Polarizing filters on a Rangefinder/TLR?

Over time we’ve all had to resort to clever, and sometimes silly, tricks in order to overcome problems. Use of the imagination and voila!

I am presently in the middle of a decade long intense printing marathon which consists of printing all my worthy BW shots. I don’t want to add any more BW films to the process or I risk never getting out of the darkroom. This is why I have decided to shoot color, at least for the next 100 rolls.

Now this is the problem: I shoot XPAN, Leica and Rolleiflex. I’ve shot an insane amount of Kodachrome until 2010... but all without a polarizing filter. This was a shame because a polrizer would have benefited 100% of the images, one way or another. I do not want to do the mistake again, and I don’t want to resort to silly manoeuvres of constantly unscrewing and re-screwing filters.

So I sat down and thought hard for 2 minutes. And I understood how stupid I have been for all those lost years.

The good way to easily and effectively use a circular polarizing filter with your Leica and Rolleiflex is....... to have one attached on the lens, and another one (a junker) in your back pocket.

Calibrate both filters with a nailpolish dot on the position they both match. And voila. Look through the one in your hand, match the dot on the lens.

Jeezakrice. Where was my brain all this time?

It doesn't need to be a circular polarizing filter - a linear polarizing filter works fine.
I do this on a Mamiya TLR, which has matched filter rings on the taking and viewing lenses.
Two matched polarizing filters - one filter on each lens, with the orientation matched - you may need to check regularly that the orientation doesn't wander on one or both.
The only downside is a less bright viewfinder.

MattKing said:

It doesn't need to be a circular polarizing filter - a linear polarizing filter works fine.
I do this on a Mamiya TLR, which has matched filter rings on the taking and viewing lenses.
Two matched polarizing filters - one filter on each lens, with the orientation matched - you may need to check regularly that the orientation doesn't wander on one or both.
The only downside is a less bright viewfinder.

Click to expand...

Indeed, on a tlr!

But for RFs it never occured to me, until now, that having an extra filter in a pocket was the best solution... it’s almost shameful. 30 years of photography, countless hours on forums... haha

When I shoot my Canon GL 1.7 QL I often use a polarizer, I judge the amount of polarizing effect by watching the exposure needle, loss of aperture the more polarizing effect, I seen up to a 3 stop difference from minimal to max polarizing effect depending on how bright it is. Somewhere in my stash I have a SVII polarizing filter with the little arm that you match up with line on filter ring for max effect. I use to use it with my Leica IIIG and Canon 7, but much harder to gage correct exposure.

Leica made a 39mm swing out filter for the M cameras.
Rotate it in front of the RF, adjust it and rotate to the front of the lens. It even has a built in lens hood.
Found a picture on pg 109 of the Leica accessory guide 2nd edition but no cat. #

I thought of that a long time ago but it quickly proved to be unreliable. Sometimes a fully polarized scene would need more exposure, and other times, less. Which way does the glare contribute, for a given scene?
Like, what do you with a black car. Does the glare require more, less exposure? And you still need to underexpose the reflected reading if you want the black car to be black...

Paul Howell said:

When I shoot my Canon GL 1.7 QL I often use a polarizer, I judge the amount of polarizing effect by watching the exposure needle, loss of aperture the more polarizing effect, I seen up to a 3 stop difference from minimal to max polarizing effect depending on how bright it is. Somewhere in my stash I have a SVII polarizing filter with the little arm that you match up with line on filter ring for max effect. I use to use it with my Leica IIIG and Canon 7, but much harder to gage correct exposure.

Click to expand...

Paul Howell said:

When I shoot my Canon GL 1.7 QL I often use a polarizer, I judge the amount of polarizing effect by watching the exposure needle, loss of aperture the more polarizing effect, I seen up to a 3 stop difference from minimal to max polarizing effect depending on how bright it is. Somewhere in my stash I have a SVII polarizing filter with the little arm that you match up with line on filter ring for max effect. I use to use it with my Leica IIIG and Canon 7, but much harder to gage correct exposure.

Click to expand...

John Koehrer said:

Leica made a 39mm swing out filter for the M cameras.
Rotate it in front of the RF, adjust it and rotate to the front of the lens. It even has a built in lens hood.
Found a picture on pg 109 of the Leica accessory guide 2nd edition but no cat. #

Click to expand...

