polarizing filter

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

how much do you use a polarizing filter when you are out photographing landscapes.

[vinny]

Whenever it's necessary. Does that help?

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

"Does that help? "

No.

I'd like to hear more about the types of situations in which people consider them desirable or necessary to use.

[Nathan Potter]

Difficult to generalize on this, but. For my taste I don't use a polarizer very often. But when I do it is for situations where the subject is illuminated with a lot of diffuse light so the polarizer increases the color saturation by reducing the reflections from incoming blue and white light.

Of course when shooting through window glass or the surface of water it is useful for eliminating unwanted reflections at certain critical angles.

However a polarizer can be deadly on a blue sky by increasing the contrast to the point of even turning the sky black on film in the case of chromes - esp. kodachrome.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Drew Wiley]

Never. I don't like what they do to either colors or reflections. I do use them on the copystand, for cross-polarized lighting.

[pdmoylan]

I do not recommend that one rely upon a blanket statement regarding the use of Polarizing filters. To know one is to use one often, and the best way to accomplish that is to have a digital camera with a polarizer on it so you see the immediate effect. You can use polarizers partially (not full turn) which enhances their usability in the field. In some cases they can improve color by eliminating reflections (in the sky for instance), in others, particularly where there is high contrast, some colors will go black. The effect is greatest at a 90 degree angle to the sun, much less if the sun is behind your back (front on, so to speak). In low light, I have found that I might like both images, with and without a polarizer. But is all depends. I focus on color characteristics of a scene whereas if you are using black and white film, you may find a yellow or orange filter more effective then using a polarizer. Experimentation, particularly with a digital camera at hand will help you visualize the final scene.

PDM

[djdister]

I don't use one that often. As Drew mentioned they kill reflections, which sometimes are the whole point of the shot. That said, they can be used judiciously as to darken the sky for dramatic effect - you don't have to turn it to maximum effect either, if it would be overkill. So, I probably only use a polarizer maybe 5% of the time.

[pdmoylan]

I also should add that calculating the exposure compensation with the use of a polarizing filter is frought with hazards. You exposure loss will vary by perhaps as much as 2/3 of a stop depending on the amount of polarization. Again try it with a digital camera, turn the filter and watch how the exposure changes. Having said that, you might find that you need to modify the exposure somewhat when using polarizers full bore due to an overall darkening of the scene (elimination of reflections can cause water or skies to turn dark, even black. I have found that these filters are challenging to use consistently well, and I now default to viewing the scene on a digital screen before releasing the LF shutter, and calculating the effect and the exposure accordingly. Good luck.

PDM

[Heroique]

I'd like to hear more about the types of situations in which people consider them desirable or necessary to use.

If you're out in early sunlight, dew can glitter on shiny leaves, near and far, in the most distracting way, at least for this photographer in a very moist region.

Polarizer to the rescue.

Of course, using a polarizer has more than one consequence – robbing you of light, slowing your shutter speed, darkening the sky, changing colors, etc. I think someone, long ago in a far-away land, once said that photography is a bundle of compromises. Maybe he had a polarizer in mind.

Me, I always have a polarizer in my pack. I'd feel naked without it. However, I've used it for only a small (make that a very small) percentage of my landscape shots.

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

I find it very interesting what Ken Lee has to say about them. On his website he says this:

"When shooting in Black and White, many people have been taught to use a Red or an Orange filter, to darken the sky and clear the haze. Sometimes, this can be the ideal solution, but rarely. Why ? Because red and orange filters not only remove blue light from the sky: they also darken the green light in vegetation.

Unless you want a vivid look with ink-black skies, it's better to use a polarizer - and perhaps a weaker filter. With a polarizer, you can control the amount of darkening, while maintaining a normal balance of colors. It's great for color photography for that reason. If you need even more richness in the clouds, then reach for a medium yellow filter, or a light orange filter and place it on top of the polarizer. That's how this image was made (on 8x10 film). Note the tones in the grass and the trees: the yellow filter has actually enhanced the details. If you really want to go all the way, then a red filter, or a red filter + polarizer, will give you the strongest results. "

And the photograph he uses to illustrate his point is gorgeous!

