Board index Photography Technical Questions Worthwhile Filters

Technical Questions

Worthwhile Filters

Discuss technical aspects of photography
di_braun
 
Posts: 12

Worthwhile Filters

Post Wed May 16, 2007 7:34 pm


I am just a beginner and am wondering what filters are worthwhile. Specifically, when taking mountain landscapes I have found them to be hazy, does a uv filter really make that much of a difference??? Also wondering if a polarizing filter is worthwhile to purchase for lakes, rivers, skiing scenes... Any suggestions would be much appreciated. Thanks

gilp
 
Posts: 180


Post Thu May 17, 2007 12:28 am


UV filters are more or less a must.... they not only remove UV haze but protect your lens... better to change the filter than the lens!

Polarisers... they are great but depending on the nature of your sensor may not be has efficient as claimed. if you are good with curves in post, you can get the same level of contrast per colors.

sean_mcr
 
Posts: 493


Post Thu May 17, 2007 9:58 am


Personally speaking i don't use them for protection, i only use them for their design purpose. In fact i don't use them that much any more

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/colum ... b-05.shtml

gilp
 
Posts: 180


Post Thu May 17, 2007 11:50 am


sean_mcr wrote:Personally speaking i don't use them for protection, i only use them for their design purpose. In fact i don't use them that much any more

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/colum ... b-05.shtml



yeah, but not filters are created equal....some perform far better than others. I only have a filter on my 16-35 because I tend to get close enough to the subject that things can happen. aside from that , since I work almost exclusively in the studio...I am fairly safe!

sean_mcr
 
Posts: 493


Post Thu May 17, 2007 1:05 pm


This is very true Gilp. I use a 35mm 1.4 90% of the time and i have some fine filters, but still there's no filter that can match the glass of that prime or my 135 for that matter. It's rare that i have a filter on it and never for protection

But of course they have their uses. Obviously it depends on the conditions you shoot in as you rightly pointed out.

dhfore
 
Posts: 3

I never leave home to shoot landscapes without....

Post Fri May 18, 2007 2:59 pm


A quality polarizing filter. While the most obvious benefit to a polarizer is bluer skies, the other primary function of a polarizer is that it will eliminate reflections on subjects in the landscape (such as water, or leaves). For one example if you are shooting fall foliage, a polarizer will reduce the amount of glare on the leaves and allow the full saturated color of the leaves to come through. The amount of time it takes to remove unwanted reflections in an image in PS (and make it look like it was unmanipulated) vs, using the polarizer at the time of image taking to eliminate glare (off of wet leaves, as just one example) is ghastly. No landscape photographer should be without this filter in their arsenal. Don't cheap out on this filter, there's a definite difference between the budget polarizers and the multi-coated ones.

The other filter you may want to consider is a neutral density filter to lessen the dynamic range within the image. While photoshop makes it easier to blend multiple images into one properly exposed image, sometimes it's just easier to do things at the point of image-taking.

UV Filters should only be considered for lens glass protection, and even then, take them off when shooting, so what's that tell you about my feeling about UV Filters :)

kerrym
 
Posts: 311


Post Sat May 19, 2007 7:13 am


Polaroid is the first filter I get for landscape - it really helps if the sky isn't very interesting. Can help take away a very bland look, and make it more vibrant. Next on the list IS a UV filter, because they are relatively cheap - and it's particularly for saving the lens.

Next on the list.... ND.
Kerry Mitchell NZ
http://www.pbase.com/kerrym

guillaume
 
Posts: 59


Post Wed May 23, 2007 11:13 am


Hi,

Well, to answer your question directly I'd say :
get a polarizer (circular one (to avoid AF problems)), to enhance skies clouds, color of vegetation foliage (anything that reflects light)..., improve water (rivers and lake - but not as dramatically as sky & clouds). Remember that polarizer effect depends in which direction your shoot (90° from the sun is the most effective).
For haze : well the earlier you take pictures, the better it's... The dryer and colder the weather is, the better are pictures. In a warm day there can be a lot of haze on the path between your lens and a far away mountain just several hours after the sunrise. Best anti haze filter is warming filter (orange ones). Because it's the complementary color of blue it helps to "cut through" haze (physicaly - not like postprocessing with a software), by eliminating blue, and keep details in far away subjects (mountains...). The drawback is that it warms up all the picture. So you need to neutralize it later (software), automaticaly, or decrease color temperature if shot in raw.
I can't say a lot of things about UV filter. I'm not sure but I think it was important to have one on when films were used, because UV radiations could be recorded by the film, or react with emulsion, and then it could contribute to decrease sharpness & contrast of the image. Digital sensors are not that much sensitive to UV. So I'm not sure it would be useful for haze. Moreover : you can see haze with your eyes so it's visible (blue) light, so you need to eliminate one part of the visible light spectrum. Most efficient is warming filter I told you about previously. (for a lot more informations : read B+W Filter Handbook, see the link below).

What I think : for protection : buy protective transparent filter (scratch dust...), but UV is fine for this purpose too.
For haze : use warming filter, then neutralize colors later (software). (and get out early in the morning 8o) ).

Some Warming+Polarising filter exist (B+W), but I think it's more clever to buy them separately and screw them, one on the other.

