On a recent photo tour, it was suggested to me by the photographer leading the tour that best practice was to keep the polarizer on the lens all of the time. I have heard this suggestion before, but I have also read different advice from John Shaw and George Lepp. Their advice is to first rotate the polarizer by hand with the threads facing your eye and see if the polarizer is having any effect. If not, put it back in the bag.
It seems to me that there are two considerations. By keeping the polarizer on the lens all of the time, one avoids the time and hassle of going through the "Shaw-Lepp method" as well as the time and hassle of screwing the polarizer on the lens every time you want to use it. On the other hand, if the polarizer is having no effect but is on the lens, it's an unnecessary piece of glass that could reduce image quality however slight, contribute to possible flare, etc.
I don't want ANY piece of glass in front of my lens unless it's absolutely necessary for it to be there. If I have a need for one (polarizer, GND, etc) then I will certainly use it, but prefer nothing extra for most of my images.
I agree with Bill. Add to that the fact that a polarizer typically robs you of up to two stops of light. I'll only put it on a lens when I choose to use it.
A polarizer is an important and useful piece of gear but it isn't always needed. If you leave it on the lens when you don't need it, maybe it does no harm, sometimes, but it certainly does no good. I'm in the same camp as Bill, Chris, and John
A high quallity polarizer is, in itself, a pretty significant investment. If it's kept on the lens all the time, the risk of damage is much greater than if it is safely in the bag until it is really needed.
Different folks have differing working methods (quirks?), so you have to choose which way works best for you.
--P
Posted by Lorna Taylor on June 10, 2011 at 10:08 PM
Hi there , Well I am guilty of having a high grade Hoya polirizer on all of my lens even my Lensbaby. That way I never have to switch.A bit lazy I guess. I love the add boost of richness it gives to my flower photography. I know it gives me less light to work with but I have yet to have a real problem with low light even for hand held shots. But that's just me beating to my own drum as it were ! Do what works for you. Cheers
Posted by Scott Snyder on June 11, 2011 at 7:12 AM
Guilty here too . . . on certain lenses, when shooting landscape a high end cpl stays on my wide angle most of the time. But, I am shooting on tripod 95% of the time and often prefer a longer exposures. I also usually carry the cpl case in a pocket and can take it off at whim. Added bonus is that I have had my front element saved by cpl a couple times.
The only time I have a filter on a lens is if I feel it's beneficial to the result. If I don't have a specific reason to put a polarizer on a lens, given the shooting situation, it stays off.
Posted by David Graham on June 11, 2011 at 12:08 PM
If in regions where the landscapes feature deciduous trees in foliage, and/or growing grasses and forbes as well as still and moving waters I find that few scenes can't benefit from some tweaking of the CP to enhance or diminish a variety of reflections. CPs aren't just for the sky anymore.....
So the CP is always in place on my 'scape lens. Diminished image quality? More theoretical than actual. Loss of a stop or two? That's why God gave us tripods.
Dave Graham, East River, SD
I can't even remember the last time I used a polarizer maybe 1998? So, no, I don't keep one on the front of any lens. but there's my trusty old 52mm Nikon polarizer in my bag somewhere, along with a 62mm Heliopan (and I don't even have a lens that takes 62's anymore!).
"Diminished image quality? More theoretical than actual."
I disagree with this. My experience has shown otherwise. Additional glass gives two more reflective surfaces that light must pass through. If the angle of the incident light is too great (measured from the lens axis), there will be flare, which in turn reduces contrast. If the glass is is of poor quality, sharpness will be degraded. If the coatings are not correctly balanced, color casts will result. While most recent filters are of excellent quality, flare will be the biggest issue.
My procedure is to evaluate what I have and then do what I need to get what I visualize. If a polarizer is needed, I will use one. I can't afford to not work this way, since I shoot 4x5 film at $5.00 per exposure. Even when I shoot with my Nikon, I use the same procedure.
"Loss of a stop or two? That's why God gave us tripods."
In general the density of a polarizer, regardless of the amount of polarization you dial in, lessens the amount of light reaching the film/sensor by 1-2/3 to 2 stops. For sharper images, a tripod is certainly a boon, and is generally a necessity. However, a (nearly) two-stop reduction in light may not be tolerable, either because of subject movement or depth of field concerns.
It is best, I believe, to really see the light (pun intended) and make an objective evalauation as to whether or not a polarizer, or any filter, is truly needed.
