A polarizer is not always needed to eliminate glare: I was out with my D500 and AF Micro Nikkor 105mm 2.8 D photographing leaves in the water with my hip boots on and I removed my...

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I was out with my D500 and AF Micro Nikkor 105mm 2.8 D photographing leaves in the water with my hip boots on and I removed my polarizer filter and noticed if I changed my angle slightly I was getting a glare hue around the leaf that helped define it. IMHO
Not everyone will agree, but it was a fun exercise in reflectance experimentation. In the future I may take images like this one with, and without a polarizer filter to judge the difference. 1/320 sec. f5.6 ISO 800

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Yup, sometimes glare good.
Depends on whey you like.

nospambob Loc: Edmond, Oklahoma

I LIKE it ...!!!

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

Glare does not always need to be eliminated.

mflowe Loc: Port Deposit, MD

nospambob wrote:

I LIKE it ...!!!

It's a nice shot, but hope you don't mind a little constructive criticism.

I know dof is a totally subjective matter, but I think the leaf could use a little more sharpness toward the top. And I feel the bottom of the leaf is a tad too close to the bottom of the frame. JMHO
Also, I don't understand the title. You say a polarizer is not always needed to remove glare, but your photo proves the opposite. When you removed the polarizer you got glare. which I agree in this instance is a great effect.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Glare is different from highlights…

A polarizer would work if you were trying to see what is behind the light (surface here).

By changing the orientation of your camera you change the angle of reflection, that is a given. What is not given is that what hides behind in the new setting stays hidden… And will be revealed ONLY by a CPF.

I might not be clear in my 'explanation'…

User ID

mflowe wrote:

It's a nice shot, but hope you don't mind a little... (show quote)

The title is poorly constructed, but does say what he meant in an assbackwards messy form ... that it’s not universally necessary to deploy your polarizer for knee jerk glare removal, cuz sometimes glare is best retained.

All uhh titles sukk. If you can’t somehow accommodate that then you know what to do. This one is better than most ... cuz it actually contains relevant search terms.

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

billnikon wrote:

I was out with my D500 and AF Micro Nikkor 105mm 2.8 D photographing leaves in the water with my hip boots on and I removed my polarizer filter and noticed if I changed my angle slightly I was getting a glare hue around the leaf that helped define it. IMHO
Not everyone will agree, but it was a fun exercise in reflectance experimentation. In the future I may take images like this one with, and without a polarizer filter to judge the difference. 1/320 sec. f5.6 ISO 800

I love it 🍁🍁🍁🍁🍁

mflowe Loc: Port Deposit, MD

User ID wrote:

The title is poorly constructed, but does say what he meant in an assbackwards messy form ... that it’s not universally necessary to deploy your polarizer for knee jerk glare removal, cuz sometimes glare is best retained.

All uhh titles sukk. If you can’t somehow accommodate that then you know what to do. This one is better than most ... cuz it actually contains relevant search terms.

DizMcK Loc: Illinois

billnikon wrote:

I was out with my D500 and AF Micro Nikkor 105mm 2.8 D photographing leaves in the water with my hip boots on and I removed my polarizer filter and noticed if I changed my angle slightly I was getting a glare hue around the leaf that helped define it. IMHO
Not everyone will agree, but it was a fun exercise in reflectance experimentation. In the future I may take images like this one with, and without a polarizer filter to judge the difference. 1/320 sec. f5.6 ISO 800

I would have turned the leaf over for some color.

User ID

DizMcK wrote:

I would have turned the leaf over for some color.

ROTFLMFAO !

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

I would have gone somewhere else and found something interesting to photograph.

User ID

Retired CPO wrote:

I would have gone somewhere else and found something interesting to photograph.

What if the leaf were already the OP’s something else ?

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

DizMcK wrote:

I would have turned the leaf over for some color.

Colorful may not have been appropriate for the mood the photographer wanted. Images don't need to be popping with intense colors all the time. Sometimes subdued colors can be quite expressive.

CaptainPhoto

mflowe wrote:

It's a nice shot, but hope you don't mind a little... (show quote)

I like to look at other peoples work and see what they do and learn from them. And I like to hear what other people have to say also. In this case I think I am in agreement in you recommendations. JMHO