Read also what follow :

Once you've several lenses which cover the range of focal length you need, filter can be added to increase your creativity. Enhance beauty of a scene ((color filters, polarizers...), remove climatic effects which decrease final image quality (anti haze (orange ones)), reveal what eye (and brain) cannot see (Neutral Density filters, polarizers...)...

I suggest you've a look here to judge by yourself the effect of several filters :
http://www.naturephotographers.net/arti ... 006-1.html
Gold n Blue is a very interesting filter too, but expensive, and it's better to start with normal (circular) polarizer.

download and have a look to "B+W Filter Handbook" there :
http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/sti ... graphy.htm
it's an interesting read to understand what filters can bring to your photographs.

Hope it helps,

See you

-------------------------------------------------------

Image

Nature, Wildlife, Mountain, Polar & Sub Polar Regions Pictures
Mediterranea, Patagonia, Arctic Svalbard, Iceland
Dance, Volleyball & Beach Volleyball, & Sailing Pictures

Leave comments & Vote if you like it !

geoff_c
 
Posts: 15


Post Sat Jun 02, 2007 10:17 pm


I have to say that a set of 3 ND grads (0.3, 0.6 and 0.9) are always in my bag. These are really useful for holding back the sky so that you retain detail in the foreground.

I use Cokin 'P' series and am really pleased. The square filser frame allows fairly accruate positioning of the filter.

Geoff

(http://www.geoffc.com)

marxz
 
Posts: 282


Post Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:06 am


I was under the impression from a fair number of sources that DSLR's don't require UV filtering as the sensor it's self is "blind" to UV.

if your going to use one though get the best one you can justify the $$ on as there's no point putting a optically inferior filter in front of your prized lens.


Circular polariser, even though you can fake some of the effects using hue saturation adjustments in photoshop (ie more vivid, darker blue skys/ more dynamic clouds) you can't easily fake the removal of reflections (for when you don't want them) off water and glass.

I'd throw in at least one or two strong (.9 (3 stop) or 1.8 (6 stop)) non grad ND filters to allow shallower DoF or longer shutter speeds - especially in strong light.

Your milage with grad ND's may vary... I own about 8 of them of various strengths and gradient "speed" and hardly ever use them... I'd sooner shoot bracketed RAW and merge them in to a HDR in photoshop, though this is not always practical (where there are objects/subjects moving between exposures for example) so an ND grad may come out then.

thelund
 
Posts: 45


Post Fri Jun 15, 2007 5:47 pm


marxz wrote:I was under the impression from a fair number of sources that DSLR's don't require UV filtering as the sensor it's self is "blind" to UV.


They are a LOT less sensitive to UV than film is! - So UV filters are practically useless for their original purpose, on a digital camera... Cheap filters will however tend to worsen flares, lowering your contrast thus lowering your image quality! :(

My opinion; UV filters are useless...

Some say they are good for protection, but even with greasy finger marks on my lenses i have never made any visible scratches on any of my lenses yet!

Polarizers are very usefull for landscapes imo, so are graduated ND filters, regular ND filters are usefull too in some situations where you need lower DOF or longer exposure times.


Brian

alexphotos
 
Posts: 561


Post Fri Jun 15, 2007 10:39 pm


I always ahve a UV filter on my lens, last year I was at a motocross race and a rock hit the front of my lens, good thing that the UV filter was there to take the So I lost 70$ on that B+W filter Or else I would have to send my 70-200 for repair. So you dont care about the UV your care about your lens.

I carry Netral filters, Star filter ( 3 different one) warming, sunset and a FLD (for when I do shot film with some neon light) all In the Cokin P series (check ebay for some cheap one) and I got a UV for each lens and a polarising from B+W

I mostly use filter for stuff that can't be done on a pc.
Try to make a effect of a star filter on Christmas tree with photoshop or other program......
Alexandre Trudeau-Dion aka ALEXPHOTOS http://www.pbase.com/alexphotos <=== http://www.Alexphotos.ca

joshmcculloch
 
Posts: 6

Filters for digital photography

Post Sat Jun 16, 2007 6:29 am


My preference for filters is as follows:

1) UV Filters on the front of all of my lenses for protection. Get a filter that is of equivalent quality to the lens you are using. No sense in putting a $30 UV filter on the front of a $2000 lens, and likewise, not smart to put a $80 UV filter on the front of a $200 lens...

2) A polarizing filter is a must. Not only for darkening skies, but for removing glare on glass, water, foliage, etc. Contrary to popular belief, this is nearly impossible to truly replicate is PS. Also great for cutting haze.

3) A ND filter is useful for slowing down shutter speeds during bright conditions. I prefer the Singh-Ray Vari-ND, but others work too.

4) A Blue/Yellow polarizer. Lots of fun, and works very well in the right circumstances. I like the Singh-Ray version, as it is of high optical quality, though not cheap! This is another one that is not possible to replicate is PS.

That's pretty much it. I used to carry around warming, ND and coloured grad, and colour intensifying filters, but these are all easily replicated in PS now. Hope this helps!

Cheers, Josh

British Columbia Stock Photos


Board index Photography Technical Questions Worthwhile Filters

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests