Best Filters for Landscapes

A

abrahamovervoorde

Messages
7
Name
Abraham
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

What filters would you say are best for using with landscape photography?
 
If it what make of filter you are asking then that is down to a matter of taste and budget. I have used Lee, Formatt Hitech and Nisi and they have all be good.

In temr of what type of filters I would say depending on your camera and skill level they may not really be necessary. They certainly are not essential. An ND Graduated for lowering the brightness of the sky can be good but you need a relatively flat horizon. But bracketing the shot and exposure blending afterwards is just as effective and gives you more control. A neutral density filter is much more useful if you take photos that include water as they smooth the water out. I would recommend a 3 stop, 6 stop and 10 stop. I currently use NISI for these and they are really good.
 
Purely in the spirit of balance rather than controversy

The ONLY filter I have is a 10-stopper for long-exposure landscapes; and yet most of the time I don't even use that as Simulated LE is easier and more flexible for my needs, though even more oddly using BOTH together gives even more options

Over the years I've had various including ND & Coloured Grads (both hard & soft types) some odd ones like Rainbows and Starbursts, and yes a Polariser too - and I've binned or sold them all on as being unnecessary

@abrahamovervoorde So if you were asking me directly I'd say don't bother, and put the money you've saved towards days out actually shooting :)

Dave
 
It's not a matter of "best" - it's really what you want to achieve. Different filters do different things. There's no need to go overboard with filters; a polariser in my opinion is a must because the effect cannot be achieved in PP. Maybe a ND grad - although the ability to combine exposures in PP is making that obsolete now. Personally I'm not a great believer in ND filters (for long exposures) but some poeple like them; I can't see the point of 3 different ones, though!

So it's largely personal preference. Just don't believe the hype about buying a "kit" - you'll probably only ever use one or two of them.......
 
Best is a subjective term! I only use filters when you can't get the effect any other way. Otherwise, the best filter is no filter.

For colour, a polariser as that effect cannot be replicated PP.

I don't bother with fiddly ND grads; I bracket shots and combine them in post. A big stopper however is essential for long exposures in daylight, should you wish to do that.

For black and white film, I love using an orange or red filter for really dramatic sky.

And finally, a 720nm filter for infrared.
 
For normal photographers a CPL is best, giving some effect to most landscape shots & being controllable for the level of effect. I use mine mainly for either boosting or killing reflections from water or glass. Their effects on colours ( saturating them by removing surface reflections on leaves etc) or darkening blue skies... are also worth considering.

ND filters are also regularly used by those who want longer exposures.
For a quite different look IR filters might also be worth considering but these may need a modified camera or very long exposure times.
The effect of just about all other filters on standard cameras can be replicated relatively easily in software (often with better results than using a filter).

With a full spectrum IR modified camera many of the old photographic filters offer options different than achievable with software as most pass IR which is recorded in all 3 channels of the camera. In this role blue & green filters are highly unpredictable - I have 3 different 'Green X1' filters and have found the IR transmission of each is different, one blocks nearly all (<5%), one passes ~80% IR & the last transmits ~45% IR!
 
A CPL without a doubt.

General landscapes, skies and clouds, water glare and reflections, glare on foliage/trees, saturation of colour.... Irreplaceable imo
 
Stegosaurus said:
I'm intrigued, how do you replicate the unique blurring of a long exposure in Photoshop? For example, to produce an image like this:View attachment 301467
Click to expand...

It's actually really simple

For example, I often go for around 30-60 seconds depending on the scene and the amount of blur I'm after, so I may take 30 shots 1 sec apart or 30 2 secs apart. You then load them into PS as a stack and use a script to create an average blend, that's the LE simulation

One thing I like about this is that if the effect is too blurred, I can run it again with fewer images, so effectively altering the length of the long-exposure after I'm home. That's not possible with a ND filtered LE

Close-up of water does work best with an ND though as the simulated LE creates hotspots that may not be acceptable, but you can work around this by using an ND for say a 3 sec exposure and then blending 10 of those for your 30 secs, meaning you can create LE in bright daylight while shooting wide open

Its a very flexible way of creating the LE look and easier in the field too as you can obviously see through your lens for focusing & composition easier than having to put on/take off a big stopper

Dave
 
I used to use Lee filters (Grads, ND and CPL) and they are very good. But I was finding they do take some room up in the camera bag and they can be a bit awkward to use on location, particularly in the cold with gloves on. So I went over to Kase magnetic and they were really nice and easy to use, but no grads though. But as someone has suggested already, taking multiple exposures or relying on the camera dynamic range can overcome that limitation to an extent.

