«

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 02:45:10 -0700, nospam <>
wrote:

>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.

Why would you want it the same? I prefer some control of how
discernable the sky and clouds will be. Of course, you can change the
appearance in post of a shot taken with a polarizer


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:37:21 -0700, 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.

Actually, "created" is the better word. If you change the look of the
sky by using a polarizer, or by fiddling in post, you are creating
something that wasn't present when you took the shot.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:37:19 -0700, 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.

Duplicating what you see when you photograph something in a shop
window that reflects objects can only be done *without* using a
polarizer or using a polarizer incorrectly.

What you see is the reflection of objects not inside the window. By
using a polarizer, you eliminate those reflections in the photograph
and capture only what is inside the window. In other words, you are
creating an artificial scene.

Not that it has anything to do with this point of the discussion, but
including what is reflected often makes a very good photograph.
Consider a shot of a young woman facing a window displaying bridal
gowns. Eliminating reflection gets you a shot of the woman's back and
the gowns on display. Allowing the reflection gets you a shot of the
woman's back, her face, and the gowns on display. The gowns may be
less detailed, but the woman's longing gaze is the shot.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In article <>, tony cooper
<> 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.
>
> Why would you want it the same?

the original claim was that a polarizer was obsolete because its
effects could be duplicated in software. that is *false*. it cannot be
done.

what you can do are *similar* effects, and only in some cases. making a
sky bluer is not that tough and it might even look convincing and not
overly fake, however, removing reflections in a pond is for all
intents, impossible.

> I prefer some control of how
> discernable the sky and clouds will be.

a polarizer lets you do exactly that, and best of all, no need for
additional time in post. as they say, get it right in the camera.

> Of course, you can change the
> appearance in post of a shot taken with a polarizer

you can change the appearance of anything in post, polarizer or not.

In article <>, tony cooper
<> 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.
>
> Duplicating what you see when you photograph something in a shop
> window that reflects objects can only be done *without* using a
> polarizer or using a polarizer incorrectly.

nonsense. removing reflections *requires* a polarizer.

anything else is faking it.

> What you see is the reflection of objects not inside the window. By
> using a polarizer, you eliminate those reflections in the photograph
> and capture only what is inside the window. In other words, you are
> creating an artificial scene.

wrong. that's not artificial. that's what was actually there.

the objects really are inside the window. removing the reflections
makes the photo *more* accurate.

in your world, using a telephoto lens or a macro lens must also be
artificial because they let you see things you can't normally see
either. heck, even using a flash is artificial, because in low light,
you can't see much.

In article <>, tony cooper
<> wrote:

> >> CPF Sky effects are easily replicated.
> >
> >approximated, you mean.
>
> Actually, "created" is the better word.

nope. approximated is the proper word.

> If you change the look of the
> sky by using a polarizer, or by fiddling in post, you are creating
> something that wasn't present when you took the shot.

wrong. it was definitely there. a filter does not 'create' anything. it
can only enhance what is already there.

if you manipulate the photo in post, you are approximating what really
was there, based on your memory, which may not be all that accurate (it
usually isn't).

you can *also* create things in post, such as adding a moon, stars,
planets, space ships, alien beings, etc. that's completely different.

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:42:08 -0700, nospam <>
wrote:

>In article <>, tony cooper
><> wrote:
>
>> >> CPF Sky effects are easily replicated.
>> >
>> >approximated, you mean.
>>
>> Actually, "created" is the better word.
>
>nope. approximated is the proper word.

No, "approximate" means "about the same" in this case. It isn't the
same, and is therefore a created effect.
>
>> If you change the look of the
>> sky by using a polarizer, or by fiddling in post, you are creating
>> something that wasn't present when you took the shot.
>
>wrong. it was definitely there. a filter does not 'create' anything. it
>can only enhance what is already there.

I sometimes wonder if you are a native English speaker. What,
exactly, is the difference between a "created" effect and an
"enhanced" effect? A change is created by enhancement.

>if you manipulate the photo in post, you are approximating what really
>was there, based on your memory, which may not be all that accurate (it
>usually isn't).

And, if you darken it in-camera, it may not all that accurately
reflect what was actually there. You've created a different
appearance.

>
>you can *also* create things in post, such as adding a moon, stars,
>planets, space ships, alien beings, etc. that's completely different.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:42:06 -0700, nospam <>
wrote:

>In article <>, tony cooper
><> 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.
>>
>> Duplicating what you see when you photograph something in a shop
>> window that reflects objects can only be done *without* using a
>> polarizer or using a polarizer incorrectly.
>
>nonsense. removing reflections *requires* a polarizer.
>
>anything else is faking it.

I gotta laugh at your determination to be wrong. If you remove what
you see, you are faking it. If you see reflections, and remove them,
you are faking it. If you duplicate what you see, you duplicate the
reflections. Simple as that.

>
>> What you see is the reflection of objects not inside the window. By
>> using a polarizer, you eliminate those reflections in the photograph
>> and capture only what is inside the window. In other words, you are
>> creating an artificial scene.
>
>wrong. that's not artificial. that's what was actually there.

The reflections are actually there. Delete them, and what you have is
an artificial view.

Not that this is a bad thing. Sometimes you want this artificial
view.

>the objects really are inside the window. removing the reflections
>makes the photo *more* accurate.
>
>in your world, using a telephoto lens or a macro lens must also be
>artificial because they let you see things you can't normally see
>either. heck, even using a flash is artificial, because in low light,
>you can't see much.

Wha? I don't know who has a tele lens that presents a view of what
can't be seen with the naked eye. Or, a macro lens that does this.
You are, of course, artificially enlarging the captured view when
compared to the captured view with a different lens.

But, yes, using your flash is using artificial light. Do you think it
isn't?



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 10/22/2012 4:48 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-10-22 13:38:59 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:
>
>> On 2012-10-22 13:16:51 -0700, tony cooper <>
>> said:
>>
>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:37:19 -0700, 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.
>>>
>>> Duplicating what you see when you photograph something in a shop
>>> window that reflects objects can only be done *without* using a
>>> polarizer or using a polarizer incorrectly.
>>>
>>> What you see is the reflection of objects not inside the window. By
>>> using a polarizer, you eliminate those reflections in the photograph
>>> and capture only what is inside the window. In other words, you are
>>> creating an artificial scene.
>>>
>>> Not that it has anything to do with this point of the discussion, but
>>> including what is reflected often makes a very good photograph.
>>> Consider a shot of a young woman facing a window displaying bridal
>>> gowns. Eliminating reflection gets you a shot of the woman's back and
>>> the gowns on display. Allowing the reflection gets you a shot of the
>>> woman's back, her face, and the gowns on display. The gowns may be
>>> less detailed, but the woman's longing gaze is the shot.
>>
>> Yup! A time and a place for everything. Reflections can make a shot,
>> and there are times they are a PITA.
>> There are many times I find various reflections off glass or water an
>> enhancement, or even a feature of the particular image. Then there are
>> the reflections I hate, and which no CPF will remove at capture, the
>> photographer's self portrait off the polished surface of a car for
>> example.
>>
>> There are some of my shots where I emphasize the reflections. This
>> different take on the "Fat Tire" shot for example.
>> < http://db.tt/B5hql4wC >
>
> BTW; That shot isn't too bad as a B&W conversion.
> < http://db.tt/2UFqd6Yt >
>
>

Actually I like the conversion better.

--
Peter

Savageduck wrote:

> 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.
>


If I had the choice of only one filter than a polariser would be it for that
reason.

Pete