Best Filters for Landscapes

justinminns said:
I missed that particular thread, I'm just going by my own experience.
Click to expand...


This has prompted me to do an internet search on the matter. I'll report back later....... But one suggestion is that a polariser can polarise the background to the rainbow thus making it seem more saturated. Which makes sense.
 
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...
The light route isn't too complex for the first order rainbow - just refraction on entry to the raindrop, total internal reflection then refraction again on exit. The two refraction stages introducing the spread of colours & altering the angle between incoming & departing rays. Higher orders can indeed have very complex light paths with multiple internal reflections. The atmospheric optics website has lots of examples along with explanations & variations.

This section shows the light paths for the various rainbow orders. First order is the one we're most used to seeing with the second order being visible too on occasion (a double rainbow).
 
jerry12953 said:
This has prompted me to do an internet search on the matter. I'll report back later....... But one suggestion is that a polariser can polarise the background to the rainbow thus making it seem more saturated. Which makes sense.
Click to expand...

I guess in the same way it can make clouds much more pronounced & detailed.
 
LeeRatters said:
It's the 'being there' that's the problem :rolleyes: :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
Not something to try in the colder months, but it's easy to make your own rainbows with a hose, or spray can. Have the light behind you & make a mist with relatively large droplets. The effect will be the same, light isn't the slightest bit bothered if the droplets are created by rain of some other means. :cool:
 
Last edited:
jerry12953 said:
This has prompted me to do an internet search on the matter. I'll report back later....... But one suggestion is that a polariser can polarise the background to the rainbow thus making it seem more saturated. Which makes sense.
Click to expand...

Petrochemist said:
The light route isn't too complex for the first order rainbow - just refraction on entry to the raindrop, total internal reflection then refraction again on exit. The two refraction stages introducing the spread of colours & altering the angle between incoming & departing rays. Higher orders can indeed have very complex light paths with multiple internal reflections. The atmospheric optics website has lots of examples along with explanations & variations.

This section shows the light paths for the various rainbow orders. First order is the one we're most used to seeing with the second order being visible too on occasion (a double rainbow).
Click to expand...

We clearly have different ideas on what constitutes complex o_O:eek::oops: :$

I'm happy to be blissfully ignorant and just go by what seems to work :ROFLMAO:
 
We had an amazing double rainbow here a few days ago and I noticed that the outer rainbow had the colours reversed. I didn't try to photograph it but I have never notcied a polariser making a significant difference to the intensity of the colours in a rainbow. ( just to repeat myself......yawn.....)

Thanks for posting the link to the Atmospheric optics site, Mike. I'll have a browse later.
 
LeeRatters said:
My back garden doesn't make for a very good landscape though ;) :p
Click to expand...
That might complicate getting a good shot during semi lockdown. You could aim high so as to only get the sky in the background, use the shower instead or shoot with a very wide aperture. Consider it a creative challenge. :D

I've made use of a farmers irrigation system for rainbows in the past.
 
justinminns said:
We clearly have different ideas on what constitutes complex o_O:eek::oops: :$
Click to expand...
I did insert the word 'too'. With just one reflection I could make a reasonable attempt at the light path for 1st order from memory. Even after looking at it this morning I wouldn't stand a chance of repeating the sixth order (six internal reflections) apparently the light goes round the droplet two & a half times.
 
ancient_mariner said:
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.
Click to expand...

+1

A big no to plastic grads
And I try to not overuse cpl where possible. They make mess with skies on anything wider than 35mm unless it is quite cloudy. I find them most useful for interior work to cut out floor or table reflections.
These days I also feel not too keen on 10 stop particularly how they affect some colours more than the others, vignette heavily and make water and clouds look unearthly in many situations. There are times where they work and ideally that involves mono conversion

SFTPhotography said:
Wouldn't be without my 0.9 soft though
Click to expand...

If I had to shoot non-raw video in landscapes setting I may find myself considering a 0.6 soft but that's about all I could think of. Ideally it would have to be multicoated screw in glass like bw or Haida make but clearly they are not very popular. That's about it. I feel absolutely liberated after ditching these things four years ago.
 
Petrochemist said:
That might complicate getting a good shot during semi lockdown. You could aim high so as to only get the sky in the background, use the shower instead or shoot with a very wide aperture. Consider it a creative challenge. :D

I've made use of a farmers irrigation system for rainbows in the past.
Click to expand...

