READ THIS BEFORE YOU COMMENT. Watch the follow-up video here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Y9hyl9Sdp8iydHk.html 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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

Is this video real or am I being trolled?

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

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

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....

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.

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?

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.

Tony I love your channel. But shooting a bunch of frames and combining them to replace an ND filter is the dumbest money saving tip I have ever heard. If you want good slow shutters, you use an ND. It’s one of the most amazing and impressing gadgets under $100 that a photographer can buy.

It looked like an infomercial scene when you were putting that filter on in the beginning. "Having trouble turning things?" ::exasperated expression and nod to the camera::

All I can say about this video is wow. So much misinformation. First while you can darken the sky in post, you can not remove reflections. I noticed you asked what looks better without reflections in a previous reply. A simple answer is foliage. While I am not a advocate for UV filters, using lens caps and lens hoods and just being careful with your lens should be protection enough, you seem to miss understand the problem of having scratches on the front element. First you wouldn't notice anything at f/1.8 the dof would be too shallow to show scratches, if you tried taking a photo at f/22 you would have a better chance of seeing damage to the front element. And the real problem would be that scratches would increase flaring as the light hits those scratches. Just sloppy methodology, same as your sensor size and noise comparison. Use a full frame camera and crop to the same dimension as a crop sensor camera then compare. By your theory the crop would have more noise because you are reducing the light hitting the sensor by what ever percent that you cropped. Once again flawed methodology.

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

I almost lost my mind when you assaulted that lens :)

I like your long-exposure trick with stacking several shots however regarding the polarizer filter I really liked to use my first cheap one too. One good example for using a circular polarizer is taking photos in sunny weather right after raining. Getting rid of unwanted reflections from the wet asphalt (and turning it to nice dark gray) saved a few of my photos which otherwise would have been wasted. I don't think I could fix these shots by post processing. The other thing I like with the CPL is that you don't have to maximize its effect, you can use it dialed in-between if it gives better result.

It takes a minute to add a filter... or at least 3 hours of post production. I think I can spare an extra minute

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.

Polarizing filters are very useful for giving your photos more contrast and colour saturation in-camera which gives you a lot more flexibility in post. This is especially important if you are trying to achieve a certain look/style consistently throughout your work. A lot of people struggle to achieve certain styles with photography because they have NOT used a polariser and do not have as much colour separation in their images. More colour separation means a greater degree of flexibilty in post and therefore it is easier to achieve certain tones and colours. In other words, if you want to create more dramatic, contrasty images consistently, do not listen to this video.

For the purposes you describe, these methods are viable. But there are cases in my work when filters are a must: 1) neutral density filters reduce light for shallower depth of field images + flash synchronization, 2) polarizers help to reduce glare from sweating foreheads. And I do not screw my filters (that is truly annoying). For wedding photos I use three cameras with three lenses (never change them) and put the filters on using magnetic holders.

DID YOU JUST SCRATCH MY LENS WITH MY FAVORITE CRAB CLAW????

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.

Not sure I agree with you regarding the polarizing filter but I like the alternative you proposed for ND filters and I'm definitely going to try it. As for the UV filters, I agree 100% Thanks for this video

Literally every point made here was subjective

as someone who shoots mostly cars, i have to disagree with you on the point that glare and reflections look great in automotive photography. While it may look good in some cases, more often than not it degrades from the final picture. Being able to cut glare and reflections letting you see through the windows of the car makes a huge difference. Just my opinion on the subject of polarizing filters.

I'm sorry but this is crazy. I shoot in the mountains all of the time. At altitude, the reflections off water and the bright sky are a problem. Polarizing filters are a god send for my photography. One of the best investments I've ever made.

This was super helpful! Although, I'm not yet convinced that using high-end software and high-speed continuous shooting to replicate the effects of an ND filter for daytime slow-shutter is a good alternative. Even with the free or cheap software using a tripod it still takes a ton of time in post (at least for a beginner like me). I'm not a huge fan (yet) of extensive post-editing, so I like the ND option at this point, at least for the specific purpose of daytime slow-shutter.

