 90 degrees from the direction of the sun light. However, on most hazy days in the northeast you will probably not go wrong with the maximum polarized setting.
So remember that with a polarizer filter and based on the direction (and/or diffusion) of sunlight:
Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose
And sometimes you choose between the two
Wonderin', wonderin' if you have made the photo better
But there is no need to wonder; provided you have an LCD screen or other means on your camera to review the exposed photo.And sometimes you choose between the two
Wonderin', wonderin' if you have made the photo better
Last edited:
