• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / The Last Word / Cross-polarization demo

Cross-polarization demo

May 12, 2018 JimK 11 Comments

I’ve been using cross-polarization in some of my studio work lately, and some have asked me about the benefits of this approach. In order to demonstrate them, I’ve created my first animated GIF.

This is an a7III shot, using the CV 65/2 Apo-Lanthar and cross-polarized light. I set up a Godox 600 TL Pro strobe with a 16-inch beauty dish attached, and the grid that came with the dish in place. Before I snapped the grid on, I taped a piece of Rosco neutral polarizing gel to the inside. Then I put a 67-77 mm step up ring on the lens, and a linear (although this technique works with a circular one) polarizer on the ring. I set the strobe for a full 600 watt-second pop. I opened up the lens to f/8, and set the polarizer on the lens to the point where the specular highlights were almost, but not quite, gone. 600 ws not being quite enough, I cranked up the ISO a bit, which was probably unnecessary. I didn’t go all the way to 640 because I didn’t want blown highlights, but it turns out that I could have gone that far easily.

Then I turned the polarizer on the camera so that it was aligned with the polarized light, and turned down the power setting on the strobe to compensate. I processed both images identically in Lightroom.

For my subject, I chose a pomegranate branch with some buds. Those of you who know the trees will remember that both the leaves and the buds are shiny as all get out.

I think you can see the benefits of the cross-polarization. The shiny leaves and buds are not sullied by the specular highlights that appear in the image with the polarization aligned.

One of the downsides of cross-polarization is that it wastes a lot of light. If I had used ISO 100, I’d have needed a 2400 watt-second strobe or would have had to use four pops.

The Last Word

← How I spend my time Debunking false claims about Sony a7III PDAF striping →

Comments

  1. Matt Anderson says

    May 12, 2018 at 12:44 pm

    Back in the day, I would use cross polarization when doing high end fine art copy work.
    Using a dozen high power Lowell tungsten lights, a better light scan back on a Toyota 4×5, art ( oil painting originals, sometimes VERY large ) tacked up on a wall.

    It would take me several hours to get the lighting perfectly even and flush on the wall ( within a tenth of a stop ). Another hour or two to get the view camera perfectly perpendicular to the wall. I did create a luminescence capture of a bare wall at high bit depth. Inversing this capture, full desaturate, and a levels move with a small amount of noise ( .58* Gaussian monochromatic ) to create a correction mask for “hot spots”.

    Depending on the sheen, the amount of polarization would very. The exposure was usually 1/10 of a second per line. A full res capture could take 45 min or more.

    The quality of a properly setup betterlight capture is in my opinion still the good standard, when possible.

    *Neat fact: in photoshop, fill a layer with 50% gray. Zoom in to 200-400%, check out the difference between .58 mono gauss noise and .59. Quite a big diff.

    Reply
  2. Craig says

    May 13, 2018 at 5:26 am

    I too use cross polarization for fine art duplication. Capture One’s Lens Cast Correction tool is great for equalizing the exposure across the frame by simply capturing a frame of the white background and using that frame for LCC. The biggest challenge I’ve found is that cross polarizing creates color challenges making it much more difficult to get exact color matches. I don’t know the science behind it but even with a nearly perfect color and tone match to a Color Checker for reference paint colors can look different under cross polarized light.

    Reply
    • JimK says

      May 13, 2018 at 7:02 am

      I don’t know the science behind it but even with a nearly perfect color and tone match to a Color Checker for reference paint colors can look different under cross polarized light.

      I’ve noticed that, too. I don’t understand it, either. Is is possible that diffuse specular reflections are dulling the Color Checker patches when they are sampled under unpolarized light? In that case, calibration would have to take place under polarized light.

      It’s also possible that some paint affects the polarization in unpredictable ways, much like some plastic does.

      Reply
  3. CarVac says

    May 13, 2018 at 6:57 am

    I’ve done cross polarization with a circular polarizer on the camera side.

    You don’t need both polarizers to be linear, only the light source side.

    Reply
    • Eli Moss says

      May 13, 2018 at 9:01 am

      I took electromagnetics twenty years ago, so I could be missing something, but I also thought this would work with a CPL on the lens, since a CPL (nominally speaking) filters with a linear polarizer and then re-circularizes the wave with a wave plate.

      Reply
      • Iliah Borg says

        May 13, 2018 at 9:39 am

        Yes, it does work with CPL on the lens. Using a CPL may lead to less colour shifts (may depend on sensor, I checked only a few ones). However I also, like Jim, use linear pol. on both light source (if the light source is a flash, Lee glass linear polarizer does a better job for me than Rosco gels) and lens because it seems to be more effective and easier to profile – the colour target needs to be measured with a pol. filter on the spectrometer, and readily available filters are linear. I never got profiles I like for CPLs if using traditional (non-spectral) profiling methods.

        Reply
  4. JimK says

    May 13, 2018 at 9:41 am

    Thanks, everyone, for the correction on the circular polarizer. I’ll change the text.

    Reply
  5. Simeon Kolev says

    June 14, 2018 at 2:09 am

    I am using this to shoot paintings. One CPL on the flash YN560IV and one on the lens. It completely removes the reflections from the canvas. I really want to try portraits but it is almost impossible to find bigger sheets of polarized film in Europe at least not at a reasonable price.

    Reply
    • Al Popil says

      July 31, 2018 at 11:40 am

      Hi, Simeon. Bought these on Amazon.ca, should be available in Europe as well. $20.50 CDN, includes shipping. I cut one sheet for three Canon 580 EX II’s and one sheet for a Godox AD600. Using mainly for cross polarization lighting of insects.
      Link to seller: https://www.amazon.ca/Polarization-Polarizer-Educational-Polarized-Non-Adhesive/dp/B0787VMR6D/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1533062082&sr=8-1&keywords=90%C2%B0+linear+polarizing+film&dpID=41cgBVGLTfL&preST=_SX342_QL70_&dpSrc=srch

      Reply
  6. Al Popil says

    July 31, 2018 at 11:45 am

    Hi, Simeon. Bought these on Amazon.ca, should be available in Europe as well. $20.50 CDN, includes shipping. I cut one sheet for three Canon 580 EX II’s and one sheet for a Godox AD600. Using mainly for cross polarization lighting of insects.
    Link to seller: https://www.amazon.ca/Polarization-Polarizer-Educational-Polarized-Non-Adhesive/dp/B0787VMR6D/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1533062082&sr=8-1&keywords=90%C2%B0+linear+polarizing+film&dpID=41cgBVGLTfL&preST=_SX342_QL70_&dpSrc=srch

    Reply
  7. Photogyric says

    March 28, 2025 at 6:59 am

    Instead of cutting sheets of polarizing gels I’d recommend a bit better factory-like fit using magnetic polarizers and Godox AD100Pro flash heads, see my writeup here: https://photogyric.com/blogs/posts/cross-polarization-how-to-photograph-artwork-without-glare

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?
  • bob lozano on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.