Uv filter is waste Nd & cpl filters are worth every penny

All filters have their place when used properly. The ND filters can be used for artistic effects that are not possible in post and are just better in camera. I am a Photoshop geek but you can't beat getting it right in camera when you can!!

more like "how to use filters incorrectly."

Tony: I'm a really lazy person in lenses Also Tony: stack images in Photoshop and use twice the amount of time

Thank you for busting the myths about lens scratches. Your effort is well worth it to help people like me realize. :)

So what's next? Save money and don't buy your tripod because you can hold the camera perfectly still on your hand... or on your friends head, to achieve the same sharpens? And sorry, but that alternative work on Photoshop didn't make things easier, actually much longer process. But each to their own.

Nah, polarizer and nd does make difference for shooting!! I use filters all the time! Look a lot better!

Conclusion: Tony is much more of a KZfaqr than a photographer now.

I really like your output, and almost always agree, but I love my polarisers. I do a fair bit of sky photography, and you can't quite replicate the way white cloud stands out from blue sky, especially cirrus, the high wispy stuff- you really get to see the structure properly. And I like the contrast boost for other subjects. As you mentioned, the main proviso is you need a lot of light.

That's bullshit and you know it. When you take a shot without a polarizer you recorded the reflection (on surfaces such as wet rocks or green leafs) and you didn't record the reflection under it. You can't fix this in post process, Tony. That's why you (probably) DO need polarizing filters.

Each to their own, but the polariser speech is almost plain wrong. It's a matter of taste if you like the glare or not. I definitely prefer the shots with the polariser removing the glare and the effect cannot be replicated in any software. It can also be used to enhance colours in way more than just the sky and water, such as in wet rocks and leaves or anything else reflecting polarised light. I've also used one numerous times to remove reflections on water that otherwise ruined a nice shot. As for the loss of light, its true but it can certainly be easily worked around by using a tripod or by increasing ISO slightly. I bought my polariser for around £45 GBP for a Hoya HD circular polariser that has an extremely impressive multi-coating and only loses 1.15 stops of light which really means minor increases in noise at the worst of times. That said, like you say its true that you get uneven polarisation of the sky and this is noticeable in wide shots with lots of blue sky. But when you cut circular polarised light, you allow unpolarised light that was obscured to reach the sensor, recovering detail in an image that can't be recovered in post or even with exposure adjustments, because there is still the same ratio of polarised to unpolarised light and dropping the exposure just cuts both polarised and unpolarised light equally. The ND filter can be mimicked in post, fair enough. Though some will say its not quite as nice or they like the romance of using filters and getting the shot in camera rather than spending time in post processing. Both sides are fair enough. Also true that they definitely will reduce image quality a little.

11:22 how the hell you got perfect identical photos without a tripod?

This was great! I had already stopped using a UV filter, but seeing you abuse that lens and showing that a scratch or two isn't nearly as problematic as a noob like myself might assume, is very helpful for not being so worried about damaging my lenses

kai from digital rev would be proud that you just did that to your lens... _i have no clue how he can just destroy cameras and gear just for the laughs..._

I demur on the polarizer. It is a fundamental tool for landscape photography in the UK & Ireland and northern Europe in general. We lose so much detail that cannot be recovered. But it is never a question of time, nor of shutter speed for when one is using them you are almost certainly on a tripod. Plus, given the nature of that distortion in light wave you could shoot forever and you'd not reveal the details hidden by the light wave.

I literally laughed out loud at you trying to scratch the lens!!!! But I almost couldn’t cope to watch. I love your channel! Thank you

It's been many years since the first time I watched this video, and I'm still so impressed by you stabbing the lens to show us the lenses are tough lol. This video is priceless😆

Polarising filters do have their use. I used to emulate it with photoshop as well, but especially in bright, sunny conditions I found they have a real use in making your images look more contrasty and produce richer colour. ND filters are pretty much mandatory when doing video. UV filters are pretty much useless 99% of the time, but I find them quite fun to use at concerts, where the UV filter will add another layer of flares on your image. It's a bit cheesy, but it looks quite good with video.

When he was stabbing the lens it felt like someone was stabbing my heart

You can't compare nd filter with polarised filter, don't have same function

The tip about taking multiple shot and blending them was nice, and I will keep that in mind, but I will still stick to having my ND filter for long exposures. All the other reasons to skip the UV and Polarizing Filters, I agree.

Plastic filters? Where the heck are you buying plastic filters? I agree about a UV filter, but there are plenty of uses for polarizers and ND filters. A graduated ND filter is invaluable in landscape photography. It all depends on what you're shooting and how you do it. Not your best video.

I really appreciated the scratched lens part! Makes me feel a lot better about any scratches and dust on my lens! Got an old film camera and I have shot a few rolls so far. No idea how they have turned out but, my guess is pretty bad! I will send them off the get developed soon, so I hope they turn out nice.

The one plus for UV filter is if you got a blop of tree sap on your lens, it is almost impossible to get off and you probably will have to replace the lens. Other than that, thanks for helping me save a ton from not buying a polarizing or ND filter haha! Great video.

Just came across this video from yourself. I hadn't realised that there was a facility in Photoshop that allowed you to mimic the same affect as using an ND filter. Pretty cool. need to try that before I fork out £60+ on Cokin P ND Filter. There is so much depth to Photoshop it's scary. Thanks for the insight.

One thing to point out here, when you scratched your lens up in your demo, yes pointing and taking a picture at the areas that you did made it hard to see any effect, but what about when you take shots at low light at night? I wear glasses, and believe me, in back lit situations in the day time, as well as at night with lights pointing at you, you can tell the difference between glasses with scratches, and a good set that have no minute scratches or swirl marks in them. What I see with my scratched up work glasses are more hazy in back light, and halos appearing around things like street lights, and especially like oncoming headlights of cars while you are driving. Would this not be the same problem with a camera lens in your experience?

I like how people get so worked up and passionate about their use of UV Filters!

Thank you Tony for saving me alot of money. After buying my first UV filter I immediately realized my pictures looked different and it had reduced the quality of my images somewhat. After watching this video I knew why. As always your guidance in this subject matter is greatly appreciated. Looking forward to more videos. Cheers

I think photography is probably not necessary but video is because you can’t change the shutter speed (1/50 for 24 FPS, 1/120 for 60 FPS) etc and if you want to use a wide aperture for bokeh, then it will be impossible without an ND filter.

Yeh, I'm one of those ' must have filters' nuts, I've got the UV permanently fitted, I've got the polarizer too. Now, I don't know about you guys, but I love the effects of the polarizer, image quality doesn't seem to suffer, but I take your point re UVs, I've taken mine off. However, I won't be taking a crab claw to my front element any time soon!!! Great Video by the way. Subscribed.

thank you for the genius advices but i'd rather screw on a filter in 5 seconds, than fiddle in photoshop for 15 minutes. taking pictures = fun, screwing around in photoshop = most boring thing ever. i'll pass.

Thanks Tony, I just bought my first set of lenses, 3 primes, all different thread diameters. You just saved me a pile of money! Really I appreciate the down to earth, honest demonstrations in your videos :)

Great video! That ND filter trick is amazing! Man, it might take a bunch of combined shots but to get same results but a photo with that little noise is gold. I have to try this for my landscape photography. And the point you made about the auto focus issues using ND filters is very interesting! Although as landscape photographers we should be manual focus. So does it mean when we use the ND filter for video that our auto focus could be compromised?