The takeaway from all the comments by those of us who do not advocate keeping a polarizer on a lens at all times is a challenge for you (rhetorical) to break out of the box a bit.
I also keep cp's on my lenses and in the past have only taken them off when the available light made it necessary. Lately though, I've been been venturing out of the world of landscapes and florals so I ocassionally take them off for faster shutter speeds. I haven't noticed any increase in IQ though.
Posted by Art Escobado on June 15, 2011 at 2:29 PM
It depends on the situation. I say keep it off and be on point.
Add me to the club. My first years of shooting I just kept it on all the time. Then there are the over thinkers that have some elaborate method (I'm in the keep it simple category). When it comes to quality and extra glass some think it an issue and some think it a non issue. Today I'm usually less impressed with what a polarizer does to skies (since the power of top notch post processing allows one to do what may be needed) but it is an absolute around water and sometimes foliage to get that nasty glare out of there (especially foliage with water on it) in my opinion. As far as degrading image quality... yes and no. If you are only making web images or even small prints (like 30 inches on downward) those differences are a non issue. If, on the other hand, you are attempting to make top class enlargements (and I am meaning larger than maybe 36 inches, on up, HUGE) then yes every little thing adds up and having glass on glass will degrade your image to a small but certain extent. I do enlargements. So my new method to using a polarizer is, I leave it off. Then if it is a situation where there is water... I put it on and at max strength. If I don't like what it is doing to a sky in a wide shot (that there is water in) I take multi shots and blend the non polarized sky, or simply correct what it is doing to the sky in post production.
BTW another method some photographers use is keep it in your pocket (or a pouch on your belt) and pull it out and look straight through it turning it to see what it is or is not doing to your scene. If you think it an improvement, slap it on...
By keeping the polarizer on the lens all of the time, one avoids the time and hassle....
There's the logic trap in all this.
How much time are we really talking, putting on or taking off a polarizer as needed? If things are happening so very fast that you can't add or subtract a polarizer, I bet there are other concerns with a whole lot more bearing on results.
I add or subtract polarizers as I feel they are needed or not. They're not a universal tool, any more than a cable release or strobe are universal tools. Very useful when needed, superfluous or even detrimental when not.
One thing worth knowing, if you have the opportunity for image processing: You can "dial in" or "dial out" polarizing effect in an image file to a surprising degree in Photoshop. Go to Image-->Adjustments-->Selective Color and use the black slider in the Cyan and Blue channels. You can also use the black slider in the White channel to adjust clouds, but you have to be gentle. And of course this can all be done in an adjustment layer, allowing you to mask the effect as needed to suit a particular image.
Nice "trick" if you get home and discover that you really should have been using a polarizer for a shot. Nice "trick" if you get home and discover that you really should have taken the thing off.
Here is an example of what Hank has written about: Emergence
There was a very strong reflection of the sky and I did not have a polarizer for that particular lens, but took the shot anyway. I used a combination of a Selective Color adjustment layer and a Burn layer (50% Grey-Soft Light) to eliminate the reflection. It took a bit of work to get it right, but was worth the effort. I have since obtained the correct size poloarizer for that lens, so life should be a little easier in the future..
Excellent example Preston! And really fine photo before and after your computer work.
Here's another use for polarizers to keep tucked in the back of your brain: "Adding" blue to discolored water. You can often find the view angle and polarizer angle to cause the surface of discolored water to pick up the blue of the sky. This has worked really well for me with the discolored, and often downright muddy waters in the Colorado River watershed. Sounds weird, but try it. You can demo the same effect simply by taking off your polarized sunglasses and turning them roughly 90 degrees to their normal position on your nose.
Posted by Lynn Jones on August 30, 2011 at 1:36 PM
Lynn's law: no filter should ever always be on!
A good way to think of polarisers is: The filter is an optical "picket fence". It holds back all of the light rays except those vibrating in the same direction as the Pickets! As you rotate it, you get to slect that group of waves that you like in your photo.
Lynn
Posted by Lynn Jones on October 5, 2011 at 4:06 PM
Hi Jay,
as a long time photographer and photo professor please be guided by John and George, they are correct. First it costs w2 f stops, second anything that alters the light coming in will affect the quality of the image!
