Beginner Filters

Messages
4,159
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all, would anyone have any recommendations for a filter system that won't break the bank? I know that Lee are very good but i'm afraid they are just too expensive for me at the moment. Any useful suggestions gratefully received.
 
You can buy a 100mm Lee-alike Filter kit from thefilterdude for quite a useful saving over the genuine article. Once you have a 100mm system (if that is the size you're opting for), then you can use whatever filters you need. The most expensive aspect with the Lee 100mm system is the cost of good quality 105mm CPL's. Some of the other systems (Nisi et al) get around this by using a smaller CPL closer to the lens and I think that works out cheaper overall. They seem quite well regarded.

By the way, take a look on Ffordes website for Lee filters. They often stock good quality used ones at decent prices.
 
Last edited:
You can get cheap filters but they are usually cheap for a reason and you'll more than likely end up replacing them. Buy cheap, buy twice.
Yes, Lee is expensive but they are good quality. There are a number of new brands to the market touting high quality filters. I've looked at them and don't really see that much of a difference in the price at the end of the day just pick one. Lee, Nisi, Benro

If you want to go down the filter route then try and get decent quality, even if it's second hand or buying one or two here and there and slowing build up your collection. Lots of folks are shooting with new mirrorless cameras these days with better DR and are getting rid of their filters. I bought a number of my Lee filters second hand and they were half the price of a new one.
 
You can get cheap filters but they are usually cheap for a reason and you'll more than likely end up replacing them. Buy cheap, buy twice.
Yes, Lee is expensive but they are good quality. There are a number of new brands to the market touting high quality filters. I've looked at them and don't really see that much of a difference in the price at the end of the day just pick one. Lee, Nisi, Benro

If you want to go down the filter route then try and get decent quality, even if it's second hand or buying one or two here and there and slowing build up your collection. Lots of folks are shooting with new mirrorless cameras these days with better DR and are getting rid of their filters. I bought a number of my Lee filters second hand and they were half the price of a new one.


Thanks for the reply, i'll keep an eye out for used filters.

next question, other than the famous online auction site, are there any other outlets for used photography equipment that I should be looking at?

cheers
 
Thanks for the reply, i'll keep an eye out for used filters.

next question, other than the famous online auction site, are there any other outlets for used photography equipment that I should be looking at?

cheers

As I mentioned above, check Ffordes. They often stock a decent selection of filters.
 
Thanks for the reply, i'll keep an eye out for used filters.

next question, other than the famous online auction site, are there any other outlets for used photography equipment that I should be looking at?

cheers

Here, but you have to have been a member for 30 days and have 25 posts (not spam posts).
MPB
Wex
Ffordes (as mentioned above)
LCE (London Camera Exchange)
 
Thanks for the replies, useful info. I'll have a look around
 
Hitech are a good alternative to Lee.

Certainly their ND grads have no noticeable colour cast or detrimental effect to the image from personal experience.
 
You can buy a 100mm Lee-alike Filter kit from thefilterdude for quite a useful saving over the genuine article. Once you have a 100mm system (if that is the size you're opting for), then you can use whatever filters you need. The most expensive aspect with the Lee 100mm system is the cost of good quality 105mm CPL's. Some of the other systems (Nisi et al) get around this by using a smaller CPL closer to the lens and I think that works out cheaper overall. They seem quite well regarded.
.

Indeed I would go the knock off route.
I had a genuine kit. Some bits were lost, some dropped off a mountain due to loose mountings, some scratched. I said 'never again'. It just wasn't worth the cost. For the most part I blend bracketed exposures in post. I also bought a chi-com copy off ebay and KOOD 0.6 ND grad. The holder wasn't exactly perfect - I had left over plastic slots from LEE and used these instead. The chi-com ones were clearly going to scratch filters badly. I'm sure you can buy those separately. I'm not sure if thefilterdude version any better but I would certainly try it.
KOOD filter is almost as good as LEE. Graduation is slightly different and I actually prefer that. There is a very mild colour cast (very slightly cool) - easily correctable in LR if needed, but usually it is just fine. On the positive side it doesn't degrade over time as badly as LEE and cost less than £20. It's a no brainer for a startup photographer. Better invest your money to a quality lens or tripod.

I certainly wouldn't bother with 105mm CPL. You can just use the normal one for your biggest lens, and finish the adjustments in post. Very rarely you need BOTH CPL and heavy gradation.
 
Last edited:
Indeed I would go the knock off route.
I had a genuine kit. Some bits were lost, some dropped off a mountain due to loose mountings, some scratched. I said 'never again'. It just wasn't worth the cost. For the most part I blend bracketed exposures in post. I also bought a chi-com copy off ebay and KOOD 0.6 ND grad. The holder wasn't exactly perfect - I had left over plastic slots from LEE and used these instead. The chi-com ones were clearly going to scratch filters badly. I'm sure you can buy those separately. I'm not sure if thefilterdude version any better but I would certainly try it.
KOOD filter is almost as good as LEE. Graduation is slightly different and I actually prefer that. There is a very mild colour cast (very slightly cool) - easily correctable in LR if needed, but usually it is just fine. On the positive side it doesn't degrade over time as badly as LEE and cost less than £20. It's a no brainer for a startup photographer. Better invest your money to a quality lens or tripod.

I certainly wouldn't bother with 105mm CPL. You can just use the normal one for your biggest lens, and finish the adjustments in post. Very rarely you need BOTH CPL and heavy gradation.

Great stuff, many thanks indeed.

I'm trying to go for the best I can afford in certain areas (I have a good Manfrotto tripod and have bought a couple of decent lenses) so, as you say, want to save as much as I can in other areas at the moment. No doubt as I get more experienced and maybe look to do some commercial bits i'll invest in better where required.
 
85mm vs 100mm depends on what camera/widest lens you have.....??

Mine is 28mm on FF so 85mm does the job fine.

I wouldn't recommend Kood. Hi-tech & Lee I would recommend.

I have the Hi-tech kit - adapter/holder/CPL ring was about £50 I think. Paid £50 for a 95mm Sigma CPL. I already had 0.6 Soft & Hard Grads. You can use a CPL direct on the lens but it's a little faffing about setting that & then adding the grad holder..... If shooting water you probably will want CPL & Grads at the same time.
 
Ive been looking for a filter set myself so this is a interesting thread. I have been using a couple of good screw mount ine up to now which has worked ok. But I now want to start to stack which I know I can do with screw one but by the time you have a couple of decent ones your half way to a reasonable filter set. I quite liked the look of the KASE ones but all the reviews seem to be by people sponsored to do them, NISI look quite good but dont seem that easy to get hold of in the UK. So I keep coming around to LEE again. Which end of the scale would the Cokin Z Pro series be at. Some people seem to rave about them others hate them?
 
Begs a couple of questions:
1/ What filters do you want/need/expect to use
2/ Why a filter 'system'?

There's really only three filters that are all that useful in the digital-domain, whose effects have to be impost pre-capture and cant be mimicked in post process. Polariser; Grey-Grad & Large-Stop-Reduction, Neutral-Density.

I don't use a system 'polariser' any-more; I have one, screw-on filter for each digi-lens; one for short-zoom; one for long zoom! Because the polarising effect changes with incident angle, polarisers tend not to work very well with wider lenses, giving fade effects and banding; My wide lenses are also am 8-16 UWA and a Fish, neither of which can take a filter ring! so only means two filters, its not exorbitant to buy them, and I can leave them on the lens and not have to faff with holders to swap lenses etc.

"Big-Stoppa" type grey-grads make me grimace; Do I really need to add to the plethora of over milked water-falls and waves out there? Actual 'art' to long exposure shots, to my mind is actually NOT using such an overtly obvious long exposure and milking everything, but being a little conservative and getting enough 'milk' to convey 'movement' but little enough to still show some detail. Its a genre I generally don't like, so don't indulge in.

Grey-Grads. More useful, and I do use.. occasionally. So occasionally that for the few instances, its not actually worth faffing with filter rings! May as well just hand-hold filter against lens! And/or bracket shots and exposure or layer merge in post.

SO, personally, for digital, I DON'T have an enormous use for very many filters, and even less reason to use system-filters. On FILM... that's another matter. And I have a huge pack of Kokin 'A' (67mm wide) filters in the camera bag. A lot more 'sense' to a system-filter on something like my old M42 'all-prime' M42 mount lens cameras; There's probably four or five different prime lenses in the mild-wide to tele-photo range, I would have to but individual screw-fit filters for, its worth the faff swapping filter-rings to only have to buy one of each. Digi-Domain and almost certainty that the negatives will be scanned to widgetal before being viewed, diminishes advantage of many filters, as with direct-digital; but shooting B&W advantages of Red, Yellow and Orange filters for contrast control, on colour, perhaps Warm tone and Cool-tone and Flourecent Correction, are marginally useful for correcting colour-casts or light-balance, though that still can be done in post. Red/Green/Blue are fun on B&W for Tri-Chrome 'colour' composites in post; but, as with digital, an awful lot of the 'merit' in filters, let alone system filters has been made redundant by Digi-Domain processing.

WHICH leaves it all very speculative; and, although I have a Cokin-P (84mm wide) e-bay special set, one of the kids bought me for Christmas one year, with a set of step-down rings to fit holders to most of my lenses; few of the filters EVER get any use...making the 'quality' of the e-bay special, "30 filters" or whatever it is a rather mute topic, and for the couple I might use, the quality of the holder, for the little use they get, just as much! As long as the filter holder is the right size for the filter you want to use, main difference between them is how nicely they go on and off and how likely they are to break, and more chance of that when in the bag unused than when on the camera and you are trying to stuff a filter in crossed slots!

Begs suggestion, of whether its a push or pull purchase; if 'pull' and you already know what filter you want to use, and why; then likely you would be better off buying 'just' that filter in screw-fit. If 'push' and you want to buy because you can, and want to mess and see what you can do; then get one of the cheap e-bat all in the box sets and go play;it will likely get rather old rather fast, and if you do find something you do use more regularly that maybe is more real use, you can either go buy in screw fit for that job, or get a better set for the slot system, if you really want. And that is probably the best advice I can offer. Basically IF you have good reason for a filter, you probably wouldn't want a slot system; if you don't, don't waste too much money on the deal until you do!
 
Teflon-Mike put my concerns much more eloquently and thoroughly than I could have done. Since the original poster, Flyphot, sounds like a relative beginner, I thought I should add my voice to make it clear that Teflon-Mike is not alone in questioning the utility of filters in the digital world.

I had a good collection of filters way back in the last century when I was a film photographer. I didn't use them a lot, but sometimes they were essential. Since converting to digital I have been delighted to discover how the combination of greater sensor dynamic range and image processing by computer have rendered most of the previously essential functions of filters unnecessary, in fact sometimes doing the job they used to do for film photography rather better than filters can manage. All I use now are a screw mount circular polariser and a big stopper, sized to my biggest lens and adapted to my smaller lenses with step down rings. The big stopper is used for photographing eclipses and removing moving pedestrians and traffic from streetscapes, church interiors, etc.. I only do that kind of thing at most once a year, but there's no other way of doing it when that's what I want to do.

Of course some digital photographers want certain specific effects which a comprehensive set of filters make easier to achieve, which if you do that kind of thing a lot make the expense worth while, just as I am so fascinated by bokeh quality that I couldn't resist buying a special STF lens designed solely for that purpose, which most photographers think is an absurd expense. So before deciding that a good comprehensive filter system should be part of your general purpose photography kit, find out whether you're really going to need it.
 
Ive been looking for a filter set myself so this is a interesting thread. I have been using a couple of good screw mount ine up to now which has worked ok. But I now want to start to stack which I know I can do with screw one but by the time you have a couple of decent ones your half way to a reasonable filter set. I quite liked the look of the KASE ones but all the reviews seem to be by people sponsored to do them, NISI look quite good but dont seem that easy to get hold of in the UK. So I keep coming around to LEE again. Which end of the scale would the Cokin Z Pro series be at. Some people seem to rave about them others hate them?
I use the nisi filters and think they are very good. Check out Phil Norton photography, he's s supplier of the Nisi and service is excellent.
 
Begs a couple of questions:
1/ What filters do you want/need/expect to use
2/ Why a filter 'system'?

There's really only three filters that are all that useful in the digital-domain, whose effects have to be impost pre-capture and cant be mimicked in post process. Polariser; Grey-Grad & Large-Stop-Reduction, Neutral-Density.

I don't use a system 'polariser' any-more; I have one, screw-on filter for each digi-lens; one for short-zoom; one for long zoom! Because the polarising effect changes with incident angle, polarisers tend not to work very well with wider lenses, giving fade effects and banding; My wide lenses are also am 8-16 UWA and a Fish, neither of which can take a filter ring! so only means two filters, its not exorbitant to buy them, and I can leave them on the lens and not have to faff with holders to swap lenses etc.

"Big-Stoppa" type grey-grads make me grimace; Do I really need to add to the plethora of over milked water-falls and waves out there? Actual 'art' to long exposure shots, to my mind is actually NOT using such an overtly obvious long exposure and milking everything, but being a little conservative and getting enough 'milk' to convey 'movement' but little enough to still show some detail. Its a genre I generally don't like, so don't indulge in.

Grey-Grads. More useful, and I do use.. occasionally. So occasionally that for the few instances, its not actually worth faffing with filter rings! May as well just hand-hold filter against lens! And/or bracket shots and exposure or layer merge in post.

SO, personally, for digital, I DON'T have an enormous use for very many filters, and even less reason to use system-filters. On FILM... that's another matter. And I have a huge pack of Kokin 'A' (67mm wide) filters in the camera bag. A lot more 'sense' to a system-filter on something like my old M42 'all-prime' M42 mount lens cameras; There's probably four or five different prime lenses in the mild-wide to tele-photo range, I would have to but individual screw-fit filters for, its worth the faff swapping filter-rings to only have to buy one of each. Digi-Domain and almost certainty that the negatives will be scanned to widgetal before being viewed, diminishes advantage of many filters, as with direct-digital; but shooting B&W advantages of Red, Yellow and Orange filters for contrast control, on colour, perhaps Warm tone and Cool-tone and Flourecent Correction, are marginally useful for correcting colour-casts or light-balance, though that still can be done in post. Red/Green/Blue are fun on B&W for Tri-Chrome 'colour' composites in post; but, as with digital, an awful lot of the 'merit' in filters, let alone system filters has been made redundant by Digi-Domain processing.

WHICH leaves it all very speculative; and, although I have a Cokin-P (84mm wide) e-bay special set, one of the kids bought me for Christmas one year, with a set of step-down rings to fit holders to most of my lenses; few of the filters EVER get any use...making the 'quality' of the e-bay special, "30 filters" or whatever it is a rather mute topic, and for the couple I might use, the quality of the holder, for the little use they get, just as much! As long as the filter holder is the right size for the filter you want to use, main difference between them is how nicely they go on and off and how likely they are to break, and more chance of that when in the bag unused than when on the camera and you are trying to stuff a filter in crossed slots!

Begs suggestion, of whether its a push or pull purchase; if 'pull' and you already know what filter you want to use, and why; then likely you would be better off buying 'just' that filter in screw-fit. If 'push' and you want to buy because you can, and want to mess and see what you can do; then get one of the cheap e-bat all in the box sets and go play;it will likely get rather old rather fast, and if you do find something you do use more regularly that maybe is more real use, you can either go buy in screw fit for that job, or get a better set for the slot system, if you really want. And that is probably the best advice I can offer. Basically IF you have good reason for a filter, you probably wouldn't want a slot system; if you don't, don't waste too much money on the deal until you do!

Teflon-Mike put my concerns much more eloquently and thoroughly than I could have done. Since the original poster, Flyphot, sounds like a relative beginner, I thought I should add my voice to make it clear that Teflon-Mike is not alone in questioning the utility of filters in the digital world.

I had a good collection of filters way back in the last century when I was a film photographer. I didn't use them a lot, but sometimes they were essential. Since converting to digital I have been delighted to discover how the combination of greater sensor dynamic range and image processing by computer have rendered most of the previously essential functions of filters unnecessary, in fact sometimes doing the job they used to do for film photography rather better than filters can manage. All I use now are a screw mount circular polariser and a big stopper, sized to my biggest lens and adapted to my smaller lenses with step down rings. The big stopper is used for photographing eclipses and removing moving pedestrians and traffic from streetscapes, church interiors, etc.. I only do that kind of thing at most once a year, but there's no other way of doing it when that's what I want to do.

Of course some digital photographers want certain specific effects which a comprehensive set of filters make easier to achieve, which if you do that kind of thing a lot make the expense worth while, just as I am so fascinated by bokeh quality that I couldn't resist buying a special STF lens designed solely for that purpose, which most photographers think is an absurd expense. So before deciding that a good comprehensive filter system should be part of your general purpose photography kit, find out whether you're really going to need it.

great stuff, thanks very ,much, very clear and very useful. It seems I should put my money into a Lightroom course (or even save my money and just experiment!).

Thanks once again.
 
great stuff, thanks very ,much, very clear and very useful. It seems I should put my money into a Lightroom course (or even save my money and just experiment!).

Thanks once again.

Sorry but Lightroom can not and will not fix everything. I know there are those that are against filters and swear by post processing and that's fine but it really gets my goat when they come on threads like this and tell people not to bother with them. The fact is that post processing / blending does not work in every occasion. It's not easy to seamlessly blend a shot with moving branches, boats bobbing up and down in the water, birds and various other instances.

If you want to try filters then go for it. I myself use filters as do many many other professional landscape photographers and just because Teflon-Mike doesn't like dreamy long exposures of water doesn't mean you're not allowed to shoot that style if you choose.

Unfortunately, every single filter thread on this forum ends up in this type of debate, but just because somebody prefers blending over filters does not mean filters have no place in the digital world.
 
Sorry but Lightroom can not and will not fix everything. I know there are those that are against filters and swear by post processing and that's fine but it really gets my goat when they come on threads like this and tell people not to bother with them. The fact is that post processing / blending does not work in every occasion. It's not easy to seamlessly blend a shot with moving branches, boats bobbing up and down in the water, birds and various other instances.

If you want to try filters then go for it. I myself use filters as do many many other professional landscape photographers and just because Teflon-Mike doesn't like dreamy long exposures of water doesn't mean you're not allowed to shoot that style if you choose.

Unfortunately, every single filter thread on this forum ends up in this type of debate, but just because somebody prefers blending over filters does not mean filters have no place in the digital world.


Thanks for the reply, I do get it that LR can't do everything and it's very interesting to see the differing opinions (all of which are valuable to me as a beginner)
 
If you blow the highlights as you didn't have a grad at shooting no software in the world will bring it back.

Once the magic 255 number is reached (white) you're stuffed.
 
This quite an interesting video showing the difference between bracketing and filters

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53GdndM3PtM


Personally Im not a fan of sitting behind my computer, i prefer the challenge of being on the beach in the cold playing with different timings exposures etc. But some people may prefer to use the PC. Either is good as long as you get the result you want.

Ive already shot one scene three times this year just tweaking things here and there but thats what I enjoy.
 
Bracketing/blending or filters - it isn't an either or choice ... you can use both techniques if desired ... just saying ;)
 
just because Teflon-Mike doesn't like dreamy long exposures of water doesn't mean you're not allowed to shoot that style if you choose.

Interesting, and rather distorted re-interpretation of what I actually said, there!

Where did I say that I dont like "Dreamy" water shots? What I dont like is 'Sour-Milk'!!! of which there is far too much on offer!

It is an enormous tangential thread to chase the notion; but, the degree of 'photo-realist-detachment', making photo's that clearly aren't 'like' the actual scene viewed with the naked eye, that may be achieved with ultra-long exposure, is very obviouse... and very easy.

"Oh how artistic".. no, no it isn't, its just 'un-photo-realistic".

A-N-D its a 'cheap-trick'. Its very easy to achieve ultra-long exposures! For an obvious 'non-photo-realistic' effect. Ironically through, it's exactly what the early photo-pioneers tried so very hard to avoid 'suffering'!

It's rather like 'Black & White'; which without colour-rendering of the scene as seen, produces an image that lacks the expected "Photo-Realism" and implies a degree of 'artistic interpretation' to the viewer... another 'cheap-trick' over exploited by oh-so-many.

Totally Off-Topic, but twenty years ago, before popular digital diddling and repro, I finished off a roll of B&W on the kids in the garden; when one of their Mums looked at the prints, she exclaimed loudly, "Who STOLE the colour!!" insistent that I had done 'something' in the dark-room to create that effect! Even further off Topic, but even more humorous; SO convinced that a photo should be in full colour, and only really 'old' photo's could be B&W, she was even more convinced I 'must' have done 'something' to 'steal the colour' and wouldn't believe you could even buy B&W film still, and I resorted eventually, to 'admit' that I had achieved the effect using a really 'OLD' camera, and showed her my 1940's Ziess Ikonta 120 folder... (which could take colour film!) but seemed to satisfy her! lol.

But, it remains something that I generally regard rather like, 'Double-Exposure', something not too difficult to do on a less consumer-orientated camera, which departs from expected 'Photo-Realism' to achieve an 'effect' that is so often over-done, and so often done so poorly, and actually with so LITTLE 'artistic intent', it really just ISN'T at all 'artistic', its just a cliche, effect for effects sake.

"Dreamy-Water"? Show me a well conceived image where that actually 'adds' to the composition, and isn't just effect for effects sake, and I can and do appreciate it; but.. it so seldom is, and machine made, it's still not all that artistic, its just exploiting a facet of the machine for 'effect'... it's a bit like trying to dress up Quorn with sweet chilli sauce and telling me its real chicken...

Sorry but Lightroom can not and will not fix everything. I know there are those that are against filters

After admission of my actually owning so MANY filters, that is a rather perverse aspersion to try suggest...

and swear by post processing

Another bizarre re-interpretation of actual comments, based solely on my statement that beyond Polariser, Grad, & Neutral-Density, that directly effect the captured 'in-camera' image, few, if any filter effects cant be achieved in post-process.

That's very different from saying that anything can be fixed in post, or swearing by the virtues of post process to the extent lens filters are utterly unnecessary!

but it really gets my goat when they come on threads like this and tell people not to bother with them.

'Them' being what? Filters? ALL filters? Those filters whose effects cant be replicated in post-process? Rather nebulous use of ambiguous 'them'. Especially when conclusion of actual advice was:-

Basically IF you have good reason for a filter, you probably wouldn't want a slot system; if you don't, don't waste too much money on the deal until you do!

Actually ENDORSING buying filters... just recommending knowing WHY you are buying them! Hardly telling OP NOT to 'bother'! Or in any opposition to:-

If you want to try filters then go for it.

That I will presume to actually be be in support of my actual advice!

The fact is that post processing / blending does not work in every occasion. It's not easy to seamlessly blend a shot with moving branches, boats bobbing up and down in the water, birds and various other instances.

Even further off-topic, and even more bizare ideas.... I am intregued though; in such subjects as wave bobbing boats or wind shifted trees, where seperate exposure merging in post-process isn't a particularly viable option, what 'filter' might be?

Avoiding motion-blurr, that would tend to preclude multiple exposure merging in post; but it would also tend to preclude shutter-speed stretching lens-filters, whether Neutral-Density, Graduated or even Polariser, too!

Unfortunately, every single filter thread on this forum ends up in this type of debate, but just because somebody prefers blending over filters does not mean filters have no place in the digital world.

It would seem, that there's little or no evidence to support that idea, which largely seems to be inverting your own enthusiasm for filters, and attributing the inversion to any-one who doesn't 100% primia-facia support and agree with it!

I'd suggest we agree to disagree, but given that you have so significantly agreed with me, recommending OP give filters a go, and find out what works or doesn't for them, I'm not so sure we do!
 
Interesting, and rather distorted re-interpretation of what I actually said, there!

Where did I say that I dont like "Dreamy" water shots? What I dont like is 'Sour-Milk'!!! of which there is far too much on offer!

It is an enormous tangential thread to chase the notion; but, the degree of 'photo-realist-detachment', making photo's that clearly aren't 'like' the actual scene viewed with the naked eye, that may be achieved with ultra-long exposure, is very obviouse... and very easy.

"Oh how artistic".. no, no it isn't, its just 'un-photo-realistic".

A-N-D its a 'cheap-trick'. Its very easy to achieve ultra-long exposures! For an obvious 'non-photo-realistic' effect. Ironically through, it's exactly what the early photo-pioneers tried so very hard to avoid 'suffering'!

It's rather like 'Black & White'; which without colour-rendering of the scene as seen, produces an image that lacks the expected "Photo-Realism" and implies a degree of 'artistic interpretation' to the viewer... another 'cheap-trick' over exploited by oh-so-many.

Totally Off-Topic, but twenty years ago, before popular digital diddling and repro, I finished off a roll of B&W on the kids in the garden; when one of their Mums looked at the prints, she exclaimed loudly, "Who STOLE the colour!!" insistent that I had done 'something' in the dark-room to create that effect! Even further off Topic, but even more humorous; SO convinced that a photo should be in full colour, and only really 'old' photo's could be B&W, she was even more convinced I 'must' have done 'something' to 'steal the colour' and wouldn't believe you could even buy B&W film still, and I resorted eventually, to 'admit' that I had achieved the effect using a really 'OLD' camera, and showed her my 1940's Ziess Ikonta 120 folder... (which could take colour film!) but seemed to satisfy her! lol.

But, it remains something that I generally regard rather like, 'Double-Exposure', something not too difficult to do on a less consumer-orientated camera, which departs from expected 'Photo-Realism' to achieve an 'effect' that is so often over-done, and so often done so poorly, and actually with so LITTLE 'artistic intent', it really just ISN'T at all 'artistic', its just a cliche, effect for effects sake.

"Dreamy-Water"? Show me a well conceived image where that actually 'adds' to the composition, and isn't just effect for effects sake, and I can and do appreciate it; but.. it so seldom is, and machine made, it's still not all that artistic, its just exploiting a facet of the machine for 'effect'... it's a bit like trying to dress up Quorn with sweet chilli sauce and telling me its real chicken...



After admission of my actually owning so MANY filters, that is a rather perverse aspersion to try suggest...



Another bizarre re-interpretation of actual comments, based solely on my statement that beyond Polariser, Grad, & Neutral-Density, that directly effect the captured 'in-camera' image, few, if any filter effects cant be achieved in post-process.

That's very different from saying that anything can be fixed in post, or swearing by the virtues of post process to the extent lens filters are utterly unnecessary!



'Them' being what? Filters? ALL filters? Those filters whose effects cant be replicated in post-process? Rather nebulous use of ambiguous 'them'. Especially when conclusion of actual advice was:-



Actually ENDORSING buying filters... just recommending knowing WHY you are buying them! Hardly telling OP NOT to 'bother'! Or in any opposition to:-



That I will presume to actually be be in support of my actual advice!



Even further off-topic, and even more bizare ideas.... I am intregued though; in such subjects as wave bobbing boats or wind shifted trees, where seperate exposure merging in post-process isn't a particularly viable option, what 'filter' might be?

Avoiding motion-blurr, that would tend to preclude multiple exposure merging in post; but it would also tend to preclude shutter-speed stretching lens-filters, whether Neutral-Density, Graduated or even Polariser, too!



It would seem, that there's little or no evidence to support that idea, which largely seems to be inverting your own enthusiasm for filters, and attributing the inversion to any-one who doesn't 100% primia-facia support and agree with it!

I'd suggest we agree to disagree, but given that you have so significantly agreed with me, recommending OP give filters a go, and find out what works or doesn't for them, I'm not so sure we do!

You’ve mistakenly assumed that every sentence in my post was responding to you. You were mentioned once, so get off your high horse.
 
Sorry but Lightroom can not and will not fix everything. I know there are those that are against filters and swear by post processing and that's fine but it really gets my goat when they come on threads like this and tell people not to bother with them. The fact is that post processing / blending does not work in every occasion. It's not easy to seamlessly blend a shot with moving branches, boats bobbing up and down in the water, birds and various other instances.

If you want to try filters then go for it. I myself use filters as do many many other professional landscape photographers and just because Teflon-Mike doesn't like dreamy long exposures of water doesn't mean you're not allowed to shoot that style if you choose.

Unfortunately, every single filter thread on this forum ends up in this type of debate, but just because somebody prefers blending over filters does not mean filters have no place in the digital world.

Right, I have to say a lot of the above just amounts to fake news.

I could happily and easily blend EVERYTHING in LR + PS, including moving branches, boats, water and various other instances. Try me. It just takes time and a little bit of skill. If you put everything through HDR merge and get rubbish out then you should consider alternative methods. And most things in Photoshop go there are numerous way to get to the same result; so probably there is even a faster and easier way than I go about it. If you can't do it today, it doesn't mean it can't be done at all.

Probably I am the one supposedly against the filters. Not so much actually. I've used one today in fact as it saved me a few minutes on this occasion. Flat horizon, easy. However I have to raise awareness of alternative, and more powerful and cheaper methods. Blending bracketed exposures is the easiest of things. How are you going to drop a replacement sky cleanly? Create an ad campaign or elaborate fine art project?
In the digital age to ignore post processing techniques would be equivalent to stick with horses for travel.

There are plenty of free great resources on the net. Certainly those are worth exploring first.
For example.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7NyBKOKI6vdFDHYzDHlteg
https://www.youtube.com/user/julieannekost2011
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdf6WtVkThVyEFARiUbr5yQ

Try this with filters.

Admittedly I could have bracketed a little broader range here, but it's obvious enough that filters would just turn the hills to black and probably just cause a massive flare.
 
Last edited:
A couple more examples.

Filters work here. Predawn, no direct light source, reasonable dynamic range. I could have easily blended the whole thing if I wanted, but it was just easier to stick the plastic on.


Filters no longer work here. I have tried in fact. No HDR. All blended by hand from three exposures. One for the sun. One for the sky and a bit of water, and the longest exposure for that wave. You have to be very careful with all three exposures or you end up with insolvable set. And yes, I too a few sets to get that water movement until I was happy.
 
We need to be clear here, you cannot create the effect of a polariser in post, it is the one filter that if needed, cannot be "added" later, that is because it affects the amount and type of data captured by the sensor. I've seen some "passable" attempts at adding little/big stoppers after the event (they don't stand careful analysis imo/e) ... so again if you wish to use a stopper of some sort then do it at capture time. Grads can usually be added quite easily in post both LR and PS make it easy.

As I said before blending and using filters are not mutually exclusive ;)
 
We need to be clear here, you cannot create the effect of a polariser in post, it is the one filter that if needed, cannot be "added" later, that is because it affects the amount and type of data captured by the sensor. I've seen some "passable" attempts at adding little/big stoppers after the event (they don't stand careful analysis imo/e) ... so again if you wish to use a stopper of some sort then do it at capture time. Grads can usually be added quite easily in post both LR and PS make it easy.

As I said before blending and using filters are not mutually exclusive ;)

Sure, CPL and plain ND are best applied directly on the lens. But there are screw in versions that actually work a lot better and cost a fraction of square system equivalents.

You could do a long exposure simulation in post, but you would still need a similar combined exposure duration, which could easily amount to absolutely ridiculous number of images.
Incidentally, "removal of people ND" filter can be quite easily replaced with a few well timed regular exposures. All you need is just to cover all the ground between them. If someone doesn't move for a long time, then even big stopper won't help.
 
Sure, CPL and plain ND are best applied directly on the lens. But there are screw in versions that actually work a lot better and cost a fraction of square system equivalents.
I Find the square system easier to use so I think that is very much personal choice - as for being a lot better I think you are now with the "fake news" to use your own words ;) Being serious momentarily, when both are used correctly I cannot see any difference that is significant ... certainly cost does come into it and if you only have 1 screw in cpl and nd of each required value then for sure it can be cheaper. Also, you cannot get an nd grad that screws in (well if you can it will be next to useless!!), so if you do want to use grads then square filter system it is.

You could do a long exposure simulation in post, but you would still need a similar combined exposure duration, which could easily amount to absolutely ridiculous number of images.
and that is why it is better to do it at capture

Incidentally, "removal of people ND" filter can be quite easily replaced with a few well timed regular exposures. All you need is just to cover all the ground between them. If someone doesn't move for a long time, then even big stopper won't help.
I don't use them for that as even when they are moving at walking pace I can still see ghosts, unless of course it is a very long exposure, usually I'm only looking for a few seconds as such, but even with a big stopper I've seen ghosts, so I just wait until there are no people or go at a time when they aren't there :)
 
I Find the square system easier to use so I think that is very much personal choice - as for being a lot better I think you are now with the "fake news" to use your own words ;) Being serious momentarily, when both are used correctly I cannot see any difference that is significant ... certainly cost does come into it and if you only have 1 screw in cpl and nd of each required value then for sure it can be cheaper. Also, you cannot get an nd grad that screws in (well if you can it will be next to useless!!), so if you do want to use grads then square filter system it is.

and that is why it is better to do it at capture

I don't use them for that as even when they are moving at walking pace I can still see ghosts, unless of course it is a very long exposure, usually I'm only looking for a few seconds as such, but even with a big stopper I've seen ghosts, so I just wait until there are no people or go at a time when they aren't there :)

To answer the first bit. Yes, most screw in filters are better and not only cheaper.
1. They are multicoated, and latest ones have truly special coatings. That makes a hell of a difference. While you can get coated square glass filter, expect to pay for one insane price and it is still probably not up to the same level
2. Filter thread as a protective rim and allows for easy handling.
You can then stack square system for your ND grad on top just fine. I've been doing it for years.

On the last point I will take it you haven't tried shooting on a busy city square even in the early morning - when it is just barely doable - or a real estate exterior photo where foot traffic is just too great. Stupid long exposure sometimes works, but sometimes it is just easier to pick bits from three or four frames to clear the ground. Dead easy by the way as long as they align well.
 
Last edited:
Do I really need to add to the plethora of over milked water-falls and waves out there? Actual 'art' to long exposure shots, to my mind is actually NOT using such an overtly obvious long exposure and milking everything, but being a little conservative and getting enough 'milk' to convey 'movement' but little enough to still show some detail.
:plus1:
 
This is the kind of image of moving water that I like, plenty of intricate detail of the fractal structures of the moving water. I don't like the milky blurred effects of long exposures of moving water. It's not like anything I see with my eyes, nor does it add anything to my understanding of water movement. It's a synthetic artefact. But that's just my personal preference.

The_Great_Wave_off_Kanagawa.jpg
 
Since we started this debate I like either quite strong motion effect, but without all the detail in every single drop. Thus in the range of 0.3 to 3 or 4s exposures. Or else it should be still, translucent, whatever. But not milky. The worst case is those small nasty ripples.

If I have to be honest, very few of my favourites shots were done with 9 stop filter. Maybe one or two and these were probably whirlpool circles in the waterfall pool.

3 or 4 stop ND (can't remember which one) proves a lot more useful shooting seascapes at around the sunset. It just nudges the exposure times in that couple of seconds window.
 
Last edited:
Since we started this debate I like either quite strong motion effect, but without all the detail in every single drop. Thus in the range of 0.3 to 3 or 4s exposures. Or else it should be still, translucent, whatever. But not milky. The worst case is those small nasty ripples.

If I have to be honest, very few of my favourites shots were done with 9 stop filter. Maybe one or two and these were probably whirlpool circles in the waterfall pool.

3 or 4 stop ND (can't remember which one) proves a lot more useful shooting seascapes at around the sunset. It just nudges the exposure times in that couple of seconds window.
Yep, pretty much agree with you. There are some big stopper type shots I do like though, particularly the minimalist type ones with a limited tonal range, they can be very effective.
 
Great debate going on here, really interesting and fantastic for me as a beginner, thanks all.
 
I'm on the fence..... :)

Yes. I do like using filters & yes I do like getting it right in camera as much as possible. I'm more than happy to spend a while finding a composition, setting up a shot & waiting until things are right. I can happily do a 'sunset' location & walk away with two great photos out of two ;)

On the other hand.... Yes there are times I have taken two exposures to blend in CS. Sometimes that's for dynamic range of the sky/foreground for example. Other times I want a smooth 30 second sea shot but I know that 30 seconds will give only a slight cloud movement (which isn't good) so I'll take a 'standard' exposure for the clouds & blend the smooth water with the still sky or something along those lines.

My CPL is my most used filter without a doubt! Jointly followed by an ND Grad for skies & a 3stop ND when at the coast - I much prefer sea/waves shot at 0.5-3 seconds rather than 60 seconds........ Hence my 10stop ND is used the least.
 
A couple more examples.
To prove the point, where others have not provided any, those are actually long-exposure water shots I do apreciate.

As much as anything they are not over-milked, and the exposure duration is subtly chosen to retain detail in the clouds and the waves, not completely streak and milk them; the effect does add to the shot.

And does provide support for the suggestion, less is often more.

As an examples of 'effect' that enhances the subject, rather than an effect in substitute for subject, I do like.

And supports the skinning-cats conundrum, that there's never only 'one' right way to do anything.

__________________________________________________________

Moving on; and the debate between filters, grad-filters and exposure merging, withe mention of HDR....

HDR is just a more automated means of exposure merging, which has to be said has been done as a Dark-Room technique, from two or three or more original exposures since almost the dawn of photography, let alone the advent of 'film!

For those not familiar; in pioneering age, when oft home brewed photographic emulsions, smeared on glass plates, often lacked an awful lot of sensitivity what-so-ever, and 25ASA if it had been known, of would have been considered 'fast'...

It was quite common, if not usual, for a photgrapher to make three seperate exposures of a subject; one for the high-lights, one for the shaddows and one for the mid-tones.

Each of these exposures, probably 'plates', would then be exposed individually onto a single piece of printing paper, the areas of the final image to be kept 'burned in' to the print paper, with whatever exposure was needed; the areas to be saved for the other exposures would be 'held back' or 'dodged' with masking to preserve the print paper for the exposure that caught most detail in that region; the seperate exposures 'merged' in the printing.

In later years with the popular adoption of smaller negatives and the use of enlargers, this became even more common, along with 'dodging and burning' holding back or burning in specific areas of the print-paper to effect localised exposure control from a single negative.

Entering the digital-domain quarter of a century ago, when it was still in it's infancy; post-process wasn't called 'Photo-Shop' or 'Post-Process', it was called the Digital-Dark-Room..... And I saw little difference to using techniques of Post-Process as little different to those I had used in my Dark-Room....

I just didn't have to dissapear under the stairs for long hours, choking on hypo fumes and wast so much expensive paper along the way! (given the power of 486 computers of the era, even first generation 'Pentium' processors when they came along, MIGHT have been a bit faster.... but still!)

Long before any-one created an automated 'HDR merging' one-touch digi-diddle, I created shaped masks in an photo-editor, that defined areas of a frame, into which I would paste parts of one exposure, then another, probably based on an inversion of the first shaped mask, to paste another exposure.

This IS exposure merging, and HDR rendering, at a base level, just doing what I had formerly done in the dark room with snoots and wands or bunny-rabbit hands under the enlarger lens!

It is absolutely NOTHING particularly 'new' or novel.

Diving into Digital Domain, though, just like doing it all manually in the dark-room, is the level of control and accuracy the user may have or exploit.

Take for example the 'niggle' using a conventional grey-grad, where your scene doesn't conveniently have a straight horizon, and holding back the sky, you will have trees or buildings cutting the horizon line, and being under exposed under the darker portion of the grad.

Before the digi-Dark room....it was not unknown for photographers to make thier own filters from cut sheet, 'gels', particularly for B&W, but more oalso from clear OHP acetates, which they would then 'shade' with a felt-tip pen to create a 'shaped' grad or ND filter that held back or completely masked portions of thier scene on the negative; they may even have 'exposure merged' removing the shaped filter mid exposure, or fired the shutter two or three times, using different shaped or masked filters to get a single overall exposure!

Clever stuff! I never managed it! But other's did! And iot shows the blurry bopundry between 'in-camera' and 'post-process' going back to the days of the pioneers!

In the difference with digital, it is interesting to note, how many HDR merges, show two or three obviouse individial exposures, made at different times.

This is particularly noticeable in HDR merges of lakes or beaches, where waves are super-imposed on top of each other, often traveling in slightly different directions!

Hmmm! That looks 'odd'!

Often takes a bit of squinting to figure out what's going on; but it very often comes down to the software being left to make decisions, photographers of old made for themselves; picking the regions of any individual exposure they chose to keep in the final display 'print', where they would make irregular shaped masks, or manuall dodge & burn strategic areas of the print area from individual exposures; not just looking at tables of numbers and averaging out values for individual pixels.

This then starts to display where the 'one-touch' automation of modern post process 'packages', is not actually providing the photographer with any greater degree of control or ability, but actually taking it away from them, urging use of a one-touch automated filter, suggesting that its the best or indeed 'only' way to achieve a result, let alone an 'effect', that they could, with a little more know-how and some time and patience achieve far more successfully, and with a much greater subtelty, even in the photo-editing package that contains the one-touch probably HDR 'effect', let alone an old fashioned dark-room.

