Filters....

If you've got a tenner spare, try this book ... http://www.ephotozine.com/shop/product724.html

Mine turned up a couple of days ago, and it's helpful to explain when to use filters and also to inspire you! This was the cheapest I could find it on the web (including postage).
 
Hi dellipher,

In the film days effects filters were used to get, well, special effects. Like rainbows, or starbursts, or enhanced sunsets. Etc. etc. Not anymore. With digital you apply all those effects afterward, in editing. Hardly any screw-on, or slip-in filters neccesary anymore in the 21st century. Except maybe UV, circular polarization, or ND filters.
 
Neutral density filters simply reduce the amount of light entering the lens. These are useful for using longer shutter times, most often when photographing water and other moving objects. You also get ND graduated filters, where basically only half of the filter blocks light. These are very useful for darkening skies in landscape shots, so that both sky and landscape are brought within the exposure range of the camera.

My advice would be to buy a screw-in CPL filter (good deals to be had on ebay), and then get a Cokin 'P' filter holder (allows you to slide different filters in and out) and a set of Hitech ND grads from http://www.teamworkphoto.com/hitech.html.

Both are genuinely useful (and in some cases indispensable) for landscape shots.

Hope that helps!
 
TomB said:
Neutral density filters simply reduce the amount of light entering the lens. These are useful for using longer shutter times, most often when photographing water and other moving objects. You also get ND graduated filters, where basically only half of the filter blocks light. These are very useful for darkening skies in landscape shots, so that both sky and landscape are brought within the exposure range of the camera.

My advice would be to buy a screw-in CPL filter (good deals to be had on ebay), and then get a Cokin 'P' filter holder (allows you to slide different filters in and out) and a set of Hitech ND grads from http://www.teamworkphoto.com/hitech.html.

Both are genuinely useful (and in some cases indispensable) for landscape shots.

Hope that helps!
Click to expand...


:clap::thumbs: Good stuff, and super usefull.....I understand a bit more now lol
 
TomB said:
[...] You also get ND graduated filters, where basically only half of the filter blocks light. These are very useful for darkening skies in landscape shots, so that both sky and landscape are brought within the exposure range of the camera.

[...]
Click to expand...

I get that effect in PP by selecting the sky, feathering it, and adjusting the brightness (down) and the contrast (up). No graduated ND filter neccessary for that job.

Even though I have a well-rounded collection of about 25 Cokin filters, I never use 'm anymore. Too cumbersome on location. I find doing it in PP gives much more control.

And if you want still more control than that you can dive into HDR imaging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDRI).
 
W.Smith said:
I get that effect in PP by selecting the sky, feathering it, and adjusting the brightness (down) and the contrast (up). No graduated ND filter neccessary for that job.

Even though I have a well-rounded collection of about 25 Cokin filters, I never use 'm anymore. Too cumbersome on location. I find doing it in PP gives much more control.

And if you want still more control than that you can dive into HDR imaging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDRI).
Click to expand...


But surely once you've taken the image you've lost the detail in the sky when not using a graduated ND filter?
 
Icecavern & Geordie are correct in this, levels, curves, brightness/contrast are all "destructive" image manipulation tools & will damage image quality when used - ND grads are obviously non-destructive but as W.Smith said, they are extra equipment to carry around.
Choice is personal really, you cannot regain detail in a sky if it is blown & it's always best to get the image correct in camera (:lol: This coming from someone that heavily post processes their images!)
HDR is another way to go as mentioned but once again, it's all down to whether you like using the effects :shrug:
 
moomike said:
Icecavern & Geordie are correct in this, levels, curves, brightness/contrast are all "destructive" image manipulation tools & will damage image quality when used - ND grads are obviously non-destructive but as W.Smith said, they are extra equipment to carry around.
Choice is personal really, you cannot regain detail in a sky if it is blown & it's always best to get the image correct in camera (:lol: This coming from someone that heavily post processes their images!)
HDR is another way to go as mentioned but once again, it's all down to whether you like using the effects :shrug:
Click to expand...


Couldn't agree more. ND Grads are a must for landscape work. No amount of PP'ing will rescue a blown sky !!
The only other way around this is to bracket the exposures then blend them in PP, but this is time consuming and not always practicle when on location.

I prefer taking one shot and get it right in the camera.
 
IMO, and prone to argument I realise, filters are just a means of putting cheap glass/plastic in front of expensive glass to reduce the quality of the image

To get an ND Grad spot on requires the use of a tripod - yes? If so, why not simply bracket - filterless - and sort any too-bright sky out afterwards?

Mountains on either side of lakes are often v-shaped, ND Grads filters are not:shake:; coasts often have cliffs on one side and level seas on the other, ND Grad filters don't account for this:shake:, so in both cases you're darkening part of the image where you don't want to:shake::shake:, meaning you still need some post pro to bring that back - so why not take 2 in the first place?:thumbs:

I've also seen many images (to be fair, lots of mine in the Cokin-P days) where the 'line' of separation isn't in the right place or not entirely level when using a Grad filter - you can't accurately judge that in-camera, and if it is wrong, your image is stuffed:bonk: - so taking 2 and sorting it out later is 'safer':thumbs:

Most here will know this, but you don't even have to take 2 images most of the time; one of our contributors here (and a fellow club member of mine) is a master of taking 1 raw image and processing it as 2 to almost HDR it - negating the need for filters in all but extreme cases (in which case, guess what, he'll take 2 or 3)

So what about Polarisers then? :thinking:No use with very wide wide-angles, which I use most of the time - so I have only 1 filter, a 77mm Pola, which I also don't use now:bang:

To sum up - I don't like filters much :lol:
 
I love filters, but I have to agree that a lot of what an ND grad can do can be produced to a degree with things like Photoshop. I have never got the exact same result (but then I havent tried too hard).

I love filters because I just like to play with them and have an image taken then and there that looks great. As Diddy says there are quite a few occasions where they do get in the way (pretty much any times you dont have a smooth horizon) but I have found you can dodge (in photoshop) out the darkness without creating too much noise, where as when I was trying to make an ND grad effect in photoshop I seemed to be getting a lot more noise :(

I would recommend spending a few quid on a Cokin P holder and adaptor ring for your most used lens, and maybe just one ND grad to see how you get on, if you like it then spend a bit more on either "better" filters or more range :)
 
DiddyDave said:
I use none at all - take from that what you will

I sold an entire kit of 20 P-Cokin filters a couple of years back for £5 - just to get rid of them!
Click to expand...

And just to counter, I've just spent £300 on a new set...

Filters can really help with balanced exposures and some of us still prefer to get the picture right in camera than spend hours in front of the PC
 
It doesn't take hours at all me ol'Grumpy, just for those occasions where needed a few more minutes that's all - probably no more than those self same few minutes you spent deciding what filter to put on and checking it was straight

I too like to get it right in camera first, but to me, trying to get your filter placed perfectly gives the opportunity for an error which cannot be corrected later; and I'd rather chase another shot than worry about filter use - especially at dawn/dusk when things change so fast

Just different ways of working I suppose
 
grumpybadger said:
[...] some of us still prefer to get the picture right in camera than spend hours in front of the PC
Click to expand...

I prefer doing the editing at leisure when sitting, relaxed, in front of my Mac, in POST production. Beats nervously fumbling – on location, possibly with subjects waiting – with filters and filter holders, on tripod.

And, grumpy, it's the other way around:
doing the editing takes 10 or 20 seconds, max. Whereas schlepping all that gear around, setting it up, and breaking it down again, takes 5 minutes per image, minimum. If you're fast!

Your subject will be long gone before you are ready to expose 'correctly' . . .

Good luck!
 
5 minutes? damn I aint doing something wright! I just carry my camera round with P holder and medium ND grad already in place. See a shot, upto my eye, left hand focus then straighten filter, right hand half pressing shutter to check foucus, snap. Job done - move on.

Maybe its just me but seeing if the filter is straight or not in the view finder is easy, or if in doubt take eye away from eye piece and look at top of lens to see if the filter is straight. Really cant say it slows me down at all.
 
Years ago when I did try them, I found on those lenses I had then they rotated when focussing, so you'd level up the filter, press 1/2 way only to see the focus change and you needed to level the filter again

So it was always a tripod and manual focus job = pain in t'ass

Perhaps it's easier these days, but I will always prefer to do 'filters' later on a 'raw' (as in raw of effects) image rather than one which I'd already altered but can't amend if I later think it's the wrong filter, not straight, whatever
 
Jimmy_Lemon said:
5 minutes? damn I aint doing something wright! I just carry my camera round with P holder and medium ND grad already in place. See a shot, upto my eye, left hand focus then straighten filter, right hand half pressing shutter to check foucus, snap. Job done - move on.

Maybe its just me but seeing if the filter is straight or not in the view finder is easy, or if in doubt take eye away from eye piece and look at top of lens to see if the filter is straight. Really cant say it slows me down at all.
Click to expand...

So you shoot freehand with a medium ND grad? And get properly exposed, focused, images?
That's amazing, Jimmy! You should teach that miracle technique in photographic college. I'm sure they'd love to learn how.
 
Yeah :( maybe I have a hidden tallent :p never thought to do it any other way! - seriously though do most people set up on tripods and check levels etc when using ND grads?
 
DiddyDave said:
Most here will know this, but you don't even have to take 2 images most of the time; one of our contributors here (and a fellow club member of mine) is a master of taking 1 raw image and processing it as 2 to almost HDR it - negating the need for filters in all but extreme cases (in which case, guess what, he'll take 2 or 3)
Click to expand...

Why not carefuly use a filter and get it right there n then in just a few seconds instead of spending a while processing an image? I do lots of HDR work, but I do lots of HDR work using an ND grad now. I do appreciate that it is too fixed and a solid gradient, but I'm happy with the results I'm getting. I have no focusing issues and often just hold the filter against the lens.
 
W.Smith said:
So you shoot freehand with a medium ND grad? And get properly exposed, focused, images?
That's amazing, Jimmy! You should teach that miracle technique in photographic college. I'm sure they'd love to learn how.
Click to expand...

Not sure if thats a very sarcastic response, but there's no reason why he shouldn't shoot freehand with a medium ND grad.

To state that doing so should will result in badly exposed, out of focus images, and that to get it correct is a 'miracle' is very short sighted IMO.
 
W.Smith said:
So you shoot freehand with a medium ND grad? And get properly exposed, focused, images?
That's amazing, Jimmy! You should teach that miracle technique in photographic college. I'm sure they'd love to learn how.
Click to expand...

That's a bit sarcastic, most of my shots are freehand with ND grads and why not ?
The purpose of the grad is to reduce the exposure of the sky by a couple of stops to bring it inline with the foreground, so why you not be able to use them handheld ?
 
sorry to interupt this thread but someone has offered me a new Nd grad 8 and 6 and a filter holder and 8mm adaptor ring for my camera for £23 is this a good deal?

or should i buy kood or hightech filters
 
Depends if they are A or P series 400Duser - also I thought Cokin only did 2,4and8's could be wrong though - would make sense for them to do a 6, but never seen them.

8mm adaptor ring would be erm...VERY! small - not sure what use that would be.

EDIT - oops missed your P in your edit.....one sec will check something and post again
 
Jimmy_Lemon, I'm not sure why they call them 2, 4 and 8, but theyre 1 2 and 3 stops respectively, so a 6, would be illogical :D
 
Cokin P filters are generally about £14.50 each and the holder £8, adaptors £8.50.

So yeah if they are geniune Cokins etc then looks like a good deal ;)
 
haha in that case it sounds like a good offer :D you will save yourslef a good few quid
 
Warning - another SimonTALM essay ;)

dellipher said:
Wow, dint think my filter question would cause such a debate....LOL :\
Click to expand...

Ah that's because it is a great way of bringing 2 oposing groups of photographers together. Those who think the best approach is to get the pic right in the camera vs those who think photoshop can solve everything. :lol: Always good for a laugh IMO. I find it daft as that both sides are right in their own way - whatever they do works for them and their images. :D

If you are unsure on whether filters are for you then I'd go and get some and see what "side" you are on.

I'd agree with W.Smith that the best filters for digital are a Circular Polariser, ND Grad and Full ND (getting them in that order if you need to budget) as these are the ones that control the light rather than ones that mess with image.

My view on buying filters is like lenses and it's worth spending money on them as they can last along time espcially true with the square filters. As with most things the quality is generally better the more you spend.

Word of warning 1 - Cokin don't sell ND filters or ND Grads they sell Grey filters and Grey Grads. Whilst it is true they cut the light down as a ND does I personally had a bad experience (shared by others) with a Cokin Grey Grad where it caused a magenta cast in the sky but others say they haven't found that. Other than that and the fact that it is French :razz: the Cokin system is OK.

Word of warning 2 - Hitech P size and Cokin P size are not identical. The Hitech P system is 85mm wide where as the Cokin P System is fractionally smaller (IIRC 84 mm wide). When I was searching a while back into using Hitech filters in a Cokin holder I read reports of some people having had to modify either the filters (by sanding :eek:) or the Cokin holder (cutting bits off) to make thigs fit.

I have decided that I would follow most Landscape Pros and use the Lee filter system. It is much bigger (100mm wide) so you have less of an issue with Vignetting and you can use Hitech 100mm or Cokin 100mm filters and holders interchangably. The Lees have excellent quality but this does come at a price the Digital Starter set it about £175ish :eek: and that only contains Filter Holder, Filter Wallet, a 2stop ND Grad and a 2stop ND Glass filter

Just my 2p
 
Milestone said:
Couldn't agree more. ND Grads are a must for landscape work. No amount of PP'ing will rescue a blown sky !!
The only other way around this is to bracket the exposures then blend them in PP, but this is time consuming and not always practicle when on location.
Click to expand...
You don't blend (HDR) on location. So how can it be not 'practicle' on location?
"Time consuming [...] when on location"? That's BS too, pardon my French. Doing a bracketing is 10 times as fast as fiddling with filters, filter holders, and tripods!
 
W.Smith said:
Doing a bracketing is 10 times as fast as fiddling with filters, filter holders, and tripods!
Click to expand...

as has been said above it would seem plenty of people dont tripod filter shots and would seem quite a few dont use holders...so I think that maybe the case for you, but for others it is the complete oposite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top