Filters & Accessories for Landscapes?

Joshwain

Joshwain

Messages
1,379
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm looking to start doing some landscape photography after Christmas, when I've got my tripod and shutter release but I'm a little confused.

I'll certainly be getting a circular polarized filter, that's the simple bit. The bit I'm confused on is graduated ND filters which people have recommended. I've been doing a bit of research and I've found you can get them in different sizes - does this mean you need a different sized filter holder? Also, how on earth does a filter holder even work? There seems to be so many different ones with huge differences in price tags!

I've been told it's best to get 100mm holder, then I'll need an adapter ring to fit my lens - is that right?

I'll probably have more to ask by the way! :LOL:
 
depending on what lens etc your using will ultimately depend on what you need, unless you go for a nd kit (cokin, lee and some other brands do them) in which you get various adapters to fit various lens etc....

the filter holder basically is attached to the end of the lens, which, once the filter is inserted blocks any stray light from entering the lens/body etc..... all the nd filters (depending on which one you get) do different things.... some reduce light meaning you can take photos with longer shutters, whilst other filters can infact add colour casts on the shot (ie sunset filters)- all grad filters do is restrict light through part of the filter as opposed to the whole filter

have a look into cokin p series, or lee filters and see whats available for what you want to achieve etc...
 
the hi tech route is one of many....

cokin would probably been the cheaper, but they can leave colour casts on exposures... the hi tech and lee range are more expensive and no doubt better.. (ive only got experience with the cokin ones though)

the holder and adapter is what you need, and then you just get additional adapters for each lens you want to use etc (+ the filters to insert of course)
 
gramps said:
Useful info HERE
Click to expand...

Thanks for that Gramps, very useful! (y)

I think the biggest decision is going to be deciding which filter holder size to go for, I could pay extra for a 100mm one to make sure it's always going to be big enough or take the risk with a smaller one to save money...
 
So it's either the 100mm Lee holder, the 100mm Hitech holder or the 85mm Hitech holder!
 
With square filters it is a good idea to get larger as that allows for use with larger lenses (with step down/up rings) and avoids possible vignetting and other problems by having a filter that is on the small side.
 
everyones needs/wants will be different....

if your planning to invest in some new glass down the line- make sure what ever you decide to purchase is compatible with the 'yet to be purchased lens' also, otherwise you may have to purchase it all over again....
 
Hmm, I do plan to get a new lens in the future but I'm not too sure which just yet. I think it's probably going to be best to go 100mm to save having to kick myself and go through selling it all then buying new!
 
A copy of Photoshop Elements is cheaper than filter/holder/adapter ring and works with any lens at all. :)
All you have to do is take 2 or 3 bracketed exposures (on your tripod so nothing moves) and then do the Graduated Filter in photoshop.
One drawback of this method though is if anything is moving in the graduated "zone" (clouds, water, trees swaying, people) then it becomes much more difficult to do it in elements.
 
DorsetDude said:
A copy of Photoshop Elements is cheaper than filter/holder/adapter ring and works with any lens at all. :)
All you have to do is take 2 or 3 bracketed exposures (on your tripod so nothing moves) and then do the Graduated Filter in photoshop.
One drawback of this method though is if anything is moving in the graduated "zone" (clouds, water, trees swaying, people) then it becomes much more difficult to do it in elements.
Click to expand...

That's more about editing than photography though. It's more fun to actually get the shot rather than to make the shot ;)
 
I may even change my mind before Christmas. I can't decide if it would be best to get some filters, to save up for a lens or to get something like a nifty fifty for other shots :LOL:
 
Joshwain 100mm is really only needed if your using full frame and Lee filters cost the early. Personally id recommend a set of 1 and 2 stop hard and soft kood nd's. this along with a p type holder and your adapter ring will be just fine.
 
Don't bother with a 1 stop filter, Personally I would go for a 2 stop hard grad, a 2 stop soft grad and a 3 stop hard grad, if funds allow maybe a 3 stop solid ND. Never used a CPL as it will mess around with using slot in filters (unless you get one specially for slot in systems)
 
its a damn site easier and quicker to get it right in camera using a grad , than it is to rely on merging exposures in PP , also full NDs are good for long exposures
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
its a damn site easier and quicker to get it right in camera using a grad , than it is to rely on merging exposures in PP , also full NDs are good for long exposures
Click to expand...


This.

I've got a .9 full ND that I use to show a bit of motion in a scene, which you sometimes need working around sunrise/sunset when its still too bright to rely on not using one.

Ideally if I'm doing a seascape I want around a 30 second exposure to show some motion in the sea and clouds, if I need to bring out the sky then a ND grad (normally a hard) will get added on...
 
WizardOfTheLight said:
Why would anyone need a 2 stop filter if shooting in RAW?
Click to expand...

Dark foreground and bright sky is the usual, Scotland with dark rocks, the North York Moors with heather which is almost black etc, coupled with bright cloudy skies. You get some latitude in raw but if you've blown your skies completely then you can't recover that, even in raw. Similarly you can expose for the sky and lift your shadows but that won't work if they're completely blocked out, and in any case leads to noise in those shadows.

When you get used to using filters they're quick and easy and save you loads of PP trying to bring the shot back.
 
30 seconds in PP - and far better than a grad filter as the foreground overlaps the horizon.

Like I said - there is no need for a 2 or 4 stop grad filter if your camera has 14 stops or dynamic range.

Dynamic%20Range-3.jpg
 
and the result looks incredibly false and tacky (not to mention over exposed and washed out) - would have been far better exposed properly and shot with a gentle grad - QED

also that kind of thing is a lot harder and more fidly to do with foreground subjects that don't have hard straight edges
 
Last edited:
WizardOfTheLight said:
30 seconds in PP - and far better than a grad filter as the foreground overlaps the horizon.

Like I said - there is no need for a 2 or 4 stop grad filter if your camera has 14 stops or dynamic range.

Dynamic%20Range-3.jpg
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I can't agree with you there, and without being rude I think your example shows why a grad would have been better. You've exposed for the sky in the first version, which is good, and then ruined it, IMO, in the second version, putting the foreground aside (which looks artificial) the sky is now overexposed and washed out.

Speak to the best landscape photographers in the game and see if they use grads, I think you will be surprised. As a quick example, Joe Cornish and David Noton both do work for Lee, and I think you'd agree, they're pretty damn good.

Edited to add, at that size noise won't be an issue, printed at a decent size I bet that is noisy beyond belief if all you've done is lifted the shadows.
 
Last edited:
markmullen said:
I'm afraid I can't agree with you there, and without being rude I think your example shows why a grad would have been better. You've exposed for the sky in the first version, which is good, and then ruined it, IMO, in the second version, putting the foreground aside (which looks artificial) the sky is now overexposed and washed out.
Click to expand...

Ohh crikey - I wasn't saying look at this great photo haha - clearly it is way overdone and the reason I did that was to show why grads aren't needed as it's possible to actually go beyond what is required and into tacky HDR territory with a single exposure.

This is the type of photo I use on my Lightroom lectures in order to show how easy it is to overcome the problem with a knowledge of whether your camera handles highlights or shadows better. No way a grad could outperform in this instance, especially with the subject overlapping the horizon.
 
Get some cokin p filters.
The min aim is to get as much right in the camera, f you spend more than ten mins on an image in photoshop your doing something wrong in camera. People who spend fortunes on photoshop and Lightroom need to re think, elements should be enough for you concentrate on the photography not the post production.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top