Its back to skinning cats; and the many ways that any final image might be achieved, with any 'effect' exploited within it.

There's no real right or wrong answer as far as using or not using lens end filters.

Polarizers are noteably a special case where what they do to light entering the lens, cant be replicated or mimmicked in any post-process.

Grads? As said, not always the most apropriate to use 'on-camera' where horizons are broken by scenary. Multi-exposure merging can have as much validity in different circumstances. IF you want or need to effect localised exposure control. But old masters did it pre- or even 'during' capture with specially prepared filters or gels.

Big-Stoppa type Neutral Density filters? Bit more muteable.

Understandable in Digi-Domain, where the ISO sensitivity of the electric eye, is not so 'slow' to start with.

In film, commercial, over the counter film, even towards the end of it being available on the high-street; 100ASA and 200ASA were the most likely consumer film speeds; but slide was commonly available as low as perhaps 64ASA rating, B&W even lower down to maybe 25ASA, the box instructions often offering advice that could be exposed and procesed maybe two stops either side, as anything from 100ASA down to 6ASA!

I think even my first Digi-Compact, almost 20-years ago, had a selectable ISO settings of 100 & 400! And I haven't come accross anything more modern that goes any lower... higher, yes, a lot higher, but rarely any lower.

This would beg at least 4-stops of ND filter to get down to an equivilent exposure range, just of late era 'slow' film; and even more to get down into the range of incredibly slow emulsions on early plate cameras that begged inordinately long shutter speeds.

An high Stop rating ND than would tend to be the most feasible way to get down to that sort of exposure range.. BUT does beg the query why you would want to?

On halide emulsion, it was usually a limitation of the emulsion that they were so slow, and begged such techniques as exposure merging or focus stacking to over-come some of this inadequecy; in the studio, posing clamps were often needed to keep sitters still for the reletively long, maybe 10second, exposures the emulsion demanded.

Where slower emulsions were most often utilised, was NOT necesserily to allow slower shutter-speeds, in fact slower shutter's and consequent motion blur were still something to try and avoid; but slower sensitivity film was employed for finer grain halide structure, and a greater tonal range (as distinct from dynamic range!).

A legacy handed down to digital in the idea of Low ISO for less 'noise', which is not strictly true and a very large over simplification.

Lower ISO doesn't deliver less 'noise'. It just means less signal aplification to see any meaningful difference between shades, and in the digital sampling of those, and thresholds set between levels, it DOESN'T actually translate as a more 'faithful' or 'accurate' digital description of the viewed scene...

Adding a big-stoppa filter infront of the lens to dim the scene, can then actually make matters worse for the electrickery, providing a much dimmer image for it to look at and try and decide what number to ascribe to each shade, and hence crate more computer-confusion or 'noise'.

The big stopper is used for photographing eclipses and removing moving pedestrians and traffic from streetscapes, church interiors, etc..

This is actually one of the few legitimate reasons for employing a Big-Stoppa. ISTR manufactueres issuing some warnings after I think it was the 2001 solar eclipse, of the intensity being able to burn out un-filtered digi-sensors?

Loosing pedestrians in street-scapes, though made me LOL, remembering accademic excersise of looking at early 1900's street shots, and being asked to suggest what time of day they were taken.

Lack of shoppers and pedestrians in a busy Chigago street or similar, begged suggestion it was taken on a Sunday or after closing time; but told to look more closely at the sky, it wasn't white because it was an over-cast day; it was white because the exposure was so long that the clouds had smeared right accross the frame, and so had the sun!

They were often two or three hour long exposures, during which crowds of pedestrians could have passed by and not hung around long enough to leave an image on the plate!

But as Long-Lens suggests, you can remove moving elements in a scene with multiple exposures, and post capture merging; whether you do that via HDR or stitching, or selective masking and over-laying, as you might have in the halide dark-room, its ways of skinning cats, and what may be more or less apropriate or easy.

For a dark interior, like a church, likely with a much more brightly back-lit stained glass window?

You would probably want to hold that back a little to saturate the colour of the glass; but at the same time, you would probably want to brighten up the dimmer interior to get some detail in the shaddows.

Depends on your intent, really, but doesn't instantly scream of a situation that begs a big-stoppa, which would likely make the interior even dimmer, and might suggest some more involved means of local contrast control, probably utilusing exposure merging, to get seperate exposures for the brightly lit window, the dimly lit interior and the mid-tones inbetween. Need not be an 'automatic' one touch post process filter or manipulation, either, and from a sequence of perhaps a dozen shots, you could with exposure merging, whether traditionally under the enlarger, or as contemprary, in digi-dark room, using layers and masks, effect whatever result you set out to; whether that's just to remove people, or avoid them streaking, or to get detail in the dark corners as well as bright stained glass... up to you...

Point is a filter MIGHT be of some help.... post process may be of some help; they are not as PulButler says, mutually exclusive, you can use filters, you can use Post-Process, individually or in combination.

The trick is in knowing what you want to achieve, and picking the 'tool' most able to help you achieve that.
They are just 'tools'. I could pick a hammer out of my tool box, or I could pick a screw-driver; they both do different things, but I can hammer two bits of wood together with nails, or I can screw them together with screws... end result may be little or no different.. but if I try hammerig screws into a bit of wood or using the screw-driver to bash in nails... pretty sure I'm not going to get the best bit of wood-work I could!

And to continue the analogy; you dont give a three year-old a set of Snap-On spanners for christmas and expect them to build a Farari! You give them a Bob-The-Builder tool belt and let them bash bricks and poke the dog! IF they make a ferari, then serendipty is at work! Get the kid a "My First Woodwork" set for Christmas and see where he goes with it! But let him play and find out where the screwdriver is more use than the hammer, and where he needs both; just dont expect a Chippendale wardrobe from his straight off the bat!
 
Back
Top