Filters
Dec 1, 2015 20:45:41 #
Maptos
Loc: Aptos, CA
I like to photograph landscapes and sunsets, was wondering what filters would be good to purchase
Dec 1, 2015 20:47:31 #
Circular Polarizing Filter comes to mind. Read more here:
FAQ: Which Photographic Filters for Digital Photography?
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-26502-1.html
FAQ: Which Photographic Filters for Digital Photography?
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-26502-1.html
Dec 1, 2015 20:49:23 #
Dec 1, 2015 21:37:04 #
Both excellent suggestions. I also use a blue grad at times to punch up the sky color.
Dec 1, 2015 21:55:41 #
Dec 1, 2015 22:16:14 #
MT Shooter wrote:
I never heard of that! Can you post specific info?I also use a blue grad at times to punch up the sky color.
Dec 1, 2015 22:25:17 #
Nikonian72 wrote:
I never heard of that! Can you post specific info?
They are just like an ND Grad, but blue (cyan) instead of ND, mine is an old Tiffen version, the only ones I know of for sure today are the Cokin P size. My Tiffen fits the Cokin P adapter as well. Easy way to punch up a bland sky in a landscape scene. My favorite ND grad is also the Tiffen, in Cokin P size as well.
They both also make a "tobacco" grad which can add dramatic punch to sunrise and sunset shots.
Dec 2, 2015 05:51:54 #
Yes, all of the above... and perhaps a 750nm IR filter, if your camera is sensitive enough to IR. If not then a 650 or yuck.. a 550 nm! If there is a camera shop or friends to barrow momentarily for test ...
Good education:
http://www.lifepixel.com/infrared-filters-choices
Good education:
http://www.lifepixel.com/infrared-filters-choices
Dec 2, 2015 14:15:47 #
quixdraw wrote:
Grad ND ain't bad either.
Back home in S. Texas, if yer gonna say ain't, ya gotta finish with neither. ain't/neither
Dec 2, 2015 15:33:01 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
I agree with most of the above responses...
The very first filter you should get is a good quality Circular Polarizer (CPL or C-Pol). This can be used for a lot of things, but is particularly useful deepening the blue of the sky and making white clouds really "pop"... as well as helping saturate the color of foliage, etc.... and to help control reflections off water, etc.
Shooting digitally, many of the classic types of filters can be emulated very well in post-processing software, or sometimes even directly in the camera itself. However, this is not the case with a polarizing filter. Many of it's effects are impossible or very difficult to emulate digitally... and it remains one of the most widely useful types of filter.
DO NOT get a linear polarizer (PL or POL)... Modern autofocus cameras require a circular polarizer because the linear type will cause problems with the AF and in some cases can even mess up the camera's metering. A circular polarizer will not cause these problems.
One or two Neutral Density (ND) filters also might be useful to you for certain types of landscape shots. These filters are evenly gray all over and are used to reduce the light reaching the camera's sensor to make it possible to use longer exposures than would normally be possible, in order to deliberately blur moving water. You have probably seen images made using this effect... where a stream, the surf or a waterfall has a rather "creamy" look, accomplished by using a slow shutter speed. I would recommend at least one fairly strong ND filter... in the 8-stop to 10-stop range. You might also want a weaker one, to be able to use it in shadier situations, in the 3-stop to 6-stop range. You don't need weaker ones (1-stop or a fraction of a stop) for still photography, and might get by with just one by adjusting other exposure factors such as ISO and aperture, to achieve the slow shutter speed you want. Video shooters tend to require more of a range of ND filters in finer increments, because they have less flexibility in the other exposure factors.
There are Variable ND filters, too... which can be dialed to produce stronger or weaker effect. However, I don't generally recommend these because they tend to cause an uneven effect and the more affordable ones often cause color tints in images too. The better, high quality variable ND filters that work best and are the most neutral in color are quite expensive.
Besides, the circular polarizing filter you get also can serve as a weak ND filter... A C-Pol cuts one to two stops of light, depending upon the setting.
There also are Graduated ND filters, that are used in scenic photography to help balance the brightness of the sky with the foreground. Grad NDs are half gray and half clear and should be bought in the rectangular type, used with a filter holder that attaches to the lens, so that the gradation of the filter can be adjusted to match the horizon in the image. Round, screw-in type force you to put the horizon right in the center of every image you shoot.... not a good thing.