[Drew Wiley]

Guess it depends on your objective. Scenic photographers have used polarizers for decades to enhance things like yellow fall leaves. I just prefer the more natural look reflections and all, just as my eyes see the potential composition. Same with black and white. Of course, in some angles of light you can fine-tune the amount of polarization, but you need that kind of angle selectively, which makes the technique impractical for most wide-angle lens applications, which cover to wide a degree. But there is also an optical reason to avoid polarizers if you're into highly detailed or big enlargements : the filter involves four air/glass interfaces plus the filter material, so quite a bit more potential for minor image degredation than a basic multicoated contrast filter, with only two surfaces. None of this is an ideology for me. I had my brief era of experimenting with polarizers and came to the conclusion they're not generally useful to me personally. Someone else might like them.

[C. D. Keth]

I use one quite a bit but I tend to use a 1-stop pola more than the usual 1-2/3 stop type. It's the same effect but lighter and more natural looking to my eyes.

[Greg Miller]

For any landscape with foliage (pretty much all landscapes for me), I use a polarizer to remove the reflection form leaves. Most leaves have at least a bit of a waxy sheen to them which either reflects blue sky or gray clouds. I'd rather have green leaves in most cases so i use a polarizer.

[lenser]

For color and sunlight, quite often. Sometimes on hazy days as well.

For black and white with any blue sky showing, very likely and in combination with either a yellow or red filter to tremendously offset clouds from the skies. Bad if the blue sky is met by dark trees though in which case it can lose one in the other, especially with a red filter.

For reflections, one of the nice things is that it can be controlled to vary it's result. Therefore, actually observe the range of changes that occur in the scene as you rotate the filter.

I classify it as the most useful filter in my kit and therefore always carry a spare, just in case.

[Heroique]

I classify it as the most useful filter in my kit and therefore always carry a spare, just in case.

Yes, and in a pinch, my polarizer also serves as a dependable 2-stop ND filter.

Though for color shots, it does struggle to pass any standards for "neutrality."

But my real ND and GND filters struggle with this too (to some degree).

A little known use – after I've composed my shot, and I'm waiting for the wind to subside, and I'm really bored, I sometimes hold the polarizer up to my eye, turn it back and forth, and watch the world change. Helps pass the time! It even seems to have a magical effect on stilling the wind.

[Kirk Gittings]

Never. I don't like what they do to either colors or reflections. I do use them on the copystand, for cross-polarized lighting.

ditto.

[Greg Miller]

Though for color shots, it does struggle to pass any standards for "neutrality."

But my real ND and GND filters struggle with this too (to some degree).

I'm curious about what filters you are using. I am familiar with Singh Ray and B&W and have not experienced any neutrality issues. Certainly polarizers can struggle with this (the cheaper varieties), but a good quality polarizer should be very neutral.

[Robert Langham]

I use them quite a bit, but almost never just to drop sky value. You might be amazed at the amount of reflection on leaves, gravel, rock, skin, et. There's a LOT. On overcast days they are really useful. It's a Clift technique. I was having a hard time getting new blossoms to pop out of the background until I began to use them. Really can help calm down an image, not ramp it up to technicolor. In Canyon de Chelly, wall stripes reveal much more of their contrast with a polarizer.

On digital I use them almost all the time in natural light.

129742 129743 129744

[David Lobato]

I probably use polarizers more often to cut reflections on foliage to get deep smooth tones. And for better saturation with color film on a scene with no sky.

Red, orange, or yellow filters will darken clear blue skies. But be careful, the same "minus blue" effect works to darken shadows into having little detail. A polarizer will darken skies without disproportionally affecting shadow densities.

Technically speaking it's called a polarizing screen, but we carelessly call them filters.

[David Lobato]

Nice examples Robert.

[Corran]

I might have missed it but I don't think anyone has mentioned yet that the effect can greatly change depending on time of day, season, elevation, etc.

I use a polarizer all the time. Here in the south, in the summer, with a polarizer AND a red filter, I might get some okay middle-gray to light gray skies with open shadows (as opposed to blown-out skies or blocked-up shadow values). The polarizer doesn't do much in that season generally. In the winter the polarizer is much more effective. And when I travel north and go up to the Smokies, the polarizer is way, way more effective.

There's only been one time that I overdid it - I blocked up the shadows by using a polarizer in the winter and a 2-stop GND filter on the sky on a Velvia chrome, which made the sky totally black.

[JMO]

Can someone please make clear which type of polarizing filters are being discussed here - are the responses assuming circular polarizing filters, or linear polarizing filters? And since there are responses in this thread concerning use of "polarizers" with B&W film, and color film, would there be a difference in the type of polarizing filter that a LF photographer might (or should) use with B&W versus color film? Thank you for these clarifications....