I'd rather not bother & just out to a nice woodland or bit of countryside :)
 
I'm fairly new to all this and as someone who is thinking of trying a few filters this is an interesting thread. As I've been doing a bit or research into filters I bought a copy of the Lee filters book "Inspiring professionals 2" to read up a bit more on filters.
If you have seen this book or the 1st version you'll know what its about, if not its a series of photos taken by Lee sponsored photographers who take pictures using Lee filters and there is a picture a short story about the pictures and what filters they used and how they were positioned, its all good quality stuff as you would expect, what I took from it was the filters they were using.
Some pictures had 2 (or 3) filters used. So i did a count up, results are:

53 pictures
Polarisings filter used on 13
0.6 Grad soft - used on 3
0.9 Grad soft - used on 4
0.3 Grad hard- used on 4
0.6 Grad hard - used on 17
0.9 Grad hard - used on 11
0.45 Grad hard - used on 3
0.27 Grad hard - used on 3
1.2 Grad hard - used on 1

The other were a mixture of Big/Little stoppers and some colour filters.

What surprised me is not 1 picture taken with a Medium grad, given that its a book to promote their products i was expecting more of a balance between the filters used.

So my conclusion is all I really need to buy is a 0.6 & 0.9 hard grad and a polariser, does that sound about right?
 
That's an interesting analysis! My own personal selection of grads is a two-stop (0.6) hard and a one-stop (0.3) hard. I find that in conjunction with a polariser the 0.3 hard produces lovely natural looking skies. The 0.6 hard can be a bit too much and turns the blue slightly grey.

It might be the case that some of those photographers would no longer use graduated filters for the reasons stated above.
 
I find this one absolutely indispensable for my landscape shots and I can't understand why more people don't use them.

43453620810_fcb7ef5e2b_b.jpg


Merry Christmas everyone. ;)
 
Last edited:
jerry12953 said:
That's real quality. I like the way you have used the telegraph pole replacement tool in your software as well.
Click to expand...
I know this may be hard to believe, but that shot is genuinely unedited in terms of poles and wires, it's just a Cokin rainbow filter (and years of experience). :)
 
Last edited:
ScottT said:
I'm fairly new to all this and as someone who is thinking of trying a few filters this is an interesting thread. As I've been doing a bit or research into filters I bought a copy of the Lee filters book "Inspiring professionals 2" to read up a bit more on filters.
If you have seen this book or the 1st version you'll know what its about, if not its a series of photos taken by Lee sponsored photographers who take pictures using Lee filters and there is a picture a short story about the pictures and what filters they used and how they were positioned, its all good quality stuff as you would expect, what I took from it was the filters they were using.
Some pictures had 2 (or 3) filters used. So i did a count up, results are:

53 pictures
Polarisings filter used on 13
0.6 Grad soft - used on 3
0.9 Grad soft - used on 4
0.3 Grad hard- used on 4
0.6 Grad hard - used on 17
0.9 Grad hard - used on 11
0.45 Grad hard - used on 3
0.27 Grad hard - used on 3
1.2 Grad hard - used on 1

The other were a mixture of Big/Little stoppers and some colour filters.

What surprised me is not 1 picture taken with a Medium grad, given that its a book to promote their products i was expecting more of a balance between the filters used.

So my conclusion is all I really need to buy is a 0.6 & 0.9 hard grad and a polariser, does that sound about right?
Click to expand...

If that's what you think you want/need.

Personally, I'd just go for the polariser.

Also, nice to see someone getting some useful info from this thread because the OP hasn't returned to it to reply or comment at all.
 
LeeRatters said:
If that's what you think you want/need.

Personally, I'd just go for the polariser.

Also, nice to see someone getting some useful info from this thread because the OP hasn't returned to it to reply or comment at all.
Click to expand...

Thanks Lee, I live on the coast about 20 miles from the Lake District and the majority of the pictures in that book are similar scenes to what I will be taking. I'm lucky that due to the area I can get a beach sunrise or sunset picture on the same day no more than a few miles from home. I'll order a polariser first.
 
Problem with hard filters - particularly is at short focal lengths - is that they leave a very defined graduation. Perfect for flat horizons such as coastal. As the focal length increases this effect becomes less pronounced.

I have a 3 stop hard - I bought it seven years ago and it has never left its pouch. It's too strong. If I pull it all the way down it might be good as a 3 stop general ND filter but I am not really a fan of long exposures.