However, while I have a full set of Grad NDs from my film-shooting days (1-stop, 2-stop and 3-stop strengths), I haven't used them in ages. Shooting digital, is easier and gives more precise results to simply take two shots... one exposed for the sky and the other for the foreground... then combine the "correct" portion from each later, in post-processing. Alternatively (and necessarily when anything in the image is moving), it also is possible to shoot a single RAW file, then double process it making similar exposure adjustments to it, then combining the "correct" part from each in the same way. These techniques work better than the filters ever did... so I rarely use them any more.
That's really about it... unless you need something like infrared filters or other special effects.
Whatever you get, for the best results make sure you buy high quality, multi-coated filters. I recommend B+W MRC and Kaesemann... Also Hoya HMC and HD are very good. I haven't used, but have heard really good things about Marumi filters, too. Heliopan, Schneider, Singh-Ray, Lee, Nikon and Hasselblad filters also are all typically quite high quality. But, camera manufacturer name-brand filters often are overpriced for their quality (and very often are outsourced... made for them by someone else who sells it cheaper).
And, you gotta be a little careful. Almost all brands sell various qualities at higher or lower prices. B+W has three or four quailties of C-Pol, for example. I think Hoya has even more. Some of their cheaper ones are uncoated or single coated, which I'd try to avoid for outdoor, general purpose use.
Also, if you don't already have one, get the matched lens hood for the lens you plan to use the filters on. A hood is always a good idea anyway, but becomes even more important when using a filter, to protect both lens and filter from physical bumps, as well as shade them from oblique light that can cause flare issues.
Speaking of which... one time you are NOT supposed to use ANY filter is when shooting a sunset directly. The filter will usually do no good what-so-ever, and will very likely just make for more flare.
Another thing with C-Pol, especially on wide angle lenses, is watch out for uneven effect. A C-Pol's effectiveness varies depending upon it's angle from the light source (i.e., the Sun, typically, when shooting outdoors). As a result, this variation can show up in images... particularly with wider lenses.
Here's an example where the sky is unevenly polarized...
The sun is low and close to setting off to the right... notice how much lighter the sky is there, as opposed the lefthand side of the image. In this case, I didn't mind the uneven effect and think it even adds to the image. You can usually see this in the viewfinder, when it's occurring, and then decide whether or not it's acceptable.
For comparison, here's an image where the sky is very evenly polarized...
In this case the Sun is high in the sky almost directly overhead, but slightly behind me. A C-Pol can give it's strongest effect when it's 90 degrees from the sun, in a case like this. However, here I chose to dial down the effect of the polarizer quite a bit, because though I wanted it to deepen the blue of the sky and the green of the ocean, as well as brighten the colors of fishing boats, I really didn't want to completely lose the reflections of the boats on the water, as that was an important part of the image, in my opinion.
Both the above images were shot using a B+W Kaesemann C-Pol.
Another example, but this time NO FILTER was used...
In this case, with the Sun within the image, even a quality, multi-coated filter would almost certainly have caused flare effects... and because a C-Pol has multiple layers of glass it would have been worse than most. Also, reflections off water, wet sand and wet rocks are a big part of the image and something I didn't want to reduce with a C-Pol.
Hope this helps!
The very first filter you should get is a good quality Circular Polarizer (CPL or C-Pol). This can be used for a lot of things, but is particularly useful deepening the blue of the sky and making white clouds really "pop"... as well as helping saturate the color of foliage, etc.... and to help control reflections off water, etc.
Shooting digitally, many of the classic types of filters can be emulated very well in post-processing software, or sometimes even directly in the camera itself. However, this is not the case with a polarizing filter. Many of it's effects are impossible or very difficult to emulate digitally... and it remains one of the most widely useful types of filter.
DO NOT get a linear polarizer (PL or POL)... Modern autofocus cameras require a circular polarizer because the linear type will cause problems with the AF and in some cases can even mess up the camera's metering. A circular polarizer will not cause these problems.
One or two Neutral Density (ND) filters also might be useful to you for certain types of landscape shots. These filters are evenly gray all over and are used to reduce the light reaching the camera's sensor to make it possible to use longer exposures than would normally be possible, in order to deliberately blur moving water. You have probably seen images made using this effect... where a stream, the surf or a waterfall has a rather "creamy" look, accomplished by using a slow shutter speed. I would recommend at least one fairly strong ND filter... in the 8-stop to 10-stop range. You might also want a weaker one, to be able to use it in shadier situations, in the 3-stop to 6-stop range. You don't need weaker ones (1-stop or a fraction of a stop) for still photography, and might get by with just one by adjusting other exposure factors such as ISO and aperture, to achieve the slow shutter speed you want. Video shooters tend to require more of a range of ND filters in finer increments, because they have less flexibility in the other exposure factors.