[Greg Miller]

Can someone please make clear which type of polarizing filters are being discussed here - are the responses assuming circular polarizing filters, or linear polarizing filters?

It doesn't matter for LF. You will get the same results with either.

It only matters if you are using an in camera exposure meter or or auto-focus, which requires a circular polarizer.

So LF can use linear or circular. DLRs will need circular.

[Heroique]

I'm curious about what filters you are using.

I use a Marumi polarizer, not too expensive, which does great work, and is close to color neutral, but never fully so.

My ND filters are un-coated Nikons, which are less "neutral" than the Marumi polarizer – but strict color neutrality usually isn't a key objective for my landscape work, so it's not a big issue.

My Lee 6x4 GNDs are all around fantastic performers. :)

Now, my 10-stop B+W ND filter is a different story. It's not neutral at all. In sunny scenes, it causes a 970K drop in color temperature (more red). I often use a Lee 80d filter to help correct its "non-neutrality."

Here's a fun thread about the B+W 10-stop ND filter and suggested color corrections:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?59625-Help-me-correct-color-cast-(from-B-W-10-stop-ND-filter)

[Greg Miller]

I just checked a bunch of digital files shot with a B&W 10 stop ND filter and I see no color issues.

[Heroique]

I just checked a bunch of digital files shot with a B&W 10 stop ND filter and I see no color issues.

Are your reading glasses tinted blue? :D

Since you're talking digital, you might try a search about 10-stop ND color casts at, say, dpreview.com – the experiences reported there from the "dark side" will surprise you! Just be careful to separate the wheat from the chaff – there are more self-proclaimed experts there than here.

Me, I'm just a film person whose personal field notes determine his way...

-----
Just for fun, here's a polarized-induced, melodramatic sky on Velvia 100F to help illustrate a few remarks by people above.

129757

The sky might have gone indigo had the sun been lower to one side.

This is the scene as my emotions recall it, not as my critical eye observed it.

Tachi 4x5
Schneider XL 110mm/5.6 (w/ Marumi polarizer)
Velvia 100F Quickload
Epson 4990/Epson Scan

[Greg Miller]

Are your reading glasses tinted blue? :D

Since you're talking digital, you might try a search about 10-stop ND color casts at dpreview.com – the experiences reported there from the "dark side" will surprise you! Just be careful to separate the wheat from the chaff – there are more self-proclaimed experts there than here.

Me, I'm just film person whose personal field notes determine his way...

I take a reference photo without the 10 stop ND before I make the shot with the ND. There is no color balance change between the two photos. And i use a constant WB. So it doesn't really matter to me what anyone else wants to say, because I can see for myself that the filter, at least my copy, does not cause a color balance issue.

[Doremus Scudder]

I shoot B&W almost exclusively. I use polarizer often. If you want to remove reflections from rocks, water and foliage (which is not always a good idea), it can work well. I end up using it a lot at the coast, usually only partially polarized, to take some of the glare, but not all, off of things.

Using a polarizer to darken blue skies can be helpful, especially since this won't affect the shadow values as a colored filter would. Be aware that polarization of the sky is strongest at approximately 40° from the sun. If you use short focal-length lenses and have lots of sky, you can end up with a lot of variation in the amount of polarization.

Many avoid this like the plague. I use it creatively on occasion, to darken sky on one side of an image while keeping it much lighter on the other.

129771

Yin-Yang Hills, Death Valley, CA. 1999

Best,

Doremus

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

do larger diameter polarizing filters work well on smaller diameter lenses, or must they be the same size.

[Greg Miller]

do larger diameter polarizing filters work well on smaller diameter lenses, or must they be the same size.

That would be no problem. Many people purchase a polarizing filter at the size of their largest lens. Then use step down adapters to use the same filter on smaller lenses.

[Kirk Gittings]

I use them quite a bit, but almost never just to drop sky value. You might be amazed at the amount of reflection on leaves, gravel, rock, skin, et. There's a LOT. On overcast days they are really useful. It's a Clift technique. I was having a hard time getting new blossoms to pop out of the background until I began to use them. Really can help calm down an image, not ramp it up to technicolor. In Canyon de Chelly, wall stripes reveal much more of their contrast with a polarizer.

On digital I use them almost all the time in natural light.

