I am very new to using filters and there are a couple of things that I do not understand .
Watched a video re using filters . One of the filters used was a "warming filter" . Would not an adjustment to the colour temperature of the RAW file in post do exactly the same ?
I can see the benefit of a graduated neutral density filter but again , could the same effect be achieved by bracketing exposures and masking them in Photoshop or similar ?
Appreciate that there is more than one way to achieve the same thing but interested in the view of you Hoggers .
A polarizing filter on the lens will do a much better job than a "virtual" one will in processing. For others, you'll find people's preferences are determined by how much they enjoy the process of visualization and preparation while in the field vs. the fun of exploration with a photo editor.
With white balance and raw, I've done variations of the same shot when editing in order to compare cool and warm, and really liked the results of each. So I wouldn't want to limit myself with a lens filter.
With a graduated ND filter, you probably could do what you suggest. It would take more work, but you do have a lot of leeway and control. Bracketing and editing might be the only way to achieve the result you want when the horizon (or whatever areas you are separating into lighter/darker) is not a straight line.
There are only two filters that you need in your bag. One is a polarizing filter the other is a set of ND's. The ND's could be faked in PP but there are some thing's they can do that can't easily be faked.
ND's can allow wider aperture in bright light without over exposure and allow for "fluffy" waterfalls to mention a few.
tradio wrote:
The ND's could be faked in PP but there are something's they can do that can't easily be faked.
ND's can allow wider aperture in bright light without over exposure and allow for "fluffy" waterfalls to mention a few.
A point to clarify, and Longshadow mentions also: an ND filter affects all parts of the image, a graduated ND - as the name implies - only about half of it.
Graduated ND's are good when shooting sunsets and you want a darker, saturated sky but a lighter foreground for more detail.
Re regular ND filters: both tradio and Longshadow mention aperture, but it's the slower shutter speed that produces silky water; the aperture number
on its own only affects depth of field.
Yes, a smaller aperture enables a slower shutter speed for the same result in
overall exposure but folks new to all this should learn the direct correlation, not the passive IMO
when attempting to achieve a specific look, e.g. silky water.
The two filters I use are a neutral density filter and a circular polarizer. Most of the other effects can be achieved in post
Linda From Maine wrote:
A polarizing filter on the lens will do a much better job than a "virtual" one will in processing. For others, you'll find people's preferences are determined by how much they enjoy the process of visualization and preparation while in the field vs. the fun of exploration with a photo editor.
With white balance and raw, I've done variations of the same shot when editing in order to compare cool and warm, and really liked the results of each. So I wouldn't want to limit myself with a lens filter.
With a graduated ND filter, you probably could do what you suggest. It would take more work, but you do have a lot of leeway and control. Bracketing and editing might be the only way to achieve the result you want when the horizon (or whatever areas you are separating into lighter/darker) is not a straight line.
A polarizing filter on the lens will do a much bet... (
show quote)
Hi,
Thanks for that , I forgot to mention that I use polarising filters which was dumb of me but ........Didnt think of the issue of speed v only horizon .
tradio wrote:
There are only two filters that you need in your bag. One is a polarizing filter the other is a set of ND's. The ND's could be faked in PP but there are some thing's they can do that can't easily be faked.
ND's can allow wider aperture in bright light without over exposure and allow for "fluffy" waterfalls to mention a few.
Thanks for the info. That makes sense
Linda From Maine wrote:
A point to clarify, and Longshadow mentions also: an ND filter affects all parts of the image, a graduated ND - as the name implies - only about half of it.
Graduated ND's are good when shooting sunsets and you want a darker, saturated sky but a lighter foreground for more detail.
Re regular ND filters: both tradio and Longshadow mention aperture, but it's the slower shutter speed that produces silky water; the aperture number
on its own only affects depth of field.
Yes, a smaller aperture enables a slower shutter speed for the same result in
overall exposure but folks new to all this should learn the direct correlation, not the passive IMO
when attempting to achieve a specific look, e.g. silky water.
A point to clarify, and Longshadow mentions also: ... (
show quote)
Thanks , all this is very very useful,
It is so easy when taking pictures of waterfalls and moving water without ND's and/or GND's to blow out the sky and other bright things and I may be wrong but I don't think completely blown out whites can be recovered in post. CPL's are great but they have their limitations, especially when used with a wide angle lens. There is a definite learning curve to using filters but in my very humble opinion, I think it's well worth the effort.
Linda From Maine wrote:
A point to clarify, and Longshadow mentions also: an ND filter affects all parts of the image, a graduated ND - as the name implies - only about half of it.
Graduated ND's are good when shooting sunsets and you want a darker, saturated sky but a lighter foreground for more detail.
Re regular ND filters: both tradio and Longshadow mention aperture, but it's the slower shutter speed that produces silky water; the aperture number
on its own only affects depth of field.
Yes, a smaller aperture enables a slower shutter speed for the same result in
overall exposure but folks new to all this should learn the direct correlation, not the passive IMO
when attempting to achieve a specific look, e.g. silky water.
A point to clarify, and Longshadow mentions also: ... (
show quote)
Hi Linda.
I have a question around graduated ND filters. I've thought about these after finding myself in some situations in which it seemed that such a filter would be helpful, but have not yet stepped out and bought any of them. The main reason is that I tend to sometimes alter my framing vertically when I compose landscapes or other outdoor images...more or less sky. The concern would be that with a graduated filter, I'd have to locate my horizon based on where the graduation in the filter falls. Clearly it would possible to do that, then crop to the desired composition, but that doesn't seem ideal.
Could you describe how you manage that dilemma?
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.