Photographic 'Circular Polarisers': what are they?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sophiecentaur
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Circular polarizers are marketed as enhancements for landscape photography, similar to linear polarizers, by reducing reflections and haze. They consist of a linear polarizer followed by a quarter wave plate to create circular polarization, which is necessary for cameras with beam splitter autofocus systems. Some users express skepticism about the effectiveness of circular polarizers compared to traditional linear ones, especially regarding their achromatic properties and acceptance angles. The discussion highlights a preference for linear polarizers, particularly for cameras that do not require circular filters for autofocus. Ultimately, the perceived benefits of circular polarizers may not justify the additional cost for all photographers.
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
30,059
Reaction score
7,373
For years, I have been using a rotatable linear polariser to improve landscape photographs.
They work very well at reducing the reflections from water, reduce the effects of haze and generally sex-up pictures.
I thought the reason was quite simply that they reject on particular polarisation plane.
The latest thing, on Photo Forums, seems to be the 'Circular Polariser', which is claimed to have a similar effect and which is marketed by Hoya, for example. These filters are also rotatable.
I queried what they did and was told that they do the same enhancement of landscape pictures and that one could be used in conjunction with linear polariser to get cancellation (as with crossed polaroids) at a particular angle.

You can produce circularly polarised light fairly easily with a quarter wave plate system but I don't see how that can select / reject one particular polarisation - because the E vector rotates to every angular value.

Am I missing something here? Is it just an advertiser's way of renaming a Round, Rotatable Polariser as a Circular Polariser or is there some genuine effect here?
 
Science news on Phys.org
Circular polarizer filters are a linear polarizer (to select one polarization) followed by a quarter wave plate to generate circular polarization again.
The only reason to use a circular is if you have a camera where the autofocus uses a beam splitter to take off part of the light (which is pretty much all of them)
 
Thanks. That make sense.
So, yet again, I must dig deep in my pockets!
 
I'd be surprised if those circular polarizers work that well- the polarizer may be very achromatic, but the retarder is likely not. In addition, the acceptance angle of a retarder is usually small. At least, the achromatic retarders I have seen (Fresnel rhombs) are very large and have small aceptance angles.
 
I just checked. My pentax k10 focusses perfectly well with an old fashioned polariser. So I just don't care! So there, Mr. Hoya.
 
Thread 'A quartet of epi-illumination methods'
Well, it took almost 20 years (!!!), but I finally obtained a set of epi-phase microscope objectives (Zeiss). The principles of epi-phase contrast is nearly identical to transillumination phase contrast, but the phase ring is a 1/8 wave retarder rather than a 1/4 wave retarder (because with epi-illumination, the light passes through the ring twice). This method was popular only for a very short period of time before epi-DIC (differential interference contrast) became widely available. So...
I am currently undertaking a research internship where I am modelling the heating of silicon wafers with a 515 nm femtosecond laser. In order to increase the absorption of the laser into the oxide layer on top of the wafer it was suggested we use gold nanoparticles. I was tasked with modelling the optical properties of a 5nm gold nanoparticle, in particular the absorption cross section, using COMSOL Multiphysics. My model seems to be getting correct values for the absorption coefficient and...
Back
Top