Filter Advice

[DeadSmiley]

I'm thinking about adding some filters to my "bag-o-stuff" and I was wondering if anyone had suggestions as to what kind of filters I should have...I currently don't have any. Maybe someone can suggest a basic "starter" set of the most common filters to have?

I am, admittedly, a little lost on what all these filters do and in what situations they might be of use to me.

I've been looking at the Cokin P series filters and think they might be a good place to start as I can have one set of filters that will attach to multiple lenses.

Thanks for the input!

Just a quick question whats you goal for shooting anything(landscape obgects) or do you want to improve midday shots etc..

[DeadSmiley]

Originally Posted by D.Rodgers

Just a quick question whats you goal for shooting anything(landscape obgects) or do you want to improve midday shots etc..

Here's what I shoot most often:

• Indoor and outdoor portraits
• Sports
• Indoor and outdoor events (Weddings, Parties, Parades, misc. Ceremonies, etc.)

Stuff I'd like to do more of:

• Landscapes (balancing the exposure of the sky and the foreground always turns into an exercise in frustration)
• Product/Commercial (just never really tried it)

So...I guess my question is...are there common filters that you should have available to you when shooting these types of subjects that will assist in overcoming the most common challenges that occur?

Hope that clarifies my question...

Thanks!

[jfrancho]

I've been looking at the Cokin P series filters and think they might be a good place to start as I can have one set of filters that will attach to multiple lenses.

Cokin "Grad Gray" filters aren't neutral. I have one from my P holder starter kit. It works, but its slightly on the warm side. Hitech or Lee's seem to be a good balance between price and quality. Obviously, B&W are the best. You'll want a straight ND filter, a hard grad, and a soft grad. ND filters are good for water falls, or moving water. They also can be used to drop the shutter speed to sync speed when using a flash in daylight. The hard grad works well with straight line horizons. For any thing else, like uneven horizons, or where you want to obscure the effect, the soft grad will be the tool. They are usually coded in stops: a .3 is one stop, .6 is two, a 1.2 is four. Be sure to check this. Two stop grads are probably where you want to start. For a full ND, I use a four stop filter. My logic there was that I'll probably have the camera tripoded for these, so why not go for a powerful filter. As it turned out, 4 stops is just about what it takes to bring the shutter down to sync speed in full daylight, at around f/5.6.

[mfryd]

Originally Posted by DeadSmiley

Here's what I shoot most often:

• Indoor and outdoor portraits
• Sports
• Indoor and outdoor events (Weddings, Parties, Parades, misc. Ceremonies, etc.)

Stuff I'd like to do more of:

• Landscapes (balancing the exposure of the sky and the foreground always turns into an exercise in frustration)
• Product/Commercial (just never really tried it)

So...I guess my question is...are there common filters that you should have available to you when shooting these types of subjects that will assist in overcoming the most common challenges that occur?

Hope that clarifies my question...

Thanks!

Whenever you add another piece of glass in front of the camera you reduce contrast, reduce sharpness, and increase flare. Under good conditions, with a good quality filter the effects are minimal. Flare and reduced contrast can be a real problem if there is a light source in (or near) your field of view.

As a general rule, don't use don't use a filter unless it is adding enough to the image to offset the above.


Some filters can be duplicated in Photoshop. These are generally filters that alter color (warming filters, cooling filters, red/green filters for B&W). My recommendation is that you don't use these filters. Shoot raw, and adjust in Photoshop.


Some filters can be duplicated in Photoshop, but are difficult to do so. These include graduated neutral density filters. If you shoot in raw, you may have enough range to duplicate the effect. If you are shooting stationary subjects from a tripod, you can take multiple exposures and combine them in Photoshop.


I can go either way on these filters, it depends on the shooting conditions.


Some filters absolutely cannot be duplicated in Photoshop. The most common example is the polarizing filter. The camera records color and intensity, it does not record polarization of the light.

Polarization filters are great when shooting landscapes or product photography. They allow you to adjust (emphasize or reduce) many types of reflections.

When shooting landscapes, you wll find the the light coming from the sky is polarized, and you can use a polarizing filter to darken or lighten the sky separately from the foreground.


If you shoot copy work (paintings or other artwork), you can use polarizing filters on your lights and camera to reduce reflections and increase contrast.


My recommendation is get some polarizing filters.

