Polarizers

[dazedgonebye]

So, for my Bessa R...as I read the below (From luminous-landscape), I should be able to use a linear polarizer.
Can anyone confirm this for me?

Thanks

Circular Vs. Linear Polarizers
There are two types of polarizing filters available — linear or circular. Linear polarizers are more effective and less expensive than circular ones. But circular polarizers are needed with just about any camera that has a through-the-lens metering system, or autofocus.

The reason for this is that both of these systems use semi-silvered mirrors to siphon off some of the light coming though the lens. If that light is linearly polarized it renders either the metering or the autofocus ineffective. This means that you're going to have to buy circular polarizers unless you're shooting with a pre-1970's camera, or a view camera.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

you can use both linear or circular 🙂

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

he is wrong about circular polarizers being needed for "through the lens" TTL metering ... it is only needed for autofocus cameras.

btw, a very good polarizer for RF systems is the Heliopan polarizer. They are made of brass mount and have a "number" system on the rotating ring, thus allowing you to dial in the level of polarization you want.

 

[dazedgonebye]

he is wrong about circular polarizers being needed for "through the lens" TTL metering ... it is only needed for autofocus cameras.

btw, a very good polarizer for RF systems is the Heliopan polarizer. They are made of brass mount and have a "number" system on the rotating ring, thus allowing you to dial in the level of polarization you want.

How does that work Tom? I thought the effect depended upon your orientation to the light source.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

the Heliopan?

Select your scene/subject that you want polarized. Bring the polarizer up to your eye, look through it and rotate it to the level of polarization you want, note the number at the top, then screw it onto your lens, and rotate it to the same number that you observed with the filter to your eyes earlier .... that's it 🙂

With a SLR, you can observe directly the level of polarization by looking through the viewfinder. With RFs, you can't. So you need to visually adjust the polarizer via your eyes first. Then attach it to your lens. The Heliopan allows you to do this easily with the numbered rotating ring. You can DIY with any polarizing filter by taping a thin white masking tape around the rotating ring, and marking 1 to 10 around the entire circumference, then use it as your reference.

 

[dazedgonebye]

I was thinking I'd rotate the polarizer and note the meter reading. With the polarizer at max, the light should be at a minimum.
Does that make sense?

 

[wyk_penguin]

Unfortunately, it does not.

First and foremost, the Bessa R has a center weighted meter. The "darkening" of the sky is so minute that it does not affect the overall reading.

Second, the polarizer doesn't really darken a part of the scene significantly, you see water turn clear and the sky turn blue, that's because you have cut the scattered/reflected rays which increases contrast and satauration dramatically. However, most of the light in the original scene wasn't actually from the scattered/reflected part anyway. Otherwise you would see a black void after you cut the relections.

On Leicas and FSU RFs, I use the a 'vented' step-up ring, so that a corner of the VF window is blocked by the polarizer while the pl filter doesn't cover the RF window. The short baselength of the Bessas mean that the RF window would be completely covered by the polarizer. I haven't tried it yet, but I suspect that mounting a linear polarizer over the RF and VF window will cause problems. Can anyone confirm this? I don't have a circ-pl right now.

 

[dazedgonebye]

Well, overall it sounds like too much work to me. I won't be doing landscapes on a tripod with my rangefinder camera.
I'll just rotate at 90 deg to the sun...if I can find that old rule of thumb in my rule of thumb drawer...I know it's here somewhere...

 

[JeffGreene]

Filterview solution

Filterview solution

Steve:

There's a great solution for using circular polarizers with your rangefinder camera found here. I use it and it works great! WYSIWYG!!! I use a modified, leather-covered version of his FM grip as well.

 

[dazedgonebye]

Steve:

There's a great solution for using circular polarizers with your rangefinder camera found here. I use it and it works great! WYSIWYG!!! I use a modified, leather-covered version of his FM grip as well.