1: a .9 ND filter is a 45% reduction of light transmitted not 90% (3 stops) 2: a polarizing filter isn't NEARLY as complex as you say, nor as useless 3: not all uv filters are cheap plastic, and again not fully useless

In automotive photography a polariser filter is definitely needed. I had been taking pictures of cars for a year without one they were all ways too reflective. With the polariser it allows you to see the colours better and allows you to see through the windows instead of bright sunlight shining off it.

Love all your information on filters. I use a UV filter for protection on my RX10: the lens is part of the camera and I'm in harsh outdoor environments so I feel the filter is good insurance against scratches. I use a glass Zeiss UV filter in the hopes that it will not degrade my images BUT I will be taking the filter when appropriate like shooting astro-photography... Thanks again for the info!

Lens Abuser.. Lol! Your awesome. I always learn from you. Love the science behind your lessons.Thx!

Tony, thank you for all of your videos, and for the education you provide on KZfaq. I have learned so much from your channel! I agree with the UV filter statement but disagree on the utility of polarizing filters. It appeared that when you were taking the picture of the sky it was at a wide angle and this will cause uneven color gradients in the sky, which is well documented fact. However, if used appropriately at moderate focal lengths a polarizing filter will help to render a uniform blue sky, free of uneven blue colors. Granted this can be largely replicated in post-production, but the filter needs to be used correctly in order to work properly. Additionally a polarizing filter is very useful in nature photography situations which involve large amounts of green foliage. This effect cannot be replicated in post-production, or at least without spending an absurd amount time in Photoshop. Leaves are very reflective and green saturation can be largely improved with a polarizing filter while maintaining a natural aesthetic.This is obviously subjective and I respect your opinion and expertise. Based on your opinion with the car photos you may feel differently, but I think that owning good polarizing filter has improved my landscape/nature work.

wtf I saw here? 1) Polarizing. All pics better with filter. Why you show clear sky as example? Try to shoot clouds. Tell me something about storefront photos. Photo of car without filter... almost half of image is just white blob... 2) Autoalign will not align 100% acurate so you will not get sharper image. 3) "UV filter decrese image quality" If you scratch it and thouch it with your fat fingers before shooting(as you done on video) OF COURSE IT WILL ruin image. Keep optics clean! All your filters used on test are full of fat and dust.

Chelsea & Tony both you two are AWSOME!!! I was just considering filters, you both are my go to when it comes to an authentic perspective, I really appreciate what you do! I will try these techniques, thanks!

Appreciate this video so much! A lot of accessories are sold to new photographers like myself because we don't have the experience yet to challenge the sale. This is great, you've saved me a few hundred dollars.

If you were using an ND filter...wouldn't you be using the lowest possible ISO anyway?

Why is the words FREE and EXPENSIVE used on a few dollars, when using a 5000 US Dollar camera and lens ? Something is wrong here...

Bought a 2nd hand scratched SONY 18-105mm for 260USD as compared to 2nd hand not scratched that would have been 400USD here in Thailand. Saved 140 USD. Tried shining light into it, and stopping down to f22 and could not see the effect of the scratch. Don't know if I did the trial right. But I've been filming and taking some candid portraits with it and the results are just fine. Thx Tony for this experimentation.

I agree with your opinions of the UV and ND filters, but I like a CP filter at times (landscapes, through water surface).

I may be wrong, I just have the feeling that if there are situations where a ND filter is needed in bright daylight, or if there is a crazy amount of glare, filters can be necessary. But in my experience the more filters you're adding to the actual lens, you're loosing the maximum sharpness that you could be getting from your lens.

Watched this video day after buying 2 filters for my new lenses. But... one reason to use filter as a protection to your lens would be to keep its value if you are ever going to sell them for whatever reason. The ones I got are neither UV or polarazing, they are just protective filters, which are supposed to be designed just for that. They are also antistatic so they should keep dust and stuff away. I haven't tried them yet though, I hope they don't affect the picture as much. Also - I was quite surprised when saw no difference in the scratched lens picture. I wonder if it stays that way at a higher f stop or on long exposure photos though. Thanks for the video!

