Polarizer for Wildlife

[vegasdesertfox]

<p>How often do you use a polarizer for wildlife? Like for wolf or fox, mountain or bear. Does a polarizer filter help knock down glare off of fur?</p>

[Stock-Photos]

<blockquote>

<p>Does a polarizer filter help knock down glare off of fur?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Depends on the lighting. A polarizer will cut the light entering your lens by at least 2 stops, causing slower shutter speeds and or wider F stops.</p>

<p>I don't know of any good reasons to use a polarizer for wildlife, except maybe birds in flight, for a darker sky.<br>

...or fish... from above the surface...</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Right, I almost never use a polarize for wildlife since I typically use long lenses and I cannot afford to lose a couple of aperture stops.</p>

[jwallphoto]

<p>I think if you've got enough light to keep your shutter speed where it needs to be, then go ahead and use it. I believe it'll knock down glare to some extent on just about anything. I've used one to shoot stationary dragonflies in harsh light, and it helps.</p>

[stp]

<p>Knocking down the glare off of fur is usually the least of my concerns when trying to photograph wildlife. I'm far more concerned about distance, context, having sufficient light, and other similar issues. I'd consider a polarizer for fish and amphibians in aquatic habitat, and I'd consider it for relatively stationary wildlife (e.g., ducks in a pond or deer in a field) if the filter would enhance the surrounding vegetation and/or sky. For the animals you listed, a polarizing filter wouldn't even be on my radar screen.</p>

[stemked]

<p>Respectfully I disagree (a little). There are times when a shot is ruined by glare, be it off water or reflective vegetation when a polaizer truly makes (or breaks) the shot. I only have a couple of things with me right now, and my unpolarized shot isn't super sharp. Anyway you can see the difference in character of the two images.<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/10737231-lg.jpg" alt="" /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/10737230-lg.jpg" alt="" width="1500" height="1021" /></p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>A polarizer will cut glare from some types of fur, but the amount of improvement is contingent on the environmental conditions. If you can live with a quarter of the light, a polarizer might help. One certainly has a place in my bag. I probably only use it for 1 shot in every couple thousand, but when I need it, it is a godsend. </p>

<p>Of, course, if you are struggling with glare you're probably working at the wrong time of day in any case so you might be better served by adjusting your working hours earlier or later in the day. </p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>I hardly ever use a polarizer for wildlife. It is usually not necessary, nor practical unless the wildlife is motionless. ;)</p>

[jason_dimichele1]

<p>I would say that a polarizer for wildlife would really only be beneficial if your are doing more of the "animal in it's environment" type of shot. In this case there would be more reasons for colour to "pop" or glare in more areas of the composition. If you are doing typical wildlife shots (ie: filling most of the frame), I wouldn't bother. As other people have mentioned in thread, you loose too much light.<br></p>

[lilly_w]

<p>Not exactly wildlife but a couple photos in the following thread demonstrate the benefit of a polarizer when shooting furry critters. The pol squelches the reflections in a very pleasing manner.<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/beginner-photography-questions-forum/00Vv6a?unified_p=1">http://www.photo.net/beginner-photography-questions-forum/00Vv6a?unified_p=1</a></p>