[jfrancho]

Whenever you add another piece of glass in front of the camera you reduce contrast, reduce sharpness, and increase flare.

Most of mine are not glass, and in theory I agree with the statement about contrast, flare, sharpness, etc, in practice, this has not been the case. Anytime I've used a filter to modify the light entering the camera, it has always improved the quality of the image, so don't be afraid to try it.

Some filters absolutely cannot be duplicated in Photoshop

Add a neutral density filter to the list of filters that cannot be duplicated in Photoshop.

If you shoot copy work (paintings or other artwork), you can use polarizing filters on your lights and camera to reduce reflections and increase contrast.

This is called Cross Polarization. Linear Polarizing Film can be purchased from Edmund Optics - TECHSPECâ„¢ Linear Polarizing Laminated Film.

When shooting landscapes, you wll find the the light coming from the sky is polarized, and you can use a polarizing filter to darken or lighten the sky separately from the foreground.

Results of using a a CP on a WA lens can be mixed due the obtuse FOV and limited polarizing effect of a CP. What you get is uneven skies. When using a WA or UWA, I recommend a ND Grad or Split filter to darken skies. Even better would be multiple, bracketed (shutter speed, not aperture!) exposures to be used in making a HDRI. Some photographers will resist this tech, feeling it isn't true phototagraphy, and for them a ND Grad fits the bill.

[mfryd]

Originally Posted by jfrancho

Most of mine are not glass, and in theory I agree with the statement about contrast, flare, sharpness, etc, in practice, this has not been the case. Anytime I've used a filter to modify the light entering the camera, it has always improved the quality of the image, so don't be afraid to try it.

Yes, many people have no problems with filters. For some, this is because conditions are right, for others, it's because they have not done a comparison.


On another photo forum, someone was having a problem shooting a model on a high-key white background. The model was washed out, and the contrast was low.

The advice given (which worked) was to remove the UV filter from the camera lens.

This was pretty much a worst case situation where the flare from the bright background was ruining the image.

Obviously, most pictures won't show as dramatic (or any) degradation.


But the sentiment is right, don't be afraid to try the filters you can't duplicate in photoshop.

Originally Posted by jfrancho

Add a neutral density filter to the list of filters that cannot be duplicated in Photoshop.

True enough.

Originally Posted by jfrancho

This is called Cross Polarization. Linear Polarizing Film can be purchased from Edmund Optics - TECHSPECâ„¢ Linear Polarizing Laminated Film.

You can also get the film from B&H or other camera stores.

Originally Posted by jfrancho

Results of using a a CP on a WA lens can be mixed due the obtuse FOV and limited polarizing effect of a CP. What you get is uneven skies. When using a WA or UWA, I recommend a ND Grad or Split filter to darken skies. Even better would be multiple, bracketed (shutter speed, not aperture!) exposures to be used in making a HDRI. Some photographers will resist this tech, feeling it isn't true phototagraphy, and for them a ND Grad fits the bill.

I shoot a lot of nature in the Florida Everglades. Not all of it is wide angle, so the polarizer can be used for skies.

Reflections off the water's surface are typically polarized. I love the ability to control the amount of sky reflected on the water.

[jfrancho]

Good stuff.

Yes, many people have no problems with filters.

I've seen some issues posted as well. One in particular was very pesky, as it was actually two issues introduced by the filter: the first was that it was a Cokin NDG that introduces a warm cast to the affected part of the image, resulting in WB issues; the second, more insidious, was that the sun was at high noon(ish) and struck the roughly cut edge of the plastic filter, adding a really weird flare - sort of a big, red parabola in the middle of the frame. So, yes issue arise, but it seems to be rare. I'd thing that if you have time to set up the tripod, meter the scene, determine an exposure, bracket, etc., you'd have time to check the display afterward.

You can also get the film from B&H or other camera stores.

I don't see anything in BH's site that comes close to the price of Edmund's - do you have a link to a product? Most of what I see is glass, and very expensive. You don't really need anything that robust for treating the lights, though the glass probably lasts a heck of a lot longer than the film.

Reflections off the water's surface are typically polarized. I love the ability to control the amount of sky reflected on the water.

This is quite simply one of the most killer applications of a CP. It really changes the scene.

No CP:


Same jetty, CP used:

[mfryd]

Originally Posted by jfrancho

Good stuff.

