The new image submission workflow gives us a nice template for recording details of how a photo was taken in the field. One of the prompts is to list any filters used. While I’ve often noted filters in the past, I think this new info box highlights it more. So @Bill_Fach has observed with some of my recent photos and while it isn’t anything new, I thought I’d put up an example of just how much of a difference a polarizer makes.
First without -
And with -
Both are single images, not stacks, and were taken within a minute or so of each other. I’ve also kept the processing and cropping as close as I could (sync and previous gave me an error every time I tried it so I gave up). Both are at ISO 640 and f/9, but the non-polarized is 1/40 sec and the polarized 1/25. That’s it - not much of a difference in settings, and the shutter speed is easily accommodated with this ISO. I could have pushed it higher if it was handheld, but being on a tripod made it unimportant given that the insects weren’t moving much or quickly.
I was so excited to get close to these two White-faced Meadowhawks in their mating wheel that I forgot to turn the polarizer at first. Then I remembered and what a difference it makes. These guys were backlit in nearly direct sunlight, something I don’t cherish, but will take for a moment like this. I overexposed by just 1/3 of a stop, but knew that my camera could hang onto shadow detail so it wasn’t necessary to push it more. As a result, I could process the polarized photo to seem as if it was a more overcast scene than it was, but the unpolarized shot still has the look of undiffused light.
Moreover look at how distracting the background is at the same f-stop. And there is a lot of glare and reflection on the eyes and the abdomens of the dragonflies as well as the tree 's needles. Oh sure, I could mask the heck out of things in an effort to try to minimize that effect, but in my experience no processing tool or technique can replace a polarizing filter, not even the dehaze slider does a really good job although it can help.
I purchased both of my macro lenses used and immediately got polarizers for each of them. They make a huge difference to the quality of my work and being able to capture those details macro photos really need. These days with cameras performing so well at higher ISO speeds, the slight light sacrifice is even easier to deal with. Oh and many modern polarizing filters do the job with less light blocking than older filters from say 20 years ago.
Here is my current collection -
From top left - B+W F-pro circa 2013, Tiffen c. 2009, B+W F-pro c. 2020, B+W F-pro c. 2025
As you can see, the F-pro line from B+W has changed its color profile for a more neutral cast and I believe the newer filters are brighter as well. The Tiffen is the darkest and looks to have a different (purple??) color cast as well, something easily corrected in post, although I can’t say I was ever bothered by it and still use it on my 100-400mm as it has the same filter size as my old Olympus Zuiko D 12-60mm. It doesn’t have a scratch on it, that’s just a window reflection.
In conclusion, if you don’t have or don’t use a polarizing filter for macro, why not give it a try and see if it gives you the results you’re looking for.
With the example photo above, I think I had it turned to maximum, but sometimes I back off if the result is too flat. Sometimes a little shine is a more natural look and some adjustment to the filter will bring it out. Mostly I’m looking at distracting elements and fine details of the subject - if one is too prevalent or the other too lost, I fiddle some more. If I’d been shooting something that wouldn’t fly away, I might have just used a fold-out diffuser to make shade and not used, or used fully on, a polarizer at all. Hope that helps.