Polarizers for portraits?

im no expert on this but i only use polorizers for two reasons: 1. to cut down reflections 2. to darken a blue sky... great for the deep blues in the sky or black if u go B&W.

 

in your case i think its a matter of preference. if it looks good ten does it matter?

Thanks for the answers. I am not opposed to doing my own tests and fully plan on doing so. I just wanted to check and see if there were any "rules" of portraits that said you should ALWAYS use a polarizer or you NEVER use a polarizer. I just didn't want to waste frames but I was assuming it would be a matter of preference. Like I said though, the reason I ask it because there are "rules" or photography that I am always free to break but are accepted by about 95-99% of quality photographers--I don't know all these general rules so just wanted to ask. It sounds like there is no 99% overwhelming opinion for or against their use, so I'll try both and use my own personal preference. Thanks for the help!

I'm pretty new to portraits but keep getting drafted by people to do portrait

pictures. I just got my first filters and have some polarizers now. I was just

wondering if polarizers have any role in outdoor portrait photography. I know

this may be a matter of preference, but since I'm new to portraits and

polarizers, I was just wondering if people always use them, never use them, or

if I should shoot some with and some without and decide later (I realize this

is the safest thing, but I don't want to waste my time if some of you portrait

experts tell me you NEVER use a polarizer). I will be shooting one person's

shots later today. The sky is pretty overcast and grey, if that matters. Also,

I have Hoya polarizers--one HMC and one Moose's Warming for the lens I'll be

using. Any and all advice is appreciated--if you're reading this then you

probably have more knowledge than myself and I'd love to hear your advice!

Thanks!

While I doubt that a polarizer will help you with a portrait in that kind of light, since you have

a couple of polarizers what is keeping you from doing some test shots? Depending on

strangers for knowledge easily first hand gathered is dangerous to your creative health.

I like both answers you've gotten so far. I'd guess that the vast majority of portraits are taken without a polarizer, because usually, it's not needed and it costs about two stops of light.

<p>

But there are specific situations where it might be useful. I've used one where the background was a landscape with a blue sky that I wanted to darken. There might be situations where it could be used to reduce reflections off of glasses or off of shiny skin, but in many of those situations, a slight change of the pose and/or some powder could reduce the reflections at least as well as a polarizer.

http://www.photo.net/equipment/filters.html

"...sounds like there is no 99% overwhelming opinion for or against their use..."

 

Don't use it. People here are just too polite to say it.

I.e, don't use it, because: (a) a prolarizer costs you two stops of light - something usually in short supply with portraits; (b) it may add an unwanted colour cast to faces; © there's no point unless, perhaps, you're shooting on a yacht with lots of reflecting surfaces in the frame.

I use a linear polarizer to cut glare mostly. You can look through the filter without even putting it on your camera to see if will help anything. You will the the result of using the polarizer as you turn it in your fingers. There is no benefit in using it for the shot when you do not see significant change. Notice that there is a little arrow or line on the side of the filter. If you do like the change you see, adjust the line to the same position as it was in your hand after you put it on the camera. Using the filter this way is a good way to learn to recognize glare and specular highlights when you see them.

 

I've never used a circular polarizer recommended for DSLRs. It seems to me that turning it would show nothing because the polarizing lines are arranged in concentric circles so the light interacts with the camera optics in a certain way. Even if you are a DSLR user the exercise of sighting through a linear polarizer can help you understand what polarizers do and when to use them.

..."It seems to me that turning it would show nothing because the polarizing lines are arranged in concentric circles so the light interacts with the camera optics in a certain way"

 

I think you are confusing circular polarizers with circular polarization. The polarizing filters (both circular and linear) for optical cameras filter out linearly polarized light. In the case of a "circular" filter, the light that passes through is then "scrambled" if you will, to allow the electronics in the camera such as auto focus and metering to work correctly. If you hold a "circular" polarizing filter up and look through it, you will see the same effect that you see with a "linear" filter. For a little more information, check out

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_%28photography%29#Polarizer

 

jeffl

A polarizer cuts the highlights and reveals flaws better left unrevealed. The only thing less flattering for portraits would be a full-body backscatter X-ray ;-).

They deepen blue skies and eliminate reflections. Sometimes they're invaluable, like if someone is standing in front of a window and distracting reflections ruin the shot. Personally, I just leave one on my camera at all times under my protective filter.

"Personally, I just leave one on my camera at all times under my protective filter".

 

Obviously you can not be serious? But I do not get the joke? Pray tell.

My previous response did not seem to post correctly, so I will try again.

 

"Personally, I just leave one on my camera at all times under my protective filter".

 

As do I.

 

The issue about loosing a couple of F-stops by using a polarizer when doing portraits is of little importance, and here is why.

 

First, you are only loosing some of your smaller apertures, which you probably are not going to use anyways to take portraits. The larger apertures are the ones traditionally used because they help give you blurred backgrounds behind your subject which generally makes for better portraits.

