Has anyone used a polarizer on M8?

[Photoskeptic]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

And if so what were the results? I'm concerned it would adversely affect the cyan problem or would you stack a UV/IR filter with it? I ordered a Kenko system from Robert White, it never arrived and when I contacted them they were able to find the order but were awaiting my shipping instructions. So I'm trying to decide if I really want it, or need it, as the case may be.

Thanks for all replies,

John

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jaapv]

You cannot use a polarizer without an IR cut filter. IR contamination is about double when you use a polarizer, so you have to stack filters.

A polarizer cuts visible light by about half, but is transparant to (non-polarized!) IR light.

[Photoskeptic]

Thank you, Jaap for that quick reply. I had good luck several years ago with another brand of digicam using a polarizer for landscapes but figured with Leica's different sensor things might turn out messy.

[woodda]

I tried it and the Pol effect was not as noticable. PS I had the IR filter . IS this expected

 

Regards

[hsw]

I've noticed an almost imperceptable polarizer effect when used with the M8 and IR filter. I can get rid of reflections in glass but I can't get the darkening of skys etc.

 

Henry

[robsteve]

John:

 

You seemed to have posted this thread twice. I will repost here my answer from your first thread.

[robsteve]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

John:

 

I have not used the polarizer with the M8 much because a lot could be done in post processing. After seeing your post, I decided to give it a try. I used the 35mm Summicron ASPH and the Leica universal polarizer. A b+W UV-IR filter was fitted to the lens as well, with the polarizer retaing ring screwed into this filter.

 

I shot on manual exposure and when processed in lightroom, set the colour balance on both files to 5900, +9.

 

Here it is without a polarizer.

 

With the Polarizer:

 

It seems to work just like it did with slide film. It darkens the skies and helps with the greens by cutting out some of the reflection of the green foilage.

[Baxter]

The polariser is (probably) the only filter which cannot be replicated in Software and thus needs using at the taking stage.

 

I have one of those Kenko polarising filters from Robert White and this works well with the hotshoe finder. Fiddly when wanting to do some shots with/others without, but effective. Warning, the hotshoe finder fits tightly and you need to be careful to remove without shearing it off!

 

Sorry don't have a with/without Pola shot to post. Since the IR cut filters arrived from Leica, it hasn't really been bright enough in my part of the UK to try the polariser with the IR cut in place.

[Photoskeptic]

Apologies for the double post. Really not sure how that happened. Robert, excellent work. Thank you.

And another thank you for the heads up on the Kenko hot shoe mount.

[farnz]

Rob,

 

I agree with your description of the differences between your two images but I also notice that the polarised image has lost some definition in the clouds. Do you think that this is a polarisation effect or pp?

 

Pete.

[robsteve]

Rob,

 

I agree with your description of the differences between your two images but I also notice that the polarised image has lost some definition in the clouds. Do you think that this is a polarisation effect or pp?

 

Pete.

 

The polarization affects the clouds too, so they will change as the polarizer is turned or used.

 

The bottom image was with the polarizer and to my eye it looks to have more details.

[Photoskeptic]

Rob, just my two cents, the upper image has much more detail in the darker water. But the trees are better in the lower one. I'm curious if this could be due to rotating the polarizer (I assume it's circular). Not a criticism, just a query.

[robsteve]

Rob, just my two cents, the upper image has much more detail in the darker water. But the trees are better in the lower one. I'm curious if this could be due to rotating the polarizer (I assume it's circular). Not a criticism, just a query.

 

When you polarize the water you loose some of the reflected highlights, which give the detail. So instead of seeing reflections of the sky, you can see more into the water.

[Artichoke]

You cannot use a polarizer without an IR cut filter. IR contamination is about double when you use a polarizer, so you have to stack filters.

A polarizer cuts visible light by about half, but is transparant to (non-polarized!) IR light.

I have used a polarizer without an ir/cut & got very pleasing results

here is an example using the CV 40 Nokton with a BW polarizer set to high

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

the polarizer reduces light by about 1 to 2 stops depending upon how it is set ...the greatest disadvantage with the M8 & a polarizer is that you cannot preview the effect unless using the Leica polarizer for the M, which is very expenisve & seems klutzy, though I have never used one

I have a larger version of this sample here classics Photo Gallery by Artichoke Vinagrette at pbase.com along with shooting information

jaapv is correct that stacking a polarizer with an ir/cut will give the most pleasing results, particularly if there is foliage or synthetic blacks in the shot, but I do not see much difference using a polarizer with the intensity of the ir effect, having done this a good deal before I got my ir/cut filters

[Baxter]

The polariser doesn't affect the subject to brightness ratio. This is the range of exposure from the highlight usually in cloud, to deepest shadow. It does affect the relative tones depending on where the polarised light is situated in the scene.

