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

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.

[TonyAndChelsea]

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.

[danielegiovane]

Tony Northrup
2015 you dont need nd filters
2019 you dont need ISO
2023 you dont need a Camera

[Jawsjawsjawsrg]

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.

[roundingcorners]

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.

[ManjaroBlack]

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.

[marcaononymous]

OH MY GOD ITS SO HARD TO PUT THE POLARIZER ON, I'M IN SO MUCH PAIN

[JohannesLabusch]

I just made the radical decision to keep my opinion to myself!

[johnt]

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

[BURTBROWN]

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....

[Axel-gvli]

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.

[Gnux]

now that i've seen this vid i'm more likely to buy the filters

[snwbardng]

I still think an ND filter can be a valuable purchase - your time is worth something.

[AutoFOCUSED.]

Is this video real or am I being trolled?

[jamesmason]

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?

[aeolisticwill]

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.

[RathJ]

more like "how to use filters incorrectly."

[alrawandi]

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.

[itsahellofaname]

That scratch test was hilarious - "F*ck you, lens!"....man, that cracked me up.

[judmcc]

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.

[scyfox.]

It takes a minute to add a filter... or at least 3 hours of post production.

I think I can spare an extra minute