Landscape Filter Advice

Welshy74

Welshy74

Messages
170
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
Yes
I am finally getting around to looking at landscape shooting. Ive sorted the tripod and remote but need you guys advice on filters as unsure where to start. Mainly using my D7200 and 10-24. Is there a starter kit type product or is it too broad ranging?????
 
The 2 systems worth looking at are Lee and NiSi. Both are expensive but most landscape photographers of note will use one or the other.

Both are modular, you buy a holder, adapter rings (these screw into the screw thread on your lenses) and then the filters you want. Lee have an excellent website with YouTube videos explaining their systems in depth. If you go down the Lee lines you will need their "100 system".

I hope this helps you a little.

Andy
 
IMHO you should certainly have a polariser and a graduated filter; a soft grad makes more sense to me. You can mimic the effect of the grads in post-processing by blending bracketed shots, but you can't mimic the polariser (AFAIK).

Those who want milky waterfalls, scary flat seas or streaky clouds would want a few ND filters as well (also can't be mimiced in post). It seems to me the polariser and ND filters are better screw in, while the grad is better in square format. There are plenty of threads with folk arguing the benefits of different brands of filter. The better ones are ridiculous amounts of money, particularly the grads (at least for an amateur like me... but then, I got my grads in a charity shop for less than a tenner!).
 
Depends on what you are shooting as to which will be more useful with graduated filters.
Probably the most useful would be a 2 or 3 stop. The most general purpose is the soft graduated which has a gradual graduation, so wont leave a line across items above the horizon level, buildings, mountains etc. If you shoot a lot of seascapes or landscapes with flat horizons, a hard grad will be a better option, it has a shorter graduated part.
For sunrise/sunset a reverse grad is handy, the darkest part is in the centre, so it will darken mainly just above the horizon, fading out as it goes higher
 
Using a polariser on a wide lens can produce a very uneven sky, which is quite hard to correct in PP.
ND filters can be useful, as mentioned, for long exposures to produce blurry water and skies, if that is your thing.
 
Welshy74 said:
What type of graduated filter? All a bit confusing to me. Thanks Chris
Click to expand...
On a crop body I'd suggest the first filters you get are hard grads. Either a 0.6 or 0.9 (2 & 3 stop respectively). The reason for this is the transition is relatively larger on crop than on FF and with soft grads the whole transition area can cover the sensor (well very nearly). Grads can be simulated very well in PP and you can also use multiple exposures and blend to achieve similar results.

The first filter I'd suggest though is a polariser as this is the one filter that cannot be replicated by stacking or in pp. Many seem to think the only use of a polariser is to darken/saturate the sky, tbh that is the least use I put mine to. They do tend to saturate colours, but they also remove glare so mostly mine is used for that purpose.
 
Look into exposure blending and you can do away with many filters like ND Grads. Only a polariser cannot be replaced by post shot processing and also ND filters used to take long exposures. I have/am selling my ND Grads etc and for landscapes find it much easier just to carry a polariser and occasionally a Big Stopper type ND but these are screw in and take up far less room than square filters and their associated frames and adapter rings.
 
A polarising filter is the only type of filter that you cannot simulate in software.

A modern sensor does not need a graduated filter, you can recover the highlights/shadows in processing.

If you have an extreme range of contrast then you can always bracket and blend the exposures.
 
Brian G said:
A polarising filter is the only type of filter that you cannot simulate in software.

A modern sensor does not need a graduated filter, you can recover the highlights/shadows in processing.

If you have an extreme range of contrast then you can always bracket and blend the exposures.
Click to expand...
I presume that what a modern sensor needs to remove the need for grads is good dynamic range. There's quite a difference between the best and worst dynamic ranges of the various current sensors, more if you step back into older models. A few extra stops of dynamic range might make the difference between often needing a grad and rarely needing a grad. So the dispute among landscape photographers about whether or not graduated filters are now necessary might depend on the kind of camera. I have a suspicion too that filters are likely to reduce the dynamic range, so having a tendency to justify their use.

I can't speak from my own experience, because I do cityscapes rather than landscapes. Graduated filters can't handle the very uneven skylines of cityscapes so it has to be exposure blending anyway.
 
I wonder if you might want to save your money on filters at this stage and buy another lens to go with the 10-24. Such a wide lens is a bit restrictive and makes you very reliant on dramatic foreground, you might find a more general 18-55mm or longer 55-300mm should benefit you, the longer lens particularly in hilly areas where you might want to zoom in on far away peaks or features. But if you do want filters, a screw in polariser/s would be useful for more normal and longer lenses, solid ND filters are great for creative effects and also an R72 infrared filter can be a lot of fun
 
chris malcolm said:
I can't speak from my own experience, because I do cityscapes rather than landscapes. Graduated filters can't handle the very uneven skylines of cityscapes so it has to be exposure blending anyway.
Click to expand...
Completely agree.

Hardware Graduated Filters will work best when the boundary between the sky and the rest of the scene is a straight line, and how often does that happen?
Most of my landscapes have hills, trees or buildings overlapping the horizon, so a grad filter will darken those when you dont need it.
The only filter I occasionally use is a Polariser, everything else is done in software.
 
Brian G said:
Completely agree.

Hardware Graduated Filters will work best when the boundary between the sky and the rest of the scene is a straight line, and how often does that happen?
Most of my landscapes have hills, trees or buildings overlapping the horizon, so a grad filter will darken those when you dont need it.
The only filter I occasionally use is a Polariser, everything else is done in software.
Click to expand...

