READ THIS BEFORE YOU COMMENT. Watch the follow-up video here: th-cam.com/video/-rBdqlBbNDE/w-d-xo.html POLARIZING FILTERS: Polarizing filters cut glare and reflection, and you can't replicate that in Photoshop. That's true, and I demonstrate it in the video, and in the follow-up. Yes, you can create scenarios where a polarizing filter does something unique, like shooting through the surface of water. However, in many years of shooting, I've rarely found that removing the glare creates a "good" picture. Yes, I have experience with polarizing filters. Back in the film days, I used a polarizing filter almost constantly--anytime I was outdoors, and often indoors. I probably learned from the same old photography books that you learned from, and that was standard practice. In the film era, post-processing wasn't usually an option, and polarizing filters really did often produce better pictures. As I moved to digital, I continued to use the polarizing filter. Often, I would take a shot (say, of a waterfall) and then realize I forgot to put on my polarizing filter. So, I'd attach my polarizing filter (as my teachers had always taught me) and take a second shot. I took dozens, maybe more than 100, of these accidental before-and-after shots. Virtually every single time, the shot without the polarizing filter looked better. If anything, it just needed the blue sky luminance dropped a bit for a prettier sky (as I demonstrate in the video). There were times when the shot with the polarizing filter looked better--but those were never "good" shots, anyway. For example, if you want to take a picture of koi fish in a pond, using a polarizing filter will better show the fish. If you're going to be happy that you spend $70 on a polarizing filter to get a slightly clearer picture of a koi fish, than that's a good investment for you. But really, who cares about a shot like that. But, most of the time, the shots without the polarizing filter look better because they look more natural... our eyes see glare on water, leaves, and metal. That's how the world actually looks. The polarizing filter changes your photo in an unnatural and irreversible way. Commenters pointed out some legit uses for a polarizing filter. One commenter reproduces artwork in controlled conditions, and that's a great reason to use a polarizing filter. Another commenter photographs cars by stacking multiple photos of them, adjusting the polarizer effect up and down, and then carefully painting in different parts from each picture with the best amount of glare. Those are legit uses, and those people should use polarizing filters. But those aren't common uses. Before you say I'm wrong and that photographers should spend $80 on a good polarizing, carry it around, and attach and remove it as needed, take this challenge: the next time you reach for your polarizing filter, take a shot without it. Then, take your normal polarized shot. Do this for a few months... and look at the before-and-after results of those pictures you'd actually want to share or print. Now, ask yourself these questions: * How often is the polarized shot really better? * In a blind test, how often do other people think the polarized shot is better? * Can you easily recreate the positive effects of the polarizer in post-processing? * If you found shareable pictures made better with the polarizer, was it worth the cost and trouble of the filter? * Given the choice between spending $80 on polarizing filters (per lens filter diameter) and spending that money on lenses, lighting, education, or travel, would you still recommend a new photographer buy polarizing filters, carry those polarizers around everywhere, and attach and remove them when necessary? * "I'd rather put a polarizing filter on than spend HOURS doing post-processing!" Dropping the blues literally takes a second or two, and you could apply it with a preset. But if that's your preference, that's fine... but it doesn't mean new photographers should drop money on buying a polarizer rather than moving a slider. UV FILTERS: * "A good UV filter doesn't degrade the image quality." Well, it degrades it less than a cheap filter, certainly, but anything in front of your lens will reflect some amount of light, causing flaring and reducing sharpness & contrast in some conditions. But yeah, you probably won't notice the difference in most images when using a good UV filter... but good UV filters are more expensive, so you're spending even more. * "I dropped my camera and my UV filter broke, saving my lens!" OK, your UV filter broke, but your lens is stronger and probably wouldn't have broken or even scratched. Even if it did, replacing the front element of a lens is usually pretty inexpensive (certainly less than buying UV filters). ND FILTERS: * "They're good for reducing the shutter speed during video." Yes, they are. We often use a vari-ND for video. I discuss this in the follow-up video. This video was about stills, however, so it's a bit off-topic. * "They're good for using a flash that doesn't have HSS." Yes, they are. But you can get a flash with HSS for about $50, cheaper than a decent ND filter. Both HSS and an ND filter require more power output from the flash. * "They're good for using a fast lens (like f/1.4) in bright sunlight when I want to shoot wide open" Yes, they are. This does occasionally happen to photographers who use fast portrait lenses, especially on cameras with a high base ISO (like MFT cameras, which often have a base ISO of 200). It's a legit use, it's just not a common use, and most people won't ever need an ND filter for this purpose.
Tony & Chelsea Northrup it's depends what are you shooting there are so many types of filters and if you want quality and best quality of pictures you will use them. ;-) of course not a cheap filters. Not everything is possible to fix in photoshop :D
To comment on the money question: if you buy a polarizing filter of adequate quality to the rest of your gear, its only a small fraction of the cost. 5000 vs. 50 or similar ratios (same goes for UV, and really nowhere around here the replacement of the front lens element is cheaper than a new UV filter, but thats beside the point). It is one of these "nice to have when you need it" things, and especially when you begin, you should experiment with it to learn about its behavior to better be able to judge if its really necessary for you or not. Even if you end up never needing it, you have at least the experience to really judge that you never needed it. If you don't have the experience with the tool (really any tool) then its hard that for the situation where it would be good to be able to see that you would have needed it. For various reasons I often have to shoot through glass windows, and I am glad that I have them with me. Also for critters in shallow water it can be a benefit. But yeah, they are a pain in the ass to fumble on, especially with a lens hood on. But hey, I sometimes sit for an hour waiting for the right light, I think that is part of the patience you sometimes need to have. Yes, they are for rare applications, but in those there is really nothing around them, and when you buy e.g. a $50 L bracket to have the possibility and flexibility, then why not buy a $50 polarizer? For ND filters, I almost agree, their use is even more rare, but I don't think that they are never needed. One should familiarize themselves with the concept and learn where they are useful. I have solely bought ND filters for the purpose of doing long time exposures in bright outdoor light after running into the limit of the camera. Yes, there are techniques to mitigate even that with multiple shots and so on, but the ND filter is just so much simpler, and not 100% of all can be emulated with the software As a final comment to the "blind test" you asked for. I personally do not care about such things. What I care is if the photo recreates my vision of the moment, and others liking it this way or another is totally secondary. But that probably depends on what you are shooting for, if you are primarily shooting to produce images for a customer, then of course they need to like it.
I am still under the impression to be safer than sorry and I buy "clear" UV filters from Bower or Sunpak and the ones I got were on sale for about $6 each at 52mm. For what I got, I cannot notice the image quality changes as compared to a "naked" lens. Even if there was image degradation, Its not enough for me to care vs the price of my lenses. Thanks to the UV filter, I have NEVER had to clean my lens.If I damage the filter cleaning it (its very possible to nano scratch them) I'll buy another but that hasn't happened yet.
Really. I see some of his points. But no way, I'm going to add time to post if I can avoid it. I will experiment with it, but I dont really like sitting in a chair when I can be outdoors taking photos.
@@ChristiaanRoest79- I don't even think Tony agrees with Tony. Here he is showing us a technique that will avoid all the noise of a higher ISO, and in another video he tells us that ISO is basically a bunch of BS in any event.
When you showed the picture of the car, I actually appreciated the shot with the filter. You want to see the detail of the car, not the huge sun spot on the quarter panel.
But the sun spot made the car more shiny = better looking and more realistic because the Sun is BADASS and a STAR and IT'S SUPPOSED TO reflect intensely! If you want to see the detail on the car, park it in a garage and use artificial light. The sun is onedirectional and fucking intense. It doesn't care about the car details. It's more natural.
Dushan Stojchev car photography is about the car. You're better off taking multiple images with the filter on and put them together in photoshop so that you can see the actual vehicle not the glare. Most likely all reflections will also be deleted as well.
My professor always said, "1 min in the lab will save you 1 hour in Photoshop". The idea is that if you little extra time setting up the shot you will save a lot more time in post processing.
This, this is so true in every aspect of any sequence of processes. More time spent earlier in a multitude of processes saves triple later on down the line
+Ricky Stafford It takes a minute to fit the ND filter while you're on location, where time is most valuable. Once your workflow is settled and familiar it takes *less* time to stack images than it does to fit the filter. Also you do this at home, where time is not as valuable. Add to that stacking gives better results and can also more than double the resolution of the camera (google "superresolution") and it seems like a win win win for stacking.
MarkNiceyard But it's not 10 minutes at the computer. Once you have figured out the workflow it's less than a minute. It takes *less time* to do than it takes to fit the filter. The result is unquestionably better. There's no up side for an ND filter. I've got ND filters from the film days. I've not used them in over a decade. Why would I carry extra kit, that takes extra time to get a worse result?
+gasdive Why does it matter where I'm at to determine the value of my time? It's all part of the workflow. It would not take me 1 minute to install an ND filter. I can do it in less than 20 seconds. It would definitely take a minute or more to perform the post trick if you include extra import time and actually tracking down those images, cropping, etc. Also, that's just for one shot. The more photos you have to stitch together, the more time you're saving. There's other benefits of just having the filter as well. You don't waste card space. They're necessary for time lapses. I'm convinced the UV filter and polarizing filter are basically a waste, but not the ND filter. There's also something to say about the convenience factor. It's just plain easier to do it at the camera in my opinion.
+Ricky Stafford Yeah, I'd rather have 1 file with a long exposure than 10 or 100 or 1,000 files to work with. It's a nice trick to know, but I'll stick with an ND when it's convenient.
Ricky Stafford "Why does it matter where I'm at to determine the value of my time?" If you've spent $1000 to reach a photogenic location and the lighting on the scene you want to capture lasts 10 minutes, then you're spending $100 dollars per minute to be there and take photos. If you're at home working on the computer you're foregoing doing paid work (economists call this "opportunity cost"). So that's probably less than $1 per minute that you're giving up to spend time processing an image. It seems completely obvious to me that the value of my time varies depending on circumstances, but many things that seem obvious to me are hard for others to understand.
"it takes so much time to take them out of the bag and put them on" Lmao what? By that logic it takes so much time to take the camera out and set it up too 🤯🤯
Actually, if there were a fish there and you used the filter, it does clear up the water and you can see the fish. I always use polarized sunglasses when fishing cause it cleans up and clears up the water much more than just looking into the water without it. Just 3 weeks ago, I was fishing with my parents at a lake in Idaho. I had my polarized sunglasses with me and while we were fishing, I had them on. I looked down at the water close to where we were and I could see in 10 feet deep water, a school of fish swimming by. My dad couldnt see them cause he didnt have any polarized sunglasses or even have the polarized film on his regular glasses. My mother however, she had the polarizing filter added to her glasses and she could also see what I was seeing. Not saying my dad was wrong, but I decided to take off my sunglasses to see if there was a difference. I couldnt even see the school anymore. If you look at the photo differences, you can see that the no filter image showed a greenish looking colored water, but nothing more. Look at the filtered image and its clear, and you can see a few rocks that the no filter didnt show. I would rather keep a polarized filter on me than not for opportunities like that.
+manuel tamayo Yeah, seeing that made me cringe, and not because of the nifty fifty, but because he didn't remove it from the definitely-not-$100 body.
I'm usually one to agree with you, but this time I'm in the opposite camp on polarizers. When I started using them years ago, my shots often improved dramatically! Reflections and glare can do a lot more damage to an image than your examples. Glare can be dramatically reduced with a polarizer - and even ADJUSTED from full glare to none to get any amount you might need for a special effect. Glare pops up everywhere, not just on a car hood, etc. and bringing it down in camera with a simple twist works wonders for me. If you don't like them, fine, but simply saying you (PROBABLY) don't need them is stretching things. If they didn't work for most people, I doubt seriously if they would have been on the market for oh so many decades....
use the polarizing filter properly. The position of the sun and way you are facing changes the effect. Polarizers are very useful in alot of ways IF you use it properly.
Actually the picture of the red car WITH the CP filter looked miles better than the one w/o the filter: it had better color saturation and much less glare. And the first pic with the blue sky, well, he needed to rotate the filer another 1/4 turn and the sky would have looked fine. And who wants to mess around so much in post when you can get the shot 95% correct in camera? isn't that what photography is about?
Actually photography is just as much about post as using the camera. Almost everything thats acceptable goes through some form of post processing. ISO itself is a post process and its in your camera!
@@tecnolover2642 Yeah, but improving your technique and getting better results up front is going to save you a lot of time in the post-processing phase. Obviously.
Here is a dropbox link to an example (with and without): www.dropbox.com/sh/reoj71th8wcwq92/AAAPWZ0-4IlmOhBcE7CTT9wYa?dl=0 It makes a difference in the out-of-focus background too.
Well, it's subjective, right? Reducing the glare presents a less accurate view of what the car looks like; the polarizing filter gives it an artificial look. But it's an option for you, and as the photographer, you get to make that choice.
Tony I love your channel. But shooting a bunch of frames and combining them to replace an ND filter is the dumbest money saving tip I have ever heard. If you want good slow shutters, you use an ND. It’s one of the most amazing and impressing gadgets under $100 that a photographer can buy.
As a newbie altho not quite new, I can't agree with you. I do use an ND filter for daylight long exposure, sometimes stack it to get beyond 10 stops, but learning a different technique is not a bad thing AT ALL. Sure you will get a different thing, but having an option is better than have no option.
@@ared18t I'm not really talking about me not having an ND filter and resort to this kind of technique. I do have many Hoya filters 72mm that work with all of my lens and 52mm for my smaller lens. I tell you something, you can't really correct and badly cast ND filters, your suggestion are literally worse than that video. Why you even consider putting a cheap glass in front of your expensive glass? Think. 2nd....I'm open with new technique, to me it's still interesting eventho I wouldn't use it. I like being open-minded.