129742 129743 129744

Interesting. I may have to do some tests as I work in overcast light a lot.

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

That would be no problem. Many people purchase a polarizing filter at the size of their largest lens. Then use step down adapters to use the same filter on smaller lenses.

I have 105, 82, and 77 diameter (filter size) lenses. I suppose I am going to have to take out a second mortgage on the house for a good quality 105 size filter and the step down rings.

[tgtaylor]

I use to use a polarizer a lot - especially when I was shooting MF. Now a days I rarely use a filter except for the UV, ND and ND graduates, and a yellow or red for B&W. I think my change on attitude towards filters came about when I started printing in RA-4 where one of the first color decisions I had to make was how do I like my skies, a pale powder blue or something deeper? I once did a test stripe that contained a dozen or more shades of blue to choose from.

A few years ago several of us were shooting the same subject in the ocean off Point Lobos with LF cameras (4x5 and 5x7). Except for myself, everyone used a polarizer and their ocean came out devoid of any color: the beautiful turquois and blues of the sea were in the reflections that the polarizer eliminated.

Thomas

Thomas

[Greg Miller]

I have 105, 82, and 77 diameter (filter size) lenses. I suppose I am going to have to take out a second mortgage on the house for a good quality 105 size filter and the step down rings.

Yeah, the payment for a 105 is gonna leave a mark...

[lenser]

Check out the Cokin system. Good Polarizers in three sizes as well as good contrast (red, green, yellow, orange) and color balance filters in holders that allow stacking them for combined use. Most importantly, the multiple thread adapters allow for one set for all of your lenses.

I find them quite sharp.

Cost is low enough to avoid breaking any banks.

[Jac@stafford.net]

When there is a clear blue sky, but no, or very little sky in your frame, a blue filter with polarizer might amaze you for balancing shadows.
.

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

getting back to regular filters for a minute, if say a yellow filter tends to make the shadows darker while at the same time making the sky darker, why not just expose the shadows a bit more (raise them up a zone) and control the other end with a bit less development.

[JMO]

It doesn't matter for LF. You will get the same results with either.

It only matters if you are using an in camera exposure meter or or auto-focus, which requires a circular polarizer.

So LF can use linear or circular. DLRs will need circular.

Greg, Thank you of this clarification. As a relative newbie to LF photography, I am at the stage where I plan to go out and purchase some of the basic filters to use in landscape photography with B&W and color films, and I didn't want to buy the wrong polarizing filters (if there had been a significant difference). ....

[djdister]

getting back to regular filters for a minute, if say a yellow filter tends to make the shadows darker while at the same time making the sky darker, why not just expose the shadows a bit more (raise them up a zone) and control the other end with a bit less development.

A yellow filter does not make shadows darker. It will make objects of the same color appear lighter and objects of a complementary color appear darker.

[lenser]

Since shadows are largely made up of the blue spectrum as well as UV, especially in nature, the yellow filter will have some darkening effect as you have experienced.

[Greg Miller]

Greg, Thank you of this clarification. As a relative newbie to LF photography, I am at the stage where I plan to go out and purchase some of the basic filters to use in landscape photography with B&W and color films, and I didn't want to buy the wrong polarizing filters (if there had been a significant difference). ....

No problem. Glad to help.

[Doremus Scudder]

Just to clarify:

Yellow, orange and red filters remove blue light (plus more and more green as they progress from yellow to red). If (and only if) the shadows are illuminated by blue light, e.g., from a clear blue sky, these filters will darken the shadows. The effect can be very pronounced at high altitudes and with a very dark blue sky. On the other hand, these filters will have little if any effect on shadows on a cloudy day, when they are illuminated by diffuse light from the clouds. That said, they don't do much for darkening the sky in these conditions either :)

Polarizing screens remove polarized light from the sky, darkening it in certain areas in relation to the sun (and can darken some cloudy skies as well sometimes). They also remove polarized light from reflections. Removing reflections can be a good idea, e.g., for increasing color saturation, etc. But polarizers need to be used judiciously here, since removing reflections from a scene often renders it lifeless and dull.

Best,

Doremus

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

So again, back to my question. You, meaning any photographer, is faced with a daylight scene and wants to darken the sky. There is a considerable amount of woods, and shadows that are somewhat illuminated by blue light. You want the sky darkened but you don't want the shadows to fall into a lifeless hunk of real dark grey. And you don't want to use a polarizing "screen". So you go back to your red Cadillac by general motors reminder and choose a trusty yellow or red filter to allow those colors to pass but block cyan or blue. Are you going to put those shadows up a zone and then develop a bit less, or are you just going to accept the darker shadows.

