larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Ben-- because the CPL is adjusting the polarization of incoming light, it needs to be the first filter encountered by that light. So it should go on the front, before that has been modified by any other filter.

I don't recall what camera you are shooting, but most have a Fluorescent option among the White Balance choices. That would be a better option than adding a fluorescent correction filter, which will cost you 1.5-2 stops of exposure on top of the 2 stops or so that you are going to be giving up with the CPL. I've been having really good success with that setting when shooting under fluorescents, which require both yellow/blue and magenta/green adjustments to fix properly after the fact.

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

What software do you use for editing. As long as you shoot RAW, a quick white balance on your image can usually fix your colors. And with most SW, it is incredibly easy. And doing it in RAW enables full white balance adjustmènts. Shooting JPEG sort of bakes in the white balance making it more difficult to adjust.

In Lightroom, in the white balance section, there is an eyedropper you select and then locate something white in the image and click on it. A cloud will do. Just make sure what you click on is not in saturation white as it won't allow you to use that point.

If you don't get the look you want, there should be temperture slider (blue on left side, yellow to the right). You can try nudging a tiny amount to the right to make the image warmer.

Good luck

TonyP Loc: New Zealand

Just my two pennyworth. Does your camera have settings for different light source? eg, cloudy, indoor, shade etc.
If so take a pic using maybe the cloudy setting, sunny etc. One of them may achieve a better result than adding another filter.
The CPL is a good idea to get a distinct separation between the clouds and a blue sky, but my advice would be to not overdo it. Take several shots moving the filter balance each time. The CPL is the only filter I own and even post processing cant truly emulate the effect you get using a CPL filter.
Enjoy the challenge you have set yourself.

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

The answer to your question is no, it does not matter what order you put them in. I like to have the CPL filter on last because as I turn the filter I am only turning the CPL filter and for me to have it on last.
As far as CHG_CANON response goes, since he has never stacked and used these particular filters in combination, he does not understand that by using these filters in combination it really does wonders to fall colors that you just cannot quite duplicate in post.
In fact, this fall and every fall I use a Enhancing, warming, and CPL filter to enhance my images in the fall. My favorite warming filter is my old Nikon A2 filter which was designed to alter color film, but I like the way it alters colors in the fall.
So, fire away. I always recommend folks try things themselves rather than listening to some talking heads here who, although they have never stacked these particular filters in this combination before, like CHG_CANON, they like to offer their OPINION, not based on fact or personal experience, but rather on what they THINK.
Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.
PS. I will also use post to enhance my shots taken with stacked filters. I have found through experience and not talking that I personally like the results I get. Most of the time I only stack a enhancing filter and a warming filter, other times I stack a warming filter and a CPL filter, depends on the scene. Others may not like them, but I do. Below are some examples of what my stacked filters got me this fall.

Jack 13088 Loc: Central NY

There are no dumb questions but there are many dumb answers. Most dumb answers will appear here I fear. Here is mine.

A CPL is your best chance for eliminating distracting reflections but, of course, it needs to carefully adjusted with rotation for each change of perspective. (Last word chosen by “AI” in spelling checker! Maybe we should let it reply?) Reflection is an optical phenomenon (It did it again.) and cannot be corrected in PP. You need to eliminate it before it hits the sensor (or film). It does block one half or one stop of the light. However, that is before the sensor sees it so if you are using the camera to measure exposure you need to do nothing. I am guessing you have adequate light in this situation.

As for the white balance that is easily accomplished in post. I clam color balance is the poster child for PP especially with raw (I hope I am not throwing a match here,) which allows subtitle adjustment. I wouldn’t worry about calibrated monitors unless you have full control over the ultimate viewing. (Did I light the fuse?)

Afterthought, If the reflections you anticipate come from multiple weird lighting and you are going with post for color balance you might be well advised to sneak a gray card (or a 80% gray cap like mine in my avatar) into a shot for reference. This can be a difficult situation.

fetzler Loc: North West PA

Color balancing is is easily done in camera or in post processing on a digital camera so there is no need for an FL filter. If there are reflections from the subject then a polarizing filter may help. The filter may also darken the sky if the sun is in the right position.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Ben, you might want to discount all this attacking language, given the comments that accompany some of these images elsewhere: Technical notes, Sony a1, Sony 24-105mm. Tiffen Enhancing filter, Agfaphoto warming filter. The sky was selected in Photoshop, placed in RAW and using the Dehaze filter I brought out the sky. Certainly, it would be hard to say where the filter usage ends and the RAW (computer) processing begins.

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-790451-1.html#14246298

Canisdirus

The effect you are looking for a literally a single click in LR.

Filters are very redundant these days.

Jack 13088 Loc: Central NY

This arrived while composing in very loquacious response so you might want to ignore my brilliant response.

williejoha

Ben, I totally agree with Paul. The days of using filters other than CPL are pretty much over. Even with limited skill in PP you should be ok. JMTC
WJH

bdk Loc: Sanibel Fl.

cpl on the outside. but im sure if I go back and read the replies everyone told you that. Then there were a few that said its a waste of money. Then a few that said the people that think its a waste dont know what they are talking about. and now my two cents. I find FL filters work best with longer exposures and dont seem to help much with shorter exposures, then photoshop is our friend.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Back in the film days I used a good number of filters, sometimes. Black & White film, contrast filters; for Color film usually none but I did have some filters for correcting from the wrong color temperature. Today with digital I have found that filters for me serve no purpose and even create bigger problems, including PL, CPL & ND. I essentially only use 0(UV), 1A, 1B, 2A, just to protect my lens fronts. And even that when shooting in doors I may take the protective filter off. I do all my Color Correction / White Balance Correction with ACR & Photoshop from my RAW files.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

If shooting in RAW, the WB is not baked into the file. You'll get an 'as shot' setting most all digital editors will pick up. But, that's fully replaceable with any Kelvin temp and green-red tint override. Really, with RAW, nothing about the WB needs to be controlled, just use the camera's AWB.

Verticalviking Loc: Oahu, Hawaii

Beautiful!!

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Tint is green<>magenta.