«

In article <k633jv$bmv$>, jdanield <> wrote:

> > whatever you can achieve in photoshop might look nice but it's *not*
> > the same as what you get with a polarizer. period. it is *not* possible
> > to duplicate a polarizer's effects *after* you take the photo.
> >
> to be precise, if you only use the polarizer to make clouds more
> visible and sky dérker, you can make it in photoshop.

you can approximate it, but it's not going to be the same as with a
polarizer.

> If you use polarizer to remove unwanted reflexion, I don't see how you
> can acheive this elsewhere

about the only thing you can do is paint in what you think have been
there instead of the reflections, but that is going to take an
incredible amount of time and it's not going to match the actual
subject.

a polarizer can't be duplicated after the fact.

On 10/22/2012 1:36 AM, Rob wrote:
> On 22/10/2012 2:15 PM, nospam wrote:
>> In article <201210211931222196-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>>> However if you are going to use it in any serious
>>> way I would consider a Circular Polarizing Filter
>>
>> a regular polarizer is sufficient. circular polarizers are only needed
>> if there's a beam splitter and that camera does not have one.
>>
>
>
> For myself (take note) - I think polarising filters are obsolete -
> taking images with them buggers the image and would prefer to make my
> alterations within a post processing program like Photoshop.
>
> otherwise I use a UV filter on all my lenses.
>
>

I use a CP filter to reduce glare and reflections, from surfaces,
particularly water surfaces. It saves a lot of time in post. I also use
two polarizing filters as a variable ND filter, when I want to
drastically increase my exposure time. Otherwise, I rarely place glass
in front of my lens unless there is a present problem, such as water
spray, high dust concentration, etc.
A lens is a tool that can be repaired or replaced. A missed picture,
cannot be. Others think differently and YMMV

--
Peter

On 10/22/2012 4:24 AM, Rob wrote:
> On 22/10/2012 6:48 PM, nospam wrote:
>> In article <k62m17$bfu$>, Rob <>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> For myself (take note) - I think polarising filters are obsolete -
>>
>> they are not obsolete at all. in fact, they're one filter that will
>> never be obsolete.
>>
>>> taking images with them buggers the image
>>
>> how?
>>
>>> and would prefer to make my
>>> alterations within a post processing program like Photoshop.
>>
>> you *can't* duplicate what a polarizer can do in photoshop.
>>
>
>
> Take it how ever you may - read the first bit "For myself" - so stuff
> what you think, don't criticise my opinion. I know what I can achieve
> without a PL filter.

There is no right and wrong in that decision. Each maker does what is
comfortable. Nospam may not be able to duplicate the effect, but I have,
and you may have.


--
Peter

On 10/22/2012 5:28 AM, jdanield wrote:
> Le 22/10/2012 10:51, nospam a écrit :
>
>> whatever you can achieve in photoshop might look nice but it's *not*
>> the same as what you get with a polarizer. period. it is *not* possible
>> to duplicate a polarizer's effects *after* you take the photo.
>>
> to be precise, if you only use the polarizer to make clouds more visible
> and sky dérker, you can make it in photoshop.
>
> If you use polarizer to remove unwanted reflexion, I don't see how you
> can acheive this elsewhere
>
> jdd

Cloning; healing tools; selection layer blending; sponging; masking and
free transform, are but a few tools that can be used.