That’s literally how the Olympus EM1X does it with “Live ND” I own an EM1X and the fake ND effect just isn’t as good as a real ND. You can clearly see where each photo was stacked.
I like that ND alternative trick for stills, but for time lapse that wouldn't work. And I agree polarizers don't help with just the sky, but I still think they allow you to pull more detail out of clouds. And if your subject is actually underwater and not the water, I don't think there's a post trick to bring it out what's essentially blown out without polarization. Also, circular filters of any quality and type are glass, not plastic.
+Mark William You could use Interval Shooting on Nikon cameras to use the Averaging method on time lapse shots. i.e tell the camera to take X amount of shots every Y minutes Z amount of times.
+xenon9887 Well, with daylight time-lapse the intervals are usually between 4 and 10 seconds, so there isn't the time, or the buffer to take multiple shots in between. Plus, the sequence is usually well over a thousand frames, so I wouldn't have the card space either. And even if I did, and even with a script, processing that many files would take all the fun out of it. ;)
+Mark William Well, technically it could work with timelapses, but you'd have to blend every single frame, which would be really time-consuming :). I'm getting more into time-lapses, and After Effects has great tools for nicely blending a higher number of shorter exposures, so that would be an option. Re: shooting underwater, you're right that a polarizer will do that and you can't do it in post. I've definitely pulled out the polarizer to photograph fish or something through glass, but I've always found it wasn't worth the effort... In other words, I never actually got a "good" or "shareable" shot that way. I'm saying, yes, polarizers will show you more detail in fish when shooting through the surface of the water, but am I going to tell photographers to spend $80 on a polarizer and carry it around so they can get what will probably be a very boring shot in very specific circumstances?
+Tony Northrup When I lived in Alaska, polarizing seemed to be a necessity, maybe because it was overcast allot and all that white stuff. But I agree, it’s impact in most situations is negligible, and its importance is way oversold. I was watching a course from Justin Reznick on photographing Olympic National Park, and he was touting polarizing as essential for bringing out the greens in the moss and ferns, but no, that’s something easily done in post and as you say you don’t lose a couple stops of light in what is already a low light environment. I use LRTimelapse and Lightroom to process raw sequences, so you would have to make your raw adjustments, pre-blend the frames in AE, and then save them out as tiff’s to bring into LRTimelapse for flicker compensation and animated filters. Yikes, I feel like I need a nap.
All I can say about this video is wow. So much misinformation. First while you can darken the sky in post, you can not remove reflections. I noticed you asked what looks better without reflections in a previous reply. A simple answer is foliage. While I am not a advocate for UV filters, using lens caps and lens hoods and just being careful with your lens should be protection enough, you seem to miss understand the problem of having scratches on the front element. First you wouldn't notice anything at f/1.8 the dof would be too shallow to show scratches, if you tried taking a photo at f/22 you would have a better chance of seeing damage to the front element. And the real problem would be that scratches would increase flaring as the light hits those scratches. Just sloppy methodology, same as your sensor size and noise comparison. Use a full frame camera and crop to the same dimension as a crop sensor camera then compare. By your theory the crop would have more noise because you are reducing the light hitting the sensor by what ever percent that you cropped. Once again flawed methodology.
+Scott Kizuka Yes, I was hoping someone else would point out that it's totally disingenuous taking the scratched lens pics wide open if you're hoping to see any evidence of the damage. As was the comment that UV filters are made from plastic. While I don't doubt you could find a plastic one if you paid little enough, I can't say I've ever seen one. This video definitely lacked nuance!
+Scott kizuka You exactly expressed what I thought of this video. Also, I really liked the "technical"videos of Tony when I knew nothing about photography, but videos like this one begins to annoy me. sensationalism?
+Scott Kizuka well said. all 3 filters mentioned still has space in the photography world, you just need to know when. If you're a landscape photographer, pretty much a circular polarizer will be your most used filter, ND as 2nd if you're shooting water element or just want to drag your shutter. finally, while a UV/clear filter will be the less used, it's beneficial when shooting at a tougher climate, not to mention that if you want your lens to be fully weather sealed, most manufacturers still expects you to have a filter on the front. I moved on from the DSLR world but the Canon 17-40mm f4 L and Canon 24-105mm f4 L needs a filter on the front to be fully sealed IIRC. I'm sorry but this video to me is teaching your viewers on how to be a lazy photographer and relying on their computers and software instead. I would rather use a ND filter to get a long exposure shot than taking 10-100 shots of the same thing then processing them on my PC.
+Scott Kizuka The UV filter does depend on the situation. In most cases, it is never warranted. However, if you are going to have the possibility of rocks, race car engines, basketballs, or football players hurtling towards your lens, it is invaluable. Or you could always buy insurance for your gear...
I'm sorry but this is crazy. I shoot in the mountains all of the time. At altitude, the reflections off water and the bright sky are a problem. Polarizing filters are a god send for my photography. One of the best investments I've ever made.
You are what is referred to in the game as an ultra modern photographer, someone who has the very latest equipment. I'm what is referred to as a classic photographer, someone who can take a photograph with any camera in any lighting conditions, an opportunist capturing the moment, not trying to make the picture look totally different than you see with your eyes, that is unless you see cloudy water when I see running water. Being a photo journalist i was use to bringing reality to a short story, people wanted to see what i saw, not my interpretation of something i saw. If i wanted to create a moody scene with mist hanging around and it was a overcast day with no harsh lighting, then I may as well paint a picture and add things into it that weren't there. The question you need to ask yourself is.. Am I capturing an image of what I saw, or Am I creating an image of what someone would like to see. One is reality, the other is false reality. Over 700 published photographs to my name in many major magazine and newspaper articles across Europe,
@@alberttatlock5237 Part of your comment regarding filters: "...not trying to make the picture look totally different than you see with your eyes,...." Oh dear you just panned Ansel Adams who altered his images by dodging and burning negs in his "classic" dark room. But, of course, PS hadn't been created yet. Dang, I don't think Ansel Adams and Galen Rowell, classic photographers in their own right, had 700 published images like you. Funny thing is I don't see your name mentioned with the above 2 pros, nor with Art Wolfe, Moose Peterson or Frans Lanting. Maybe they haven't reached that magic 700 number.
@@alberttatlock5237 The rules of photojournalism do not apply to landscape photography. Photography has many genres each with their own guidelines, approaches, tools, and individual creative styles. It is so hilarious when photographers attempt to "bleed" their genre into other genres. Photography in its purest form is art "Light Drawing" and has developed into what it is today with its many tools. So there is no reason why a landscape photographer can't use a polarizing filter to create a piece of art based off of his/her vision. And to be technical, all cameras, lenses, apertures, shutterspeeds, ISO's, picture profiles, and white balances distort images. So your images aren't exactly what your eye sees either. Boasting = Low Self-Esteem.
it was so agonizing for him to waste 10 seconds of his time to reach for his pocket and thread that filter. He thought it was exhausting for his fingers.
lmao, he purposely used both hands to hold it when he could've had it on the strap and used both hands to unscrew/screw stuff. Seems more like a personal coordination problem. Either way, it takes me less than 10 s to screw on/off my filters for my phone cam with external lens.
as someone who shoots mostly cars, i have to disagree with you on the point that glare and reflections look great in automotive photography. While it may look good in some cases, more often than not it degrades from the final picture. Being able to cut glare and reflections letting you see through the windows of the car makes a huge difference. Just my opinion on the subject of polarizing filters.
Scyfox I was thinking along those lines myself. Plus not everyone has the money to buy photoshop; I believe it is a monthly subscription now that many can ill afford. At least the ND filter is a one-off cost that will last forever if looked after. I’ll stick with my filter while everyone else carries on paying their monthly fee for photoshop and spending hours editing 😁😂
I demur on the polarizer. It is a fundamental tool for landscape photography in the UK & Ireland and northern Europe in general. We lose so much detail that cannot be recovered. But it is never a question of time, nor of shutter speed for when one is using them you are almost certainly on a tripod. Plus, given the nature of that distortion in light wave you could shoot forever and you'd not reveal the details hidden by the light wave.
All filters have their place when used properly. The ND filters can be used for artistic effects that are not possible in post and are just better in camera. I am a Photoshop geek but you can't beat getting it right in camera when you can!!
Exactly! Many things can be faked in Photoshop but the more you can do in the camera the less time you have to spend at home in front of the computer trying to emulate what you could have done in 1 minute adding a filter.
+Brian Peixinho "The ND filters can be used for artistic effects that are not possible in post and are just better in camera." What effects would that be? In what way are they "just better"?
+gasdive hmm long exposure manual flash, light painting, ultralong exposure (using this method anything more than a few seconds long is unrealistic), dragging the shutter to use flash and produce motion blur simultaneously, using the nd filter to get within flash sync speed, video, people that don't process their images, light trails (this method would produce gaps that you would have to fix with cloning or some other method in photoshop), and an nd filter takes less time and is easier than post processing!! this method could never replace half of what I use an nd filter for. in fact it couldnt replace an nd filter at all for me.
Wow, a sensible comment. Long exposure manual flash, I don't follow what you're talking about. If it's what it sounds like then you're obviously wrong. So obviously that you'd know that yourself. I can only conclude I don't know what technique you mean. Light painting, no you're wrong. Light painting works much better with stacking. Way better. Ultra long exposure, no you're wrong, people take exposures of months with stacking. I've done hours. Synch, I'm not sure why you'd use an ND. I've never had trouble getting shutter speed to 1/250th or slower when in bright sunlight. That's simply fill flash, who needs ND for that? Flash and motion blur. An extreme case of the one above. ND won't help you with the ratio of ambient to flash. I think if you wanted to do this then stacking would be the only way I could see how. Taking a single image the flash would be so weak compared to ambient you'd never see the effect. Unless you had giant studio flashes out doors and your subject was very very close. Video. I said several times I'm discussing photography not videography. People who don't process their images. If you don't process them, they're zeroes and ones or undeveloped film. Neither are an image. Light trails, no you're wrong. Less time. ND filter takes me more time not less. It would be the same for anyone once they know how to do this.
+gasdive im sorry but every single one of those things I would prefer to do with an nd filter. time spent behind the camera trumps processing time. by long exposure with manual flash i mean selectively lighting portions of an image during a long exposure. yeah I could do this by stacking to an extent but it requires more work at the computer, alot more. light painting, Ill take an nd filter and olympus's live composite feature over computer processing stacks any day. light trails, again I will take olympus live composite any day with an nd over what stacking in a computer offers. sync speed isn't only used for fill flash. if you want to do a creatively lit portrait at a bright aperture in direct sunlight then you need an nd filter. stacking cannot replace this even remotely. Using flash in bright daylight for any creatively lit shot can be a pain. an nd can prevent you from having to use very small apertures. ultralong exposures with atacking may be possible but take alot of time, effort and processing power. and as far as i can see offer few benefits to make the extra effort worthwhile. shutter drag with flash- i can use an nd to make this a viable option even when I have good light available.
kai from digital rev would be proud that you just did that to your lens... _i have no clue how he can just destroy cameras and gear just for the laughs..._
+emeryt998 Kai 'admitting' anything is not to be trusted, he also 'admitted' that he owns everything at the company and that his employees were bought from orphanages. Anyway they're using review copies and as a retailer can afford to break gear. Just look at other destructive tech review channels (LinusTechTips comes to mind, breaking 3 motherboards trying to build a router, improperly mounting multi-thousand dollar CPUs, taking hacksaws to high end graphics cards, the list goes on and on) it is a common practice, they do it because they can, make more money doing it, and it is just fun to break expensive stuff.
So what's next? Save money and don't buy your tripod because you can hold the camera perfectly still on your hand... or on your friends head, to achieve the same sharpens? And sorry, but that alternative work on Photoshop didn't make things easier, actually much longer process. But each to their own.
It's fine if you don't take many shots. If you have a lot to edit though this method is extremely time consuming and a waste of money (if you're being paid for your time).
The techniques I showed are free. They're here to save people money. Most people have limited budgets. These techniques are also useful when you're caught without the gear you need.
How many photographers who would be using a polarizing filter don't then edit the picture anyways? You are spending the time editing anyways, this literally takes seconds to do.
In automotive photography a polariser filter is definitely needed. I had been taking pictures of cars for a year without one they were all ways too reflective. With the polariser it allows you to see the colours better and allows you to see through the windows instead of bright sunlight shining off it.
He used wood... Which has a lower hardness than glass... Wood won't scratch and neither would a razor... If he really wanted to scratch it, he should have used sand
Creator of this video is simply a flat-minded guy who always counts on software only. 90% of a photography, including color, tone, and exposure should be done by photographer, not by software. Your skills in photography are not how you good at Photoshop, but how you work with camera in the hand, and all your equipment you can get right now.
I don't know.... Many photographers spending $5000+(or maybe even more) on camera bodies and lenses, I assume they have enough earnings to do this, so little measy filter doesn't hurt their budget so much, right? Or they buying all that optical junk for $10000 and then got broke with no cash left? I guess they shouldn't do that in a first place. Hope that makes any sense. Or maybe not. Oh well.
I just bought a Wine Country Camera filter kit with CP, 3stop grad and a 6 stop ND and holders etc. Wasn't cheap. But I like to get it done right the first time and not spend hours messing in front of a computer! Photography is about enjoying taking pictures, not data-grabbing in the field and spending all your creative energy cropping and fixing exposure or stacking images in Light Room...that's getting jiggy with your computer and not your camera. And as far as old school guys spending time processing their negatives and that's the same as using Light Room on a RAW file, well that's BS. I hated processing film and printing negatives...was tedious. So I tried to get it right in camera so I wouldn't have to mess in the lab. Still think that way.
Polarising filters do have their use. I used to emulate it with photoshop as well, but especially in bright, sunny conditions I found they have a real use in making your images look more contrasty and produce richer colour. ND filters are pretty much mandatory when doing video. UV filters are pretty much useless 99% of the time, but I find them quite fun to use at concerts, where the UV filter will add another layer of flares on your image. It's a bit cheesy, but it looks quite good with video.
1. A polariser can remove reflections from shop windows for example. Try doing that in software without spending 5 hours per image. 2. Show me how I can shoot portraits at f/1.4 on a bright sunny day without using an ND filter. Impossible. 3. Try shooting dirt bikes in the rain without a UV/protection filter. All that gritty mud and water being constantly wiped off your front lens element will destroy the lens over time.
What it's like to be a TH-camr: 1.) Make a video about how you MIGHT not need some filters. 2.) People don't watch the video and assume you said, "NEVER USE FILTERS!". Responds with angry comment. 3.) Everyone reads that comment and assumed that person watched the video and has interpreted the video correctly. 4.)Cry in corner while clutching favorite crab claw. "Only you understand me, Cindy Clawford!" 5.) Self medicate with cookies. 6.) Gain enough cookie confidence to make another video 7.) repeat.
+Chelsea Northrup Hi Chels - Having read through the comments, would those scratches show up at f/16 or 22? And let's consider the flip-side; life's short - we should enjoy our equipment to get the best photos - I'm all for that. That said, should my front-element get scratched to a point it's appearing in detail crops, could I send it off to Canon for them to install a new front-element? Unfortunately, I've got a Hoya UV filter on my 24-105 f/4L and a cheaper Pro-something on my 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM II. I'd rather take these off if it means my snaps would be sharper etc!
+Mike S (bsodmike) I've had some unfortunate accidents with my (albeit cheap as it's what I have) 18-55 VR II while trying to do some very close up shots, and have banged up the lens pretty badly before. The scratches can definitely be seen in plain sight, however, I haven't been able to tell the difference even while shooting at a clear sky at say.... f/8 or f/11, a high shutter speed and ISO 100. I'm not saying you shouldn't be taking care of it either way (I always put the cap on and all of that), but at the same time, they are much, much more resistant than they appear. I'd love to get myself a hood for all my lenses though, so as to avoid stuff like previously mentioned, but still.
Mike S I've never had a scratch that appeared in my photos. I won't say it's not possible because I haven't tested how bad a scratch would have to be to appear.
+Chelsea Northrup Welcome to TH-cam! Its rough out here. You guys were honestly asking for it though with the information you presented. Especially the ND filter stuff.
It looked like an infomercial scene when you were putting that filter on in the beginning. "Having trouble turning things?" ::exasperated expression and nod to the camera::
Each to their own, but the polariser speech is almost plain wrong. It's a matter of taste if you like the glare or not. I definitely prefer the shots with the polariser removing the glare and the effect cannot be replicated in any software. It can also be used to enhance colours in way more than just the sky and water, such as in wet rocks and leaves or anything else reflecting polarised light. I've also used one numerous times to remove reflections on water that otherwise ruined a nice shot. As for the loss of light, its true but it can certainly be easily worked around by using a tripod or by increasing ISO slightly. I bought my polariser for around £45 GBP for a Hoya HD circular polariser that has an extremely impressive multi-coating and only loses 1.15 stops of light which really means minor increases in noise at the worst of times. That said, like you say its true that you get uneven polarisation of the sky and this is noticeable in wide shots with lots of blue sky. But when you cut circular polarised light, you allow unpolarised light that was obscured to reach the sensor, recovering detail in an image that can't be recovered in post or even with exposure adjustments, because there is still the same ratio of polarised to unpolarised light and dropping the exposure just cuts both polarised and unpolarised light equally. The ND filter can be mimicked in post, fair enough. Though some will say its not quite as nice or they like the romance of using filters and getting the shot in camera rather than spending time in post processing. Both sides are fair enough. Also true that they definitely will reduce image quality a little.
For the purposes you describe, these methods are viable. But there are cases in my work when filters are a must: 1) neutral density filters reduce light for shallower depth of field images + flash synchronization, 2) polarizers help to reduce glare from sweating foreheads. And I do not screw my filters (that is truly annoying). For wedding photos I use three cameras with three lenses (never change them) and put the filters on using magnetic holders.
Wow i liked that stacking photo trick! Thanks for that information :) but still in my opinion every photographer needs and ND and Polarizing Filters :) especially if they are in to landscape photography ). Polarizing filter does amazing job on forests or clouds
I still carry a polarizing filter simply because you can't simulate removing reflections off objects without faking it in Photoshop and I think some of those examples did look better with the filter. The ND filter trick is nifty though, thanks.
1: a .9 ND filter is a 45% reduction of light transmitted not 90% (3 stops) 2: a polarizing filter isn't NEARLY as complex as you say, nor as useless 3: not all uv filters are cheap plastic, and again not fully useless
Great video. It does an amazing job of demonstrating that if you don't know how or when to use polarizing or nd filters, you (probably) don't need them! Thanks for saving people money!
Tony, thank you for all of your videos, and for the education you provide on TH-cam. I have learned so much from your channel! I agree with the UV filter statement but disagree on the utility of polarizing filters. It appeared that when you were taking the picture of the sky it was at a wide angle and this will cause uneven color gradients in the sky, which is well documented fact. However, if used appropriately at moderate focal lengths a polarizing filter will help to render a uniform blue sky, free of uneven blue colors. Granted this can be largely replicated in post-production, but the filter needs to be used correctly in order to work properly. Additionally a polarizing filter is very useful in nature photography situations which involve large amounts of green foliage. This effect cannot be replicated in post-production, or at least without spending an absurd amount time in Photoshop. Leaves are very reflective and green saturation can be largely improved with a polarizing filter while maintaining a natural aesthetic.This is obviously subjective and I respect your opinion and expertise. Based on your opinion with the car photos you may feel differently, but I think that owning good polarizing filter has improved my landscape/nature work.
That's bullshit and you know it. When you take a shot without a polarizer you recorded the reflection (on surfaces such as wet rocks or green leafs) and you didn't record the reflection under it. You can't fix this in post process, Tony. That's why you (probably) DO need polarizing filters.
Not sure I agree with you regarding the polarizing filter but I like the alternative you proposed for ND filters and I'm definitely going to try it. As for the UV filters, I agree 100% Thanks for this video
The UV filters are definitely worth it if you're not using a lens hood, otherwise it's personal preference. I think using magnetic filters or filter holders would really changea bunch of this. I'm curious about the ND alternative, I'll have to give that a go as it does seem to have some upsides to it.
Well don't want to sound arrogant, but I think you would have noticed the scratches shooting directly into the sun! This is where the diffrences become somewhat visible (same as UV filter btw. no visible diffrence in more "normal" conditions with UV filter)
I really appreciated the scratched lens part! Makes me feel a lot better about any scratches and dust on my lens! Got an old film camera and I have shot a few rolls so far. No idea how they have turned out but, my guess is pretty bad! I will send them off the get developed soon, so I hope they turn out nice.
One of my fav videos you've done tony! It was hilarious and I was literally going "noooooo not the nifty fiftyyyyyy!!!" as you were attempting to scratch it hahaha. Once I realized the image quality literally had no difference, I immediately went to my Leica 25mm f/1.4 Panasonic lens and tossed the shitty tiffen UV filter out my window. No joke. Thanks tony now I know that tiny scratches won't do anything to a lens, you've lit saved me $100's of dollars!
Tiny scratches may not effect image quality but it will effect the resale value of the lens. You may not want to sell it now, but in future you may. Plus, for a quality lens like Leica, I would use a high quality filter like B+W to minimize the loss in picture quality.
+Sully Cortez I use the B+W XS-Pro Clear MRC-Nano filter on my lenses. www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/756818-REG/B_W_66_1066111_77mm_XS_Pro_NANO_Clear.html
I like your long-exposure trick with stacking several shots however regarding the polarizer filter I really liked to use my first cheap one too. One good example for using a circular polarizer is taking photos in sunny weather right after raining. Getting rid of unwanted reflections from the wet asphalt (and turning it to nice dark gray) saved a few of my photos which otherwise would have been wasted. I don't think I could fix these shots by post processing. The other thing I like with the CPL is that you don't have to maximize its effect, you can use it dialed in-between if it gives better result.
I disagree with you regarding the polarizing filter. Glare gets rid of color which you can never get back in post. You can add color, but that is not the same. Plus, glare on metal, ie a car, is the only type of glare that doesn't get filtered properly. Try it with water that isn't moving so much so you can get underneath. Post processing can never remove that glare so you can see the bottom of the lake. Point it at foliage and get rid of glare. You have beautiful saturated greens that you can never get back in post. White won't magically turn to green by turning up the saturation like you did with the sky. You can even get rid of glare from someone's head with this filter. Properly used, a polarizing filter can be one of the most important tools in a photographer's bag.
I like polarizing filter's ability to get more relative light from trees. It blocks light from the sky while increasing light that is reflected by leaves. It really makes the trees pop during fall. I guess the same effect can be achieved through image editing as well. Never tried it, don't know. But yes, they have very limited use cases. Very limited. But sometimes you find yourself in that situation and wish you had one with you. :)
+Burak Bağdatlı Exactly. My rain forest expedition proved that. (After rain) images were useless before I screwed PL in front of lens. I was capturing video though. It was impossible for camera to handle huge dynamic range between dimm ground and harsh lit top of the leaves. But with PL I could cut out reflection and have warm green and nice shadows. Nothing can substitute PL in right places. Images (and especially video) without PL I was not able to salvage. Some of them I selective painted by green - but that was not even close to original detail and contrast pulled out with PL. But still I am thankfull for querilla tips, since we do not have alwas all gear at disposal.
Some great advice in this video. While I agree that polarizing filters can ruin a shot, I think it's more a matter of knowing how to use your tools correctly and knowing when to use them and when not to use them. For example, polarizing filters can do wonders bringing out the green color of foliage and grass that otherwise looks washed out by specular reflection, and that's something that can't be recovered in post. Also by bringing the exposure of daylight sky down polarizing filters can help fit everything in your frame better within your digital camera's dynamic range capabilities. So although you loose a couple stops, you can expose more correctly for the shot and get less noise than if you were to try to boost shadows in post. Just pay attention to your angle to the sun (should be 90) and don't use polarizing filters with wide lenses to avoid those strange unnatural gradients.
He's wrong about the UV filters, the glass is harder than the filter, but there's commonly coatings applied to the front element, and those aren't particularly tough. Also, you don't have to go with cheap plastic UV filters, they do come in glass. You do have to take them off if you've got a bright lightsource sometimes, but other than that, you don't have to worry about damaging the front element of the lens. The CPL fillter is fine, just don't go nuts with it. He's right that you should consider with and without and see what does you better, but if you need it, then you need it and there isn't really a good alternative. I'm a bit curious about the ND, but there's no reason why you can't stack exposures and use the ND. Especially if you're using a tripod on a static scene.
One thing to point out here, when you scratched your lens up in your demo, yes pointing and taking a picture at the areas that you did made it hard to see any effect, but what about when you take shots at low light at night? I wear glasses, and believe me, in back lit situations in the day time, as well as at night with lights pointing at you, you can tell the difference between glasses with scratches, and a good set that have no minute scratches or swirl marks in them. What I see with my scratched up work glasses are more hazy in back light, and halos appearing around things like street lights, and especially like oncoming headlights of cars while you are driving. Would this not be the same problem with a camera lens in your experience?
What some people don't understand [even professionals commenting here], is that like any other video on TH-cam this isn't a command or a rule that you must follow. That's why the title states "probably". And Tony definitely gives you useful information very different from other channels and some people don't like that.
The one plus for UV filter is if you got a blop of tree sap on your lens, it is almost impossible to get off and you probably will have to replace the lens. Other than that, thanks for helping me save a ton from not buying a polarizing or ND filter haha! Great video.
He scammed you. Your landscape shots would look 10x better w the cpl bc it gives light back without creating noise. If you arent using them then you are washing color out of your images and post processing will always create color noise and blurry pixels.
scratches and smudges will show up in bokeh (most apparent in blured lights). So if you want perfect bokeh try not to scratch your lens with a crab claw
Im 51, old school 35mm. Back into game after 30 years. I love ur way of schooling!! Mindful, and best way really. Thank you, there's a way to compensate.
thank you for the genius advices but i'd rather screw on a filter in 5 seconds, than fiddle in photoshop for 15 minutes. taking pictures = fun, screwing around in photoshop = most boring thing ever. i'll pass.
Just came across this video from yourself. I hadn't realised that there was a facility in Photoshop that allowed you to mimic the same affect as using an ND filter. Pretty cool. need to try that before I fork out £60+ on Cokin P ND Filter. There is so much depth to Photoshop it's scary. Thanks for the insight.
I do agree with both positions: a UV filter doesn't really do anything that contributes to a shot or footage. BUT, It does function as an excellent lens protector. That's why I use them.
@@JeezyLT7599 Several people have commented on that topic and said that a UV filter has saved their lenses many times and protected from sand, dust and liquid (liquid that somehow even totalled a $100 UV filter. You can be as careful as you want, but some way/day, it will happen
I think photography is probably not necessary but video is because you can’t change the shutter speed (1/50 for 24 FPS, 1/120 for 60 FPS) etc and if you want to use a wide aperture for bokeh, then it will be impossible without an ND filter.
