Filters that I should have?
May 22, 2014 13:44:19 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
The one filter most people find most useful is a Circular Polarizer. You can use it to enrich the blue of the sky, making clouds "pop" out. It's also good controlling reflections off glass, water and more. Can be useful on overcast days, too, when there's a lot of reflection off foliage, making greens and other colors more saturated. It even can be useful for portraits, some people have "shiney" or oily skin, or when people are wearing eyeglasses. One time not to use a circular polarizer (CPL, C-Pol) is when shooting a sunset or sunrise (or similar) with the sun in the image. The dual layers of the polarizer will be more prone to causing flare effects.
A UV filter serves no purpose on a modern digital camera, other than to give some false sense of protection. Actually a lens cap will do a much better job of protecting the lens. A cap is more easily removed than unscrewing a filter, too. A lens hood is also better protection than the filter (and, sort of ironically, when using a filter you really should also use a lens hood to keep oblique light off the filter as best possible).
Any additional layer of glass put in front of a lens is going to "cost" some image quality. Now under good conditions a high quality, multi-coated filter will only cause slight loss, might be unnoticeable. But under tricky lighting even the best filter can cause issues. And cheap, poor quality filters can cause a lot of loss. I have UV filters for most of my lenses, but I leave them stored in my camera bag until and unless I'm out shooting in conditions where they really are necessary (such as in a sand storm or at the beach where there is salt spray, etc.)
Neutral density filters are gray all over and are simply used to reduce the light reaching the sensor, so that really slow shutter speeds can be used. An example might be shooting waterfall and wanting to use a slow shutter speed so that the movement of the water gets that "creamy" look to it. You can reduce the ISO of your camera, but only so far. To get even slower you may need to add an ND filter. It is worthwhile to get quality ND filters, cheap ones often give unwanted color casts or uneven effects.
ND filters are also useful if you want to use a really large aperture out in bright daylight, such as making a shallow depth of field portrait. NDs are also very popular with videographers, who need to tone things down to match the frame rates they're limited to using.
A Graduated ND filter is half clear, with a gentle gradation into gray. These are used to reduce the brightness of part of the scene, while not effecting the other portion. Often these are used with scenic shots, because the sky frequently tends to be one or two stops brighter than the rest of the scene.
However, I agree with Toby... there is little reason to use Grad NDs with modern digital gear. You can either take two shots (one exposure for the sky and the other for the rest of the scene) or you can double process a single RAW file image (one for the sky, the other for the rest of the scene) and then strip the two together using layering techniques in softwares. This gives much more accurate and controllable results.
If you do choose to use Grad NDs, don't waster your money on the screw-in type. Those put the gradation right in the center each and every time... and you will find that's incorrect most of the time. Grad NDs also come in a much more practical rectangular shape, that fit into a holder mounted onto the front of the lens. This allows you to reposition the filter as needed, rotating it and sliding it up or down to match the horizon line in the image you are making.
I have a nice set of Grad NDs dating back to my film shooting days... but honestly haven't used them much in recent years. Instead I just use the double (or sometimes triple) image trick and strip the best parts of each image together in Photoshop. The results are much better than was ever possible with the filters.
There are few other filters that can't be pretty closely emulated in post-processing software. With modern digital you can set custom white balance, so don't need color correction and color conversion filters. Warming and cooling filters also are unnecessary, since you can just use a target (Google for "Warm Cards") to fool the camera into slightly biased images.
I do occasionally use some specialized filters...
Black net and black splatter filters are used for portraiture... actually to reduce fine detail that can make portraits look too harsh.
I also sometimes use certain fog or softening filters... or others that produce star effects. These can look cheesy, though, so I don't use them much.
If working with flash combined with daylight there's little problem... but flash mixed with other forms of light can be an issue. You can either filter the lens or the flash in such cases, but need to know what color temp you are trying to match with the flash, or vice versa.
Any filter you use in front of your lens should be high quality and multi-coated. These are more expensive, but are far less likely to screw up your images the way some cheaper filters can do. You gotta decide... is that camera a tool you bought to make photos? Or is it some precious possession that needs protection from some unknown danger?
BTW, the people who sell "protection" filters will always tell you that you must use protection filters. It's a nice bit of added profit for them.
Back in the days of film we used UV filters a lot because many films were overly sensitive to UV light. This was particularly true at higher altitudes where UV was even stronger. We weren't using them to "protect" our lenses, although a lot of folks thought that was the case.
A UV filter serves no purpose on a modern digital camera, other than to give some false sense of protection. Actually a lens cap will do a much better job of protecting the lens. A cap is more easily removed than unscrewing a filter, too. A lens hood is also better protection than the filter (and, sort of ironically, when using a filter you really should also use a lens hood to keep oblique light off the filter as best possible).
Any additional layer of glass put in front of a lens is going to "cost" some image quality. Now under good conditions a high quality, multi-coated filter will only cause slight loss, might be unnoticeable. But under tricky lighting even the best filter can cause issues. And cheap, poor quality filters can cause a lot of loss. I have UV filters for most of my lenses, but I leave them stored in my camera bag until and unless I'm out shooting in conditions where they really are necessary (such as in a sand storm or at the beach where there is salt spray, etc.)