--
Peter

On 10/22/2012 1:29 AM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-10-21 20:59:15 -0700, Eric Stevens <> said:
>
>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 19:31:22 -0700, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2012-10-21 18:37:53 -0700, said:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 18:06:12 -0700, nospam <>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <>,
>>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Can someone tell me what a good filter manufacturer is? I bought a
>>>>>> Fujifilm
>>>>>> HS30EXR, which accepts 58mm filters. I want to get a protective
>>>>>> filter for it.
>>>>>> The Fuji filter costs $59 which seems a little steep to me. A
>>>>>> check of Amazon
>>>>>> has filters for as low as $4, but I don't know as I should/could
>>>>>> trust them. I
>>>>>> see Vivitar listed as an option. Any others I could trust? Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> get something that's multicoated, such as hoya hmc or shmc or b+w mrc.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks. Prices seem better on those. Another question. If I'm
>>>> looking more for
>>>> protection, do I want an ultraviolet or neutral density filter?
>>>> Also, a term
>>>> from my old days with film cameras came to mind, skylight filter.
>>>> What are my
>>>> options for protecting the lense without distorting color? Thanks
>>>> again.
>>>
>>> First Neutral density or ND filters are specifically to reduce light
>>> transmission without effecting color, hence neutral. Each has a
>>> specific EV value to control the light transmission and can be used for
>>> such things as slowing the shutter speed where that sort of effect is
>>> desired.
>>>
>>> If what you are looking for is strictly a filter for protecting the
>>> front element of the lens on your camera, look for clear, sky-light, or
>>> UV (haze) filters. multicoated filters would be best, and the better
>>> quality would be better. Those are going to be more costly than
>>> uncoated filters. I would suggest looking at Hoya, B+W, Heliopan,
>>> Zeiss, and some of the other known quality manufacturers. There is one
>>> caveat, you will see a price variation even among offerings of the same
>>> brand, check on specifications regarding coatings and type of coatings,
>>> some will seem to be a bargain, and could well be more problematic than
>>> not using a filter at all.
>>>
>>> That brings us to the two schools of thought regarding protecting the
>>> front element of a lens with a filter. Some folks believe it is prudent
>>> to protect the lens, other hold that placing any glass surface between
>>> your subject and the lens can be detrimental to your captured image.
>>> When it comes to protecting an investment in lenses which might cost
>>> many times the cost of your camera, perhaps then consider that filter
>>> purchase.
>>>
>>> Personally, I believe your Fuji HS30EXR will do just fine without a
>>> protective filter. However if you are going to use it in any serious
>>> way I would consider a Circular Polarizing Filter, ...
>>
>> But be aware that such a filter will cost you light. I've been through
>> such a decision period with digital cameras and decided to leave the
>> lens unprotected. I've had 10 years of digital cameras and before that
>> 40 years of 35mm film cameras and never had the front glass damaged in
>> any way.
>
> I agree that a CPL is certainly not one I would choose to keep on the
> lens all the time to protect it.
>
> Just to clarify, I did not advise the OP to use a filter of any type to
> protect the lens on his camera. I suggested that he weigh his options
> on his choice of filter if did so decide. I also suggested that if he
> was interested in a filter he might well consider a CPF since that
> produces an effect no easily replicated with post processing, and use it
> for the purpose intended.
>
>>> ... and perhaps one of
>>> those Neutral Density filters.
>
> You will note that I also mentioned the ND filter, but only to be used
> for the specific purpose it is intended for.
>
>>> The front of your lens should be well
>>> enough protected by the lens hood, and the care you should be taking.
>>> Also it is worth developing a good lens cleaning protocol.
>
> ...and as you should have noted above, my ultimate suggestion was for
> him to forgo a protective filter and just take care of his camera.
> However if he chose to actually go with a clear, sky-light, or UV filter
> to protect his lens he should be informed.
>
>>>
>>> Take a look at what some quality 58mm filters cost, and how they
>>> compare with their less expensive brethren.
>>> <
>>> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search...527+4294955252
>>>
>
>

The OP can also get better protection by attaching a rubber lens hood.

--
Peter

In article <50857c6b$0$15579$>, PeterN
<> wrote:

> There is no right and wrong in that decision. Each maker does what is
> comfortable. Nospam may not be able to duplicate the effect, but I have,
> and you may have.

bullshit. you are a liar. you can only approximate it. you *can't*
duplicate it. it's *not* possible.

next thing you know, you'll tell me you can duplicate infrared and
ultraviolet photography without using an infrared or ultraviolet
filter.

In article <201210221112116853-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> > Cloning; healing tools; selection layer blending; sponging; masking and
> > free transform, are but a few tools that can be used.
>
> None of which will remove a reflection from a glass or water reflecting
> surface to reveal what is hidden by a reflection. If you can do that,
> you would have mastered more of the capabilities of PS than I am
> currently able to, and I would like to learn how that is done using the
> tools you mentioned.

not just better than your skills, but better than the skills of even
the world's best photoshop users.

> You can adjust the image of that reflection on the glass or water to
> remove or reduce it, but the only way you will be able to show what is
> behind that reflection is by taking a shot without the reflecting
> surface, or by using a CPF.

you can also composite in what you think would have been there, such as
adding fish to a pond, but you'd have to get photos of those fish some
other way and in a position that fits the scene.

once again, you *can't* duplicate a polarizer in software.

at best, you can fake it and hope that it looks believable.