I feel like I just got paroled!!!!! Like mattress tags and seatbelts, I had it in my brain(from someone) when I started to always have a filter on my lenses, and couldn't figure out why my L-lenses weren't as sharp as I thought they should be! Like old wives tales with other things in life. Thanks very much for giving the WHOLE story!!! UPDATE: FWIW I took some shots with my 100mm Macro IS lens and achieved sharpness and color I'd been expecting. I had a UV lens on since the day I bought it. :( Took the Tiffen Filter off(secretly wanted to thro it against the wall!!!!!!!) and WOW! All this time I thought I was bad or the 5D MkII was faulty... Like a brand new camera!
Thank you Tony for saving me alot of money. After buying my first UV filter I immediately realized my pictures looked different and it had reduced the quality of my images somewhat. After watching this video I knew why. As always your guidance in this subject matter is greatly appreciated. Looking forward to more videos. Cheers
+crxracer805 even with those BW filters you will still introduce more flaring/ghosting in your images in some conditions. Imo it's only worth it in harsh conditions to use a filter for protection. Otherwise the front element is much more resistant than your premium BW UV Filter ever will be
Thank you so much for this! I've been frustrating myself trying to purchase ND filters with the false belief that they are ABSOLUTELY necessary! Thank you so much!
I may be wrong, I just have the feeling that if there are situations where a ND filter is needed in bright daylight, or if there is a crazy amount of glare, filters can be necessary. But in my experience the more filters you're adding to the actual lens, you're loosing the maximum sharpness that you could be getting from your lens.
I guess we can also start drawing the landscapes in Photoshop and stop going out in nature. I prefer going out for hikes and use filters rather than sit in front of a computer and edit photos.
And how would you create long-shutter speed during night e.g. to capture a highway's many headlight-trails? I don't see how you would make that in PS with multiple exposures...
Diablork - I don't know why so many people have negative feeling for use photo editor, because just like filter is part of utility to "change" photo; photo editor just an utility to help photographer to achieve their objective. By the way, no one I know who are semi-enthusiastic toward photography don't use any post production process, just like back in the old days, do you think professional photographer don't spend hours in the dark room try to make their photo as close to their visualization as possible? terenas1986 - Why do you need filter for "long-shutter speed during night" (I took many 30sec pictures at night without filter)? And if you search TH-cam "Photoshop light trails" the first result is a video teach you how to blend multiple pictures create light trails.
Yeah, filters are totally for plebs. Unless, of course you happen to care about controlling light masterfully and understanding how light works... then maybe the whole long minute it takes to attach a polarizer may be worth it to you. A glass one. You know, the actual material decent filters are made from.
If your camera supports multiple exposure, you don't even need a computer to blend all photos together. Just set it to continuos shooting and average multiple exposure. The downside is that only blends in camera up to 9 exposures, at least on the 7D2.
I do a lot of long exposure night shooting on a tripod. I kept getting weird glare off certain lighting. Made it look like aliens were landing sometimes. It was the UV filters. Took them off and the creepy glaring went away.
No, the point is is that these lenses make your images worst and in the niche scenarios where they have any utility (which you won't encounter) any minor benefit can be achieved without them. Hold onto your delusions if you want to.
problematic Except, good filters don't make your image worse. And all these techniques REQUIRE you do them in post-processing, which means you don't know if you have the shot until after the fact. If I wanted to gamble with whether or not I got my shots, I'd shoot film (which by the way, none of these techniques work on). I've certainly encountered enough things to make an ND filter a wise investment. Want to shoot anything during the day in winter? good luck with that without an ND filter. Want to shoot a prime wide open for some creamy bokeh? I hope you have a camera that can shoot faster than 1/8000th of a second (you don't) because you can't shoot wide open during the day without an ND filter. In addition, his opinion that polarizers "make things look worse" by removing glare is just that, an opinion. I think they look better without glare. These arguments against filters are at best weak, and realistically retarded.
Bertziethegreat Have fun justifying your shitty decisions which you have an emotional investment in. Putting an extra piece of plastic and obfuscating the image further is almost never a good thing, you have been a victim of sophistry.
I hear you but you know, "get it right in camera" is just as cliched as "fix it in post". ;-) In fact more so because it is much older. A bit outdated because no one has ever given an unprocessed raw digital image to a client as his professional best work.
Dude! You and Chelsea are the undisputed KING and QUEEN of TH-cam photography instructors! I’ve learned more from you than I would have ever imagined. Bought a book, I’ll have to buy more to help!
What a mixed bag of good advice and oversimplification! Yes, these filters will do little to help beginners improve their photography; however, there's a reason why pros from Nat Geo to others shooting velvia on large format still use polarizers and ND filters in their photography. If they didn't need them, then they wouldn't by them. And then there's the simple fact that the reason those of us who know when to use a polarizer can afford one is that tones of people who don't need them buy them. Without consumer demand driving costs down, none of us would be able to afford photography as a hobby, or even as a profession, and you'd have nothing to talk about on your channel. But oh wait, TH-cam would not exist...
This was great! I had already stopped using a UV filter, but seeing you abuse that lens and showing that a scratch or two isn't nearly as problematic as a noob like myself might assume, is very helpful for not being so worried about damaging my lenses
Yes it isn't problematic if you shoot at wide apertures. Try to narrow the aperture to f/16 or less and you'll see all the black spots of dust/scratches
I have to say, if you may not be using the filters correctly considering the results you're getting. True, ND filters have little reason to exist today (as do color gradient filters), however polarizing and UV/glare filters do have use. The best part about a polarizing filter isn't a yes/no alternative - it's tuning the way the reflected light is being photographed. This can produce better contrast for clouds, or even reflectance on leaves. In order to do that, though, you have to notice the small changes as the polarizer is spun and not just go for maximum effect. Similar awareness is needed for a UV or haze filter. The best example I can give is taking a ferry from Seattle to Orcas Island during a hot humid August morning. Look back at the mainland, and you'll see clouds/haze. Add a filter (and spin the polarizer if you're using it) and suddenly you can see the rockie mountains behind the coast. Another great example: an off-coast rain storm in Hawaii. You'll see a rainbow when you tune the polarizer, but not see it without the filter. Lightroom (or any other software) can't bring out what it isn't in the original image. Knowing how and when to best use a filter is important. Better image content increases image quality whereas improper use of filters reduces image quality.
This was super helpful! Although, I'm not yet convinced that using high-end software and high-speed continuous shooting to replicate the effects of an ND filter for daytime slow-shutter is a good alternative. Even with the free or cheap software using a tripod it still takes a ton of time in post (at least for a beginner like me). I'm not a huge fan (yet) of extensive post-editing, so I like the ND option at this point, at least for the specific purpose of daytime slow-shutter.
It made me cringe watching you attack that lens with the claw and the stick, but you definitely opened my eyes on a lot of things in this video! Thank you! You have already saved me money.
Plastic filters? Where the heck are you buying plastic filters? I agree about a UV filter, but there are plenty of uses for polarizers and ND filters. A graduated ND filter is invaluable in landscape photography. It all depends on what you're shooting and how you do it. Not your best video.
I think Tony didn't get the endorsement from the filter company so he decided to make this video, normally he gets endorsements for every other video he makes...
Am I not getting a joke here? A guy who co-runs a photography account with almost a million subscribers thinks $80 filters are made of plastic, and shoots ghosted, flared pictures directly into a massive sun reflection on a car to show what a polarizer does?
Sorry Tony but I don't buy a lot of what you say here. I will agree that threaded filter mounts should have gone the way of mahogany tripods long ago. They should be clip on. Ive never had a lens accident since I started taking photos either so you can rightly accuse me of paranoia for putting a UV filter on, which as you say, adds a layer. But be honest, so do all those little scratches. Its why we pull up real close when taking shots through dirty/scratched windows. Its why a wide aperture keeps background ( and foreground) out of focus and invisible. I'm also willing to bet that even though the scratches might be invisible, a shot of ocean will give enough light scatter to cause patches of interference in the lens......Sorry that's one experiment I wont be trying. I spent most of my career staring at computer screens and code so as great as Photoshop is, Id rather be doing something else. Then again I will spend hours on Deep Sky Stacker. So if the UV filter can save me screen time then that's good enough for me.
+phsyckomantis Exactly: When I want to nail sensor dust I turn camery toward blue sky with maximum f-number. Since on sensor the dust is pin sharp. But in front of lens with my movie camera, I can notice large dust and water drops even in normal F4 shooting. Not to mention if I make pan towards the sun or near the sun. All dust and fingerprints glares in the image, even on low resolution LCD panel. In that cases I unscrew my UV filter and redu critical shots (if possible). While saying scratches or dirt on front lement have no influence on IQ - why than manufacturers pay so much attention on polishing and coating ther lenses if there is no difference.
+phsyckomantis Actually there has been a test done with a shattered lens. www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/10/front-element-scratches Nice flaring if there is some light entering the lens.
You'll notice those scratches as F22 for sure... Also .9 ND doesn't mean 90% light loss, it's .9 of an exposure stop. You can buy 2.2 and 1.2 NDs... you can't lose 220% of light ;-)
It's been many years since the first time I watched this video, and I'm still so impressed by you stabbing the lens to show us the lenses are tough lol. This video is priceless😆
the first thing I did after watching this video was immediately throw my "protective" £1 UV filter. Took a test shot and it was like I had Vaseline on my lens all along.
READ THIS BEFORE YOU COMMENT. Watch the follow-up video here: th-cam.com/video/-rBdqlBbNDE/w-d-xo.html
POLARIZING FILTERS:
Polarizing filters cut glare and reflection, and you can't replicate that in Photoshop. That's true, and I demonstrate it in the video, and in the follow-up. Yes, you can create scenarios where a polarizing filter does something unique, like shooting through the surface of water. However, in many years of shooting, I've rarely found that removing the glare creates a "good" picture.
Yes, I have experience with polarizing filters. Back in the film days, I used a polarizing filter almost constantly--anytime I was outdoors, and often indoors. I probably learned from the same old photography books that you learned from, and that was standard practice. In the film era, post-processing wasn't usually an option, and polarizing filters really did often produce better pictures.
As I moved to digital, I continued to use the polarizing filter. Often, I would take a shot (say, of a waterfall) and then realize I forgot to put on my polarizing filter. So, I'd attach my polarizing filter (as my teachers had always taught me) and take a second shot. I took dozens, maybe more than 100, of these accidental before-and-after shots. Virtually every single time, the shot without the polarizing filter looked better. If anything, it just needed the blue sky luminance dropped a bit for a prettier sky (as I demonstrate in the video).
There were times when the shot with the polarizing filter looked better--but those were never "good" shots, anyway. For example, if you want to take a picture of koi fish in a pond, using a polarizing filter will better show the fish. If you're going to be happy that you spend $70 on a polarizing filter to get a slightly clearer picture of a koi fish, than that's a good investment for you. But really, who cares about a shot like that.
But, most of the time, the shots without the polarizing filter look better because they look more natural... our eyes see glare on water, leaves, and metal. That's how the world actually looks. The polarizing filter changes your photo in an unnatural and irreversible way.
Commenters pointed out some legit uses for a polarizing filter. One commenter reproduces artwork in controlled conditions, and that's a great reason to use a polarizing filter. Another commenter photographs cars by stacking multiple photos of them, adjusting the polarizer effect up and down, and then carefully painting in different parts from each picture with the best amount of glare.
Those are legit uses, and those people should use polarizing filters. But those aren't common uses.
Before you say I'm wrong and that photographers should spend $80 on a good polarizing, carry it around, and attach and remove it as needed, take this challenge: the next time you reach for your polarizing filter, take a shot without it. Then, take your normal polarized shot. Do this for a few months... and look at the before-and-after results of those pictures you'd actually want to share or print.
Now, ask yourself these questions:
* How often is the polarized shot really better?
* In a blind test, how often do other people think the polarized shot is better?
* Can you easily recreate the positive effects of the polarizer in post-processing?
* If you found shareable pictures made better with the polarizer, was it worth the cost and trouble of the filter?
* Given the choice between spending $80 on polarizing filters (per lens filter diameter) and spending that money on lenses, lighting, education, or travel, would you still recommend a new photographer buy polarizing filters, carry those polarizers around everywhere, and attach and remove them when necessary?
* "I'd rather put a polarizing filter on than spend HOURS doing post-processing!" Dropping the blues literally takes a second or two, and you could apply it with a preset. But if that's your preference, that's fine... but it doesn't mean new photographers should drop money on buying a polarizer rather than moving a slider.
UV FILTERS:
* "A good UV filter doesn't degrade the image quality." Well, it degrades it less than a cheap filter, certainly, but anything in front of your lens will reflect some amount of light, causing flaring and reducing sharpness & contrast in some conditions. But yeah, you probably won't notice the difference in most images when using a good UV filter... but good UV filters are more expensive, so you're spending even more.
* "I dropped my camera and my UV filter broke, saving my lens!" OK, your UV filter broke, but your lens is stronger and probably wouldn't have broken or even scratched. Even if it did, replacing the front element of a lens is usually pretty inexpensive (certainly less than buying UV filters).
ND FILTERS:
* "They're good for reducing the shutter speed during video." Yes, they are. We often use a vari-ND for video. I discuss this in the follow-up video. This video was about stills, however, so it's a bit off-topic.
* "They're good for using a flash that doesn't have HSS." Yes, they are. But you can get a flash with HSS for about $50, cheaper than a decent ND filter. Both HSS and an ND filter require more power output from the flash.
* "They're good for using a fast lens (like f/1.4) in bright sunlight when I want to shoot wide open" Yes, they are. This does occasionally happen to photographers who use fast portrait lenses, especially on cameras with a high base ISO (like MFT cameras, which often have a base ISO of 200). It's a legit use, it's just not a common use, and most people won't ever need an ND filter for this purpose.
Tony, whats your take on CPL on mirrorless? would be great if you can talk about this.