...

I don't see anything in BH's site that comes close to the price of Edmund's - do you have a link to a product? Most of what I see is glass, and very expensive. You don't really need anything that robust for treating the lights, though the glass probably lasts a heck of a lot longer than the film.

...

B&H item number ROPS
Rosco Polarizing #7300 Filter - 17x20" Sheet, $42.50
(about 12.5 cents a square inch)

B&H item number ROPR
Rosco Polarizing #7300 Filter - 19"x10' Roll, $213.50



I think this is less (per square inch) than the prices you linked to on the Edmund site. Although, if the Edmund sizes are more convenient, it may be a better deal.

[jfrancho]

Thanks. Rosco - I should have known. That's close to the Edmunds prices - I wonder if its as thick. I just bought a 8.5x15" sheet, and cut it. Either way, the stuff gets burned out after a bunch of pops from the lights.

[mfryd]

Originally Posted by jfrancho

Thanks. Rosco - I should have known. That's close to the Edmunds prices - I wonder if its as thick. I just bought a 8.5x15" sheet, and cut it. Either way, the stuff gets burned out after a bunch of pops from the lights.

You're welcome. I've had good luck with the Rosco. I don't get burns unless I leave the mdoeling lights on full for too long.


Another example showing the polarizing effect. Taken 5 seconds apart, polarization filter turned 90 degrees.

[richardpcrowe]

You need far fewer filters shooting digital and processing in a program such as Photoshop or Photoshop Elements because, most of the filter effects can be duplicated in post processing.

Here are several filters that might come in handy:

CPL - Circular Polarizing Filter is one of the few filters that cannot be duplicated in post processing. When the sun is at the correct angle to your lens/subject; the CPL can cut reflections on non-metallic objects. This will enhance the color of foliage; darken the sky to enhance cloud effects and reduce the dynamic exposure range in your scene to one more able to be captured by the sensor; penetrate the surface of water; cut haze and mist by reducing the reflections off the haze and moisture particles in the air.

ND - Neutral Density Filter will enable you to use longer exposures which will blur the motion of water in streams, waterfalls and surf. Be careful not to overdo this effect.

GND - Graduated Neutral Density Filter is a filter that is split between a neutral density portion and a clear portion. It is most often used to tone down the brightness of the sky. IMO it is a difficult filter to use without being obvious. The GND filters come in several densities as well as in hard and soft cut-offs between the neutral density and the clear portion. The hard cut of is usually used when there is a definite straight definition between sky and foreground - such as a seascape. The soft cut-off is most often used when there is no exact straight horizon line such as in landscapes with mountains and trees providing a ragged horizon line. There are also colored filters of this type which will enhance the color of the sky. I personally hate this effect and have never seen one used that did not look phony. My wife, however loves the effect. Different strokes for different folks. One final thought regarding GND filters. The standard round filter has the cut-off directly through the center of the filter forcing you to place the horizon dead center which is a boring effect. A square filter such as the Cokin style will allow you to adjust the cut-off up and down.

UV - Ultraviolet Filter is not really necessary for digital photography except to protect the lens from damage. Film is very sensitive to UV rays but, the digital sensor is not. Using the UV filter as a protection for the lens has two groups of thought. First group ALWAYS uses the filter to protect the lens. Second group says that the image is deteriorated when using any filter and will not use a UV for lens protection.

I am somewhere in the middle and will use the filter when there might be damage to the lens such as in dusty conditions.

[golfer]

I might suggest a mild warming filter if you are doing landscapes. SinghRay makes one that to my eye at least, can be used to add some pop to the colors nature shares with us.

[jfrancho]

I'd rather shoot raw, and have the option to warm it up later, than be tied to it using a filter. In fact, the only filter that I use that alters color is the CP. And I prefer those where the color shift is minimal.

[cyclohexane]

Warming effects can be achieved cleaner with WB. No extra glass in front of your camera means less image degradation.

Now, if one is a film shooter...

[ljh34465]

I got nice results, IMAO, using a Moose filter in a recent visit to Arches and Canyonlands NP. It is a combination of a warming filter and a circular polarizer.

But I am not very good in PS Elements so I rely more on doing it in camera. I have yet to play with HDR which is another solution to some issues.

