Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana

I want to shoot a local landmark using a CPL and an FL W filter. Please understand:

1. I don't have the FL-W yet, so I can't experiment, and;
2. I will have a very short time to work, so I want to get it right from the beginning..

So the question: does it matter which filter is in front of the other?

Thanks,

Ben

ulfeld Loc: New York City

The only dumb question is the unasked one ...

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Why do you think two filters is the proper solution? If you're shooting digital and editing, you'd edit the tints and temperature then. Who gets a commission on the GAS purchase of a FL-WARM filter?

The CPL responds to either reflections or glare on bright surfaces. Those should be direct from the surface, not passed through another filter in front of the lens. If determined for a 2-filter solution, a highly questionable configuration, the CPL would be on the top of any filter stack. Have you considered the metering adjustment for these added layers of glass, have you practiced the maybe +1 adjustment to the exposure?

But, is either the CPL or warming filter the correct tool for any photography need, especially a 2023 digital subject without reflections desired for removal?

Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana

Paul, I just don’t think I'm that good at PP.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

As an experienced and active digital and film photographer, I find filters to be virtually useless, except for lens protection and some retention of details in clouds with UV filtering. A CPL can add more problems than the few specific issues it can address. Tint and warmth require virtually zero skill in digital editing, just a calibrated monitor. I wouldn't think either of these filters is more efficient, nor more effective, nor less error-prone as a potential tool in the toolbox.

You didn't tell us the situation being addressed. That might help in the understanding and thinking about the solutions.

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

Paul is...shall we say...opinionated. I agree with him that in a 2 filter setup you describe, likely better for the CPL to be on the outside. If you are shooting in raw then the fluorescent light issue can be addressed by a color temperature slider in PP.

I question needing the fluorescent correction filter in the first place. Another issue is the notion that all fluorescent lights are the same--they are not. There's a whole bunch of variations on the light they put out. One, generic filter, is not going to be perfect for all of them. Even if shooting in jpg, chances are your camera's white balance controls offer a fluorescent setting, if not 2 or 3 of them.

I disagree, vehemently, with Paul as to the usefulness of a CPL filter. It may not help him in his endeavors. I shoot landscapes and use mine nearly all the time, at least in daylight. I agree that they can add issues, mostly if shooting a blue sky at wider than 28mm.

User ID

If thaz so, then youre also not that good at choosing filters either. Why the FL-White ? Theres not much use of those anymore.

Whatever you do shoot raw + jpeg. For an important job with no time to fuss over the actual shoot the raw file is your insurance against disaster.

If your camera is not too old, it has a user friendly PP raw processor on board having adjustments for color and exposure (plus a few other things).

Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana

The FL-W is magenta. The W stands for Warm. But thanks for the nice compliment.

Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana

Paul, the situation is I will be shooting facing north or south. I will be at ninety degrees to the sun, hence the CPL to give more punch to the sky, and the magenta to bring in some tint. If I can get the look I want in camera, for me that is highly preferable as I find the computer work not very enjoyable.

Ben

Ben

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You've already heard multiple voices, more will follow tomorrow. In the end, you'll be the judge.

User ID

All FL filters are various mixtures of magenta cuz all FL light sources produce various shades of ug buttly green.

The FL filter nomenclature across the various brands is not at all standard from brand to brand. The general purpose less than perfect professional FL filter for daylight film was the CC30 Magenta. If your filter closely resembles CC30M I suggest you use it ... but still expect to need some PP.

I would put the FL filter at the front of the stack to facilitate shooting with and without.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

This should not turn into an anit-filter vs. filter usage thread. Of course, the use of filters has diminished because in-camera white balance control will negate the need for many kids of color-correctio or color-balancing filters. Film usage did not afford us this luxury, among other issues of warming and cooling color rendition conversion filters were used to enable the use of films to be designed for particular light sources (color temperatures) such as daylight or tungsten interchangeably. Eg. daylight-balanced color film with tungsten light would require a blue filter such as an 80B. That was easy- just follow the manufacturers' recommendations.

They enter fluorescent lights and other sources that have DISCONTINOUS SPECTRUMS. Frourcent tubes and various sodium vapor lamps simply lack certain segments of the visible spectrum usually red and magenta. The film image would have a significant green or cyan cast. Before the FL-type filters were invented, correcting usually required multiple filters. Multiple filters also add more neutral density which requires extended exposure times which sometimes brings about reciprocity law failure which, in turn, causes more color shifts and requires more filtration- messy and tedious business. So, Tiffen and a few other manufacturers came up with the FLD and FLB filters to address fluorescent light with daylight and tungsten tungsten-balanced films respectively. The best one in my opinion was the Sing Ray MODELS.

Sorry for the history lesson. Since I transitioned to digital in most cases, I found that auto-white balance, somehow magically, solved most of these issues. Rarely have I had to make a slight correction via a custom white balance. In most situations, the color rendition was such that only a small tweak in post-processing was required.

I have used protective filters when necessary, CPL filters, and special effect filters with wit my digital gear. I use high-quality filters and do not experience loss of IQ or loss of contrast due to flare. I, however, am reluctant to stack multiple filters.

My suggestion- If can access the site of that shoot in advance- use your CPL if required and see if your auto white balance will yield a decent rendition. You can adjust it in the camera or do a minimum tweak in editing.

User ID

As you are fully well aware, no pointless compliment was called for nor proffered.

I really do wish you best of luck, cuz you might be in over your head, and seeking advice on UHH. Heres hoping you can get away with it anywho.

Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana

You do realize that I am a hobbyist, not a professional? How can I be over my head in a project I’m shooting for my own pleasure?

Boris77

A Dumb Question appears to be any question asked on UHH.
Boris