However, I started to realise that I enjoyed the walking and being out in nature more than I did the need for a perfect photograph, so I've recently downsized to gear that is more suited to hiking and travel with my landscape photography ie. Canon M5 and M-lenses. Also I've just gone for a small screw-in polariser which is more or less the only effect you can't create or simulate in photo editing. Most of the time I've also binned carrying around a tripod. My back now thanks me on my hikes.
 
Last edited:
I think I'd start by asking what camera you have. More modern sensors have a pretty wide dynamic range so graduated filters are less important on the other hand older cameras/sensors might benefit. Thinking back though I used to use a grad fairly regularly when the circumstances needed it but I don't have any of those shots printed out and hung on the wall. It could just be me, I tend to prefer calmer, less dramatic things on the wall but it's probably worth thinking about the type of photos you like before spending a lot on a filters

I agree with others that a CPL is fairly necessary because it can't be emulated in post processing and I'm sure I have printed some shots that used a CPL.
 
DG Phototraining said:
Not if you have Photoshop its not, and a Lee one is about 3-4 years of the Adobe subscription and needs replacing every 3-4 years too as you'll drop it lol :)

Dave
Click to expand...
Yes, I've heard lots of people talk about the benefits of simulated long exposure. I'm put off by having all those raw files to a) process and b) store. Using a 10 stop and having one RAW file to edit and store seems better to me.

However, I do find using filters a fiddly pain in the arse! So I might yet come around. Still, I love the effect of a polariser.
 
But to answer the OP's question, I use a polariser and a 10 stop ND. also have an ND grad but don't use it much. I'm considering getting something like a 6 stop as I somethings struggle to get my shutter speed just right with water. I also use my ND grad a normal ND sometimes - just have the dark bit over all of the frame. Just about works!
 
I have a whole set of Lee filters - Hard, Medium and Soft grads, a Little (6) and Big (10) stopper and the new polarizer and filter.

While I fully understand that my camera (Canon 5d4) has pretty good dynamic range and I can easily bracket snd merge later, I like the process of using filters. I work in IT and spend all day on computers, so for me, landscape photography is my escape and I'd rather get as much right in the camera as I possibly can. I typically spend around a minute or two processing each image in lightroom, doing just very minor tweaks.
 
I haven't used a polariser in years - I am not that keen on the affect and if it is uneven (which happens often with short focal lengths) then it is even worse. For me the one filter I couldn't live without would be a 3 stop soft edged GND filter or 0.9 soft.
 
PJPhoto said:
I have a whole set of Lee filters - Hard, Medium and Soft grads, a Little (6) and Big (10) stopper and the new polarizer and filter.

While I fully understand that my camera (Canon 5d4) has pretty good dynamic range and I can easily bracket snd merge later, I like the process of using filters. I work in IT and spend all day on computers, so for me, landscape photography is my escape and I'd rather get as much right in the camera as I possibly can. I typically spend around a minute or two processing each image in lightroom, doing just very minor tweaks.
Click to expand...

From a signal to noise ratio you are always better to get it right in camera, and you will get a slightly cleaner result using the filter, exposing a bit longer, adding more blacks in rather than recover dark sections. The issue was more pronounced back in the day but I still follow it now. You can blend of course but quite often with a soft filter there really is no need if you shoot away from the sun
 
I have a set of Lee ND grads and stoppers, but never got on with them. ND Grads to fiddly can recover highlights with modern cameras and the transition between sky and land is never straight so see little point.

I only ever use a circular polariser now, but even use that sparingly, that effect it has on a WA lens with blue sky - yuck!!
 
SFTPhotography said:
I haven't used a polariser in years - I am not that keen on the affect and if it is uneven (which happens often with short focal lengths) then it is even worse. For me the one filter I couldn't live without would be a 3 stop soft edged GND filter or 0.9 soft.
Click to expand...