[Doremus Scudder]

So again, back to my question. You, meaning any photographer, is faced with a daylight scene and wants to darken the sky. There is a considerable amount of woods, and shadows that are somewhat illuminated by blue light. You want the sky darkened but you don't want the shadows to fall into a lifeless hunk of real dark grey. And you don't want to use a polarizing "screen". So you go back to your red Cadillac by general motors reminder and choose a trusty yellow or red filter to allow those colors to pass but block cyan or blue. Are you going to put those shadows up a zone and then develop a bit less, or are you just going to accept the darker shadows.

There are a couple ways to deal with this. The first is: you multiply your calculated exposure by the filter factor for the filter you are using and then, based on your extensive experience in the field, give a bit more exposure to support the shadows. You also adjust development based on experience with this particular film and filter.

Second: (my preferred method), you meter your scene through the filter with your trusty spotmeter. Then, based on your tests and extensive field experience, arrive at an exposure and development scheme which include adjustments for contrast and exposure changes due to the spectral response of the film you are using.

You can also, however, just support the shadows by giving some extra exposure if you're worried about losing them (which you might easily with a strong filter). Modern films will overexpose a full stop without much of a problem. Then, you just deal with it when printing.

The thing is, if your filter has added a lot of contrast between shadowed and lit portions of your scene, and you deal with this by reducing contrast in the printing phase, you're also reducing the amount of darkening in the sky... which is what you wanted in the first place. That's why it's good to test and get some field experience. I don't "accept the darker shadows." I have a pretty good idea of how tones are going to be distributed in the final print when I release the shutter (or at least where I want them to be :) ).

Best,

Doremus

[Corran]

I've heard differing accounts on whether spotmetering through a filter is accurate or possible, all from people I would trust. I'm sure that depending on your methodology, type of meter, film type, etc. etc., you might come to varying conclusions.

Personally, I've found that not to work. With most filters I would end up underexposing (the meter was not accounting for the proper amount of filter factor), while with other filters (red spectrum usually) I would grossly overexpose in most situations. So I prefer to use known filter factors combined with a bit of working experience to calculate exposure with filters. By the way, I don't say this to discount the above post, just to add a data point. I'm sure you could meter through a filter and add your own "filter factor" from experience but to me that's an extra step.

Since this thread is about polarizers, I will say here that metering through those filters always gave me underexposed images.

[Heroique]

...and then, based on your extensive experience in the field...

[Applause]


...based on your tests and extensive field experience...

[Applause grows louder]


...That's why it's good to test and get some field experience...

[Applause now thunderous, loud whistles of approval, shouts of "Bravo!"]

[John Olsen]

[Applause]

[Applause grows louder]

[Applause now thunderous, loud whistles of approval, shouts of "Bravo!"]
Experience? That sounds like a lot of work. Doesn't Toyo have an app for that?
This has been a good thread. I think I'll pack my polarizers and give them more tries.

[Lachlan 717]

I use one most times I'm doing forest shots (colour). But I like saturated greens...

[Drew Wiley]

I thought "reflections on leaves, grass, rock, and skin, etc" was the whole point of the photograph to begin with! Interesting to see our different approaches to
the same subject matter. Nobody has converted me to polarizers yet.

[Greg Miller]

I thought "reflections on leaves, grass, rock, and skin, etc" was the whole point of the photograph to begin with! Interesting to see our different approaches to
the same subject matter. Nobody has converted me to polarizers yet.

Some reflections are desirable, some are not. It depends on the photographer and what the photographer is trying to communicate. The polarizer gives the photographer a choice in keeping the reflections or removing some (or sometimes all) of them.

Just one example: sometimes there happens to be a reflection on something that is in the frame and which is not the main subject, and detracts the viewer form the main subject. Using a polarizer to remove the reflection improves the image. THis can mean the difference between making the photo or not. Or making an outstanding photo or making an OK photo.

[Drew Wiley]

I love the cat and mouse game of chasing complicated shadows and reflections. Once I got cussed out by someone looking at one of my big prints at an opening
which had a lot of layering of complex reflections. The curator loved the print, so did numerous others, but this guy was more of the type that appreciated cut and
dried calendar scenery, and got downright disoriented. I wasn't offended at all. I found his remarks fascinating relative to the psychology of it all ... the contrast between someone like me who has studied reflections on water and ice, etc long before I even owned a camera, and someone who doesn't even know this kind of visual world exists.

