You (probably) DON'T Need Polarizing, UV, or ND Filters: Simulate them for FREE!

• Report rights infringement
• published: 15 Nov 2015
• views: 362618

See the follow-up video here: https://youtu.be/-rBdqlBbNDE ND, UV, and polarizing filters can get expensive, they're a pain to use, they reduce your image quality, and you NEVER seem to have them when you need them! I show you how to get better results without using filters, saving you money and time. Share with your friends to save them some cash! Regarding polarizing filters: Several people have commented that polarizing filters cut glare and reflection, and you can't replicate that in Photoshop. That's true, and I do demonstrate it in the video. Yes, you can create scenarios where a polarizing filter does something unique. However, in many years of shooting, I've rarely found that removing the glare creates a "good" picture. 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 common 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. But, did you make enough from that koi fish picture to pay for the polarizing filter and the time you spent connecting the filter? I've done that exact shot. I didn't make any money from it, and nobody cared about it, because it's a picture of fish in a pond, and that's pretty boring. Even then, in my personal opinion, the shot without the polarizing filter looked better because it showed the glare on the top of the water. That's natural; that's what our eyes see. The polarizing filter is like an irreversable Instagram filter. It changes your photo in an unnatural 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? * Would you recommend a new photographer spend $80 (per lens filter diameter) on polarizing filters, carry those polarizers around everywhere, and attach and remove them when necessary? I've done that test quite gradually over the last 15 years... and, as you know, I've decided I can't recommend new photographers buy polarizers. They don't seem like the best use of a photographer's time and money. I'm open to other opinion, though, especially if you can show me actual with-and-without pictures. I'm just one guy, with one set of experiences, and I appreciate hearing other points of view. Give me your side-by-side results. Change my mind with evidence! You can try linking your photos in the comments, but if that doesn't work, tweet me (TonyNorthrup) or even email me (tony@northrup.org).

You (probably) DON'T Need Polarizing, UV, or ND Filters: Simulate them for FREE!

• Report rights infringement
• published: 15 Nov 2015
• views: 362618

See the follow-up video here: https://youtu.be/-rBdqlBbNDE ND, UV, and polarizing filters can get expensive, they're a pain to use, they reduce your image quality, and you NEVER seem to have them when you need them! I show you how to get better results without using filters, saving you money and time. Share with your friends to save them some cash! Regarding polarizing filters: Several people have commented that polarizing filters cut glare and reflection, and you can't replicate that in Photoshop. That's true, and I do demonstrate it in the video. Yes, you can create scenarios where a polarizing filter does something unique. However, in many years of shooting, I've rarely found that removing the glare creates a "good" picture. 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 common 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. But, did you make enough from that koi fish picture to pay for the polarizing filter and the time you spent connecting the filter? I've done that exact shot. I didn't make any money from it, and nobody cared about it, because it's a picture of fish in a pond, and that's pretty boring. Even then, in my personal opinion, the shot without the polarizing filter looked better because it showed the glare on the top of the water. That's natural; that's what our eyes see. The polarizing filter is like an irreversable Instagram filter. It changes your photo in an unnatural 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? * Would you recommend a new photographer spend $80 (per lens filter diameter) on polarizing filters, carry those polarizers around everywhere, and attach and remove them when necessary? I've done that test quite gradually over the last 15 years... and, as you know, I've decided I can't recommend new photographers buy polarizers. They don't seem like the best use of a photographer's time and money. I'm open to other opinion, though, especially if you can show me actual with-and-without pictures. I'm just one guy, with one set of experiences, and I appreciate hearing other points of view. Give me your side-by-side results. Change my mind with evidence! You can try linking your photos in the comments, but if that doesn't work, tweet me (TonyNorthrup) or even email me (tony@northrup.org).