What one filter to take with you when doing landscapes

R

Ravinder

Messages
405
Name
Ravinder Bindra
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi

I really want to shoot some landscape images soon. I’m thinking about going back to Glencoe quite soon. I don’t have any filters and I’m not really in a position finally to buy but can probably stretch to purchasing one.

When I do go out shooting, I don’t use filters or I use my 10 stop for seascape images etc. I have trouble not using filters to balance the image as usually the Sky is washed out etc. the only way I know to get around this is by doing multiple exposures and then blending it in post production. However, if a filter can make life easier, then I’d rather go down this option. And this will help me see the image better on the back of the camera on site as oppose to on a PC.

So, what filters do you recommend ? I don’t know a lot about them ie soft grad, hard edge etc.
Advise welcome. Ravinder.
 
With only one filter I’d take a Polarizer but you seem to be asking about grads, what camera have you got? That will help people help you because it depends a bit on the dynamic range of you camera. BTW you can buy cheap but very good filters from https://www.srb-photographic.co.uk/square-filters-1221-c.asp if you are just dipping a toe in the water it may be worth getting a set from them and seeing what works for you before you pay a fortune on something you may not like or need
 
sirch said:
With only one filter I’d take a Polarizer
Click to expand...

That's the one filter I would not take…
I would take a soft or hard G/ND2~6.
 
I have a D7200 crop sensor. Sorry, I forgot to mention. I do have a 10 stop filter and a polarizer for my 17-55mm lens. They’re cheap filters from eBay but they seem to do OK. I’ve had them for a while. Thanks.
 
In general, if you are photographing mountain scenes then using only one filter may not help overly much unless you use a soft edged grad and had a fair amount of sky in the image - even then the top of the mountain(s) will get shaded by the grad which may or may not be an issue. Problem with grads is they aren't mountain shaped ;). Without knowing your camera, and to some extent your widest lens, it is difficult to suggest only one filter anyway.

If you cannot achieve a satisfactory exposure with one image then blending may be a better choice when shooting mountain scenes.

Even getting just one filter (assuming a grad here btw) you would still need to get an adapter and filter holder.

For info the one filter effect you cannot replicate in post is a polariser, some will say you can't replicate stoppers and such but I have seen it done (I'm not good enough with PS to do it). But a polariser is impossible to replicate.
 
Ravinder said:
I have a D7200 crop sensor. Sorry, I forgot to mention. I do have a 10 stop filter and a polarizer for my 17-55mm lens. They’re cheap filters from eBay but they seem to do OK. I’ve had them for a while. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Cross posted ... :) comments re adapter and holder remain.

If you are thinking of controlling the sky then a grad , or grads, are the way to go, however where it cuts the mountains it will darken them too. As I said, blending may be a better bet.
 
PaulButler said:
For info the one filter effect you cannot replicate in post is a polariser, some will say you can't replicate stoppers and such but I have seen it done (I'm not good enough with PS to do it). But a polariser is impossible to replicate.
Click to expand...
:agree:. A polarizer can also be used to enhance reflections... seems a lot don't realize that.
 
sk66 said:
:agree:. A polarizer can also be used to enhance reflections... seems a lot don't realize that.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, although I use it more to reduce reflections I have used it to make them stronger. The one thing I never (intentionally) use it for is to make the sky bluer!! :)
 
A 2-stop ND grad; and in extremis I just hold it manually in front of the lens rather than use a holder - but that's not ideal. A polariser always comes too, for both water and vegetation (not sky).
 
Ravinder said:
I have trouble not using filters to balance the image as usually the Sky is washed out etc. the only way I know to get around this is by doing multiple exposures and then blending it in post production. However, if a filter can make life easier, then I’d rather go down this option.
Click to expand...

It won't

If the DR is really outside of what your camera can record then blending is your best option and especially where the horizon isn't straight (i.e. not the seaside)

The 'obvious' mountain at Glencoe is very pointy, a grad will darken the sky and the mountain too - which you probably don't want. 'Correct' exposure for the mountain may blow some bits of the sky - which you also probably don't want. So unless you have a Glencoe-mountain-shape-ND blending is your best bet

Dave

PS - I just scrolled up and agree with sk66 & PaulButler - to the point I wish I'd read their posts first and not bothered here as we're pretty much saying the same thing lol
 
As mentioned already the camera you're using would be handy to know as modern full frames like the new Sony's/Nikon's have very impressive dynamic range so the need for NDgrads is much less. With my D850 I use them maybe 20% of the time whereas a few years ago it was more 80%.

It's a fair point that any graduated filter will darken a "pointy" mountain but for me anyway I much prefer correcting for the darkened peak in editing rather than exposure blending, which I only resort to when I'm really struggling with the lighting situation so on that basis my suggestion would be a 2 stop NDgrad. I carry a polarizer but find I use it rarely, only to kill glare on reflections..

Simon
 
If I was only taking one filter out, it's the 0.6nd hard grad. It's the best of all worlds for me.
 
Pretty much everyone has answered your question above. I have had my Grads for I don't know how long and rarely use them nowadays. Think long and hard before you lash out your hard earned on holders, filters blah blah. Don't be swayed by the get it right in the camera brigade. They seem to forget we were dodging and burning, masking and enlarging, during developing film for years.
Stoppers and Polarisers are fine if you feel you must buy something or if you haven't got one a remote shutter release.
"However, if a filter can make life easier" answer to that is it won't, buy a cheap one and you'll be correcting the cast in post, buy a good one and you will correcting everything that sticks up above the horizon in post. So why bother? Shoot 2 correctly exposed shots and blend them. You will achieve much better results doing it this way. Depending on your camera Ravinder you can set it up for exposure bracketing which you can use to automate the process if you like.

Most important thing is to enjoy it!
 
Kodiak Qc said:
That's the one filter I would not take…
Click to expand...
I'm someone returning to photography after a long lay-off (well, I still took photographs, but mainly as subject matter for paintings). I'm now trying to get heavily into digital cameras and computer processing instead of film & darkroom.
Can I ask your reasons for never using a polariser? I'm certainly intrigued, since I've read that almost any other filter can be simulated in post-processing - but since a polariser actually changes the light before it hits the sensor then it can provide a unique twist to your image.
I guess you don't agree ,and I'd be really interested to know why.
 
•

Hi Bill, :)

The author starts with…
Ravinder said:
I really want to shoot some landscape images
Click to expand...

Yes, basically, all one needs is a great DR range protecting
the whites at all cost. I use for that purpose a variable ND.

A polariser is out of the equation because of the negative effect
it has on the sky. I am totally in favour of its use when water is
in the scene though… but no sky,

BTW, my first cameras were 2x Minolta SRT 101 as well! :cool:
 
I always take a polariser and often use it. These days it is quite easy to remove uneven polarisation in the sky in eg Lightroom.

In my (considerable) experience a polariser doesn't really enhance reflections. A reflection is in effect polarised light made visible so using a polariser on it will tend to make it disappear (double polarisation - similar to a variable ND filter). Has no-one noticed that?
 
Surely the point of a polariser is not to 'enhance' reflections, because as Jeremy says the polarised light of a reflection is what the polariser blocks. What it does is increase your control when there is a lot of reflected light, either reducing glare from vegetation or enabling you to see into water over the critical angle at which there is no transmission of light from below the surface.
 
Polariser is just another useful tool in our armory, isn't it? Providing you know what it does and doesn't do and its potential shortcomings as explained so well by Jeremy and John your OK. Which I guess is true for any filter.
It's really about what you want to create in your photographs, some people like retina scorching over saturated skys or psychedelic HDR tone mapping:eek:.
Quality of course is also a question...... buying £XXX on a camera and lens then putting a 3 quid filter on the front probably isn't the wisest of moves.
 
jerry12953 said:
In my (considerable) experience a polariser doesn't really enhance reflections. A reflection is in effect polarised light made visible so using a polariser on it will tend to make it disappear (double polarisation - similar to a variable ND filter). Has no-one noticed that?
Click to expand...
You have to understand that *all light* is polarized to some extent. And the act of absorbing some of the light (transmitting part through glass/water, or reflection off of a colored/absorptive surface) makes it even more polarized. A polarizing filter simply selectively eliminates *some* of the light based upon the orientation of the wavelength. So if the directions of the light sources are different, they can (may) be selectively eliminated/reduced.

I.e. the reflection of a mountain from behind the water vs the reflection of sky above or sun behind. If I choose to reduce the reflection of the sky, it therefore enhances (isolates) the reflection of the mountain... the effect/effectivity is highly situational.
 
sk66 said:
You have to understand that *all light* is polarized to some extent. And the act of absorbing some of the light (transmitting part through glass/water, or reflection off of a colored/absorptive surface) makes it even more polarized. A polarizing filter simply selectively eliminates *some* of the light based upon the orientation of the wavelength. So if the directions of the light sources are different, they can (may) be selectively eliminated/reduced.

I.e. the reflection of a mountain from behind the water vs the reflection of sky above or sun behind. If I choose to reduce the reflection of the sky, it therefore enhances (isolates) the reflection of the mountain... the effect/effectivity is highly situational.
Click to expand...

That may or may not be the case; what I was trying to say was that reflected light is already polarised by the reflective surface and using a polariser will tend to reduce the reflection rather than enhance it. It is the same principle as used in a variable ND filter, which uses two polarisers working against each other (as far as I understand it) to progressively darken the image.
 
jerry12953 said:
That may or may not be the case; what I was trying to say was that reflected light is already polarised by the reflective surface and using a polariser will tend to reduce the reflection rather than enhance it. It is the same principle as used in a variable ND filter, which uses two polarisers working against each other (as far as I understand it) to progressively darken the image.
Click to expand...
Yes, but a single polarizer can only block light from one direction/orientation, while the reflection in the scene may have light from multiple directions with multiple orientations.

What causes the reflected light to be polarized is that part of the light passes through (or is absorbed by) the surface and part reflects off of the surface. When the light hits the surface at a particular angle (Brewster's angle) those two directions of light will be perfectly polarized in opposite directions. Take a shallow water surface where some light is being reflected off of the surface of the water and some light is reflected from the surface(s) below... those two light sources will be oppositely polarized, but they will both be entering the lens at the same time. I can choose to eliminate the surface reflection (as you are thinking) showing what is below, or I can eliminate the light from below by orienting the filter 90* opposite and thereby enhance the reflection.

In a typical outdoor scene light will actually be coming from many directions with many polarized orientations and degrees of polarization...
 
Last edited:
Pretty much no filters for me now. All processing is done in Lightroom with much finer and broader control and no expense. Just bracket in challenging conditions to make sure you've got all the bases covered.

Sometimes I will use CPL or a plain ND to reduce shutter speed but that is all.
 
I used to carry a full compliment of hard and soft grads, big stopper, little stopper, CPL and others, with the improvements in DR with newer cameras and more options in post processing I find this is no longer necessary I now just use a CPL and the little stopper.
 
I never use grads, always blend exposures if needed. But lack of a polariser can't be compensated for in post.

Not for skies (meh) but for water, reflections and particularly for wet foliage. If you're photographing (e.g.) autumn colours, it gives you a lot more control.

If just one filter, I would be hard put to choose between that and an ND for lengthening exposures, but you say you already have a 10-stop ND, so for me the polariser is an easy second.
 
SFTPhotography said:
Looking back a soft edged grad. You cannot see the filter lines with them and for the sort of scenes I shoot they are perfect for the job
Click to expand...

Steve,

You photograph a lot of reflections (now there's an understatement....). Have you ever used a polariser on a reflection and if so have you ever been able to enhance the reflection using one?
 
jerry12953 said:
Steve,

You photograph a lot of reflections (now there's an understatement....). Have you ever used a polariser on a reflection and if so have you ever been able to enhance the reflection using one?
Click to expand...

Hardly ever. I find them better for “beefing up” a sky that’s got cirrus clouds and blue patches.

The reflections I find are so good they don’t need enhanced :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top