It's quite easy to remove the effect of uneven polarisation on a blue sky using simple PP techniques. I'm sure you could master it!
 
jerry12953 said:
It's quite easy to remove the effect of uneven polarisation on a blue sky using simple PP techniques. I'm sure you could master it!
Click to expand...

I could..but why bother removing something by using something that puts it there in the first place. I haven't used a CPL in over two years and my photography hasn't suffered at all.
 
I prefer no filters. A major bugbear is the use of grads where the horizon in not flat, causing darkening of anything sticking up into the darkened area.

I have used a polariser in the past, but as Steve noted, the effect is not always even and I prefer not to use it.

The one exception is a 10 stop filter for long exposure, but that's very occasion-dependant, and use is rare.
 
SFTPhotography said:
I could..but why bother removing something by using something that puts it there in the first place. I haven't used a CPL in over two years and my photography hasn't suffered at all.
Click to expand...
It's been a lot longer than that since I used a CPL for skies. I find them very useful for all sorts of other shots, including some that are totally impossible without them.
 
DG Phototraining said:
Not if you have Photoshop its not, and a Lee one is about 3-4 years of the Adobe subscription and needs replacing every 3-4 years too as you'll drop it lol :)

Dave
Click to expand...

The Lee Big Stopper costs around 9 months of Adobe... unless you are paying a lot less than me
 
I use a CPL a lot, I find it invaluable for cutting out glare from foliage in woodlands and it is brilliant for making the colours of rainbows pop

Generally (most times but not always) using LEE filters allows me to get the exposure right in camera and choose the shutter speed for the effect I want regardless of the light but each to their own, people commenting here seem happy with the results whether they are using filters or not.
 
justinminns said:
The Lee Big Stopper costs around 9 months of Adobe... unless you are paying a lot less than me
Click to expand...

The only lens I'd have wanted one for was my (then) Nikon 14-24, which when I looked needed the bigger filter and holder and ring costing over £300, which is about 3 years worth of the Adobe monthly premium - case = rested :D

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
The only lens I'd have wanted one for was my (then) Nikon 14-24, which when I looked needed the bigger filter and holder and ring costing over £300, which is about 3 years worth of the Adobe monthly premium - case = rested :D

Dave
Click to expand...

That's a bit different to the 'average' Lee filter that most people would be referring to and using then..... ;) If you would have said that in your initial post it might not have been queried...... But then, that's not as much fun ;)
 
justinminns said:
I use a CPL a lot, I find it invaluable for cutting out glare from foliage in woodlands and it is brilliant for making the colours of rainbows pop

Generally (most times but not always) using LEE filters allows me to get the exposure right in camera and choose the shutter speed for the effect I want regardless of the light but each to their own, people commenting here seem happy with the results whether they are using filters or not.
Click to expand...


I find you have to be careful using a polariser on a rainbow. It is very easy to make it disappear completely, as i'm sure you know, but I have never really found it accentuates the colours.
 
jerry12953 said:
I find you have to be careful using a polariser on a rainbow. It is very easy to make it disappear completely, as i'm sure you know, but I have never really found it accentuates the colours.
Click to expand...
It just needs to rotated right when the filter is ~90 degrees from the position that makes the rainbow disappear it will double the rainbows intensity.
 
DG Phototraining said:
Nor me in my Pola days. I kinda assumed the light from the rainbow was coming straight at me so never expected it to make any difference, nor did it AFAIK

Dave
Click to expand...
The light is coming straight at you after being reflected 1 or more times. Each reflection increases the polarization.
 
DG Phototraining said:
Nor me in my Pola days. I kinda assumed the light from the rainbow was coming straight at me so never expected it to make any difference, nor did it AFAIK

Dave
Click to expand...

Trust me a CPL definitely does make a difference either to enhance (especially noticeable on weaker rainbows) or, as has been said, to reduce them.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: nog
There was a thread here some time ago about this and I believe the conclusion was that it changes them but doesn't enhance them. I don't remember the details or understand the physics but the route of the light through each raindrop is quite complex and polarisation does have some effect on it.
 
jerry12953 said:
There was a thread here some time ago about this and I believe the conclusion was that it changes them but doesn't enhance them. I don't remember the details or understand the physics but the route of the light through each raindrop is quite complex and polarisation does have some effect on it.
Click to expand...

I missed that particular thread, I'm just going by my own experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top