 

Second, for portraits, the subject is usually holding more still as you are taking the picture. This then allows you to use some lower shutter speeds than you may normally use when photographing people. This again makes up for the couple of F-stops you might loose because of the polarizer.

 

Leaving the polarizer on all the time also eliminates the possibility that you might forget to use it just when you need it most. (ie.: All the pics. you took of a person wearing glasses were ruined by glare because you forgot to use your polarizer.) Why run the risk?

 

Polarizers also help saturate colors, which, more often than not, is what people want in their pictures.

 

My polarizer is kept under the UV filter because they are more expensive to replace than the UV one, and you always want some kind of filter over the lens. A scratched or chipped lens is a preventable accident.

The only time I had element damage (scratches and gouges) was when a bump to my bag broke the filter on the lens. Caps and hoods offer more protection, but I'm off-topic.

"Caps and hoods offer more protection..."

 

Caps: yes

Hoods: no: Hoods only protect the lens from impacts or debris coming in from a side direction. They do not provide any protection from something that can fit down inside the hood and that comes straight in at the lens.

"Personally, I just leave one on my camera at all times under my protective filter".

 

Kieran and Dan, Both of you are on a wind up, I am sure. But I still do not fully get the joke?

There is no joke. Simply read what I wrote. The logic is not tough to understand.

"There is no joke. Simply read what I wrote. The logic is not tough to understand".

 

Dan, I will have to accept you are being serious?

 

If you are, I am afraid logic has little connection with your theory. For the occasional time your poloriser will be useful for portrait photography. The downsides will be loss of light, vignetting problems (with two stacked filters), degradation of the image, and having to adjust the poloriser before each shot. I am sure I could think of more drawbacks, but there seems no need as the benefits are few.

"If you are, I am afraid logic has little connection with your theory."

 

Theory? I just stated facts as I know them. You need to not just tell me I wrong, but HOW I'm wrong with logic that everyone can understand. Mind you, "understand" is not the same thing as "agree with".

 

"For the occasional time your poloriser will be useful for portrait photography."

 

MY experience has shown that a polarizer either improves the image or has no detrimental affect.

 

"The downsides will be loss of light,..."

 

I explained how for PORTRAITS, that that is not such an important issue. If you are using studio lights, than the loss of light because of a polarizer is definately a non-issue.

 

"...vignetting problems (with two stacked filters),..."

 

That depends on the lens and how it is used. Again, MY experience has not shown vignetting to be a problem. Maybe it has for you. Every photographer has to learn the limitations of their own equipment.

 

"...degradation of the image,..."

 

Sorry, I don't have that problem. The quality of the equipment and how it is controlled determines the quality of the photographs.

 

"...and having to adjust the poloriser before each shot."

 

Are you still using a linear polarizer?! Do they even still make those? With a CIRCULAR polarizer, there is no adjusting that has to be done, ever.

 

"I am sure I could think of more drawbacks, but there seems no need as the benefits are few."

 

It seems that you have had bad experiences with polarizers and the use of multiple filters simultaniously, but not everyone else has. Sorry, but I can only express my views based on my own experience and knowledge.

Wow! I learned something I didn't know about circular polarizers. Thanks.

 

Anyone have a good idea for mounting a polarizer in front of a Nikon Coolpix 5900 P&S camera? I have a plan to mount a tube the lens mechanism can run back and forth in without interference to a plate held under the camera by the tripod mounting hole. I would mount the polarizer in the front of the tube. ?-| Is there an easier way?

"With a CIRCULAR polarizer, there is no adjusting that has to be done, ever."

 

You still need to turn it to get the maximum effect-even a circular polarizer. Go out on a clear day with a clear sky, turn 90 degrees from the sun, and spin the polarizer. You can see the difference.

"You still need to turn it to get the maximum effect-even a circular polarizer. Go out on a clear day with a clear sky, turn 90 degrees from the sun, and spin the polarizer. You can see the difference."

 

What brand do you use? Mine have never functioned that way.

"Anyone have a good idea for mounting a polarizer in front of a Nikon Coolpix 5900 P&S camera?"

 

Your approach sounds as good as any. How you given any thought to a SLR camera (digital or film) that would allow you to experiment more with things like filters in your photography?

Dan,

Brand doesn't make a difference-I've used Tiffen, Hoya, Cokin(screw-in), and B+W.

 

A Circular polarizer is just a linear polarizer that scrambles the polarized light coming out of the back of the filter so that it's no longer polarized. The only reason they need to do this is because most autofocus and some metering systems use semi-silvered mirrors that can black out with polarized light.

 

Except for the difference mentioned above, linear and circular polarizers work in exactly the same way-The only real reason to use a circular polarizer is if you have a camera which won't meter or autofocus with a linear polarizer.