The 2 and 3 stop soft - even at short F/L's don't leave a mark and you cannot really tell if one has been used...I also have a 2.5 stop (0.75 soft that I use a lot)

0.75 soft

_DSC4724 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

3 stop soft

_DSC3641 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

2 stop soft

_DSC4889 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

3 stop soft

_DSC4614 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr
 
abrahamovervoorde said:
Hi all,

What filters would you say are best for using with landscape photography?
Click to expand...


What filters have you thought about using?
What are you wanting filters to do in your photography?

Ask yourself if you need a filter for your photography.
 
ScottT said:
I'm fairly new to all this and as someone who is thinking of trying a few filters this is an interesting thread. As I've been doing a bit or research into filters I bought a copy of the Lee filters book "Inspiring professionals 2" to read up a bit more on filters.
If you have seen this book or the 1st version you'll know what its about, if not its a series of photos taken by Lee sponsored photographers who take pictures using Lee filters and there is a picture a short story about the pictures and what filters they used and how they were positioned, its all good quality stuff as you would expect, what I took from it was the filters they were using.
Some pictures had 2 (or 3) filters used. So i did a count up, results are:

53 pictures
Polarisings filter used on 13
0.6 Grad soft - used on 3
0.9 Grad soft - used on 4
0.3 Grad hard- used on 4
0.6 Grad hard - used on 17
0.9 Grad hard - used on 11
0.45 Grad hard - used on 3
0.27 Grad hard - used on 3
1.2 Grad hard - used on 1

The other were a mixture of Big/Little stoppers and some colour filters.

What surprised me is not 1 picture taken with a Medium grad, given that its a book to promote their products i was expecting more of a balance between the filters used.

So my conclusion is all I really need to buy is a 0.6 & 0.9 hard grad and a polariser, does that sound about right?
Click to expand...

The book came out years before they introduced medium grads ;)

If I were to buy 2 grads I would get a 0.6 medium and a 0.9 hard
 
justinminns said:
The book came out years before they introduced medium grads ;)

If I were to buy 2 grads I would get a 0.6 medium and a 0.9 hard
Click to expand...

Thank you, i thought it was a fairly new version.

Interesting thought mixing the filters it gives a bit more options, what are your thoughts on say getting a 0.3 & 0.6 then using both together should i need 0.9? At around £90 each or 3 for £200 it gets a bit expensive trying to cover all bases.
 
ScottT said:
Thank you, i thought it was a fairly new version.

Interesting thought mixing the filters it gives a bit more options, what are your thoughts on say getting a 0.3 & 0.6 then using both together should i need 0.9? At around £90 each or 3 for £200 it gets a bit expensive trying to cover all bases.
Click to expand...

I think that's outrageously expensive for something you can do at least as well in software.
 
It's nice to get a shot perfect in camera (I understand that) but as long as you can capture the dynamic range most images will be okay.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I think that's outrageously expensive for something you can do at least as well in software.
Click to expand...

LeeRatters said:
It's nice to get a shot perfect in camera (I understand that) but as long as you can capture the dynamic range most images will be okay.
Click to expand...

The only way to do it as well in software is the blend two - whilst modern shadow recovery is insane - your signal to noise ratio is always better further to the right. I find it preferable, even if I can expose the whole scene without a filter, to use one and add the blacks in later - rather than pull it out. It is marginally cleaner. Or if you are happy to blend them - even better. Cards are pretty cheap these days as are TB's of storage.
 
SFTPhotography said:
The only way to do it as well in software is the blend two - whilst modern shadow recovery is insane - your signal to noise ratio is always better further to the right. I find it preferable, even if I can expose the whole scene without a filter, to use one and add the blacks in later - rather than pull it out. It is marginally cleaner. Or if you are happy to blend them - even better. Cards are pretty cheap these days as are TB's of storage.
Click to expand...

It is a good idea to cover your bases regardless. It really doesn't hurt or anything like that. Once you do that you want to cut the waste or the unnecessary crap elsewhere. That literally means the plastic fantastic.

You may find even getting it in camera or using the plastic fantastic you can easily overshoot certain areas as DR can be ridiculous in places, particularly anything with the sun or its reflections. Finally, the plastic fantastic adds softness, artefacts and darkens the bits that you likely don't want and is almost never ever precisely dark enough or graduated in the shape you want. In short using these is a travesty in the days of digital (apart from compressed video perhaps but that is coming to senses quickly too)
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Wait for global shutter. You will be able to do it all in camera without the junk in front of the lens.
Click to expand...

