Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by Aushiker, Nov 15, 2015.
Tony Northup's thoughts on polarising, ND and UV filters. Not a fan ...
Tony Northrup will say anything for more views and money, he's clickbait scum.
Just bought some cheap chibay filters.
But I might try his PS trick someday.
And ja, Tony is famous, because he is famous, right?
Just remove two words from your title:
Tony Northrup: Not a fan.
I started watching his perfect camera video for the heck of it. I got as far as his choice of the Canon lens mount because it's just been around so much longer in its current form. What???
Well I decided to share this video after I watched it, after I considered what was being proposed and then decided on merit to share it as I thought it might be of interest and it might stimulate an intelligent informed discussion on the topic.
Looking forward to your intelligent informed contributions.
I wonder but if it is more hassle than using a filter. That said I forgotten to take mine with me on my last couple of outings as I take the inner of my camera bag on the bike as a grab and go kit. The polarising filter is of course in the outer bag ...
I certainly liked the suggestion of multiple shots instead of ND filter. I hadn't thought that far.
I agree not to bother with polariser for skies, but still think it is useful for certain cases of glare and reflections. Not that I have used mine for years -- since my emulsion film days.
The scratched lens demo was fun to watch.
I haven't used any filters for years. I could see value in a graduated ND for some jobs, but that wasn't the topic of the video anyway. So, broadly, I agree with the video. These days I generally use lens hoods for protection when shooting, and lens caps when not shooting.
I use polarizing to remove reflections from glass/water, you cannot replicate this in post and his examples of a polarizer were pretty poor. In his example the sky wasn't all that different from the sand under the water (maybe 5 stops difference at most) and it didn't look like he had actually turned the polarizer for maximum effect, if you were to use a shady river as an example instead the range can easily be 10+ stops.
He is partly correct in regard to UV filters on most cameras, the exception to this rule is certain Olympus cameras which don't have a strong hot mirror and a 2A can have a huge effect (I still have and use 2a fwiw). He is also partly wrong in that most lenses do not filter longer wave UV (which is where the 2A comes in).
ND filters are still hugely useful, yes you can replicate the effect in post however it's far less work to just put a filter on and take the shot you want. As a bonus if you're using fast glass (f/1.2 or faster) on an E-M1 in bright conditions the ND filter will improve autofocus speed (In bright Australian sun the camera will not be able to autofocus at all using PD-AF and fast glass). ND filters also allow you to shoot with fill in flash at sync speed if the conditions would otherwise not allow it (without using FP flash). They also allow shallow depth of field in bright conditions as it's pretty easy to hit the shutter speed ceiling.
TLDR, if you cherry pick small areas where a filter is not optimal you can make a clickbait video about them very easily, however it's ignoring the hundreds of other uses which they excel at.
I am yet to get my head around this aspect so glossed over the suggestion for now.
I have tried my polarising filter a few times mainly for reflections of ship hulls and find it really hard to tell what to set it too. I notice that Tony was pointing a the sky when setting it. I tend to do that as well, however with summer coming on we get less and less cloud cover so that is not even helpful. May well find myself not bothering with it at all.
It was indeed and informative as well ...
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I've used it in the past however I personally found it only works for shorelines where the water is up close, if you're taking a picture of a larger body of water with wakes from boats it cannot adequately smooth them even with a large amount of pictures. There are advantages to the technique because you can make moving branches sharp as you can selectively mask them out of some pictures.
If the picture matters to me I think it's worth spending an extra few minutes getting the capture right to save an hour attempting to fix it in post.
I,liked the scratched lens test. Have always wondered.
Having come from a film background I stopped using most filters years ago, EXCEPT THESE THREE!
You simply cannot duplicate what a Circular Polarizer will do in post. The ND filters give you the ability to use fast aperture in bright sun with cameras such as the E-M5 or the E-M10 that have a max shutter speed of 4000th. They also aid in AF in bright sun.
Now the UV filter is the one where you could possibly get by without, but having had several run-ins with Mr. Murphy over the years I choose to put one on my lenses to keep him at bay. I do use good filters though, B+W are very good glass.
This is certainly a problem. Some of his videos are OK, but generally he posts clickbait and as a result I don't generally watch them.
Filters give me peace of mind that I can clean my lenses without worrying about scratching them or damaging coatings.
I don't care if a filter causes occasional image problems, eg flare, or if lens scratches don't affect images.
I like my lenses scratch free, and I like occasionally wiping the front of them (with a filter on), often using my shirt to do so.
I also like to mostly forego hoods to keep things compact, and I've had more than one occasion where a fall lead to a bent filter ring instead of lens damage.
There's no right or wrong answer here - it comes down to personal preference.
Ok - the guy's a complete dick.
The other day I was distracted and let loose of my not stable tripod, I was glad that a filter was on my lens when my camera fell to the ground.
And as for Tony. He is a clever businessman. And with that many opinieonderzoek about photography, some are worth while to examine and why not his opinion?
Exactly my take. I tend to rank him with Ken Rockwell. Some good stuff but more that leaves me scratching my head. (Ken does have a GREAT listing of Nikon lenses including information on different versions of similar lenses for example.)
Tony's idea for stacking multiple images to simulate long exposures through image averaging is worth a try. But then he completely kills it by suggesting the number of images based on shutter speed and ignoring the use of ND filters to get a shallow DOF in bright conditions. He comments that he's using 1/6 shutter speed, so he's at f/16 or better? He also keeps commenting on "piece of plastic" while showing a Formatt-Hitech Firecrest ND of Schott Superwite glass?
There are so many things in that video I either don't agree with, or don't apply to me.
1. Vignetting on ND filters... Doesn't happen with the Lee Seven5 system
2. Glare... Even with those crappy examples, I definitely did not agree with him that the glare pics looked better than the polarized ones. There are many times where this feature alone is worth a polarizer. For one, seeing through glass or water is oftentimes a good thing.
3. You can use Lightroom to get similar results... I don't want to spend all my time on my computer.
4. Filters take a long time to use... If just to get the color of a polarizer, sure, but for everything else I guarantee he took longer to do his edits.
5. You'll save money... What, so I can spend it on Lightroom? If you're already doing that, ok, but I'm not.
6. He didn't mention graduated filters, which I can use in combination with my other filters for much greater effect.
7. You can get blurry images if you do long exposure with filters... Of course you need a good tripod, and his technique can produce blur without a tripod too.
8. Your ISO will have to be bumped up with a filter... I've never had to for my polarizer, which is only necessary in sunny conditions. Also, I've got great IBIS, and I generally use a tripod with filters anyway. As for ND filters, why would I want to put on an ND filter to lower my shutter speed, and then raise ISO to get a higher shutter speed? That makes no sense. His mathmagical (that was a typo, but I think I just in invented an apt word) formula for total noise after taking a bazillion pics is probably overkill. In any case, he's always worried about noise too much.
9. I can use any of my cameras other features, such as Hi Rez, with my filters. I wont always be able to do that with his multiple shots technique.
10 UV filters... I agree with him there, although shooting at tighter apertures might have revealed the scratches more.
Like I said - Northrup is a dick!
I like him fine. I've learned a lot from his videos and his books. What expert do you agree with all of the time?