Im 51, old school 35mm. Back into game after 30 years. I love ur way of schooling!! Mindful, and best way really. Thank you, there's a way to compensate.

🤣😂😆 Tony, This is so awesome! I was laughing so hard at 10:24 watching what you were doing to the nifty fifty. Just two night ago I noticed bad glare when taking a night photo and realized it was my supposedly lens protecting UV filter. Thank you for this video and the comparison 👍

picture said 1.8.....how bout at f16 or f22 will the scratches wont come out.

Reading some of these comments, good grief! I think some people are missing the point, this video is pretty clearly directed towards beginner/hobbyist photographers introducing them to info about filters and why they may or may not want them. I don't believe the point was to tell pros and experienced people that their opinions on filters were right or wrong, and the only thing about protection is that it probably isn't the end of the world should you somehow even get a scratch. As somebody who is interested in trying some long exposure shots, I found this video very informative and helpful! Thank you Tony and Chelsea!

Stacking multiple fast shutter speed exposure to simulate long exposure photos is super cool! Thanks Tony!

Great video. It does an amazing job of demonstrating that if you don't know how or when to use polarizing or nd filters, you (probably) don't need them! Thanks for saving people money!

1. A polariser can remove reflections from shop windows for example. Try doing that in software without spending 5 hours per image. 2. Show me how I can shoot portraits at f/1.4 on a bright sunny day without using an ND filter. Impossible. 3. Try shooting dirt bikes in the rain without a UV/protection filter. All that gritty mud and water being constantly wiped off your front lens element will destroy the lens over time.

I feel stupider after watching this video...

Wow the scratched lens results were a huge surprise. I love using an ND filter for my video work but am grateful I don't have to worry about a UV filter. Very informative video!

I almost ordered the whole very expensive NISI set from Amazon but happened across your video. Your attempt at pulverizing your lens was pretty convincing to NOT buying silly plastic lenses. LOL Thanks again!

Well don't want to sound arrogant, but I think you would have noticed the scratches shooting directly into the sun! This is where the diffrences become somewhat visible (same as UV filter btw. no visible diffrence in more "normal" conditions with UV filter)

I guess we can also start drawing the landscapes in Photoshop and stop going out in nature. I prefer going out for hikes and use filters rather than sit in front of a computer and edit photos.

Nice technique to avoid using ND filter, it definitely is better than the color cast & sharpness loss, or the pain of paying a premium for high-end ND filters specially for large diameters. However, I just want to mention that I sometimes use an ND filter for portraits with flash in bright daylight (since my flashes don't support HSS).

Your opinion is totally viable because you have a lot of experience, so you know what you're talking about, and the type of shooting you do you don't need those filters. I see a lot of landscape photographers use ND filters and Polarizing filters for their shots, but I can definitely understand what you're saying; most new photographers won't need those filters, but the pro or specialized ones might. It's all a case-by-case basis.

I still carry a polarizing filter simply because you can't simulate removing reflections off objects without faking it in Photoshop and I think some of those examples did look better with the filter. The ND filter trick is nifty though, thanks.

You might be right about the ND and UV filters but the polarizing one seemed very useful

At first I could only watch a few minutes as it was out in left field!! But then...I read the comments and just had to finish the video to see if Tony actually said those things. Well it "brightened up my day" and got a chuckle from me. Come on Tony, get it together sir!

during the day I cant seem to get anthing near 1/6 shutter speed with a f/11 apeture. it brings in too much light. I took 38 images and the lowest shutter I could get wa 1/30 so 38 x 1/30 only equals 1.2 sec. I want to try get at least a 5 seconds to blur clouds

what if you want to shoot f2 in bright day light? no nd?

how about shooting at bright daylight with 1.2 aperture 100iso ?

I felt my blood pressure go down when I saw the last part of the video..... this was very informative and excellent, thank you guys!