> The classic reflection fix is to take a shot of a subject without
> glasses (spectacles), and a shot with glasses to use layers & layer
> masks to blend in eyes hidden behind reflections on the surface of eye
> glass lenses.

sounds like a lot of work, and that won't work for reflections on a
pond.

> CPF Sky effects are easily replicated.

approximated, you mean.

On 10/22/2012 2:12 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-10-22 10:09:07 -0700, PeterN <> said:
>
>> On 10/22/2012 5:28 AM, jdanield wrote:
>>> Le 22/10/2012 10:51, nospam a écrit :
>>>
>>>> whatever you can achieve in photoshop might look nice but it's *not*
>>>> the same as what you get with a polarizer. period. it is *not* possible
>>>> to duplicate a polarizer's effects *after* you take the photo.
>>>>
>>> to be precise, if you only use the polarizer to make clouds more visible
>>> and sky dérker, you can make it in photoshop.
>>>
>>> If you use polarizer to remove unwanted reflexion, I don't see how you
>>> can acheive this elsewhere
>>>
>>> jdd
>>
>> Cloning; healing tools; selection layer blending; sponging; masking
>> and free transform, are but a few tools that can be used.
>
> None of which will remove a reflection from a glass or water reflecting
> surface to reveal what is hidden by a reflection. If you can do that,
> you would have mastered more of the capabilities of PS than I am
> currently able to, and I would like to learn how that is done using the
> tools you mentioned.
>
> You can adjust the image of that reflection on the glass or water to
> remove or reduce it, but the only way you will be able to show what is
> behind that reflection is by taking a shot without the reflecting
> surface, or by using a CPF.
> The classic reflection fix is to take a shot of a subject without
> glasses (spectacles), and a shot with glasses to use layers & layer
> masks to blend in eyes hidden behind reflections on the surface of eye
> glass lenses.
>
> CPF Sky effects are easily replicated.
>
True. I was thinking only in terms of coloration, clouds and reflection
removal.

--
Peter

On 10/22/2012 2:37 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <50857c6b$0$15579$>, PeterN
> <> wrote:
>
>> There is no right and wrong in that decision. Each maker does what is
>> comfortable. Nospam may not be able to duplicate the effect, but I have,
>> and you may have.
>
> bullshit. you are a liar. you can only approximate it. you *can't*
> duplicate it. it's *not* possible.

You really have class, and an ability to express yourself in a civilized
manner.

>
> next thing you know, you'll tell me you can duplicate infrared and
> ultraviolet photography without using an infrared or ultraviolet
> filter.
>
Now where did I say that?



--
Peter

On 10/22/2012 2:37 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <201210221112116853-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>>> Cloning; healing tools; selection layer blending; sponging; masking and
>>> free transform, are but a few tools that can be used.
>>
>> None of which will remove a reflection from a glass or water reflecting
>> surface to reveal what is hidden by a reflection. If you can do that,
>> you would have mastered more of the capabilities of PS than I am
>> currently able to, and I would like to learn how that is done using the
>> tools you mentioned.
>
> not just better than your skills, but better than the skills of even
> the world's best photoshop users.
>
>> You can adjust the image of that reflection on the glass or water to
>> remove or reduce it, but the only way you will be able to show what is
>> behind that reflection is by taking a shot without the reflecting
>> surface, or by using a CPF.
>
> you can also composite in what you think would have been there, such as
> adding fish to a pond, but you'd have to get photos of those fish some
> other way and in a position that fits the scene.
>
> once again, you *can't* duplicate a polarizer in software.
>
> at best, you can fake it and hope that it looks believable.
>
>> The classic reflection fix is to take a shot of a subject without
>> glasses (spectacles), and a shot with glasses to use layers & layer
>> masks to blend in eyes hidden behind reflections on the surface of eye
>> glass lenses.
>
> sounds like a lot of work, and that won't work for reflections on a
> pond.
>
>> CPF Sky effects are easily replicated.
>
> approximated, you mean.
>

If I gave you a demo showing that it is possible, you would only say you
meant without a lot of effort.

--
Peter