Brian,

Which grads have you tried out? I ask as the Lee soft grads (and now the new medium grads) are designed specifically for use where there is no, distinct horizon line. They work perfectly and do not darken unwanted areas.

Andy
 
Brian G said:
A polarising filter is the only type of filter that you cannot simulate in software.
Click to expand...

What about a big stopper?

Brian G said:
If you have an extreme range of contrast then you can always bracket and blend the exposures.
Click to expand...

You can but that isn't always an ideal solution (on windy days for example). Grads aren't always the best option but neither is recovering highlights/shadows or bracketing so I prefer to carry filters with me so I have both options available (recovering dark shadows isn't advisable on a 5D mk2!).
 
Keebsuk said:
Brian,

Which grads have you tried out? I ask as the Lee soft grads (and now the new medium grads) are designed specifically for use where there is no, distinct horizon line. They work perfectly and do not darken unwanted areas.

Andy
Click to expand...
I'm happy with the results I get using software,
Those Lee graduated filters are an awful lot of money for something that I'd only use occasionally.
I can't justify £100+ for a filter and £50+ for the holder, plus it's yet another thing to carry, keep clean, and risk getting broken.
I've already got Lightroom so why not use it? If that isn't enough I have a Topaz plug-in that does a pretty good job.
It strikes me that anything that does "not darken unwanted areas." isn't going to be very effective at darkening the areas you want it to.
The amount of unwanted darkening is going to depend on the size and shape of the intrusion across the dividing line, and that's something you can never predict.
When questioned, one of the guys at our club who uses grads said "sometimes you have to selectively brighten the areas you didn't want to darken" in which case why not do the whole thing in software?
 
Brian, I asked as you gave out quite misleading advice about grads. We are all entitled to our opinions but wouldn't it be prudent to have actually used the filters in question before posting your comments?

Have a look at any of Joe Cornish's YouTube videos about grads. If they are good enough for one of the top landscape photographers going then they are plenty good enough for me!

Andy
 
Last edited:
Keebsuk said:
Brian, I asked as you gave out quite misleading advice about grads. We are all entitled to our opinions but wouldn't it be prudent to have actually used the filters in question before posting your comments?

Have a look at any of Joe Cornish's YouTube videos about grads. If they are good enough for one of the top landscape photographers going then they are plenty good enough for me!

Andy
Click to expand...
I was hardly giving out advice, simply expressing an opinion, just like everyone else on this site.
All I can say is that I get the results that satisfy me without the use of an expensive filter system.
I still maintain that a system with a straight division, however "soft," between the two halves, does not suit the majority of subjects that I take.
 
Software can only help to a point. You can only bring back so much information from a blown out sky.

I dont find my filters darker unwanted areas to much and I can always increase the exposure slightly using the adjustment brush. Just like you would have to do in Lightroom after applying a graduated filter.
 
Last edited:
GHP said:
Using a polariser on a wide lens can produce a very uneven sky, which is quite hard to correct in PP.
ND filters can be useful, as mentioned, for long exposures to produce blurry water and skies, if that is your thing.
Click to expand...

Uneven polarisation can be quite easily corrected in PP now.

If you're using Lightroom, the over-saturated area is conveniently round or oval so select it with the radial filter. Invert the mask, select 100% feathering, then work on the saturation using the various sliders.

Re ND grads. I suggest you start with a 2 stop hard filter. You don't even need a holder; as long as you are using a tripod you can hold the filter against the rim of the lens; its effect is quite clearly visible in the viewfinder.
 
Last edited:
When it comes to most filters I would recommend waiting till you feel like you really need them for a specific purpose. The exception would be a circular polarizer, which comes in handy very often. I find myself not using most of the filters that I have very often.
 
Brian G said:
I'm happy with the results I get using software,
Those Lee graduated filters are an awful lot of money for something that I'd only use occasionally.
I can't justify £100+ for a filter and £50+ for the holder, plus it's yet another thing to carry, keep clean, and risk getting broken.
I've already got Lightroom so why not use it? If that isn't enough I have a Topaz plug-in that does a pretty good job.
It strikes me that anything that does "not darken unwanted areas." isn't going to be very effective at darkening the areas you want it to.
The amount of unwanted darkening is going to depend on the size and shape of the intrusion across the dividing line, and that's something you can never predict.
When questioned, one of the guys at our club who uses grads said "sometimes you have to selectively brighten the areas you didn't want to darken" in which case why not do the whole thing in software?
Click to expand...

Because you can't bring back a blown sky if there is nothing to bring back. Simples
 
Recently got in to landscape photography and bought a circular 10 stop and just ordered a polarising filter due tomorrow.

I have bought both in 77mm size to fit what I think will be my most used lens but thought I may as well spend a little more and get some step down rings to use with my 67 and 49mm lenses

Any merit in buying better quality/brands ? Or providing they fit they should be fine ?

Many thanks

Tony
 
Polariser is probably the only one that will get any use !
My UV filter only ever go on my lens these days in adverse weather or working conditions better to replace a cheap UV piece of glass than a front element or complete lens IMO
You may find a use for a ND or I.R. filter but they don't need to be at the top of you shopping list or your need to purchase.
 
tonybassplayer said:
Recently got in to landscape photography and bought a circular 10 stop and just ordered a polarising filter due tomorrow.

I have bought both in 77mm size to fit what I think will be my most used lens but thought I may as well spend a little more and get some step down rings to use with my 67 and 49mm lenses

Any merit in buying better quality/brands ? Or providing they fit they should be fine ?

Many thanks

Tony
Click to expand...
Always found Hoya, B&W, or Tiffen to be good
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top