[DWS1]

I've found using a polarizer on landscapes having a blue sky and a lot of vegetation to be difficult. I either get too much effect on the sky and too little on the vegetation, or vice versa. I haven't been able to find the proper balance yet.

[robgski]

Generally, if the sun is bright enough that I feel I need to put on sunglasses, I will put a polarizer on the lens.
Another advantage to using a CPL is that one can maximize or minimize reflections in windows, the surfaces of a lake , etc.

[aaacb]

Polarizers make colors more vibrant, but also make the scene look more flat in certain cases like foliage, so I find it good to experiment with the filter position to find a balance, or just take variations and decide later.

[aaacb]

I haven't been able to find the proper balance yet.

Maybe blending two exposures in post is one approach?

[clickclick]

I consider polarizing filters a must have option when working with landscapes and around water, but they do take some learning. As pointed out, wide angles can be challenging because of the changes in light angles across the frame, and in general, more is not always better. Depending on the filter, you will loose 1 - 2 stops of light, and like anything optical, you get what you pay for. Good ones are pricey, but if you're going to use them, buy a good one once. I've settled on B+W and often will spring for their Kaesemann High Transmission filters to minimize light loss. Check this article out for a nice quick overview and how-to on using a polarizer:

https://photographylife.com/definition/polarizing-filter

[dmach47]

Another question is did he take the pictures with the K1 Mark II with the new lenses (I think he does) but he is not very clear about it given that he used his new lenses according to the first line and states that he took pictures there before. The only difference the use of the polarizer?

Yeah, I didn't make that clear. The prior shots at the BG had TWO differences. 1) Polarizer, and 2) Sunnier day. I used the same lenses both times. Both the polarizer AND the sky conditions (partly sunny vs. totally cloudy) could have made the difference. That's why I'm experimenting, taking lots of picture under different conditions, and seeing how things work out.
Specifically, I used a Hoya HRT "Combination UV and Circular Polarizer, 1.5-3x Filter Factor, 0.6-1.6 Stops". I remember picking it because it seemed that it had a smaller effect on the exposure than my prior CP filter. It did seem less dark than the one I had before. I will add that filter to my standard kit when I shoot.
As for the CP for the 12 mm lens, I see the problems. I have a lot of fun with that lens. I'll check to see if it has the ability to have a rear filter (like my mirror lens does).
I forgot how much fun shooting was. I LOVE the instant feedback with digital shooting. No waiting for days to see if I got anything good.

[archaeodude]

I shot some pictures at our local Botanical Garden this last Weekend. I've shot there before, but this time, I was checking out how my K-1ii and new lenses worked with the new polarizer filters I got. The filters are Hoya circular polarized.
They seem to have "vividized" the colors at the Botanical Garden. Now I've taken shots there before, but the colors seem to really "pop" this time. As far as I know, the only thing different about these sets of shots are that I used the polarizer filters. Now there also may have been fewer clouds, I wanted a sunnier day since I know the polarizer effects how the blue sky shows up on film..
I don't remember a polarizer filter having this much of an effect on my slide film images (back in the dark ages when I was last taking pictures).
Is that a property of the combo of digital images and a polarizer?
As an aside, is there any way to get a polarizer filter on a fisheye lens? I have a 12mm that I'd love to see how a polarizer works, but the front end is too bulbous to handle a filter.

Thanks to the Original Poster for asking for clarifications about polarizing filters!

I've got a few that I acquired with secondhand cameras, and I haven't really played around with them too much. This thread is making me reconsider their lack of use!

[Digitalis]

As an aside, is there any way to get a polarizer filter on a fisheye lens?

Some older fisheye and superwide lenses have filters built in and some have rear mounted gel filter holders, polarizing film can be bought relatively cheap in small sheets (amazingly) and new filters can be punched* out to fit. The problem with gel filters is they are delicate and easy to scratch and they are very easy to lose.


* Filter punches are kind of like cookie cutters for rear mounted gel filters

what you're seeing is the sum total of the reflected light from your subject. remove the relatively nondescript light that's reflected off other nearby objects or bright light sources, by reducing the light to a narrow angle using the CP filter means you've increased the relative importance of the natural hue of the subject. The colors of the subject LOOK brighter even though there's less light coming in, because you've simplified that light-stream, isolating that color.

[ChristianRock]

Not all polarizers are created equal, but the ones I have used have all enhanced colors to some extent - some more, some less. Cheap filters can make colors unnatural and even blurry up color transitions.

Hoya filters, while very good, do tend to exaggerate colors a little bit, I find. Which is fine if you are going for that effect, I'm not selling mine.

Of the ones I have used, which aren't very many, I tend to like the B&W Kaesemann quite a lot. Not as extreme as the Hoya filters I have had (several different models including PLs, CPLs and the Moose), their result to me is quite beautiful.

It's worth playing with a few different ones to see what you like, as this is not an effect that you can obtain in post-processing.

[Apet-Sure]

Sometimes the results seem "overdone" if not squarely "garish". Don't overdo it !

I agree. In some cases the most pleasing results may be had by setting the polarizer somewhere between its min and max effect. I've found them to be quite useful on foliage, depending on the direction of the light. By the way, while you are experimenting, try the Landscape custom image mode too.

[AfterPentax Mark II]

Thanks to the Original Poster for asking for clarifications about polarizing filters!

I've got a few that I acquired with secondhand cameras, and I haven't really played around with them too much. This thread is making me reconsider their lack of use!

I did use them in the film era quite often and had one attached to my go to lens. A professional photographer that got English lessons from my wife said that as I had a rather fast lens it was a shame that I kept the filter attached to it and not using the lens to its full potential. So I took the filter off and never put it back until experimenting with my second digital which was my first DSLR. But dmach47's question got me thinking. So I unearthed my polarizers and have them ready for when I go out for a walk in the woods and fields close to where I live. But on this forum there many question that made me think of things I did in the film era and did not do in the digital era and vice versa.

[ChrisPlatt]

A polarizing filter can affect the exposure slightly because it does block some of the light. I have heard it can reduce light by one stop or a little more. Something to be aware of.

Some more than others. I prefer a darker linear polarizer which can do double-duty for me in place of a neutral density filter.

Chris

[dmach47]

Some more than others. I prefer a darker linear polarizer which can do double-duty for me in place of a neutral density filter.

I thought the metering (or was it the autofocus?) required that we use circular polarizers on modern cameras.

[clickclick]

I thought the metering (or was it the autofocus?) required that we use circular polarizers on modern cameras.

Yes, metering can be affected. Here's another quick read that might be of interest.

Linear Versus Circular Polarizers :: Digital Photo Secrets