 

The use of the polariser requires compensation as Artichoke correctly says by 1-2 stops, thus if the polariser is having an effect by darkening a lot of the scene, the average metering compensates and thus the highlights will be clipped if they are moved beyond the range of the sensor. Use of Neutral Density grads can help here, but again depending on the lighting in the scene may darken the rest of the sky too much in relation to the rest of the image. If pola used to control reflections, then the specular highlights and possibly more will clip.

 

Exposure frequently requires compromise and I cannot write all possibilities here - many good books exist on the subject.

 

For my Large Format pictures, I find myself using my Polariser less and less and often, when I do, it is usually with an ND grad (or two) to additionally control contrast. Despite the advantages these ND grads offer, there are some scenes I cannot shoot with transparency film, so switch to colour neg with a greater range.

 

Filter holders, ND grads and spot meters aren't really what the Leica is about! Thus the Polariser can work well - if you accept some compromises/limitations...........

 

 

- or chimp and then compensate!

[lars_bergquist]

Rob,

 

I agree with your description of the differences between your two images but I also notice that the polarised image has lost some definition in the clouds. Do you think that this is a polarisation effect or pp?

 

Pete.

 

My question is, did you set the exposure by the same criteria (single dot showing) in both pictures? There is a risk that when using a pola filter we increase exposure more than the neutral density value of the filter, e.g. we increase the brightness of the sky after darkening it! Find out the ND factor (using a guaranteedly non-polarising white or grey surface of course) and simply increase the non-polarised exposure by that factor when you make the polarised picture. Just like before TTL measuring.

 

Be grateful for the crop factor, for once – it means that we can stack filters without fear of vignetting!

 

The old man from the Age of Kodachrome

[jaapv]

I have used a polarizer without an ir/cut & got very pleasing results

here is an example using the CV 40 Nokton with a BW polarizer set to high

 

[ATTACH]43239[/ATTACH]

 

the polarizer reduces light by about 1 to 2 stops depending upon how it is set ...the greatest disadvantage with the M8 & a polarizer is that you cannot preview the effect unless using the Leica polarizer for the M, which is very expenisve & seems klutzy, though I have never used one

I have a larger version of this sample here classics Photo Gallery by Artichoke Vinagrette at pbase.com along with shooting information

jaapv is correct that stacking a polarizer with an ir/cut will give the most pleasing results, particularly if there is foliage or synthetic blacks in the shot, but I do not see much difference using a polarizer with the intensity of the ir effect, having done this a good deal before I got my ir/cut filters

A very nice shot, but probably not too much IR about. You are right of course, it makes no sense to use stacked filters in situations where IR cut is not needed, but one must be aware of the problem and use the IR filter sooner when using polarizers.

[robsteve]

My question is, did you set the exposure by the same criteria (single dot showing) in both pictures?

 

 

Lars:

 

My first attempt was using auto and with the polarizer the clouds clipped. I then just set the camera on manual, got a decent exposure without the Polarizer. When I swung the polarizer in front of the lens, I decreased the shutter speed by two stops.

 

When I shot slide film, I would use the filter factor function of the Gossen incident meter to correct for filter factors. Using the filter factor function of the meter, most of my polarizers had a filter factor of 1.8 or 1.9.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Bill W]

I have used the Leica M polarizer on my M8 with success from my perspective. I bought the M polarizer many years ago. Most of my shots are out doors so there is not as much of a concern with IR and the need for the UV/IR filter.

[Philinflash]

...

 

A b+W UV-IR filter was fitted to the lens as well, with the polarizer retaing ring screwed into this filter.

 

I shot on manual exposure and when processed in lightroom, set the colour balance on both files to 5900, +9.

 

....

 

What mode were you shooting, DNG or JPEG?

 

Obviously, there was not much time elapsed between your two shots. You must work quickly to orient the polarity of the filter, mount it, and shoot. The difference in time could have accounted for the differences spotted in the appearance of the water.