[David_Senesac]

Similar experiences to Drew so rarely use one although have a large 90mm circular available. Note I am a color landscape and nature photographer. Long ago in my 35mm SLR days experimented with them enough to generally dislike the affect with landscapes. Just too unnatural for my style that has interest in capturing natural moments with reasonable fidelity. That said I'd expect some of my images would have been better if I always bothered to check what the effect of a polarizer would offer. However view camera work is tedious enough anyway that I don't need to play that game especially since I seem to be highly successful as is.

David

[Greg Miller]

I love the cat and mouse game of chasing complicated shadows and reflections. Once I got cussed out by someone looking at one of my big prints at an opening
which had a lot of layering of complex reflections. The curator loved the print, so did numerous others, but this guy was more of the type that appreciated cut and
dried calendar scenery, and got downright disoriented. I wasn't offended at all. I found his remarks fascinating relative to the psychology of it all ... the contrast between someone like me who has studied reflections on water and ice, etc long before I even owned a camera, and someone who doesn't even know this kind of visual world exists.

What?!?!?!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCysb4_-4jU

[Heroique]

A few additional thoughts that may be useful:

My volcanic region has lots of crystals in the land, rocks, and soil – they can reflect light in every conceivable angle, from every square inch of space, often in very pronounced fashion.

On one hand, my polarizer can't eliminate all these reflections, no matter what angle I choose between camera and sun.

On the other hand, my polarizer can eliminate them to some degree, no matter what angle I choose.

Field note #1: "Be careful not to over-estimate the limits of your polarizer!"
Field note #2: "Be careful not to under-underestimate the limits of your polarizer!"
Field note #3: "Maybe you want all the reflections – put away your polarizer!"
Field note #4" "Maybe this scene is best at dawn, dusk, or under cloud cover."

Of course, any choice about reflections may have a consequence on, say, the saturation of colors, the darkness of the sky, or shutter speed – but that's what makes photography fun!

[Drew Wiley]

Thanks, Greg. I love that ad. But the problem with these kinds of ads is that they're getting so fun and interesting in their own right that I wonder if anyone even remembers who the ad is for, who sponsored them? I sure don't. I go away with the impression, "great ad agency - who cares about the product".

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

Similar experiences to Drew so rarely use one although have a large 90mm circular available. Note I am a color landscape and nature photographer. Long ago in my 35mm SLR days experimented with them enough to generally dislike the affect with landscapes. Just too unnatural for my style that has interest in capturing natural moments with reasonable fidelity. That said I'd expect some of my images would have been better if I always bothered to check what the effect of a polarizer would offer. However view camera work is tedious enough anyway that I don't need to play that game especially since I seem to be highly successful as is.

David

David

You have a fantastic website. Absolutely fantastic. I really like how you take the time to explain what was going on with your mind and your seeing after each print that you show. great stuff! The only way it would be greater would be if you had video and audio showing you making the photos! Really nice.

[Drew Wiley]

Hmmm .... That isn't Stub Lake at the foot of Seven Gables on your home page is it, David? Last time I was up there, there was still a substantial glacier coming
down from the Class 3 pass over into Merriam Basin, with a distinct crevasse in it. I've been into the Seven Gables area several times since then, but not over the pass since. I've flown over, and the glacier is now completely gone!

[David_Senesac]

Hmmm .... That isn't Stub Lake at the foot of Seven Gables on your home page is it, David? Last time I was up there, there was still a substantial glacier coming
down from the Class 3 pass over into Merriam Basin, with a distinct crevasse in it. I've been into the Seven Gables area several times since then, but not over the pass since. I've flown over, and the glacier is now completely gone!

Since none of the images in Gallery_A that is on my homepage are up the East Fork of Bear Creek, am guessing you are talking about the marquee image at top? I use that same pic on my business cards. But then Stub Lake is rather down in a hole?

Maybe you are referring to the shallow no name lake downstream at the canyon dogleg we call L lake? Difficult guess as there are few clues though numbers have tried to guess where that is. Taken in Kings Canyon NP September 1980 with my first 35mm SLR an OM-1N. No-name lake not on a trail and also one of the few in the Sierra with sizeable goldens.

