Do You Use A Polarizer Filter Shooting B&W ?

xkaes · Apr 7, 2023

DREW WILEY said:
xkaes - would be nice if you could one day see one of my own SW waterfall prints, WITHOUT a polarizer of course, but see it in person, full 30x40 inch Cibachome print from 8X10 chrome film, or the scaled down 24X30 Fuji Supergloss equivalents done when my biggest color enlarger was down for service. Its full range of hues and tonality would be squelched if a polarizer had been used, not to mention the unwanted extra exposure time needed. Color neg response if somewhat different, of course.

Reflections are beautiful. Sparkle is beautiful. Over-saturation is annoying and kitchy. That's what Fauxtoshop is for. Treat polarizers like a pet rattlesnake; they need to be handled thoughtfully.

I agree completely as, it seems, everyone else does. I don't use a PL most of the time. But in the waterfall shot above, the reflection off of the water completely covered up the red rock underneath the water. A PL was able to restore what I could see with my eye, but the camera could not -- without moving it. This is a completely un-manipulated photo -- except for the PL, which did not intensify any of the other colors.

If I had not used a PL, the red rock on the bottom of the water fall would have appeared as glare -- bright white -- completely unnatural.

The same thing would have happened in B&W too -- an example of using a filter to make a subject look more realistic. But most of my waterfall shots are taken without a polarizer.

grain elevator · Apr 7, 2023

Kodachromeguy said:
Here is another example of a polarizer with black and white Fuji Acros film, Yashica Electro 35CC camera with 35mm lens, Mineola, Texas. I think the polarizer is effective in this type of situation. And no, it is not especially hard to use on a rangefinder camera.

View attachment 335086

I can see how it may have helped with some aspects here but to my eye it's bit much. The hood, front wheel and the middle tree (right of the poplar which looks nice because its leaves have plenty of different tones whith their light undersides) look unnatural to me. I'd prefer a bit of sparkle from leaves. Sorry to use your nice pic to point out what I see negatively about strong polarizer effects.

DREW WILEY · Apr 7, 2023

Another problem with polarizers is that the cheaper ones tend to lend a greenish tint. You've also got two mated pieces of glass which can lead to condensation or mold between the elements. A pricier version called Kasemann design is designed with a tight rubber O-ring for tropical and other moist condition use.

Sirius Glass · Apr 7, 2023

DREW WILEY said:
Another problem with polarizers is that the cheaper ones tend to lend a greenish tint. You've also got two mated pieces of glass which can lead to condensation or mold between the elements. A pricier version called Kasemann design is designed with a tight rubber O-ring for tropical and other moist condition use.

That is why one should buy the better polarizers, not the cheapest ones that show up on a web search.

Rick A · Apr 7, 2023

For me, it depends on the time of year and subject. Shot in February with blazing sun at a low angle.

eli griggs · Apr 7, 2023

Add a 25r(red) or deeper r filter to a polarizer and you can stimulate a night time scene, to various effect.

Kodachromeguy · Apr 7, 2023

grain elevator said:
I can see how it may have helped with some aspects here but to my eye it's bit much. The hood, front wheel and the middle tree (right of the poplar which looks nice because its leaves have plenty of different tones whith their light undersides) look unnatural to me. I'd prefer a bit of sparkle from leaves. Sorry to use your nice pic to point out what I see negatively about strong polarizer effects.

If you did not like that example, how about this pine tree at Paria Point, Bryce Canyon National Park? This is an example of pine trees destroyed by the pine bark beetle, which has devastated large swaths of pine in the Rocky Mountains and US west. Hasselblad, 80mm Planar-CB, polarizer, Tri-X 400 film. I specifically wanted the sky to look dark.

grain elevator · Apr 7, 2023

Kodachromeguy said:
If you did not like that example, how about this pine tree at Paria Point, Bryce Canyon National Park? This is an example of pine trees destroyed by the pine bark beetle, which has devastated large swaths of pine in the Rocky Mountains and US west. Hasselblad, 80mm Planar-CB, polarizer, Tri-X 400 film. I specifically wanted the sky to look dark.

View attachment 335133

I have no complaints about this one As a red filter would have darkened the needles, if you didn't want that using a polariser makes sense.

xkaes · Apr 7, 2023

grain elevator said:
I have no complaints about this one As a red filter would have darkened the needles, if you didn't want that using a polariser makes sense.

It would have if the needles were green. Dead pine needles are orange, and a red filter would have lightened them up.

DREW WILEY · Apr 7, 2023

Lots of pine bark is reddish, and looks unnervingly bright if an orange or red filter is used. And don't stay around long, or you'll be watching those dead pines burn hundreds of thousands of acres at a time. Ironically, catastrophic fire is the only thing which stops the pine beetle infestations which are the killing off vast swaths of pine.

xkaes · Apr 7, 2023

And if you are dumb enough to photograph a wild fire make sure to put a red or orange filter on the lens in order to make the flames nice and bright on B&W film. Forget about the polarizer, and then run like Hell.

Alan Edward Klein · Apr 8, 2023

grain elevator said:
I can see how it may have helped with some aspects here but to my eye it's bit much. The hood, front wheel and the middle tree (right of the poplar which looks nice because its leaves have plenty of different tones whith their light undersides) look unnatural to me. I'd prefer a bit of sparkle from leaves. Sorry to use your nice pic to point out what I see negatively about strong polarizer effects.