Tony & Chelsea Northrup it's depends what are you shooting there are so many types of filters and if you want quality and best quality of pictures you will use them. ;-) of course not a cheap filters. Not everything is possible to fix in photoshop :D
To comment on the money question: if you buy a polarizing filter of adequate quality to the rest of your gear, its only a small fraction of the cost. 5000 vs. 50 or similar ratios (same goes for UV, and really nowhere around here the replacement of the front lens element is cheaper than a new UV filter, but thats beside the point).
It is one of these "nice to have when you need it" things, and especially when you begin, you should experiment with it to learn about its behavior to better be able to judge if its really necessary for you or not. Even if you end up never needing it, you have at least the experience to really judge that you never needed it. If you don't have the experience with the tool (really any tool) then its hard that for the situation where it would be good to be able to see that you would have needed it. For various reasons I often have to shoot through glass windows, and I am glad that I have them with me. Also for critters in shallow water it can be a benefit.
But yeah, they are a pain in the ass to fumble on, especially with a lens hood on. But hey, I sometimes sit for an hour waiting for the right light, I think that is part of the patience you sometimes need to have.
Yes, they are for rare applications, but in those there is really nothing around them, and when you buy e.g. a $50 L bracket to have the possibility and flexibility, then why not buy a $50 polarizer?
For ND filters, I almost agree, their use is even more rare, but I don't think that they are never needed. One should familiarize themselves with the concept and learn where they are useful. I have solely bought ND filters for the purpose of doing long time exposures in bright outdoor light after running into the limit of the camera. Yes, there are techniques to mitigate even that with multiple shots and so on, but the ND filter is just so much simpler, and not 100% of all can be emulated with the software
As a final comment to the "blind test" you asked for. I personally do not care about such things. What I care is if the photo recreates my vision of the moment, and others liking it this way or another is totally secondary. But that probably depends on what you are shooting for, if you are primarily shooting to produce images for a customer, then of course they need to like it.
Try to scratch multi coating lenses lol for sure you will see difference :D
I am still under the impression to be safer than sorry and I buy "clear" UV filters from Bower or Sunpak and the ones I got were on sale for about $6 each at 52mm. For what I got, I cannot notice the image quality changes as compared to a "naked" lens. Even if there was image degradation, Its not enough for me to care vs the price of my lenses. Thanks to the UV filter, I have NEVER had to clean my lens.If I damage the filter cleaning it (its very possible to nano scratch them) I'll buy another but that hasn't happened yet.
Tony Northrup
2015 you dont need nd filters
2019 you dont need ISO
2023 you dont need a Camera
Because 2023 smartphone camera became relevant
Really. I see some of his points. But no way, I'm going to add time to post if I can avoid it. I will experiment with it, but I dont really like sitting in a chair when I can be outdoors taking photos.
I agree with Tony
@@ChristiaanRoest79- I don't even think Tony agrees with Tony. Here he is showing us a technique that will avoid all the noise of a higher ISO, and in another video he tells us that ISO is basically a bunch of BS in any event.
@@akhyarrayhka4048 But, never will replace a real camera, cause Phisics, i think
When you showed the picture of the car, I actually appreciated the shot with the filter. You want to see the detail of the car, not the huge sun spot on the quarter panel.
But the sun spot made the car more shiny = better looking and more realistic because the Sun is BADASS and a STAR and IT'S SUPPOSED TO reflect intensely! If you want to see the detail on the car, park it in a garage and use artificial light. The sun is onedirectional and fucking intense. It doesn't care about the car details. It's more natural.
Right that's true but let's says your at a car show, Oh hey can you please park it in the shade for a quick pick? Hahah wrong
Dushan Stojchev you don't know shit about car photography
pono321 you are correct!!
Dushan Stojchev car photography is about the car. You're better off taking multiple images with the filter on and put them together in photoshop so that you can see the actual vehicle not the glare. Most likely all reflections will also be deleted as well.
My professor always said, "1 min in the lab will save you 1 hour in Photoshop". The idea is that if you little extra time setting up the shot you will save a lot more time in post processing.
This, this is so true in every aspect of any sequence of processes. More time spent earlier in a multitude of processes saves triple later on down the line
This is the primary rule for just about any creative art - but today people are always in a rush...
lightroom is very different from photoshop. You can alter hundreds of pictures within minutes.
my thoughts exactly
now that i've seen this vid i'm more likely to buy the filters
Hilariously true. 😂
Me too
Same
400 bucks for one ND and one polerizer tomorrow.
"Let me prove you don't need filter by taking these photos and showing you better results but still saying that filters are useless"
I just made the radical decision to keep my opinion to myself!
Oh shit!
Brevity, the soul of wit.
Perhaps what Tony should of done
lmao
Bravo! I shall make it my next New Year’s resolution.
I still think an ND filter can be a valuable purchase - your time is worth something.
+Ricky Stafford It takes a minute to fit the ND filter while you're on location, where time is most valuable. Once your workflow is settled and familiar it takes *less* time to stack images than it does to fit the filter. Also you do this at home, where time is not as valuable. Add to that stacking gives better results and can also more than double the resolution of the camera (google "superresolution") and it seems like a win win win for stacking.
MarkNiceyard
But it's not 10 minutes at the computer. Once you have figured out the workflow it's less than a minute. It takes *less time* to do than it takes to fit the filter. The result is unquestionably better. There's no up side for an ND filter. I've got ND filters from the film days. I've not used them in over a decade. Why would I carry extra kit, that takes extra time to get a worse result?
+gasdive Why does it matter where I'm at to determine the value of my time? It's all part of the workflow. It would not take me 1 minute to install an ND filter. I can do it in less than 20 seconds. It would definitely take a minute or more to perform the post trick if you include extra import time and actually tracking down those images, cropping, etc. Also, that's just for one shot. The more photos you have to stitch together, the more time you're saving. There's other benefits of just having the filter as well. You don't waste card space. They're necessary for time lapses.
I'm convinced the UV filter and polarizing filter are basically a waste, but not the ND filter. There's also something to say about the convenience factor. It's just plain easier to do it at the camera in my opinion.
+Ricky Stafford Yeah, I'd rather have 1 file with a long exposure than 10 or 100 or 1,000 files to work with. It's a nice trick to know, but I'll stick with an ND when it's convenient.
Ricky Stafford
"Why does it matter where I'm at to determine the value of my time?" If you've spent $1000 to reach a photogenic location and the lighting on the scene you want to capture lasts 10 minutes, then you're spending $100 dollars per minute to be there and take photos. If you're at home working on the computer you're foregoing doing paid work (economists call this "opportunity cost"). So that's probably less than $1 per minute that you're giving up to spend time processing an image. It seems completely obvious to me that the value of my time varies depending on circumstances, but many things that seem obvious to me are hard for others to understand.
Tony: “Filters take too long to put on, just simulate in post!” -proceeds to merge shots in post and take 10x longer to make the same image.
@@leaf4958 Seriously, the labor is prohibitively expensive in a professional context, even if you can automate some of the functionality.
"it takes so much time to take them out of the bag and put them on"
Lmao what? By that logic it takes so much time to take the camera out and set it up too
🤯🤯
Post processing can often be done at a time and place of your own choosing. That may not always be the case when taking a photograph.
Takes me no longer to put a magnetic filter on than it does to take the lens cap off
I was about to make the same comment
I love tony but this is totally off. If he really thought the picture on the car looked better without the filter, I don't even know what to say
My thought. Also with polarisation filter you can actually photograph things under water.
@@karolykrausz5534 Tony: you don't need water to photograph things under water.
Actually, if there were a fish there and you used the filter, it does clear up the water and you can see the fish. I always use polarized sunglasses when fishing cause it cleans up and clears up the water much more than just looking into the water without it.
Just 3 weeks ago, I was fishing with my parents at a lake in Idaho. I had my polarized sunglasses with me and while we were fishing, I had them on. I looked down at the water close to where we were and I could see in 10 feet deep water, a school of fish swimming by. My dad couldnt see them cause he didnt have any polarized sunglasses or even have the polarized film on his regular glasses. My mother however, she had the polarizing filter added to her glasses and she could also see what I was seeing. Not saying my dad was wrong, but I decided to take off my sunglasses to see if there was a difference. I couldnt even see the school anymore.
If you look at the photo differences, you can see that the no filter image showed a greenish looking colored water, but nothing more. Look at the filtered image and its clear, and you can see a few rocks that the no filter didnt show. I would rather keep a polarized filter on me than not for opportunities like that.
Absolutely, Johnny!!!!! Dead on!!!
@@prk30 Haha... Couldn't stop laughing.
That scratch test was hilarious - "F*ck you, lens!"....man, that cracked me up.
The lens too
OH MY GOD ITS SO HARD TO PUT THE POLARIZER ON, I'M IN SO MUCH PAIN
The drama of it. Every second counts
Polarizing filter takes 1 minute to put on PS technique take 15 mins....and oh wait I took the pictures incorrectly. Total failure. Dammit!
"I have to move it around with my finger to get it right"
I lost it at that
Lol but he might have a point if you have to add the filter quickly.
DID YOU JUST SCRATCH MY LENS WITH MY FAVORITE CRAB CLAW????
The way he was banging to the lens can that damage the mirror in the 5ds? Or is just me :)
+Chelsea Northrup LOL. There is some unresolved issues in your couple.
+manuel tamayo Yeah, seeing that made me cringe, and not because of the nifty fifty, but because he didn't remove it from the definitely-not-$100 body.
Tony's favorite Mantis Shrimp is watching (I tried to tell him not to remove that Polarizing filter)
someone is going to sleep at the couch for some weeks...
I'm usually one to agree with you, but this time I'm in the opposite camp on polarizers. When I started using them years ago, my shots often improved dramatically! Reflections and glare can do a lot more damage to an image than your examples. Glare can be dramatically reduced with a polarizer - and even ADJUSTED from full glare to none to get any amount you might need for a special effect. Glare pops up everywhere, not just on a car hood, etc. and bringing it down in camera with a simple twist works wonders for me. If you don't like them, fine, but simply saying you (PROBABLY) don't need them is stretching things. If they didn't work for most people, I doubt seriously if they would have been on the market for oh so many decades....
use the polarizing filter properly. The position of the sun and way you are facing changes the effect. Polarizers are very useful in alot of ways IF you use it properly.
That's why they are so popular as sunglasses. They simply work.
Actually the picture of the red car WITH the CP filter looked miles better than the one w/o the filter: it had better color saturation and much less glare. And the first pic with the blue sky, well, he needed to rotate the filer another 1/4 turn and the sky would have looked fine. And who wants to mess around so much in post when you can get the shot 95% correct in camera? isn't that what photography is about?
Actually photography is just as much about post as using the camera. Almost everything thats acceptable goes through some form of post processing. ISO itself is a post process and its in your camera!
ISO is not a post process. It’s the gain of the sensor before you shoot the photo
@@tecnolover2642 Yeah, but improving your technique and getting better results up front is going to save you a lot of time in the post-processing phase. Obviously.
The polarizing filter makes the car look better - not worse. You should see how well it takes the glare off of green leeaves, making them green.
Here is a dropbox link to an example (with and without): www.dropbox.com/sh/reoj71th8wcwq92/AAAPWZ0-4IlmOhBcE7CTT9wYa?dl=0 It makes a difference in the out-of-focus background too.
WOW that is a HUGE difference!!!!
Finally! I learnt that from Bryan Peterson so long ago. Polarizing filters remove the glare from anything green after rain or in overcast
Well, it's subjective, right? Reducing the glare presents a less accurate view of what the car looks like; the polarizing filter gives it an artificial look. But it's an option for you, and as the photographer, you get to make that choice.
the water looks better with the polarizing filter
Tony I love your channel. But shooting a bunch of frames and combining them to replace an ND filter is the dumbest money saving tip I have ever heard. If you want good slow shutters, you use an ND. It’s one of the most amazing and impressing gadgets under $100 that a photographer can buy.
As a newbie altho not quite new, I can't agree with you. I do use an ND filter for daylight long exposure, sometimes stack it to get beyond 10 stops, but learning a different technique is not a bad thing AT ALL. Sure you will get a different thing, but having an option is better than have no option.
@@samuelsulaiman you can get an nd for cheap and then color correct in post with a preset you make.
@@ared18t I'm not really talking about me not having an ND filter and resort to this kind of technique. I do have many Hoya filters 72mm that work with all of my lens and 52mm for my smaller lens. I tell you something, you can't really correct and badly cast ND filters, your suggestion are literally worse than that video. Why you even consider putting a cheap glass in front of your expensive glass? Think. 2nd....I'm open with new technique, to me it's still interesting eventho I wouldn't use it. I like being open-minded.
That’s literally how the Olympus EM1X does it with “Live ND” I own an EM1X and the fake ND effect just isn’t as good as a real ND. You can clearly see where each photo was stacked.
I like that ND alternative trick for stills, but for time lapse that wouldn't work. And I agree polarizers don't help with just the sky, but I still think they allow you to pull more detail out of clouds. And if your subject is actually underwater and not the water, I don't think there's a post trick to bring it out what's essentially blown out without polarization. Also, circular filters of any quality and type are glass, not plastic.
+Mark William You could use Interval Shooting on Nikon cameras to use the Averaging method on time lapse shots. i.e tell the camera to take X amount of shots every Y minutes Z amount of times.
+xenon9887 Well, with daylight time-lapse the intervals are usually between 4 and 10 seconds, so there isn't the time, or the buffer to take multiple shots in between. Plus, the sequence is usually well over a thousand frames, so I wouldn't have the card space either. And even if I did, and even with a script, processing that many files would take all the fun out of it. ;)
Haha fair enough, they certainly have their place.
+Mark William Well, technically it could work with timelapses, but you'd have to blend every single frame, which would be really time-consuming :). I'm getting more into time-lapses, and After Effects has great tools for nicely blending a higher number of shorter exposures, so that would be an option.
Re: shooting underwater, you're right that a polarizer will do that and you can't do it in post. I've definitely pulled out the polarizer to photograph fish or something through glass, but I've always found it wasn't worth the effort... In other words, I never actually got a "good" or "shareable" shot that way.
I'm saying, yes, polarizers will show you more detail in fish when shooting through the surface of the water, but am I going to tell photographers to spend $80 on a polarizer and carry it around so they can get what will probably be a very boring shot in very specific circumstances?
+Tony Northrup When I lived in Alaska, polarizing seemed to be a necessity, maybe because it was overcast allot and all that white stuff. But I agree, it’s impact in most situations is negligible, and its importance is way oversold.
I was watching a course from Justin Reznick on photographing Olympic National Park, and he was touting polarizing as essential for bringing out the greens in the moss and ferns, but no, that’s something easily done in post and as you say you don’t lose a couple stops of light in what is already a low light environment.
I use LRTimelapse and Lightroom to process raw sequences, so you would have to make your raw adjustments, pre-blend the frames in AE, and then save them out as tiff’s to bring into LRTimelapse for flicker compensation and animated filters. Yikes, I feel like I need a nap.
All I can say about this video is wow. So much misinformation. First while you can darken the sky in post, you can not remove reflections. I noticed you asked what looks better without reflections in a previous reply. A simple answer is foliage. While I am not a advocate for UV filters, using lens caps and lens hoods and just being careful with your lens should be protection enough, you seem to miss understand the problem of having scratches on the front element. First you wouldn't notice anything at f/1.8 the dof would be too shallow to show scratches, if you tried taking a photo at f/22 you would have a better chance of seeing damage to the front element. And the real problem would be that scratches would increase flaring as the light hits those scratches. Just sloppy methodology, same as your sensor size and noise comparison. Use a full frame camera and crop to the same dimension as a crop sensor camera then compare. By your theory the crop would have more noise because you are reducing the light hitting the sensor by what ever percent that you cropped. Once again flawed methodology.
+Scott Kizuka Yes, I was hoping someone else would point out that it's totally disingenuous taking the scratched lens pics wide open if you're hoping to see any evidence of the damage. As was the comment that UV filters are made from plastic. While I don't doubt you could find a plastic one if you paid little enough, I can't say I've ever seen one. This video definitely lacked nuance!
+Scott kizuka You exactly expressed what I thought of this video. Also, I really liked the "technical"videos of Tony when I knew nothing about photography, but videos like this one begins to annoy me. sensationalism?
+Scott Kizuka well said. all 3 filters mentioned still has space in the photography world, you just need to know when.
If you're a landscape photographer, pretty much a circular polarizer will be your most used filter, ND as 2nd if you're shooting water element or just want to drag your shutter.
finally, while a UV/clear filter will be the less used, it's beneficial when shooting at a tougher climate, not to mention that if you want your lens to be fully weather sealed, most manufacturers still expects you to have a filter on the front. I moved on from the DSLR world but the Canon 17-40mm f4 L and Canon 24-105mm f4 L needs a filter on the front to be fully sealed IIRC.
I'm sorry but this video to me is teaching your viewers on how to be a lazy photographer and relying on their computers and software instead.
I would rather use a ND filter to get a long exposure shot than taking 10-100 shots of the same thing then processing them on my PC.
+Scott Kizuka Lol, true. 19 images at 100 iso so divide 100 by 19, 5 iso! Yeah, that's how it works...
+Scott Kizuka The UV filter does depend on the situation. In most cases, it is never warranted. However, if you are going to have the possibility of rocks, race car engines, basketballs, or football players hurtling towards your lens, it is invaluable.
Or you could always buy insurance for your gear...
I'm sorry but this is crazy. I shoot in the mountains all of the time. At altitude, the reflections off water and the bright sky are a problem. Polarizing filters are a god send for my photography. One of the best investments I've ever made.
You are what is referred to in the game as an ultra modern photographer, someone who has the very latest equipment.
I'm what is referred to as a classic photographer, someone who can take a photograph with any camera in any lighting conditions, an opportunist capturing the moment, not trying to make the picture look totally different than you see with your eyes, that is unless you see cloudy water when I see running water.
Being a photo journalist i was use to bringing reality to a short story, people wanted to see what i saw, not my interpretation of something i saw.
If i wanted to create a moody scene with mist hanging around and it was a overcast day with no harsh lighting, then I may as well paint a picture and add things into it that weren't there.
The question you need to ask yourself is.. Am I capturing an image of what I saw, or Am I creating an image of what someone would like to see.
One is reality, the other is false reality.
Over 700 published photographs to my name in many major magazine and newspaper articles across Europe,
@@alberttatlock5237 wow what a badass!!
@@alberttatlock5237 Part of your comment regarding filters: "...not trying to make the picture look totally different than you see with your eyes,...." Oh dear you just panned Ansel Adams who altered his images by dodging and burning negs in his "classic" dark room. But, of course, PS hadn't been created yet. Dang, I don't think Ansel Adams and Galen Rowell, classic photographers in their own right, had 700 published images like you.
Funny thing is I don't see your name mentioned with the above 2 pros, nor with Art Wolfe, Moose Peterson or Frans Lanting. Maybe they haven't reached that magic 700 number.
@@alberttatlock5237 The rules of photojournalism do not apply to landscape photography. Photography has many genres each with their own guidelines, approaches, tools, and individual creative styles. It is so hilarious when photographers attempt to "bleed" their genre into other genres. Photography in its purest form is art "Light Drawing" and has developed into what it is today with its many tools. So there is no reason why a landscape photographer can't use a polarizing filter to create a piece of art based off of his/her vision. And to be technical, all cameras, lenses, apertures, shutterspeeds, ISO's, picture profiles, and white balances distort images. So your images aren't exactly what your eye sees either. Boasting = Low Self-Esteem.
@@JEDINITE30 Rules? You dont have Rules in Photography, People are taught the basics, then they learn how to become individuals after
it was so agonizing for him to waste 10 seconds of his time to reach for his pocket and thread that filter.
He thought it was exhausting for his fingers.
He spent those 10 seconds in photoshop instead! So much time saved!
@@Ben-rz9cf Spot twist. He used ND filter to record this vlog
lmao, he purposely used both hands to hold it when he could've had it on the strap and used both hands to unscrew/screw stuff. Seems more like a personal coordination problem. Either way, it takes me less than 10 s to screw on/off my filters for my phone cam with external lens.
Yes!!!😂
I like how people get so worked up and passionate about their use of UV Filters!
as someone who shoots mostly cars, i have to disagree with you on the point that glare and reflections look great in automotive photography. While it may look good in some cases, more often than not it degrades from the final picture. Being able to cut glare and reflections letting you see through the windows of the car makes a huge difference. Just my opinion on the subject of polarizing filters.
It takes a minute to add a filter... or at least 3 hours of post production.
I think I can spare an extra minute
Scyfox I was thinking along those lines myself. Plus not everyone has the money to buy photoshop; I believe it is a monthly subscription now that many can ill afford. At least the ND filter is a one-off cost that will last forever if looked after. I’ll stick with my filter while everyone else carries on paying their monthly fee for photoshop and spending hours editing 😁😂
Gghhh bnh gbnjkko
took me 2 minutes to do the photoshop thing mate
For a single picture, right? With the filter on you can take multiple pictures.
I know right, I can do that blind on p.s.
Is this video real or am I being trolled?
Unfortunately it's for real.
yes how to be an arse by not taking your bipolar meds
Trolled totally . Use a tripod to , this guy is just a salesman .
Another great video Tony. Love the music while you were trying to scratch the lens. Lol
I demur on the polarizer. It is a fundamental tool for landscape photography in the UK & Ireland and northern Europe in general. We lose so much detail that cannot be recovered. But it is never a question of time, nor of shutter speed for when one is using them you are almost certainly on a tripod.
Plus, given the nature of that distortion in light wave you could shoot forever and you'd not reveal the details hidden by the light wave.
All filters have their place when used properly. The ND filters can be used for artistic effects that are not possible in post and are just better in camera. I am a Photoshop geek but you can't beat getting it right in camera when you can!!
Exactly! Many things can be faked in Photoshop but the more you can do in the camera the less time you have to spend at home in front of the computer trying to emulate what you could have done in 1 minute adding a filter.
+Brian Peixinho "The ND filters can be used for artistic effects that are not possible in post and are just better in camera."
What effects would that be? In what way are they "just better"?
+gasdive hmm long exposure manual flash, light painting, ultralong exposure (using this method anything more than a few seconds long is unrealistic), dragging the shutter to use flash and produce motion blur simultaneously, using the nd filter to get within flash sync speed, video, people that don't process their images, light trails (this method would produce gaps that you would have to fix with cloning or some other method in photoshop), and an nd filter takes less time and is easier than post processing!!
this method could never replace half of what I use an nd filter for. in fact it couldnt replace an nd filter at all for me.
Wow, a sensible comment.
Long exposure manual flash, I don't follow what you're talking about. If it's what it sounds like then you're obviously wrong. So obviously that you'd know that yourself. I can only conclude I don't know what technique you mean.
Light painting, no you're wrong. Light painting works much better with stacking. Way better.
Ultra long exposure, no you're wrong, people take exposures of months with stacking. I've done hours.
Synch, I'm not sure why you'd use an ND. I've never had trouble getting shutter speed to 1/250th or slower when in bright sunlight. That's simply fill flash, who needs ND for that?
Flash and motion blur. An extreme case of the one above. ND won't help you with the ratio of ambient to flash. I think if you wanted to do this then stacking would be the only way I could see how. Taking a single image the flash would be so weak compared to ambient you'd never see the effect. Unless you had giant studio flashes out doors and your subject was very very close.
Video. I said several times I'm discussing photography not videography.
People who don't process their images. If you don't process them, they're zeroes and ones or undeveloped film. Neither are an image.
Light trails, no you're wrong.
Less time. ND filter takes me more time not less. It would be the same for anyone once they know how to do this.
+gasdive im sorry but every single one of those things I would prefer to do with an nd filter. time spent behind the camera trumps processing time.
by long exposure with manual flash i mean selectively lighting portions of an image during a long exposure. yeah I could do this by stacking to an extent but it requires more work at the computer, alot more.
light painting, Ill take an nd filter and olympus's live composite feature over computer processing stacks any day.
light trails, again I will take olympus live composite any day with an nd over what stacking in a computer offers.
sync speed isn't only used for fill flash. if you want to do a creatively lit portrait at a bright aperture in direct sunlight then you need an nd filter. stacking cannot replace this even remotely. Using flash in bright daylight for any creatively lit shot can be a pain. an nd can prevent you from having to use very small apertures.
ultralong exposures with atacking may be possible but take alot of time, effort and processing power. and as far as i can see offer few benefits to make the extra effort worthwhile.
shutter drag with flash- i can use an nd to make this a viable option even when I have good light available.
Tony: I'm a really lazy person in lenses
Also Tony: stack images in Photoshop and use twice the amount of time
kai from digital rev would be proud that you just did that to your lens...
_i have no clue how he can just destroy cameras and gear just for the laughs..._
+ChristianTheSnowman That channel has 5 times as much subscribers lol iam sure they can afford a 2k lens
+ChristianTheSnowman They are fake or broken most of the time. In one video Kai even admitted that they broke fake camera
+emeryt998 Kai 'admitting' anything is not to be trusted, he also 'admitted' that he owns everything at the company and that his employees were bought from orphanages. Anyway they're using review copies and as a retailer can afford to break gear. Just look at other destructive tech review channels (LinusTechTips comes to mind, breaking 3 motherboards trying to build a router, improperly mounting multi-thousand dollar CPUs, taking hacksaws to high end graphics cards, the list goes on and on) it is a common practice, they do it because they can, make more money doing it, and it is just fun to break expensive stuff.
So what's next? Save money and don't buy your tripod because you can hold the camera perfectly still on your hand... or on your friends head, to achieve the same sharpens? And sorry, but that alternative work on Photoshop didn't make things easier, actually much longer process. But each to their own.
It's fine if you don't take many shots. If you have a lot to edit though this method is extremely time consuming and a waste of money (if you're being paid for your time).
The techniques I showed are free. They're here to save people money. Most people have limited budgets.
These techniques are also useful when you're caught without the gear you need.
how much is lightroom per month now though? Don't get me wrong I think it's a great tip, just not necessarily a money saving one all together.
How many photographers who would be using a polarizing filter don't then edit the picture anyways? You are spending the time editing anyways, this literally takes seconds to do.
+2 Tall Paul 428 There is free software online, and even on mobile devices.
In automotive photography a polariser filter is definitely needed. I had been taking pictures of cars for a year without one they were all ways too reflective. With the polariser it allows you to see the colours better and allows you to see through the windows instead of bright sunlight shining off it.
Especially dark coloured cars
I almost lost my mind when you assaulted that lens :)
SAME!!! I literally cringed and looked away!
He used wood... Which has a lower hardness than glass... Wood won't scratch and neither would a razor... If he really wanted to scratch it, he should have used sand
Sacrilege! I felt personally accosted.
I stopped watching... can't bear it
Nah, polarizer and nd does make difference for shooting!! I use filters all the time! Look a lot better!
Creator of this video is simply a flat-minded guy who always counts on software only.
90% of a photography, including color, tone, and exposure should be done by photographer, not by software.
Your skills in photography are not how you good at Photoshop, but how you work with camera in the hand, and all your equipment you can get right now.
Veniamine Pupkoff this video is not about photographer skills but about saving you some money. You don’t have to follow Tony’s advice
I don't know.... Many photographers spending $5000+(or maybe even more) on camera bodies and lenses, I assume they have enough earnings to do this, so little measy filter doesn't hurt their budget so much, right?
Or they buying all that optical junk for $10000 and then got broke with no cash left? I guess they shouldn't do that in a first place.
Hope that makes any sense. Or maybe not. Oh well.
I just bought a Wine Country Camera filter kit with CP, 3stop grad and a 6 stop ND and holders etc. Wasn't cheap. But I like to get it done right the first time and not spend hours messing in front of a computer! Photography is about enjoying taking pictures, not data-grabbing in the field and spending all your creative energy cropping and fixing exposure or stacking images in Light Room...that's getting jiggy with your computer and not your camera. And as far as old school guys spending time processing their negatives and that's the same as using Light Room on a RAW file, well that's BS. I hated processing film and printing negatives...was tedious. So I tried to get it right in camera so I wouldn't have to mess in the lab. Still think that way.
There is certain advantages in both digital and film formats.
But yes, I like most of visuals and effects done on camera in one take.
more like "how to use filters incorrectly."
Can't believe you actually scratched your lens lol great video as always
Yeah I know but if it were me I wouldn't do it
+Andreas Nagel I buy a used one for that..... 😂😂
+mary swift its not that expenivse anyway
Polarising filters do have their use. I used to emulate it with photoshop as well, but especially in bright, sunny conditions I found they have a real use in making your images look more contrasty and produce richer colour. ND filters are pretty much mandatory when doing video. UV filters are pretty much useless 99% of the time, but I find them quite fun to use at concerts, where the UV filter will add another layer of flares on your image. It's a bit cheesy, but it looks quite good with video.
1. A polariser can remove reflections from shop windows for example. Try doing that in software without spending 5 hours per image.
2. Show me how I can shoot portraits at f/1.4 on a bright sunny day without using an ND filter. Impossible.
3. Try shooting dirt bikes in the rain without a UV/protection filter. All that gritty mud and water being constantly wiped off your front lens element will destroy the lens over time.
What it's like to be a TH-camr:
1.) Make a video about how you MIGHT not need some filters.
2.) People don't watch the video and assume you said, "NEVER USE FILTERS!". Responds with angry comment.
3.) Everyone reads that comment and assumed that person watched the video and has interpreted the video correctly.
4.)Cry in corner while clutching favorite crab claw. "Only you understand me, Cindy Clawford!"
5.) Self medicate with cookies.
6.) Gain enough cookie confidence to make another video
7.) repeat.
+Chelsea Northrup Hi Chels - Having read through the comments, would those scratches show up at f/16 or 22? And let's consider the flip-side; life's short - we should enjoy our equipment to get the best photos - I'm all for that. That said, should my front-element get scratched to a point it's appearing in detail crops, could I send it off to Canon for them to install a new front-element?
Unfortunately, I've got a Hoya UV filter on my 24-105 f/4L and a cheaper Pro-something on my 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM II. I'd rather take these off if it means my snaps would be sharper etc!
+Mike S (bsodmike) I've had some unfortunate accidents with my (albeit cheap as it's what I have) 18-55 VR II while trying to do some very close up shots, and have banged up the lens pretty badly before. The scratches can definitely be seen in plain sight, however, I haven't been able to tell the difference even while shooting at a clear sky at say.... f/8 or f/11, a high shutter speed and ISO 100.
I'm not saying you shouldn't be taking care of it either way (I always put the cap on and all of that), but at the same time, they are much, much more resistant than they appear. I'd love to get myself a hood for all my lenses though, so as to avoid stuff like previously mentioned, but still.
Mike S I've never had a scratch that appeared in my photos.
I won't say it's not possible because I haven't tested how bad a scratch would have to be to appear.
+Chelsea Northrup +Luciano R thanks for the info, appreciated!
+Chelsea Northrup Welcome to TH-cam! Its rough out here. You guys were honestly asking for it though with the information you presented. Especially the ND filter stuff.
It looked like an infomercial scene when you were putting that filter on in the beginning.
"Having trouble turning things?"
::exasperated expression and nod to the camera::
Complete with turning black and white 😅
Each to their own, but the polariser speech is almost plain wrong. It's a matter of taste if you like the glare or not. I definitely prefer the shots with the polariser removing the glare and the effect cannot be replicated in any software. It can also be used to enhance colours in way more than just the sky and water, such as in wet rocks and leaves or anything else reflecting polarised light. I've also used one numerous times to remove reflections on water that otherwise ruined a nice shot. As for the loss of light, its true but it can certainly be easily worked around by using a tripod or by increasing ISO slightly. I bought my polariser for around £45 GBP for a Hoya HD circular polariser that has an extremely impressive multi-coating and only loses 1.15 stops of light which really means minor increases in noise at the worst of times. That said, like you say its true that you get uneven polarisation of the sky and this is noticeable in wide shots with lots of blue sky. But when you cut circular polarised light, you allow unpolarised light that was obscured to reach the sensor, recovering detail in an image that can't be recovered in post or even with exposure adjustments, because there is still the same ratio of polarised to unpolarised light and dropping the exposure just cuts both polarised and unpolarised light equally.
The ND filter can be mimicked in post, fair enough. Though some will say its not quite as nice or they like the romance of using filters and getting the shot in camera rather than spending time in post processing. Both sides are fair enough. Also true that they definitely will reduce image quality a little.
When he was stabbing the lens it felt like someone was stabbing my heart
Conclusion: Tony is much more of a TH-camr than a photographer now.
For the purposes you describe, these methods are viable. But there are cases in my work when filters are a must: 1) neutral density filters reduce light for shallower depth of field images + flash synchronization, 2) polarizers help to reduce glare from sweating foreheads. And I do not screw my filters (that is truly annoying). For wedding photos I use three cameras with three lenses (never change them) and put the filters on using magnetic holders.
Wow i liked that stacking photo trick! Thanks for that information :) but still in my opinion every photographer needs and ND and Polarizing Filters :) especially if they are in to landscape photography ). Polarizing filter does amazing job on forests or clouds
I still carry a polarizing filter simply because you can't simulate removing reflections off objects without faking it in Photoshop and I think some of those examples did look better with the filter. The ND filter trick is nifty though, thanks.
1: a .9 ND filter is a 45% reduction of light transmitted not 90% (3 stops)
2: a polarizing filter isn't NEARLY as complex as you say, nor as useless
3: not all uv filters are cheap plastic, and again not fully useless
Great video. It does an amazing job of demonstrating that if you don't know how or when to use polarizing or nd filters, you (probably) don't need them! Thanks for saving people money!
Tony, thank you for all of your videos, and for the education you provide on TH-cam. I have learned so much from your channel! I agree with the UV filter statement but disagree on the utility of polarizing filters. It appeared that when you were taking the picture of the sky it was at a wide angle and this will cause uneven color gradients in the sky, which is well documented fact. However, if used appropriately at moderate focal lengths a polarizing filter will help to render a uniform blue sky, free of uneven blue colors. Granted this can be largely replicated in post-production, but the filter needs to be used correctly in order to work properly.
Additionally a polarizing filter is very useful in nature photography situations which involve large amounts of green foliage. This effect cannot be replicated in post-production, or at least without spending an absurd amount time in Photoshop. Leaves are very reflective and green saturation can be largely improved with a polarizing filter while maintaining a natural aesthetic.This is obviously subjective and I respect your opinion and expertise. Based on your opinion with the car photos you may feel differently, but I think that owning good polarizing filter has improved my landscape/nature work.
Also scratching the lens was hilarious!
Thank you for busting the myths about lens scratches. Your effort is well worth it to help people like me realize. :)
That's bullshit and you know it. When you take a shot without a polarizer you recorded the reflection (on surfaces such as wet rocks or green leafs) and you didn't record the reflection under it. You can't fix this in post process, Tony. That's why you (probably) DO need polarizing filters.
Or it could be fixed afterwards but only if you're a champion in Paint.
Not sure I agree with you regarding the polarizing filter but I like the alternative you proposed for ND filters and I'm definitely going to try it.
As for the UV filters, I agree 100%
Thanks for this video
The UV filters are definitely worth it if you're not using a lens hood, otherwise it's personal preference. I think using magnetic filters or filter holders would really changea bunch of this.
I'm curious about the ND alternative, I'll have to give that a go as it does seem to have some upsides to it.
Well don't want to sound arrogant, but I think you would have noticed the scratches shooting directly into the sun! This is where the diffrences become somewhat visible (same as UV filter btw. no visible diffrence in more "normal" conditions with UV filter)
Just one thing, looking at the sun directly is bad for your eyes, do it only when using live view or and electronic view finder.
Not great for the sensor or your eyes that - be careful. Supposedly it can also burn through the shutter blades too.
I really appreciated the scratched lens part! Makes me feel a lot better about any scratches and dust on my lens! Got an old film camera and I have shot a few rolls so far. No idea how they have turned out but, my guess is pretty bad! I will send them off the get developed soon, so I hope they turn out nice.
One of my fav videos you've done tony! It was hilarious and I was literally going "noooooo not the nifty fiftyyyyyy!!!" as you were attempting to scratch it hahaha. Once I realized the image quality literally had no difference, I immediately went to my Leica 25mm f/1.4 Panasonic lens and tossed the shitty tiffen UV filter out my window. No joke. Thanks tony now I know that tiny scratches won't do anything to a lens, you've lit saved me $100's of dollars!
Glad to help! I used to use UV filters too.
Tiny scratches may not effect image quality but it will effect the resale value of the lens. You may not want to sell it now, but in future you may. Plus, for a quality lens like Leica, I would use a high quality filter like B+W to minimize the loss in picture quality.
+sheedoe can you give me some examples of a high quality B+W to use? Personally I shoot video, not stills but I'd still love the advice
+Sully Cortez I use the B+W XS-Pro Clear MRC-Nano filter on my lenses. www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/756818-REG/B_W_66_1066111_77mm_XS_Pro_NANO_Clear.html
I like your long-exposure trick with stacking several shots however regarding the polarizer filter I really liked to use my first cheap one too.
One good example for using a circular polarizer is taking photos in sunny weather right after raining. Getting rid of unwanted reflections from the wet asphalt (and turning it to nice dark gray) saved a few of my photos which otherwise would have been wasted. I don't think I could fix these shots by post processing. The other thing I like with the CPL is that you don't have to maximize its effect, you can use it dialed in-between if it gives better result.
I disagree with you regarding the polarizing filter. Glare gets rid of color which you can never get back in post. You can add color, but that is not the same. Plus, glare on metal, ie a car, is the only type of glare that doesn't get filtered properly.
Try it with water that isn't moving so much so you can get underneath. Post processing can never remove that glare so you can see the bottom of the lake. Point it at foliage and get rid of glare. You have beautiful saturated greens that you can never get back in post. White won't magically turn to green by turning up the saturation like you did with the sky. You can even get rid of glare from someone's head with this filter.
Properly used, a polarizing filter can be one of the most important tools in a photographer's bag.
His argument is even more disingenuous: he is saying that white foliage and white car paint is more beautiful! Really weird!
I like polarizing filter's ability to get more relative light from trees. It blocks light from the sky while increasing light that is reflected by leaves. It really makes the trees pop during fall. I guess the same effect can be achieved through image editing as well. Never tried it, don't know.
But yes, they have very limited use cases. Very limited. But sometimes you find yourself in that situation and wish you had one with you. :)
+Burak Bağdatlı Exactly. My rain forest expedition proved that. (After rain) images were useless before I screwed PL in front of lens. I was capturing video though. It was impossible for camera to handle huge dynamic range between dimm ground and harsh lit top of the leaves. But with PL I could cut out reflection and have warm green and nice shadows. Nothing can substitute PL in right places. Images (and especially video) without PL I was not able to salvage. Some of them I selective painted by green - but that was not even close to original detail and contrast pulled out with PL.
But still I am thankfull for querilla tips, since we do not have alwas all gear at disposal.
+Burak Bağdatlı you are absolutely right. and no, editing is not as powerful as a pol filter.
Some great advice in this video. While I agree that polarizing filters can ruin a shot, I think it's more a matter of knowing how to use your tools correctly and knowing when to use them and when not to use them. For example, polarizing filters can do wonders bringing out the green color of foliage and grass that otherwise looks washed out by specular reflection, and that's something that can't be recovered in post. Also by bringing the exposure of daylight sky down polarizing filters can help fit everything in your frame better within your digital camera's dynamic range capabilities. So although you loose a couple stops, you can expose more correctly for the shot and get less noise than if you were to try to boost shadows in post. Just pay attention to your angle to the sun (should be 90) and don't use polarizing filters with wide lenses to avoid those strange unnatural gradients.
This video was uploaded in 2016 yet it looks just as good as nowadays videos that are made. Cameras are incredible.
You might be right about the ND and UV filters but the polarizing one seemed very useful
Yeah that shiny car photo was not great without the filter.
He's wrong about the UV filters, the glass is harder than the filter, but there's commonly coatings applied to the front element, and those aren't particularly tough. Also, you don't have to go with cheap plastic UV filters, they do come in glass.
You do have to take them off if you've got a bright lightsource sometimes, but other than that, you don't have to worry about damaging the front element of the lens.
The CPL fillter is fine, just don't go nuts with it. He's right that you should consider with and without and see what does you better, but if you need it, then you need it and there isn't really a good alternative. I'm a bit curious about the ND, but there's no reason why you can't stack exposures and use the ND. Especially if you're using a tripod on a static scene.
Literally every point made here was subjective
Literally every part of photography is subjective.
That's why it's called an "art", and not a "science".
@@looneyburgmusic He said something to the effect of '...not good to put a piece of plastic in front of the lens'...who buys plastic filters?
One thing to point out here, when you scratched your lens up in your demo, yes pointing and taking a picture at the areas that you did made it hard to see any effect, but what about when you take shots at low light at night? I wear glasses, and believe me, in back lit situations in the day time, as well as at night with lights pointing at you, you can tell the difference between glasses with scratches, and a good set that have no minute scratches or swirl marks in them. What I see with my scratched up work glasses are more hazy in back light, and halos appearing around things like street lights, and especially like oncoming headlights of cars while you are driving.
Would this not be the same problem with a camera lens in your experience?
What some people don't understand [even professionals commenting here], is that like any other video on TH-cam this isn't a command or a rule that you must follow. That's why the title states "probably". And Tony definitely gives you useful information very different from other channels and some people don't like that.
The one plus for UV filter is if you got a blop of tree sap on your lens, it is almost impossible to get off and you probably will have to replace the lens. Other than that, thanks for helping me save a ton from not buying a polarizing or ND filter haha! Great video.
He scammed you. Your landscape shots would look 10x better w the cpl bc it gives light back without creating noise. If you arent using them then you are washing color out of your images and post processing will always create color noise and blurry pixels.
I feel stupider after watching this video...
scratches and smudges will show up in bokeh (most apparent in blured lights). So if you want perfect bokeh try not to scratch your lens with a crab claw
Im 51, old school 35mm. Back into game after 30 years. I love ur way of schooling!! Mindful, and best way really. Thank you, there's a way to compensate.
thank you for the genius advices but i'd rather screw on a filter in 5 seconds, than fiddle in photoshop for 15 minutes. taking pictures = fun, screwing around in photoshop = most boring thing ever.
i'll pass.
Just came across this video from yourself. I hadn't realised that there was a facility in Photoshop that allowed you to mimic the same affect as using an ND filter. Pretty cool. need to try that before I fork out £60+ on Cokin P ND Filter. There is so much depth to Photoshop it's scary. Thanks for the insight.
Uv filter is waste
Nd & cpl filters are worth every penny
Uv filter is a lense protector, nothing more lol. Take it off at night tho!! Also, idk where Tony buys his filters, but they should be glass
I do agree with both positions: a UV filter doesn't really do anything that contributes to a shot or footage. BUT, It does function as an excellent lens protector. That's why I use them.
SuperKato1K Did you even watch the video where he invalidates your “damage” logic?
@@superkato1k especially when u got a $2000 lens.
@@JeezyLT7599 Several people have commented on that topic and said that a UV filter has saved their lenses many times and protected from sand, dust and liquid (liquid that somehow even totalled a $100 UV filter. You can be as careful as you want, but some way/day, it will happen
I think photography is probably not necessary but video is because you can’t change the shutter speed (1/50 for 24 FPS, 1/120 for 60 FPS) etc and if you want to use a wide aperture for bokeh, then it will be impossible without an ND filter.
I feel like I just got paroled!!!!! Like mattress tags and seatbelts, I had it in my brain(from someone) when I started to always have a filter on my lenses, and couldn't figure out why my L-lenses weren't as sharp as I thought they should be! Like old wives tales with other things in life. Thanks very much for giving the WHOLE story!!!
UPDATE: FWIW I took some shots with my 100mm Macro IS lens and achieved sharpness and color I'd been expecting. I had a UV lens on since the day I bought it. :( Took the Tiffen Filter off(secretly wanted to thro it against the wall!!!!!!!) and WOW! All this time I thought I was bad or the 5D MkII was faulty... Like a brand new camera!
You should only use ND filters and polarizers when you absolutely need to, such as when shooting outdoors in harsh sunlight.
Thank you Tony for saving me alot of money. After buying my first UV filter I immediately realized my pictures looked different and it had reduced the quality of my images somewhat. After watching this video I knew why. As always your guidance in this subject matter is greatly appreciated. Looking forward to more videos. Cheers
I only use B+W filters to protect the front element.
+crxracer805 even with those BW filters you will still introduce more flaring/ghosting in your images in some conditions. Imo it's only worth it in harsh conditions to use a filter for protection. Otherwise the front element is much more resistant than your premium BW UV Filter ever will be
+chrislindylily in my case, fairly often.
Thank you so much for this! I've been frustrating myself trying to purchase ND filters with the false belief that they are ABSOLUTELY necessary! Thank you so much!
I may be wrong, I just have the feeling that if there are situations where a ND filter is needed in bright daylight, or if there is a crazy amount of glare, filters can be necessary. But in my experience the more filters you're adding to the actual lens, you're loosing the maximum sharpness that you could be getting from your lens.
I guess we can also start drawing the landscapes in Photoshop and stop going out in nature. I prefer going out for hikes and use filters rather than sit in front of a computer and edit photos.
Do that, then! I'm not stopping you. Not everyone has the budget for filters; this tutorial provides free alternatives.
And how would you create long-shutter speed during night e.g. to capture a highway's many headlight-trails? I don't see how you would make that in PS with multiple exposures...
Diablork - I don't know why so many people have negative feeling for use photo editor, because just like filter is part of utility to "change" photo; photo editor just an utility to help photographer to achieve their objective. By the way, no one I know who are semi-enthusiastic toward photography don't use any post production process, just like back in the old days, do you think professional photographer don't spend hours in the dark room try to make their photo as close to their visualization as possible?
terenas1986 - Why do you need filter for "long-shutter speed during night" (I took many 30sec pictures at night without filter)? And if you search TH-cam "Photoshop light trails" the first result is a video teach you how to blend multiple pictures create light trails.
You've got to go out into nature and take the shot anyway, regardless of how much post you're doing, so I don't really get your comment at all :)
People like you will always manage to find something to complain about.
Yeah, filters are totally for plebs. Unless, of course you happen to care about controlling light masterfully and understanding how light works... then maybe the whole long minute it takes to attach a polarizer may be worth it to you. A glass one. You know, the actual material decent filters are made from.
Best advice EVER received and been taking photos since aged 8 (now 62!).
If your camera supports multiple exposure, you don't even need a computer to blend all photos together. Just set it to continuos shooting and average multiple exposure. The downside is that only blends in camera up to 9 exposures, at least on the 7D2.
Good point!
I do a lot of long exposure night shooting on a tripod. I kept getting weird glare off certain lighting. Made it look like aliens were landing sometimes. It was the UV filters. Took them off and the creepy glaring went away.
So, just "fix it in post"? Nah, I'd rather get it right in camera.
No, the point is is that these lenses make your images worst and in the niche scenarios where they have any utility (which you won't encounter) any minor benefit can be achieved without them. Hold onto your delusions if you want to.
problematic Except, good filters don't make your image worse. And all these techniques REQUIRE you do them in post-processing, which means you don't know if you have the shot until after the fact. If I wanted to gamble with whether or not I got my shots, I'd shoot film (which by the way, none of these techniques work on).
I've certainly encountered enough things to make an ND filter a wise investment. Want to shoot anything during the day in winter? good luck with that without an ND filter. Want to shoot a prime wide open for some creamy bokeh? I hope you have a camera that can shoot faster than 1/8000th of a second (you don't) because you can't shoot wide open during the day without an ND filter.
In addition, his opinion that polarizers "make things look worse" by removing glare is just that, an opinion. I think they look better without glare.
These arguments against filters are at best weak, and realistically retarded.
Bertziethegreat Have fun justifying your shitty decisions which you have an emotional investment in. Putting an extra piece of plastic and obfuscating the image further is almost never a good thing, you have been a victim of sophistry.
problematic All my filters are made of glass, not plastic, so I'll be fine.
I hear you but you know, "get it right in camera" is just as cliched as "fix it in post". ;-) In fact more so because it is much older. A bit outdated because no one has ever given an unprocessed raw digital image to a client as his professional best work.
Dude! You and Chelsea are the undisputed KING and QUEEN of TH-cam photography instructors! I’ve learned more from you than I would have ever imagined. Bought a book, I’ll have to buy more to help!
Tony seemed like such a nice man, then he murdered that lens. Meany!
What a mixed bag of good advice and oversimplification!
Yes, these filters will do little to help beginners improve their photography; however, there's a reason why pros from Nat Geo to others shooting velvia on large format still use polarizers and ND filters in their photography. If they didn't need them, then they wouldn't by them. And then there's the simple fact that the reason those of us who know when to use a polarizer can afford one is that tones of people who don't need them buy them. Without consumer demand driving costs down, none of us would be able to afford photography as a hobby, or even as a profession, and you'd have nothing to talk about on your channel. But oh wait, TH-cam would not exist...
This was great! I had already stopped using a UV filter, but seeing you abuse that lens and showing that a scratch or two isn't nearly as problematic as a noob like myself might assume, is very helpful for not being so worried about damaging my lenses
Yes it isn't problematic if you shoot at wide apertures. Try to narrow the aperture to f/16 or less and you'll see all the black spots of dust/scratches
This video is wrong on so many levels!
came here to say this.
He says he takes about 10 photos when in reality he took around 25
No, its not.
@@ChristiaanRoest79 yes, it is
I have to say, if you may not be using the filters correctly considering the results you're getting. True, ND filters have little reason to exist today (as do color gradient filters), however polarizing and UV/glare filters do have use. The best part about a polarizing filter isn't a yes/no alternative - it's tuning the way the reflected light is being photographed. This can produce better contrast for clouds, or even reflectance on leaves. In order to do that, though, you have to notice the small changes as the polarizer is spun and not just go for maximum effect. Similar awareness is needed for a UV or haze filter.
The best example I can give is taking a ferry from Seattle to Orcas Island during a hot humid August morning. Look back at the mainland, and you'll see clouds/haze. Add a filter (and spin the polarizer if you're using it) and suddenly you can see the rockie mountains behind the coast. Another great example: an off-coast rain storm in Hawaii. You'll see a rainbow when you tune the polarizer, but not see it without the filter.
Lightroom (or any other software) can't bring out what it isn't in the original image. Knowing how and when to best use a filter is important. Better image content increases image quality whereas improper use of filters reduces image quality.
This was super helpful! Although, I'm not yet convinced that using high-end software and high-speed continuous shooting to replicate the effects of an ND filter for daytime slow-shutter is a good alternative. Even with the free or cheap software using a tripod it still takes a ton of time in post (at least for a beginner like me). I'm not a huge fan (yet) of extensive post-editing, so I like the ND option at this point, at least for the specific purpose of daytime slow-shutter.
It made me cringe watching you attack that lens with the claw and the stick, but you definitely opened my eyes on a lot of things in this video! Thank you! You have already saved me money.
Plastic filters? Where the heck are you buying plastic filters? I agree about a UV filter, but there are plenty of uses for polarizers and ND filters. A graduated ND filter is invaluable in landscape photography. It all depends on what you're shooting and how you do it. Not your best video.
I think Tony didn't get the endorsement from the filter company so he decided to make this video, normally he gets endorsements for every other video he makes...
Ever heard of Wish? 😜
Or just create a graduated mask in lightroom...
Am I not getting a joke here? A guy who co-runs a photography account with almost a million subscribers thinks $80 filters are made of plastic, and shoots ghosted, flared pictures directly into a massive sun reflection on a car to show what a polarizer does?
Sorry Tony but I don't buy a lot of what you say here. I will agree that threaded filter mounts should have gone the way of mahogany tripods long ago. They should be clip on.
Ive never had a lens accident since I started taking photos either so you can rightly accuse me of paranoia for putting a UV filter on, which as you say, adds a layer. But be honest, so do all those little scratches. Its why we pull up real close when taking shots through dirty/scratched windows. Its why a wide aperture keeps background ( and foreground) out of focus and invisible. I'm also willing to bet that even though the scratches might be invisible, a shot of ocean will give enough light scatter to cause patches of interference in the lens......Sorry that's one experiment I wont be trying.
I spent most of my career staring at computer screens and code so as great as Photoshop is, Id rather be doing something else. Then again I will spend hours on Deep Sky Stacker. So if the UV filter can save me screen time then that's good enough for me.
Hey, don't be hatin' on my mahogany tripods!
Man destroy his own lens, just for us...what a legend. If I weren't already subscribed I'd smash that button right now!
You probably don't need what Tony is smoking.
picture said 1.8.....how bout at f16 or f22 will the scratches wont come out.
+phsyckomantis Exactly. With smaller apertures those scratches kill your images....
+phsyckomantis and when shooting at the sun. This is actually a very irresponsible video to publish.
+Jukka Sundberg Agree. I have a fuji lens where a scratch becomes more and visible down to f/16. Not at infinity but middle distance and closer.
+phsyckomantis Exactly: When I want to nail sensor dust I turn camery toward blue sky with maximum f-number. Since on sensor the dust is pin sharp. But in front of lens with my movie camera, I can notice large dust and water drops even in normal F4 shooting. Not to mention if I make pan towards the sun or near the sun. All dust and fingerprints glares in the image, even on low resolution LCD panel. In that cases I unscrew my UV filter and redu critical shots (if possible). While saying scratches or dirt on front lement have no influence on IQ - why than manufacturers pay so much attention on polishing and coating ther lenses if there is no difference.
+phsyckomantis Actually there has been a test done with a shattered lens. www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/10/front-element-scratches
Nice flaring if there is some light entering the lens.
You'll notice those scratches as F22 for sure...
Also .9 ND doesn't mean 90% light loss, it's .9 of an exposure stop. You can buy 2.2 and 1.2 NDs... you can't lose 220% of light ;-)
.9 is actually three stops. It is measured in density units where .3 equals one stop.
no one shoots at F22 my guy.
@@Vitallord yeah, because screw macro photography
Matt Carter yeah, calling it 90% was very misleading and could cause people to be very confused when they go to buy one!
It's been many years since the first time I watched this video, and I'm still so impressed by you stabbing the lens to show us the lenses are tough lol. This video is priceless😆
the first thing I did after watching this video was immediately throw my "protective" £1 UV filter. Took a test shot and it was like I had Vaseline on my lens all along.