That's very cool...but add a 77mm polarizer and we're over the $200 I paid for my camera. That's a bit rich for the number of times I'll likely use it.

 

[LADP]

I made a post about using polarizers somewhere either on this site or another one, but I'm too lzy to try to find it right now, so I'll just summarize again.

I wear polarized sunglasses when outdoors pretty much all the time. If you have polarized sunglasses, you can orient your polarizing filter to your sunglasses. Just hold the sunglasses out in front of you, and look through them at some reflection (water or in a specular surface), or at the sky. Rotate your glasses to maximize the glare reduction, or polarizing effect. Now hold up the polarizing filter for your lens next to your glasses, and rotate it to dial in the same maximal reduction of glare, and you've now got your glasses and the filter in sync. Now just put a dab of nailpolish or other semi-permanent marking on the top of your polarizing filter that coincides with how your glasses are when you wear them. Now instead of having to unscrew your polarizing filter to check the effect, or dial in the amount of polarization you want, you just tilt your head from side to side to find the angle that achieves the desirted effect. Now just rotate your polarizer on your lens to match that degree of rotation.

This is a fast and easy method that dispenses with the need to constantly unscrew your polarizer. If you don't have polarized sunglasses, you should. This is as good a reason as any to get a pair.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

Steve,

I think your final instinct is correct, it is pretty pointless to use polarizers with RFs. If you really want to use polarizers, carry an extra SLR 😉

cheers

 

[LADP]

Steve,

I think your final instinct is correct, it is pretty pointless to use polarizers with RFs. If you really want to use polarizers, carry an extra SLR 😉

cheers

I respectfully have to disagree. How is it pointless to use a polarizer on a RF? It may not be quite as simple as with an SLR, but it is certainly easy enough.

Your comment is sort of like saying, "it is pointless to put knobby tires on your motorcycle in order to ride the occasional dirt road. If you really want to ride on a dirt road on occasion, you should buy a different motorcycle."

 

[dazedgonebye]

From my perspective, it really is about ease of use.
I don't anticipate regular use of a polarizing filter. I don't mind buying one and keeping it in my bag because I know I will find a use for it now and again, but I'm not laying out a bunch of money and I'm not willing to spend 5 minutes in preparation to use it.
I accept that I will see sub-optimal results...but I'm a sub-optimal sort of guy and I've learned to accept that. 🙂
I'll screw it on then turn it to an approximation of the appropriate angle re: the sun, then I'll take my shot. If, over time, I see that I'm not really getting worthwhile results from my sloppy methods, I'll stop carrying the filter.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

I respectfully have to disagree. How is it pointless to use a polarizer on a RF? It may not be quite as simple as with an SLR, but it is certainly easy enough.

Your comment is sort of like saying, "it is pointless to put knobby tires on your motorcycle in order to ride the occasional dirt road. If you really want to ride on a dirt road on occasion, you should buy a different motorcycle."

Nothing wrong with respectful disagreement 🙂

How about this analogy instead ...

If I were entering the Tour de France, I would use a touring bike, not a mountain bike. If I were entering a mountain bike race, I would use a mountain bike, not a touring bike. Can you insist on using each interchangeably, against their strengths, of course you can. But you are working against your instruments' primary design and strengths, and ultimately yourself.

I'm not disagreeing that it can be done. I am, however, saying that one needs to know one's primary purpose, and what the best tools are for that purpose. If it is street photography, then RFs have some fundamental advantages and strengths. If it is using polarizers in landscape photography, then SLRs and view cameras have their respective advantages and strengths. Is it possible to forcibly use RFs against their strengths in anticipation of those rare occasions when you need a polarizer? Of course. I just find the rate of use to actuality to be ... well ... pointless 😉

cheers

 

[traveller]

How about this solution? Of course you would need a double shoe adaptor if you use a external VF

 

[dazedgonebye]

How about this solution? Of course you would need a double shoe adaptor if you use a external VF

I like that solution. I still won't be using enough to justify the outlay though.

 

[ChrisPlatt]

Polarizers are a PITA to use on rangefinders.
They work best on SLRs.

I detest looking through deeply colored filters for b/w on an SLR.
These work best on RF cameras.

An excellent excuse to own both types of camera! 😉

Chris

"Keep Chris in Christmas"

 

[harmsr]

Steve,

I'll bring along the old Leica flip out style that I have which incorporates a hood and is very easy/fast to use for our next meet-up.

What filter size are you trying to use it on?

Best,

Ray

 

[LADP]

Nothing wrong with respectful disagreement 🙂

How about this analogy instead ...

If I were entering the Tour de France, I would use a touring bike, not a mountain bike. If I were entering a mountain bike race, I would use a mountain bike, not a touring bike. Can you insist on using each interchangeably, against their strengths, of course you can. But you are working against your instruments' primary design and strengths, and ultimately yourself.

I'm not disagreeing that it can be done. I am, however, saying that one needs to know one's primary purpose, and what the best tools are for that purpose. If it is street photography, then RFs have some fundamental advantages and strengths. If it is using polarizers in landscape photography, then SLRs and view cameras have their respective advantages and strengths. Is it possible to forcibly use RFs against their strengths in anticipation of those rare occasions when you need a polarizer? Of course. I just find the rate of use to actuality to be ... well ... pointless 😉

cheers

Tom,

I understand your point, and that's a great explanation. I'll try to explain my point better as well. While there are certainly best tools for a given job in any endeavor, as your bicycle analogy demonstrates well, it is not always practical to have the best tool at hand for every given instance.

A world class cyclist wouldn't be caught dead on a mountain bike for a road race as you say. Furthermore, he or she would have a different specialized bike for varying conditions and/or type of race (i.e. one for time trials, and another for hill climbs, etc.). That certainly applies to the very top racers. World class racers, however, probably account for a small percentage of the total number of cyclists in the world overall. For many non-competitive cyclists (which to be fair accounts for most of us, they are content to ride whatever bike they have in a variety of conditions... if it is a mountain bike, particularly so. It isn't practical for most of us to have several different bikes for a variety of types of riding. I would say the same is probably true for many photographers.

These days, I no longer own an SLR of any type, and I prefer to travel with my relatively small and light Leica kit, which consists now of two M bodies. I do use a polariizer now and then, and while it may not be exactly as simple to use as it would be with an SLR, using my method of indexing the filter to my polarized sunglasses is virtually as quick and easy... for me. I may have an advantage from years of using various filters with 35mm motion picture cameras every day over many amateur photographers, but it really isn't that hard to get comfortable with the process.

To me a polarizer is a tool. It has many uses that go far beyond simply darkening the sky in a landscpe type shot (which isn't the type of photography I engage in with my rangefinders at all). One of the best uses to me is in contrast control - especially on a person's face in certain lighting situations (such as a strong quartering back or edge light on a person with somewhat shiny or specular skin). I also like using it to modify the degree of reflections present in the glass of a store or car window for example. I frequently use it to modulate the reflection on the glass to balance with the interior subjects, and often I am not merely trying to maximize the reflection reduction in these cases.

In any case, I would not wish to carry an SLR to use simply for the moments I wish to use a polarizer. Indeed, if I used it as infrequently as you suggest that you do, I would be even less inclined to bring along an additional camera body (SLR). I would much rather take the extra 2 seconds to dial in my polarizer with my RF body than to carry around the extra bulk and weight of an SLR and lenses on my travels. That's just my personal preference, and I appreciate that each will have his or her own preferences. I just don't think using a polarizer on an RF is nearly as troubling as many people seem to think it is (especially if you use a method similar to the one I've worked out for myself).

Horses for courses, and all, but sometimes a horse can excell on one course, and manage just fine on different types of courses too. That's why there's a Triple Crown after all.