Here's an example of using the polarizer at full strength. While the colors get saturated as the light is stripped off the flowers, leaves and grasses, the picture looks unnatural and lifeless. So now I don't use the polarizer at full strength rotating it somewhat in the middle.

Also note that round polarizers have a line on the outside ring. Rotating the ring changes the strength. You can put the filter up to your eye and rotate it until your find the right strength. Then note where the line is and set it in the same location after mounting the filter on the lens.

xkaes · Apr 8, 2023

Alan Edward Klein said:
Also note that round polarizers have a line on the outside ring. Rotating the ring changes the strength. You can put the filter up to your eye and rotate it until your find the right strength. Then note where the line is and set it in the same location after mounting the filter on the lens.

I always thought this was the case, but I discovered that it isn't universal. The first polarizers that I saw without an index mark (some have a small handle/stick instead) were circular polarizers. I assumed that to be the case for all circular polarizers until I saw circular polarizers with index marks. Then I assumed just cheap polarizers lack index marks, but have seen name-brand, expensive polarizers without index marks -- and inexpensive PLs with them!

So who knows? All I do know is that all of my polarizers have index marks.

Index marks are important so that you can use your eye to decide the best angle for the PL -- and then attach it to you lens.

grain elevator · Apr 8, 2023

xkaes said:
It would have if the needles were green. Dead pine needles are orange, and a red filter would have lightened them up.

If the photographer wanted to avoid that, it could be an equally valid reason to use a polariser rather than red filter. But the needles in the picture aren't necessarily dead. The parts of the tree that are obviously dead have been so for years, you can tell because the thin branches are all rotten off. The branch with the needles is still alive or has been until much more recently.

Alan Edward Klein · Apr 8, 2023

xkaes said:
I always thought this was the case, but I discovered that it isn't universal. The first polarizers that I saw without an index mark (some have a small handle/stick instead) were circular polarizers. I assumed that to be the case for all circular polarizers until I saw circular polarizers with index marks. Then I assumed just cheap polarizers lack index marks, but have seen name-brand, expensive polarizers without index marks -- and inexpensive PLs with them!

So who knows? All I do know is that all of my polarizers have index marks.

Index marks are important so that you can use your eye to decide the best angle for the PL -- and then attach it to you lens.

You could paint an index line on the ring with white or red nail polish. That should work.

DREW WILEY · Apr 8, 2023

It's going to differ situation to situation anyway, depending one the angle of the sun, the perspective and width of view of your lens, etc.

Sirius Glass · Apr 8, 2023

Alan Edward Klein said:
Here's an example of using the polarizer at full strength. While the colors get saturated as the light is stripped off the flowers, leaves and grasses, the picture looks unnatural and lifeless. So now I don't use the polarizer at full strength rotating it somewhat in the middle.

Also note that round polarizers have a line on the outside ring. Rotating the ring changes the strength. You can put the filter up to your eye and rotate it until your find the right strength. Then note where the line is and set it in the same location after mounting the filter on the lens.

Your experience mimics mine with slide film. One needs to take a little be of care to avoid, as in this case, dimming the flowers. When I switched to color print film I was spending time photographing my young children and got out of the habit of checking the polarizing filter. Later I found the polarizers could be useful for landscapes, but either left the filter on all the time or left it off all the time.

xkaes · Apr 8, 2023

grain elevator said:
The branch with the needles is still alive or has been until much more recently.

They're dead.

For a shot like this in B&W, you need an orange filter. Red might be too much.

DREW WILEY · Apr 8, 2023

For a shot like that, you need a handkerchief to weep in. More of the pine beetle epidemic, spreading every.

xkaes · Apr 8, 2023

Not just pine beetle, of course. Last time I was in the Wind Rivers -- west side -- the entire canyon I was hiking in was burned out. Completely.

At the bottom of the canyon was a single fire pit. One lousy fire pit.

DREW WILEY · Apr 9, 2023

Sad. I spent 12 days in the northern Winds late in the summer before the pandemic broke out, and saw a few smoke plumes way off in the distance, but nothing like the massive fires we were getting in the Sierras. There were some small patches of dead pine where the Green River levels off below Squaretop, It was somewhat worse down around Big Sandy Lk a couple years before, but not higher up or deeper in. Here the beetle zone ends below 8,000 ft, with the higher conifers up to timberline either being resistant, or the winters still too cold. Hit worst is the Ponderosa pine belt at mid-elevation.

Where were you in the Winds, xkaes?

eli griggs · Apr 10, 2023

Let it burn out on its own and end the cycle of super hot, over large and pointless interference with nature.

Alan Edward Klein · Apr 10, 2023

eli griggs said:
Let it burn out on its own and end the cycle of super hot, over large and potatoes pointless interference nature.

That only works if your house isn't downwind.

eli griggs · Apr 10, 2023

I'll let this discussion continue about photography, as I should no have started what is may be a political discussion

Rick A · Apr 14, 2023

I shot this with a polarizing filter. There was a hard sun reflection in the water.

Buttermilk Falls

Paid a visit to the Fred Rogers Trail to get this.

www.photrio.com

Do You Use A Polarizer Filter Shooting B&W ?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency