3 reasons not to use a polarising filter
Monday 24 August 2020, 15:51 by Nando Harmsen | 10,230 views | 11 commentsThis article was translated from Dutch with the help of AI. Read the original.
A polarising filter reduces reflections on surfaces that can act like a mirror. Water is an obvious example, but windows, glass and laminated cardboard can also reflect strongly. And cars, of course.
Because a polarising filter only lets light through in one direction, you can filter out reflections when you use it at the right angle. The optimum angle for this is 90 degrees to the light source. In other words, with the light source to your left, right, above or below you.
You can rotate a polarising filter, allowing you to control the direction of the light that passes through. This lets you adjust how much of a reflection is filtered out.
Sometimes you simply want less reflection, rather than all or nothing. Or you do not want any polarised light at all.
Although a polarising filter is certainly recommended for many types of photography, including landscapes, car photography and sometimes even macro or property photography, there are also situations where it is better not to use one. I have three reasons why you might prefer not to use polarisation.
1. When using an extreme wide-angle lens
Especially in landscape photography, many photographers often use wide-angle lenses. The wider, the better. But using a polarising filter can have a drawback with an extreme wide-angle lens.
I mentioned that a polarising filter, also sometimes called a CPL filter (Circular Polarisation Filter), works best when the angle to the light is 90 degrees, so exactly to your left or right, exactly above you, or below you.
This means that the effect of the polarisation becomes weaker as the angle gets larger or smaller. With the light source at 0 degrees, directly in front of you, or 180 degrees, directly behind you, the effect is minimal. In between, the effect gradually changes from maximum polarisation to minimum polarisation.
When the angle of view is very wide, as with an ultra-wide-angle lens, the angle of the light varies within the photo itself. This means that the polarisation is at its strongest in one part of the photo and becomes weaker towards the other parts. You notice this especially clearly when there is sky in the photo.
I have noticed that the point where this difference becomes distracting starts at 24mm on a full-frame camera. If your focal length is shorter, it is advisable to be very careful with polarisation, or even not to use it at all, especially if there is a lot of sky in the photo, or other plain surfaces.
2. When you want to photograph a rainbow
Photographing a rainbow is of course wonderful. When the rain shower has passed and the sun breaks through, a beautiful rainbow can appear.
A rainbow is the internal reflection of sunlight in the small water droplets hanging or falling in the air. The size of the droplets determines how wide or bright the rainbow will appear. You can filter out that reflection with a polarising filter. The result: no rainbow.
Do not use a polarising filter if you want to photograph a rainbow, or rotate the polarisation to its minimum setting. The more polarisation you retain, the less bright the rainbow will be.
It is sometimes said that a polarising filter can make a rainbow extra bright, but I have never been able to see or experience this effect.
3. When you want to show water
One of the most popular places to use a polarising filter is around streams and rocky coasts. You can often filter out the troublesome reflections of light on the surface of the water completely. But sometimes it is better not to do this.
By filtering out all the reflections, you get an unobstructed view of the bottom, especially when the water is very shallow. You can see the beautiful stones, or other things in the water, but you can no longer see the water itself.
It is precisely that small amount of reflection in the water that shows the water. You do not want to remove it completely. There is no point photographing a stream if you can no longer see the water.
In this case, the idea is not so much to avoid using polarisation, but to avoid using it at maximum strength. Choose the golden mean.
Can you think of any more examples?
Of course, you can think of more situations in which a reflection is desirable and where using a polarising filter is not the best choice. Also remember that you do not always have to use full polarisation. You can stop turning the filter once you have reached the desired amount of reflection.
Do you know of situations where a polarising filter is undesirable, or where it is better not to use maximum polarisation? Share them in a comment below this post. I look forward to hearing about the situations you can think of.
About the author
Nando Harmsen has been photographing for more than 40 years. He specialises in wedding photography and landscape photography. Nando also gives talks, workshops, masterclasses and photo trips, and regularly reviews new and interesting equipment.
You might also like
-
Control reflections with a polarising filterby Erik Nevels
-
The story behind the photo: a rainbowby Nando Harmsen
-
Use polarisation for autumn photographyby Nando Harmsen
-
Take a polarising filter with you more oftenby Nando Harmsen
11 comments
-
hanshoenselaars@hotmail.com wrote on Tuesday 25 August 2020 at 10:48 | replyThanks for the tips. I usually shoot in black and white. For wild streams, a polarizing filter is very suitable for contrasting the churning water (wave crests) with the flowing or still water. Of course, there is room for more or less reflection, which can be chosen through the flexibility of the filter.
Translated from Dutch. -
Donald Willemsen
wrote on Tuesday 25 August 2020 at 11:53
| reply
@ Nando, I miss the linear polarizing filter in the story and what effect it has on the light. Is there anything useful to say about that? I only know that a circular filter is generally recommended over a linear filter.
Translated from Dutch. -
Nando
wrote on Tuesday 25 August 2020 at 13:36
| reply
@Donald;
Translated from Dutch.
This is of course not an article about the difference between a linear and circular polarizing filter. I remember having read once that autofocus systems need a circular filter, and that linear doesn't work. But that may have changed by now.
Actually, only circular polarizing filters are offered. -
Donald Willemsen
wrote on Tuesday 25 August 2020 at 16:43
| reply
@Nando, I knew that a linear one interferes with the autofocus system. But then you could switch to MF. The fact that this article is not about the difference between linear and circular is logical because nowadays virtually only circular filters are sold, otherwise you run into problems with the autofocus system. But what I am curious about is, is the effect of a linear filter really that different from a circular one? If the effect is the same, linear filters remain usable if you set the camera to MF. In other words, can you do more with a linear filter in certain circumstances than with a circular one? In the analog era, these two filters existed side by side.
Translated from Dutch. -
Nando
wrote on Tuesday 25 August 2020 at 17:04
| reply
@Donald;
Translated from Dutch.
Explaining the difference is very difficult, because it requires quite a lot of physics talk. To put it simply, a circular polarizing filter is a combination of a linear polarizing filter and an optical wave plate that changes the direction of the polarized light. The latter is needed so as not to confuse your camera's exposure meter and autofocus.
It is a bit more complicated than that, but explaining that here would go far beyond the topic of the article. -
Wyb Mylius. wrote on Tuesday 25 August 2020 at 20:47 | replyI'm a Greece-goer and crazy about those colorful fishing boats. in those old , primitive harbors. But with a polarizing filter those boats start flying, because you can see right through the water. that is unnatural to me and so I have sworn off the polarizing filter and only use it when I really want to look through the water.
Translated from Dutch. -
paul wrote on Wednesday 26 August 2020 at 08:00 | replyI once had it with my 16 mm lens + pola filter and backlighting that all the shadow areas were outlined with a red line. Without the pola filter I didn’t have that red line, but then the sky was overexposed.
Translated from Dutch. -
Nando
wrote on Wednesday 26 August 2020 at 10:00
| reply
@Wyb:
Translated from Dutch.
I understand that you don't want to use a polarizing filter for that. But to completely reject it now. A polarizing filter is a very useful filter, which has a lot of applications. But as with all photography tools, you have to use it when there is a purpose for it. As I already said; you can also remove some of the reflections.
@Paul:
A red line? I've never seen that before. -
Donald Willemsen
wrote on Wednesday 26 August 2020 at 10:26
| reply
@Nando, I think that red line has to do with Chromatic Aberration. A common lens defect. Normally such a line is green or purple, but it might turn red under the influence of a polarizing filter.
Translated from Dutch. -
wyb Mylius wrote on Wednesday 26 August 2020 at 12:22 | reply
Thanks for your response. I am a colour- photographer, but think too much in black/white, as it turned out. Of course, there are also moments when a pola filter is the answer. Was another valuable lesson.
Translated from Dutch. -
paul wrote on Wednesday 26 August 2020 at 14:47 | reply
Donald, I looked up Chormatisch Aberratie and found examples that indicated exactly what you write. So I think you're right, thanks for that.
Translated from Dutch.
Have your say
Please note: Articles older than a week can only be commented on by signed-in visitors.Would you still like to comment? sign in or create a free account.
Become a better photographer every week
A practical photography tip in your inbox every week.
38,901 photography enthusiasts already receive the tips! More about the weekly mail. Or keep up to date via 
Facebook.
Elja Trum
Photofacts; everything to do with photography!
Would you like to take better photos and keep up with what is happening in photography? Photofacts publishes articles that teach you something about photography — from a product announcement to a practical shooting tip or a look at a website. Photofacts covers photography every day and is a hobby project of Elja Trum's that got out of hand. The articles are written by a team of volunteer authors. If you would enjoy writing one or more articles for Photofacts, do get in touch.More about PhotofactsPhotofacts is made possible in part by