I think it depends on your skill level with Photoshop and whether you venture into HDR.

As you can see by the replies, there are several different camps.

I would recommend a CP that fits your largest diameter lens and then reducing rings for your other lenses - that way you can use one filter on all your lenses , at least when you are just starting to use them.

[jfrancho]

As you can see by the replies, there are several different camps.

Indeed. While I am generally a "straight shooter" when it comes to most pictures, there are times when I wish I was out there with a larger format film camera, capturing all the dynamic range, making a fine art image. Even when I turn to HDR or combining stacked exposures, I try to keep the effect as unnoticeable as possible. However, as others have shown, some really amazing pictures can be made using these tools to their full potential. Arizona's avatar comes to mind as one of my favorites.

[Arizona]

Originally Posted by jfrancho

I try to keep the effect as unnoticeable as possible. However, as others have shown, some really amazing pictures can be made using these tools to their full potential. Arizona's avatar comes to mind as one of my favorites.

Thanks you! I saw the Filter Thread and thought how much fun they are. That was shot with my Canon 10-22 at 10mm. I don't use any glass filters on that lens because of what you say in an earlier post, the skies will be way too uneven. I use that lens for 95% of my work. The avatar image is pretty much like it looks in that location. I do use Photoshop to get the pop I want, sometimes more than others. This shot was not taken to the extreme in PS but Curves and the like as far as I can recall and was a one exposure just, not HDR. I think I did select the skies and brought them out some.

Agreed that some filters cannot be dupped in PS such as the Polarizer. I find GNDs hard to work with for the jagged horizon out here so I try to get the best exposure or in some cases multiples to stack.

I do use Photoshop filters to draw what I can from an image and sometimes I use HDR. I did another shot right at the same location of the Avatar on my last trip up there. I found a skull on my long hike and took it to several locations and photographed it in many angles.This is at my most HDR pure but I like the B&W mood better done in Convert to B&W Pro. The sand there is really orange. It blew in during the Jurassic and there became a sandy desert that rivaled today’s Sahara. The sand petrified and made sandstone over time. Some of the sandstone was stained with minerals and iron to make reds, yellows and oranges. It erodes today back into sand. The luminescence of this sand and stone can be phenomenal as the tiny quarts crystals work the light. Visit Page, AZ or the surrounding areas in So Utah and watch as the light changes the sand over the passing hours of the day until after sunset.

Filters for the lens can be very expensive. A Singh-Ray GND is more than $100 and you need several. The colored filters are expensive as well. I am currently evaluating DFx Filter Effects by Tiffen and I like what I see so much I’ll probably drop the 3 bills for the PS plugin complete series. I found myself in Winslow, AZ today waiting out some clouds so I took a little walk into the big old hangar there. Charles Lindbergh built it and it is one of the last remaining of his as the FBO building is as well. In a dusty corner I saw an old flying machine of later times and got a few exposures. I had to do an HDR to keep to see the details and keep the window intact. So I brought up the Tiffen filters and let out the dharma bum, anti hero. Purity was flown away and the gravity let go. First This and then This where I blew the windows anyway. I could use a mask there but this was just a quick test. Different moods. Then I ran the Skull through a couple of the filters and worked the many sliders that you find in each filter. This is what I got a bit more intense and shows a better after sunset mood in my damaged opinion. I'll probably do a dozen more of each.

I have used Nik Color Efex for years. Their Pro Contrast works with the contrast and color correction and has a slider for each and a couple of preservation sliders for highlights and shadows. It goes a long way with HDR images as long as you watch the clip points and use luminosity masks later for working the mid tones. I like they Darken/Lighten Center and the GND as well. There are about 75 filters in that set.

One does have to be very careful because things can go very wrong with this stuff but if you are careful and put in a strong comp and interesting subject, you might get a storyline. So I start pure and things go in any direction from there. I do think the original exposure is of highest value and the RAW conversion is most important. The only rules I have is no adding in things that were not in the original capture and don’t put lipstick on a pig.

So for me, less bulk when I am out in the field which means no extra glass. I like our present choices in the digital darkroom better.

[Imagesgranted]

Just use the b&w filters in my Lowepro filter pocket - it contains three different stregnth ND filters and a couple of circ polarizers in differing thread sizes most are 77mm so werent cheap but as others are mentioning here the effects cannot be created in photoshop.