Neutral density filters are gray all over and are simply used to reduce the light reaching the sensor, so that really slow shutter speeds can be used. An example might be shooting waterfall and wanting to use a slow shutter speed so that the movement of the water gets that "creamy" look to it. You can reduce the ISO of your camera, but only so far. To get even slower you may need to add an ND filter. It is worthwhile to get quality ND filters, cheap ones often give unwanted color casts or uneven effects.
ND filters are also useful if you want to use a really large aperture out in bright daylight, such as making a shallow depth of field portrait. NDs are also very popular with videographers, who need to tone things down to match the frame rates they're limited to using.
A Graduated ND filter is half clear, with a gentle gradation into gray. These are used to reduce the brightness of part of the scene, while not effecting the other portion. Often these are used with scenic shots, because the sky frequently tends to be one or two stops brighter than the rest of the scene.
However, I agree with Toby... there is little reason to use Grad NDs with modern digital gear. You can either take two shots (one exposure for the sky and the other for the rest of the scene) or you can double process a single RAW file image (one for the sky, the other for the rest of the scene) and then strip the two together using layering techniques in softwares. This gives much more accurate and controllable results.
If you do choose to use Grad NDs, don't waster your money on the screw-in type. Those put the gradation right in the center each and every time... and you will find that's incorrect most of the time. Grad NDs also come in a much more practical rectangular shape, that fit into a holder mounted onto the front of the lens. This allows you to reposition the filter as needed, rotating it and sliding it up or down to match the horizon line in the image you are making.
I have a nice set of Grad NDs dating back to my film shooting days... but honestly haven't used them much in recent years. Instead I just use the double (or sometimes triple) image trick and strip the best parts of each image together in Photoshop. The results are much better than was ever possible with the filters.
There are few other filters that can't be pretty closely emulated in post-processing software. With modern digital you can set custom white balance, so don't need color correction and color conversion filters. Warming and cooling filters also are unnecessary, since you can just use a target (Google for "Warm Cards") to fool the camera into slightly biased images.
I do occasionally use some specialized filters...
Black net and black splatter filters are used for portraiture... actually to reduce fine detail that can make portraits look too harsh.
I also sometimes use certain fog or softening filters... or others that produce star effects. These can look cheesy, though, so I don't use them much.
If working with flash combined with daylight there's little problem... but flash mixed with other forms of light can be an issue. You can either filter the lens or the flash in such cases, but need to know what color temp you are trying to match with the flash, or vice versa.
Any filter you use in front of your lens should be high quality and multi-coated. These are more expensive, but are far less likely to screw up your images the way some cheaper filters can do. You gotta decide... is that camera a tool you bought to make photos? Or is it some precious possession that needs protection from some unknown danger?
BTW, the people who sell "protection" filters will always tell you that you must use protection filters. It's a nice bit of added profit for them.
Back in the days of film we used UV filters a lot because many films were overly sensitive to UV light. This was particularly true at higher altitudes where UV was even stronger. We weren't using them to "protect" our lenses, although a lot of folks thought that was the case.
May 22, 2014 15:00:15 #
May 22, 2014 19:00:13 #
As to clear protector filters "degrading" the image: I agree, the question is how much, isn't it? Here is a question. I shot a scene from my window using a Nikon 80-200 zoom at f8, arguably its sharpest aperture, on my D800E. It's shot at 200mm, where any imperfections in a filter would show up the most. One side of this comparison frame is shot without a filter, and the other with a bog-standard Kenko MC skylight filter. I've converted to greyscale to hide small color differences. Have a look at 100% (which it will be if you download the attached file) and see if you can tell which is which ;)
May 22, 2014 19:15:15 #
Hi Kymarto,
I didn't see anything to open or download. I think I will use the Hoya UV and just leave it on there unless I need to remove it for another filter.
I left another question, but received on answer. Do all table top cameras fit a DSLR or in my case a Panasonic Bridge camera. I notice on some of the tripods not on the thread, but another elevated area. I am wanting to sit outside at our
patio table when it is not very hot and shot wildlife that comes into our yard. My camera only weighs 1.3 pounds. I really don't know what to look for. Thanks for your advice that you have given me thus far. Gregger
I didn't see anything to open or download. I think I will use the Hoya UV and just leave it on there unless I need to remove it for another filter.
I left another question, but received on answer. Do all table top cameras fit a DSLR or in my case a Panasonic Bridge camera. I notice on some of the tripods not on the thread, but another elevated area. I am wanting to sit outside at our
patio table when it is not very hot and shot wildlife that comes into our yard. My camera only weighs 1.3 pounds. I really don't know what to look for. Thanks for your advice that you have given me thus far. Gregger
May 22, 2014 19:20:28 #
The photos just now downloaded. I see little if any difference. I see what you are speaking about. I don't have excellent eyes, but I see no difference. Thanks! I am happy those downloaded.
May 22, 2014 21:15:20 #
kymarto wrote:
Use a protector or UV. I've done careful tests and... (show quote)
I could not have said this better.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.