There are Variable ND filters, too... which can be dialed to produce stronger or weaker effect. However, I don't generally recommend these because they tend to cause an uneven effect and the more affordable ones often cause color tints in images too. The better, high quality variable ND filters that work best and are the most neutral in color are quite expensive.
Besides, the circular polarizing filter you get also can serve as a weak ND filter... A C-Pol cuts one to two stops of light, depending upon the setting.
There also are Graduated ND filters, that are used in scenic photography to help balance the brightness of the sky with the foreground. Grad NDs are half gray and half clear and should be bought in the rectangular type, used with a filter holder that attaches to the lens, so that the gradation of the filter can be adjusted to match the horizon in the image. Round, screw-in type force you to put the horizon right in the center of every image you shoot.... not a good thing.
However, while I have a full set of Grad NDs from my film-shooting days (1-stop, 2-stop and 3-stop strengths), I haven't used them in ages. Shooting digital, is easier and gives more precise results to simply take two shots... one exposed for the sky and the other for the foreground... then combine the "correct" portion from each later, in post-processing. Alternatively (and necessarily when anything in the image is moving), it also is possible to shoot a single RAW file, then double process it making similar exposure adjustments to it, then combining the "correct" part from each in the same way. These techniques work better than the filters ever did... so I rarely use them any more.
That's really about it... unless you need something like infrared filters or other special effects.
Whatever you get, for the best results make sure you buy high quality, multi-coated filters. I recommend B+W MRC and Kaesemann... Also Hoya HMC and HD are very good. I haven't used, but have heard really good things about Marumi filters, too. Heliopan, Schneider, Singh-Ray, Lee, Nikon and Hasselblad filters also are all typically quite high quality. But, camera manufacturer name-brand filters often are overpriced for their quality (and very often are outsourced... made for them by someone else who sells it cheaper).
And, you gotta be a little careful. Almost all brands sell various qualities at higher or lower prices. B+W has three or four quailties of C-Pol, for example. I think Hoya has even more. Some of their cheaper ones are uncoated or single coated, which I'd try to avoid for outdoor, general purpose use.
Also, if you don't already have one, get the matched lens hood for the lens you plan to use the filters on. A hood is always a good idea anyway, but becomes even more important when using a filter, to protect both lens and filter from physical bumps, as well as shade them from oblique light that can cause flare issues.
Speaking of which... one time you are NOT supposed to use ANY filter is when shooting a sunset directly. The filter will usually do no good what-so-ever, and will very likely just make for more flare.
Another thing with C-Pol, especially on wide angle lenses, is watch out for uneven effect. A C-Pol's effectiveness varies depending upon it's angle from the light source (i.e., the Sun, typically, when shooting outdoors). As a result, this variation can show up in images... particularly with wider lenses.
Here's an example where the sky is unevenly polarized...
The sun is low and close to setting off to the right... notice how much lighter the sky is there, as opposed the lefthand side of the image. In this case, I didn't mind the uneven effect and think it even adds to the image. You can usually see this in the viewfinder, when it's occurring, and then decide whether or not it's acceptable.
For comparison, here's an image where the sky is very evenly polarized...
In this case the Sun is high in the sky almost directly overhead, but slightly behind me. A C-Pol can give it's strongest effect when it's 90 degrees from the sun, in a case like this. However, here I chose to dial down the effect of the polarizer quite a bit, because though I wanted it to deepen the blue of the sky and the green of the ocean, as well as brighten the colors of fishing boats, I really didn't want to completely lose the reflections of the boats on the water, as that was an important part of the image, in my opinion.
Both the above images were shot using a B+W Kaesemann C-Pol.
Another example, but this time NO FILTER was used...
In this case, with the Sun within the image, even a quality, multi-coated filter would almost certainly have caused flare effects... and because a C-Pol has multiple layers of glass it would have been worse than most. Also, reflections off water, wet sand and wet rocks are a big part of the image and something I didn't want to reduce with a C-Pol.
Hope this helps!
Dec 2, 2015 16:07:59 #
Maptos wrote:
I like to photograph landscapes and sunsets, was wondering what filters would be good to purchase
Like others before me, a polarizer. However, don't use it with too wide an angle lens. You'll get varying darkening of the sky that way.
--Bob
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.