From what I researched on this just there with global shutters I can kiss good bye movement (such as blurred grasses etc at slowish shutter speeds) - amazing.

fstoppers.com

What Is a Global Shutter and Why Is It So Desirable?

Rolling shutter is a common issue with many cameras that you have likely encountered at some point, but there is another technology that circumvents all those issues: the global shutter. This great video discusses what a global shutter is and why it is such a desirable thing. Coming to you from...
fstoppers.com fstoppers.com

However "Rolling shutter designs tend to have less noise and better dynamic range while also producing less heat than comparable global shutters, and they are also much cheaper, thus why we see them in most camera's"

Not sure I want less dynamic range and more noise. That's why I moved to MF - to get a bit more DR and less noise at higher ISO's and lots of lovely resolution :D
 
SFTPhotography said:
The only way to do it as well in software is the blend two - whilst modern shadow recovery is insane - your signal to noise ratio is always better further to the right. I find it preferable, even if I can expose the whole scene without a filter, to use one and add the blacks in later - rather than pull it out. It is marginally cleaner. Or if you are happy to blend them - even better. Cards are pretty cheap these days as are TB's of storage.
Click to expand...

I don't think in these days of camera technology, and if printing reasonable, sharing on forums, Farcebook, IG, etc there is any noticeable difference to the average viewer. I don't use graduated filters, I can't remember the last time I did. I tend to expose to the right whilst keeping the highlights and that normally does the job. Sometimes I'll click off a bracket shot just incase I need it to blend but it's not often used.

Like I said though, there is a good feeling from capturing the full (filtered maybe?) image in one shot and seeing it on the back of the camera, whilst stood out in the cold, with a runny nose and cold fingertips thinking "Yes, this was worth it!"

Chimping a foreground shot, scrolling across to the sky shot, then back and forth and thinking "that's gonna look good once I've edited and blended them together this evening" just doesn't have the same instant satisfaction even though it's what we commonly do.
 
SFTPhotography said:
However "Rolling shutter designs tend to have less noise and better dynamic range while also producing less heat than comparable global shutters, and they are also much cheaper, thus why we see them in most camera's"
Click to expand...

You bet that is about to flip with the advancements in electronics
 
LongLensPhotography said:
You bet that is about to flip with the advancements in electronics
Click to expand...

I hope so. I wrote this in the D800 thread but there's not a huge amount out there that's moved the game on since that came out bar A7r 2 onwards, D850 and Z7 and that's it unless you go MF and spend a lot more money.

What we really need to get to is true ISO invariant sensors - high ISO means fast shutter which means no motion blur. Sadly high ISO means low DR and a horrid grainy mess.
 
Last edited:
SFTPhotography said:
I hope so. I wrote this in the D800 thread but there's not a huge amount out there that's moved the game on since that came out bar A7r 2 onwards, D850 and Z7 and that's it unless you go MF and spend a lot more money.

What we really need to get to is true ISO invariant sensors - high ISO means fast shutter which means no motion blur. Sadly high ISO means low DR and a horrid grainy mess.
Click to expand...

I would watch the coming canon 1dx replacement / R1? It may demonstrate some groundbreaking sensor tech. It could be out in time for the next Olympics whenever that's actually due
 
ScottT said:
Thank you, i thought it was a fairly new version.

Interesting thought mixing the filters it gives a bit more options, what are your thoughts on say getting a 0.3 & 0.6 then using both together should i need 0.9? At around £90 each or 3 for £200 it gets a bit expensive trying to cover all bases.
Click to expand...

It would make sense BUT I pretty much never use the 0.3 on it's own and if you were using them both you would be taking up two filters slots so if I were buying two filters I'd get the 0.6 and 0.9 that way you have the most useful two filters while still only using one slot in the filter slot. That leaves the other free for an ND filter to control the shutter speed. You can use three slots but you risk getting vignetting at very wide focal lengths.
 
ScottT said:
Thank you, i thought it was a fairly new version.

Interesting thought mixing the filters it gives a bit more options, what are your thoughts on say getting a 0.3 & 0.6 then using both together should i need 0.9? At around £90 each or 3 for £200 it gets a bit expensive trying to cover all bases.
Click to expand...

Just another angle to consider...... I've never used a holder for my grads (although I sometimes tempted) . It's not always possible but you can hold the filter against the rim of the lens. It's easy when using a tripod and possible without. I have on occasion done as you suggest (put two filters together) but there is the risk of getting grit or sand in between them leading to scratches.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top