Now that's clever. I've never seen that.

Paul Howell said:

When I shoot my Canon GL 1.7 QL I often use a polarizer, I judge the amount of polarizing effect by watching the exposure needle, loss of aperture the more polarizing effect, I seen up to a 3 stop difference from minimal to max polarizing effect depending on how bright it is. Somewhere in my stash I have a SVII polarizing filter with the little arm that you match up with line on filter ring for max effect. I use to use it with my Leica IIIG and Canon 7, but much harder to gage correct exposure.

Click to expand...

That's the way I did it with my Contax G2 years ago. I just had to assume something good was happening when the meter suggested it.

I used a Leica 13356 Swing out polarizer on my 35 Summicon ASPH for years. It was combined with a M6 TTL and was easy to work with because of the built in meter. The idea was to swing the polarizing lens in front of the rangefinder window and adjust the contrast. It was sold along with a lot of other stuff and occasionally I think about getting another. Mostly, I’m just using B&W film and really don’t want to go through the hassle of trying to determine exposure with a hand held meter.

John Koehrer said:

Leica made a 39mm swing out filter for the M cameras.
Rotate it in front of the RF, adjust it and rotate to the front of the lens. It even has a built in lens hood.
Found a picture on pg 109 of the Leica accessory guide 2nd edition but no cat. #

Click to expand...

Leitz part no. 13352 was the swing-out polarizer for lenses with 39mm filter size. It also fits the Summitar. Look at the 'Bay to buy one. Beware, the older ones often show delamination.

Leica sells a newer and larger unit with adapter rings for their contemporary RF lenses. Staggeringly expensive.

Not all polarisers are created equal so unless both were the same make I don't think you'd get entirely the same effect by having one in your back pocket (don't sit down!). I rarely use a polarising filter but when I do and it's my Leica I have one that's calibrated with various colours and dots of paint around the ring with no real science to how they are arranged. I then hold it up to the scene, rotate it for the effect I want and make a mental note which mark is nearest top dead centre. Then just screw it on the lens and put the mark in the same location. It's a very old trick among cheap minded Leica photographers.

250swb said:

Not all polarisers are created equal so unless both were the same make I don't think you'd get entirely the same effect by having one in your back pocket (don't sit down!). I rarely use a polarising filter but when I do and it's my Leica I have one that's calibrated with various colours and dots of paint around the ring with no real science to how they are arranged. I then hold it up to the scene, rotate it for the effect I want and make a mental note which mark is nearest top dead centre. Then just screw it on the lens and put the mark in the same location. It's a very old trick among cheap minded Leica photographers.

Click to expand...

You are most probably mixing a circular polarizer with a Linear polarizer to have different, non-matching results because actually, all circular polarizers are the same. Polarizing is a matter of physics, or else there would be an “omni-polarizing filter” out by now, which is one that would polarize every scene at every angle, at all times, which of course is impossible. There is not even a difference in the width of the polarizing band, all circular filters match, and all Linear filters match, no matter the maker.

The difference between polarizing filters is the color they transmit and the quality of the coating. I used to have a warming polarizing filter which I totally loved but lost it. It used to give a nice warm tone to a scene. I’ve also had cheaper polarizers and they gave a cool tone to scenes, and I profoundly disliked it; no one likes to see overly blue/cool color images, especially not for landscapes. Yukky.

This being said, any circular polarizing filters should match exactly in their act of polarizing. As proof, my method functions perfectly well and it’s easy: look through the filter in my hand and match the red dot’s position on the filter which is on the camera. Both match exactly, at all times.

And as it has already been said, a polarizing filter works on 180 degrees, not 360 (obviously, since it’s a matter of physics, and this proves that all circular polarizing filters match exactly, none goes nor could go beyond 180 degrees), so 2 red dots at each opposite side of the filter is extremely easy to work around.

- Look through the filter
- Determine where is the red dot: it will be anywhere between the 9am to 3pm o’clock position. The 4pm position is actually the 10am position picked up by the second red dot
- Match on the camera.
- Enjoy Perfect results, every time.

At last, no need to do this each and every time. Your general shooting direction will always require the same polarizing filter position. So if you are walking this side of the street the filter is set at the 1 o’clock position and shouldn’t change for the whole shooting time which rarely goes beyond 1 hour anyway. Each direction requires a different position and they are super easy to remember. It’s usually two positions to remember, a quarter turn left OR right (comes to the same because, remember, it’s a 180 degrees thing).

