Talk:Polarizing filter (photography)

== Merging this present “Polarizing filter” article with the Polarizer page ==

I have made a study of the relevant Wikipedia pages related to this issue and have found that for many people the term Polarizing filter is synonymous with term Polarizer. As a result there is certain amount of confusion taking place. I feel a search for Polarizing filter should lead to the Polarizer page, and this present Polarizer filter page should be renamed Polarizing filter (Photography) I don’t feel that this present Polarizing filter page should be merged with the Polarizer page given that it is a specialized use of a polarizer and the article is quite lengthy. I would suggest a section on this Polarizer page which gives a quick introduction to their use in photography but then directs people to this Polarizing filter (Photography) article for more details.

Presently about 20 pages link to this page and about 3 of the links, given their context, should actually be directed to the Polarizer article. (This miss-linking is a result of the present confusion). I would be happy to take care of the re-linking.
After taking care of the articles that link to Polarizing filter I would then #redirect Polarizing filter to the Polarizer page.

For me this seems like a very viable solution to the present confusion.

My Second comment

This issue is of concern to me because I am about to put forth an extensive Circular polarizers section for the Polarizer article and a Photographic polarizer is a circular polarizer. I believe the fix I’m proposing is not problematic and fair to all. Again when people use the term Polarizing filter they often mean a general polarizer and not a circular polarizer being used for a specific purpose. It would be best if they could just quickly highlight the words “polarizing filter” and create an internal link. Those who mean a Photographic polarizer will be able to quickly recognize the link they want. Unless there are objections, I will go ahead with it after I post my Circular polarizers section.
Please comment.

Dave 2346 (talk) 03:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Re-jigging of introductory sentence

Because there are a lot of people on the web using the term polarizing filter when they could just as well have used the term circular polarizer. I worked in a sentence that included a link to Wikipedia’s circular polarizer article. I also included, as briefly as possible, what the modern polarizing filter is. This seemed appropriate given the title of the article. The paragraph existing at the end of the article makes the distinction between the simple linear polarizer and the polarizing filter used with post 1970’s cameras.

I have no connection to the private link I added in the See Also section. (It’s the first hit with Google) It is only because the Wikipedia article is short that I hunted down a page that was non commercial and looked informative.
Dave3 (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

First picture seems to be not accurate

The displayed effect in the first picture seems to be not only caused by the polarizing filter, but also due to a change in the colour temperature. See the especially the white clouds and the street. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.180.110 (talk) 08:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the brightness of the clouds doesn't change much upon rotation of the polarizer, but the sky is dimmer. Indeed, its brightness is reduced unequally for different colors, but this effect is intrinsic to the film polarizers. Materialscientist (talk) 08:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Could be that the polarizer is also absorbing UV and/or IR light ! Anyway, it could be Auto White Balance reacting to less blue from the sky ? Still, the effect is the effect ...

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Two polarisers in series

If I put 2 identical circular polarisers in front of one another, the effect is a variable-clour filter. The attenuation is moderate, but rotating the 2nd filter has the effect of varying the colour. This is because the 1/4-wave plate can only work perfectly for green light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.171.29 (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Polarizing filter (photography)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ankit Maity (talk · contribs) 15:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • For topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence.
   • "The" (in 1st sentence) → "a" and add "actually" (optional) before the "a" in the same sentence.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Sources needed in lead section. Sources needed in the "Usage" section for 3 paragraphs.
   • Issue at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polarizer/Lengthy_quotes#Handbook_of_Optics_Second_Edition_vol2_22.19.2C_Bass_M
   • Book references need the author, publishing date and page number. (1 missing publishing date and page number)
   • Web references need the author, publisher, publishing date and access date. ( 1 missing everything, the other is missing the publisher's name)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • Many major aspects such as the ones related to "Physics" have been missed.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • Some captions missing.
   • Captions could have better wording.
   • An image caption should only end with a full-stop if it forms a complete sentence.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Other Languages

There seems to be a problem with linking this article with similar articles in other languages. I read an article about polarizing filters in CZECH and was surprised there is no link for english. I used google to find this article but since I am a wikipedia noob I can't link those articles together (there is also Greek, Danish, Arab and others). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.113.29.6 (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)