On the Gallery_B sub-page of more 4x5 images, row 4, 07-AA-6.jpg is from Vee Lake. Stub Lake a few hundred feet below the outlet up a narrow slot is always an interesting topo route impediment because a cliff at lake edge blocks turning downstream. And down on row 29 is another Vee Lake reflection, 07-AA-4.jpg.

[David_Senesac]

Well thank you very much Kevin, so appreciated from another large format photographer! (:

Our wonderful natural places in this fragile blue world have stories to tell that go beyond their visual attributes. With non-icon landscapes that most in our public audience won't recognize, I hope brief commentary with a little natural science will bring an audience out of their being mere aesthetic abstractions.

[Drew Wiley]

Thanks, David. The colors (not shape) were wrong for Stub Lk; but it would have been hypothetically possible the greens would have been affected by the gradual
drying of the basin since I photographed it maybe 30 yrs ago. The trick to getting around in that basin is to always follow the side of the main creek below the Seven Gables cliff itself - it's an easy ramp the whole way. The side facing Vee Lk is up and down boulders and mini-cliffs the whole way. Stub Lk is not down in
a hole per se, but certainly within a perimeter moraine right at the bottom of the monolith, and would have a good panorama from atop the moraine itself, along with a view of the lake. I surmise you are referring to the first lake in Seven Gables basin as "L" lake. If so, it has one of the most majestic views of any spot
in the Sierra.

[Paul Cunningham]

It is worth mentioning that polarizing filters may cause very undesirable effects when used with wide angle lenses. This is due to the previously mentioned difference in polarization with various angles of the sun. With blue skies, a polarizer can create an uneven effect that may be seen from one side of the image to the other.

[soleh]

how much do you use a polarizing filter when you are out photographing landscapes.
I probably only use a polarizer maybe 5% of the time.
http://rockbullet.tk/69/o.png

[pdmoylan]

It is worth mentioning that polarizing filters may cause very undesirable effects when used with wide angle lenses. This is due to the previously mentioned difference in polarization with various angles of the sun. With blue skies, a polarizer can create an uneven effect that may be seen from one side of the image to the other.

This may be more a matter of falloff with certain WA lenses that require center filters. I don't recall this being an issue using a Tiffen polarizer (linear) on the Nikkor 90 f8, which I hope you are enjoying Paul.

PDM

[Greg Miller]

This may be more a matter of falloff with certain WA lenses that require center filters. I don't recall this being an issue using a Tiffen polarizer (linear) on the Nikkor 90 f8, which I hope you are enjoying Paul.

PDM

This is absolutely an issue with all WA lenses, if the sky is included. The polarizer is at maximum strength 90 degrees from the sun and ay minimum strength when pointed at the sun or 180 degrees from the sun. Since WA lenses typically cover 90 derees or more, if the sky is included the frame can include areas where the polarizer is at both max and min strength. This leads to very unnatural tones in the sky.

[ShannonG]

I use a polarize filter often and for land scape a red along with the polarize filter...I dont think it is right or wrong,,just my style..

[Doremus Scudder]

This is absolutely an issue with all WA lenses, if the sky is included. The polarizer is at maximum strength 90 degrees from the sun and ay minimum strength when pointed at the sun or 180 degrees from the sun. Since WA lenses typically cover 90 derees or more, if the sky is included the frame can include areas where the polarizer is at both max and min strength. This leads to very unnatural tones in the sky.

Absolutely. See my previous post in this thread (#28) with a photo exploiting this very phenomenon.

Doremus

[wooserco]

Old post, I know. But... I will often use my Marumi polarizing filter as a 1-1/3 stop neutral density filter when needed.

[Pere Casals]

Old post, I know. But... I will often use my Marumi polarizing filter as a 1-1/3 stop neutral density filter when needed.

Polarizer and ND have different effects.

[wooserco]

Correct. With the polarizing filter adjusted to minimal effect, it acts as a 1-1/3 stop ND filter. Work for me anyway :)

[Pere Casals]

Correct. With the polarizing filter adjusted to minimal effect, it acts as a 1-1/3 stop ND filter. Work for me anyway :)

Effects are different: polarizer increases saturation, removes sunlight glares, removes the directional sunlight look, darkens more the blue sky than the clouds...

it can be used to prevent burning the sky like with a ND graded filter, but with different effects in the image.

With difuse (cloudy) light a polarizer does nothing to selectively darken the sky, while a graded ND does it.