Using a polarizing fter on a Leica has suddenly become a very pleasing experience. Extra easy and great results.

Here is a photo. Two dots on each opposite sides of the fters. Cheap filter in pocket, good filter on lens.

Remember:
- All circular pola filters match.

-They all work on a 180 degrees basis. This means that a quick glance from the top, will always show you where the red dot is positioned. As soon as one red dot disappears, the other one appears.

- Since it’s a 180 degrees system, only a one-quarter turn Left OR Right (90 degrees) goes from fully polarized to un-polarized.

One quickly starts to understand the One-Quarter turn and its effect once the position of the red dot has been established. And this stays usually throughout the whole shooting session, therefore making this system a breeze.



Easy. Effective. Hassle-free.

For TLRs, Series One bayonet mounting, Minolta offered an ideal solution for using a polarizer, if you can find one!: If you find one they aren't cheap! The Minolta AutoPole mounts 2 polarizing filters geared togther so that the adjustable view in the viewfinder shows what the taking lens will photograph. Since it is Series One it can be mounted on the great majority of 6 x 6 TLRs.

Back in the day, Kodak had you covered-- a circular polarizer with detachable viewing polarizer-- the TLR of filters! (ETA- big honking thumbprint since cleaned off!)

I'm curious.
Are people referring here to polarizing filters being "circular" because they are in round holders?
Respectfully, that isn't correct.
Polarizers come in two types - linear and circular - and those labels refer to how the filters work, not their shape.

MattKing said:

I'm curious.
Are people referring here to polarizing filters being "circular" because they are in round holders?
Respectfully, that isn't correct.
Polarizers come in two types - linear and circular - and those labels refer to how the filters work, not their shape.

Click to expand...

Jeezakrice, it never occured to me that we’d have to specify this in a photo forum... and now I am curious; to the people who didn’t know, what’s a Linear filter supposed to look like?

NB23 said:

what’s a Linear filter supposed to look like?

Click to expand...

Individual sheets of polarizing material, I assume.

NB23 said:

Jeezakrice, it never occured to me that we’d have to specify this in a photo forum... and now I am curious; to the people who didn’t know, what’s a Linear filter supposed to look like?

Click to expand...

Like a trained monkey, I re-read the entire thread and have no idea why that question was asked. I would hope that we all know the difference but who knows for sure?

There have been several shots I've taken with polarisers where correct alignment to the nearest degree was critical to good results. I don't think a second filter would allow that degree of alignment, & a SLR type system is almost essential but for most uses of a polariser 10 degree accuracy is probably quite adequate. I guess the second filter approach should work well enough for that.

NB23 said:

You are most probably mixing a circular polarizer with a Linear polarizer to have different, non-matching results because actually, all circular polarizers are the same. Polarizing is a matter of physics, or else there would be an “omni-polarizing filter” out by now, which is one that would polarize every scene at every angle, at all times, which of course is impossible. There is not even a difference in the width of the polarizing band, all circular filters match, and all Linear filters match, no matter the maker.
.

Click to expand...

Ah I see, you know all the in's and out's of polarising filters, just not how to do it. Does that make you clever, or a fool?

250swb said:

Ah I see, you know all the in's and out's of polarising filters, just not how to do it. Does that make you clever, or a fool?

Click to expand...

Knowing things or asking questions never makes you a fool, it doesn't necessarily make you clever either.

250swb said:

Ah I see, you know all the in's and out's of polarising filters, just not how to do it. Does that make you clever, or a fool?

Click to expand...

How to do what exactly? I have been clear on how to do it effectively and easily.

And no, the half-assed way of unscrewing a filter and re-screwing it back with a mental note of the correct angle is not a good way of doing it.

And yes, all circular polarizing filters polarize the same. All.

Petrochemist said:

Knowing things or asking questions never makes you a fool, it doesn't necessarily make you clever either.

Click to expand...

It educates, which in turn tends towards cleverness.

Like this thread has shown, thus educated, that there is a cleverer way of using a c.Pol. than unscrewing and screwing it back on, thus contributing to cleverness.

Also, asking questions on a forum is all about the Sharing is Caring Mantra. Everyone benefits.