Discussion
19 repliesIt seems to me that there are two considerations. By keeping the polarizer on the lens all of the time, one avoids the time and hassle of going through the "Shaw-Lepp method" as well as the time and hassle of screwing the polarizer on the lens every time you want to use it. On the other hand, if the polarizer is having no effect but is on the lens, it's an unnecessary piece of glass that could reduce image quality however slight, contribute to possible flare, etc.
Thanks for your views.
Jay Levin
Chris
Two pieces of glass stacked in front of a lens degrades image quality to some extent, no matter how minute.
A high quallity polarizer is, in itself, a pretty significant investment. If it's kept on the lens all the time, the risk of damage is much greater than if it is safely in the bag until it is really needed.
Different folks have differing working methods (quirks?), so you have to choose which way works best for you.
--P
So the CP is always in place on my 'scape lens. Diminished image quality? More theoretical than actual. Loss of a stop or two? That's why God gave us tripods.
Dave Graham, East River, SD
I disagree with this. My experience has shown otherwise. Additional glass gives two more reflective surfaces that light must pass through. If the angle of the incident light is too great (measured from the lens axis), there will be flare, which in turn reduces contrast. If the glass is is of poor quality, sharpness will be degraded. If the coatings are not correctly balanced, color casts will result. While most recent filters are of excellent quality, flare will be the biggest issue.
My procedure is to evaluate what I have and then do what I need to get what I visualize. If a polarizer is needed, I will use one. I can't afford to not work this way, since I shoot 4x5 film at $5.00 per exposure. Even when I shoot with my Nikon, I use the same procedure.
In general the density of a polarizer, regardless of the amount of polarization you dial in, lessens the amount of light reaching the film/sensor by 1-2/3 to 2 stops. For sharper images, a tripod is certainly a boon, and is generally a necessity. However, a (nearly) two-stop reduction in light may not be tolerable, either because of subject movement or depth of field concerns.
It is best, I believe, to really see the light (pun intended) and make an objective evalauation as to whether or not a polarizer, or any filter, is truly needed.
The takeaway from all the comments by those of us who do not advocate keeping a polarizer on a lens at all times is a challenge for you (rhetorical) to break out of the box a bit.
--P
BTW another method some photographers use is keep it in your pocket (or a pouch on your belt) and pull it out and look straight through it turning it to see what it is or is not doing to your scene. If you think it an improvement, slap it on...
Hope it helps.
There's the logic trap in all this.
How much time are we really talking, putting on or taking off a polarizer as needed? If things are happening so very fast that you can't add or subtract a polarizer, I bet there are other concerns with a whole lot more bearing on results.
I add or subtract polarizers as I feel they are needed or not. They're not a universal tool, any more than a cable release or strobe are universal tools. Very useful when needed, superfluous or even detrimental when not.
One thing worth knowing, if you have the opportunity for image processing: You can "dial in" or "dial out" polarizing effect in an image file to a surprising degree in Photoshop. Go to Image-->Adjustments-->Selective Color and use the black slider in the Cyan and Blue channels. You can also use the black slider in the White channel to adjust clouds, but you have to be gentle. And of course this can all be done in an adjustment layer, allowing you to mask the effect as needed to suit a particular image.
Nice "trick" if you get home and discover that you really should have been using a polarizer for a shot. Nice "trick" if you get home and discover that you really should have taken the thing off.
There was a very strong reflection of the sky and I did not have a polarizer for that particular lens, but took the shot anyway. I used a combination of a Selective Color adjustment layer and a Burn layer (50% Grey-Soft Light) to eliminate the reflection. It took a bit of work to get it right, but was worth the effort. I have since obtained the correct size poloarizer for that lens, so life should be a little easier in the future..
--P
Here's another use for polarizers to keep tucked in the back of your brain: "Adding" blue to discolored water. You can often find the view angle and polarizer angle to cause the surface of discolored water to pick up the blue of the sky. This has worked really well for me with the discolored, and often downright muddy waters in the Colorado River watershed. Sounds weird, but try it. You can demo the same effect simply by taking off your polarized sunglasses and turning them roughly 90 degrees to their normal position on your nose.
A good way to think of polarisers is: The filter is an optical "picket fence". It holds back all of the light rays except those vibrating in the same direction as the Pickets! As you rotate it, you get to slect that group of waves that you like in your photo.
Lynn
as a long time photographer and photo professor please be guided by John and George, they are correct. First it costs w2 f stops, second anything that alters the light coming in will affect the quality of the image!
Lynn