Why Do I want a Polarizing Filter for Cars?

I'm a wedding photographer and three friends have asked me to shoot their cars together in a field: a red Mustang, a white Camaro, and a blue Challenger (the new versions, not the classics; nonetheless, it should be a cool picture).

I've read through a few threads here and picked up some basic concepts (early or late light, watch out for reflections, clouds are my friend, etc.)

I've seen CPL's metioned; only that sometimes someone used one and sometimes they didn't. I assume that a CPL removes reflections not just from windows but also from the car's body? Can someone help educate me on why I may/may not want to use a CPL?

Thanks.

This should give you an idea of what to expect using it on a car. It's a shame I didn't know about these before when I started shooting cars. It would've save me a lot of time trying to clean up reflections in the windows..

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …g_photography/6​104249553/

Thanks, Nismo, but does it just clean up reflections in the windows or the car body also? And how do I know whether or not I even want reflections on the body? Is it a matter of the nature of the surroundings and quality of the sky?

Polarizer does NOT remove reflections from metallic surfaces - BUT it is surprisingly good and will remove reflection from things you don't think about...

Like glare on tires, headlights, the dash, the road surface, and the surrounding area on plants/whatever your shooting against. Wayyyy worth it. I spent 220 on a B+W Kaesemann and its worth every penny.

Not tooting my own horn, but here's an example on how you can use it without removing ALL the reflection - notice the back window, the reflection is only halfway killed so I can maintain a body line through the window and separate the car from the back. You can dial it in to any degree you like - here it is mildly dialed in to give a gradient on the back window.

Thanks for that insight; that was going to be my next question, the abiltiy to "dial it in" the way I would for the sky. I already have one, a Hoya for ~$150, so not high end but it should get the job done.

Thanks.

To be honest, not really sure as that was my first and only test using it on a car because I haven't shot a car with it since I bought it. To answer your question though about reflections in the body, it's all a matter of personal taste. I think if it's not very distracting then you don't need to worry about it. The shot below had a ton of reflections in the windows and body that were a complete PITA to try and clean up in post and was very time consuming.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …g_photography/4​456085391/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …g_photography/5​338063348/

Thanks for the offer, but please, no trouble on my account. You've already been a great help. Thanks.

No problem. Might do the test out of personal curiosity and if/when I do, I'll be sure to post the results.

Peacefield wrote in post #13249798
And how do I know whether or not I even want reflections on the body? Is it a matter of the nature of the surroundings and quality of the sky?

To me, it's a matter of using the sky to put defining highlights on the body to show it's contour. And nothing works as well for that as using the sky & natural light. See the links in my Sig.

As for a CP, some people love them & use them a lot. There's nothing wrong with that. I carry one. I usually take a look through it & then put it back in the bag.

LiberationFrequency wrote in post #13249842
Like glare on tires, headlights, the dash, the road surface, and the surrounding area on plants/whatever your shooting against. Wayyyy worth it. I spent 220 on a B+W Kaesemann and its worth every penny.

For what it's worth, that CP was number one in this review...

http://www.lenstip.com​/index.php?art=115&roz​=8

LiberationFrequency wrote in post #13249842
Polarizer does NOT remove reflections from metallic surfaces - ........
......

really?....... Take a look at this pic. The dark black patches across the hood are where the polarizer was killing the reflection in the body. The trick here was minimizing that effect while still being able to see through the windshield. . .. . .

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/tltichy/6056281​134/

In the limited shooting I've done with a CPL and cars, I find I'm pretty much with Frank on this one.

Note the uneven, alternating lighter/darker patches across the rear here:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/snydremark/4859​519732/

Scatterbrained wrote in post #13252837
really?....... Take a look at this pic. The dark black patches across the hood are where the polarizer was killing the reflection in the body. The trick here was minimizing that effect while still being able to see through the windshield. . .

You do know that paint isn't metal right?

There are lots of factors to consider - paints that have pearls, flakes, metallics, or mattes, the polarizer will kill reflections off of each of them differently because each of them have different reflection characteristics. If your using a foggy pearl as opposed to a highly opaque pearl, they will react differently.

Now, that doesn't mean that the base coat itself will not reflect polarized light either, high metallic paints are for the most part straight reflections and don't polarize the light as much. Go shoot a matte car and notice how much light is killed, then go shoot a car with a heavy metallic - significant difference. But a paint surface isn't actually a metallic surface. A polished metal surface doesn't really polarize light at all.

Scatterbrained wrote in post #13252837
really?....... Take a look at this pic. The dark black patches across the hood are where the polarizer was killing the reflection in the body. The trick here was minimizing that effect while still being able to see through the windshield. . .. . .

Wouldn't the paint on the body make it a non-metallic surface?

Oops! LiberationFrequency beat me to it and did a better job!

I personally don't like using a CPL on cars... It gives headlights and windows with tint a rainbow/bubble look.