Polarizing Gels

Hi Lon, thanks for chiming in. I'm thinking about shooting a light through one of my CPLs and see if I can mitigate that glare with a CPL on camera. I'm not inclined to spend a minimum of 50 bucks to test it, but then again, inquiring minds can be driven to extremes.

windpig wrote in post #16131840
Hi Lon, thanks for chiming in. I'm thinking about shooting a light through one of my CPLs and see if I can mitigate that glare with a CPL on camera. I'm not inclined to spend a minimum of 50 bucks to test it, but then again, inquiring minds can be driven to extremes.

Sheet linear polarizer matteral suitable for an electronic flash is not very expensive. A quick web search netted this link from Edmund Scientific.

http://www.edmundoptic​s.com …izing-laminated-film/1912

There may be more inexpensive sources.

And there are inexpensive linear polarizers suitable for cameras all over ebay. See:

http://www.ebay.com …c=linera+polari​zer&_rdc=1

Enjoy! Lon

Thanks again.

http://www.ebay.com …g+film&_sacat=0​&_from=R40

Cross-polarization will eliminate any reflection from the original light source. These sheets also have a front and back orientation. If you get it right, there are some VERY interesting effects.

Thanks for that Cololeo

How close to 90 degrees do have to be to get most of the effect?

cololeo wrote in post #16136614
Cross-polarization will eliminate any reflection from the original light source. These sheets also have a front and back orientation. If you get it right, there are some VERY interesting effects.

I am interested now hehe

what kind of effect?

See my post on the first page. The camera is pointed directly into the light. 90 degrees is the optimal for getting rid of the primary reflections.

If you take one of the sheets and turn it backwards, the effect is gone. I have all of mine marked top and bottom. I have one mounted on an 8x10 frame for convenience. It makes it easy to hang on a light source. Couple of screws and rubber bands.

It is actually possible to light a subject with absolutely no reflections from the original light source. I don't have any handy but I'll put a few together. Give me a week as we are heading out on a camping trip.

Sorry for being late to the party, Ralph. I've used polirizing filters on lights & cemera and it works really well....on art work. But you're not going to like using them for portraits to get rid of eye glasses glare. Why? Because they get rid of speculate highlights as well, as you fear!!! And the image will look very unnatural.

Your best bet for getting rid of eye glasses glare is to position the subject's head to minimize or eliminate glare.

PacAce wrote in post #16139406
Sorry for being late to the party, Ralph. I've used polirizing filters on lights & cemera and it works really well....on art work. But you're not going to like using them for portraits to get rid of eye glasses glare. Why? Because they get rid of speculate highlights as well, as you fear!!! And the image will look very unnatural.

Your best bet for getting rid of eye glasses glare is to position the subject's head to minimize or eliminate glare.

˄ ˄ Seconded ˄ ˄.
I did hear, about 1000 years ago, that a big US portrait chain used to go so far as to stock a range of lens-less frames to get round this. (The name totally eludes me now, of course but J. Paul Gittings keeps popping into my head. This could be way off the mark as it was decades ago and my remaining brain cell ain't what is used to be now it's all on it's lonesome.)
I've also read of people popping the lenses out of the frame to get round the problem - OK if you're:-

1. Brave enough!
   
2. Stupid enough!!
   
3. Insured!!!
   

cololeo wrote in post #16139167
See my post on the first page. The camera is pointed directly into the light. 90 degrees is the optimal for getting rid of the primary reflections.

If you take one of the sheets and turn it backwards, the effect is gone. I have all of mine marked top and bottom. I have one mounted on an 8x10 frame for convenience. It makes it easy to hang on a light source. Couple of screws and rubber bands.

It is actually possible to light a subject with absolutely no reflections from the original light source. I don't have any handy but I'll put a few together. Give me a week as we are heading out on a camping trip.

Thanks for the input and effort!

PacAce wrote in post #16139406
Sorry for being late to the party, Ralph. I've used polirizing filters on lights & cemera and it works really well....on art work. But you're not going to like using them for portraits to get rid of eye glasses glare. Why? Because they get rid of speculate highlights as well, as you fear!!! And the image will look very unnatural.

Your best bet for getting rid of eye glasses glare is to position the subject's head to minimize or eliminate glare.

Hi Leo
I pretty much ruled out the idea for using the polarizing with the main, but thought maybe it could work with the fill because the fill shouldn't have speculars anyway. Problem is the light needs to be to far off axis, making the fill to directional.

Whortleberry wrote in post #16139450
It's certainly possible to avoid reflections by careful light positioning, but it kinda kills any spontaneity in the session. One thing which I've done in the past is to raise the earpiece of the frames about ¼ inch off the top of the ear, effectively tilting the spectacles down just enough to minimise reflections. Still totally dependant on the subject's head movements though.

Thanks for your thoughts.
I think any image/session/pose/com​position is going to be a compromise. I've been able to come up with no glass glare light scenarios with regard to key light. The closer to on axis, the smaller the modifier needs to be to allow the light to be low enough for less drama.

The problem with the fill, if needed, is that a small fill source can be kept low, therefore minimizing the neck shadow, but it also casts sharper shadows from the rim and arms of the glasses.

I've come up with a solution that should work for me. I use fill over camera that is only large enough to keep the frame shadow knocked down and high enough to keep the glare off the glasses.

The last thing depends on whether I want to shoot a low, medium or high key image. Medium to high key may want the neck shadow filled, for that I have the subject a wear light, neutral colored top.

I've found that with the lighting I've come up with, the glass glare isn't an issue as long as the subject keeps the nose and chin below a certain point. If the they lift up higher, you get an up the nose shot anyway. We'll see how this works in the field.

Anyways, you guys are pro's, I'm just a guy enjoying trying to solve lighting problems. Thank God I have my trusty Mannequin, Ann Margret, to help

The first image has no fill. The second two have a gridded 27" Eli SB over camera. I raised the fill source after the second image was taken.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Too much fill on your shirt! It's blown out.

It's art you moron. Go shove some truck tires around or something........

Sheldon N wrote in post #16139800
Too much fill on your shirt! It's blown out.

While certainly bright - usually a nice way to render a white shirt - I can measure some tone on every area of the shirt so it's hardly "blown out". Perhaps a monitor in need of recalibration??

Windpig: (Well, we can hardly call you either "Wind" or "Pig", can we? :lol I do know the intent of the series, but as an image I vastly prefer the first one as more in keeping with the subject. Yes, I know ........ willing victim to experiment on and all that.

NICELY HANDLED bifocals - they can be a real swine sometimes although these don't look particularly strong. Doesn't detract from the skillful handling though. Nice one, sir.

Whortleberry wrote in post #16140619
While certainly bright - usually a nice way to render a white shirt - I can measure some tone on every area of the shirt so it's hardly "blown out". Perhaps a monitor in need of recalibration??

I think it was a joke based on the fact that he switched from a black t-shirt in the previous photos.