Anyone Using Filters?

[kintatsu]

I was wondering how many folks out there still use real filters on the end of their lenses. Not CP or UV filters, but actual color or contrast filters.

For instance, I use #8, #12, #15, #25, #58, and #81a for both film and digital photos. I'm also looking into a #47b, #66, and the #80 series.

I use the #8, #12, and #81a for both color and B&W photos. I've even used the #14, although that can be pushing it.

For B&W, I've experimented with gelling the flash and using a matching filter to change contrast in my digital photos. I haven't done too much of that, though.

I'm just asking out of general curiosity, as I don't see many photographers using them, but they still make and sell them.

[Shadowman]

A UV filter can change contrast, or at least that's what the salesman told me when I purchased it. It's actually a multi-coated filter with a slight grey tint and it does assist in capturing a better image. I also have an ND8 filter which I use when I remember to take it with me.

[IzzieK]

I have a bunch of filters that I can use every now and then but I don't do it much...Bringing that bunch of filters is sometimes a pain in the behind when I do not really plan what I am going to do for photography that day...most of my filters are the old ones that I used in my film camera, a Nikon FM80. When I go home for a visit to Australia next month I will try to look for my Cokin set, if I can find them.

[kintatsu]

A UV filter can change contrast, or at least that's what the salesman told me when I purchased it. It's actually a multi-coated filter with a slight grey tint and it does assist in capturing a better image. I also have an ND8 filter which I use when I remember to take it with me.

That's true, as it reduces the scattered UV. For most of my photography that I do for me, an ND doesn't help much. I'm often already shooting in the 1/4-1 second range. I do have one, though.

[kintatsu]

I have a bunch of filters that I can use every now and then but I don't do it much...Bringing that bunch of filters is sometimes a pain in the behind when I do not really plan what I am going to do for photography that day...most of my filters are the old ones that I used in my film camera, a Nikon FM80. When I go home for a visit to Australia next month I will try to look for my Cokin set, if I can find them.

I always have them in my kit, so it's not such a pain for me. I like doing portraits in woody areas with a #8, then white balancing for the skin to appear properly. The large amount of blue from the sky creates nice blueish tones on the leaves, while keeping the trees slightly warm. A #12 is great for close-ups of small sprouts in the woods during spring. The colors are brought out more and brightened a bit. I use them most when shooting B&W, either film or digital.

[rpcrowe]

Yep! The UV filter often improved the contrast when shooting with film since film was very sensitive to UV light. Digital sensors are not sensitive to UV light so the UV filter can be considered a protective filter rather than one which will alter the image in any major way...

My standard filters for digital photography are:

1. some sort of protective filter. I don't use it all the time but, there are occasions in which it is quite valuable for the protection it affords my expensive lenses...

2. circular polarizer (CPL) I would not travel anywhere without this filter.

I actually could stop there but I usually carry two additional filters:

3. Neutral density filter (ND) to allow longer daytime exposures for projects like smoothing water, etc...

4. Graduated neutral density filter (GND) to cut down the brightness of the sky

I have these filters in 77mm (for my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens) and 67mm (for my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens).

A photographer could simply purchase the larger filter and use a step ring to reduce it to 67mm. This saves a lot of money but, it is a big PITA to me since, every time lenses are switched the filter must also be switched AND since I shoot with two bodies, I really need a filter for each lens.

There are other filters which I have and (very) occasionally play with. These filters such as various star filters and various fog and diffusion filters. These filters have been left over from my film days and, since they are not worth selling, I have kept them to play with.

Sometimes it is difficult to duplicate the exact effects of the various star, fog and diffusion filters using Photoshop or other editing programs. However, if I did not previously own these filters, I seriously doubt if I would purchase them. A downside of using anyone of these filters is you have what you shot... You cannot undo the impact of these filters...

Another filter-type accessory is a close up lens. I have one that I purchased at my camera club's yearly rumage sale for next to nothing. It provides fairly good imagery and it is very quick and easy to use. The Canon close-up filers are quitye good but, also quite expensive.

By the way, I have filter stack caps which make it very easy to cary filters of one size. I have caps for my 67mm and 77mm filters. Once installed on a set of filters (which are screwed together) they make a great and fairly indestructible way to carry the filters. They are, of course, supplied in various sizes to fit your filters.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/52mm-METAL-S...item51b0c4204a

There is a great difference in image quality between using high grade filters and low quality filters.

[DanK]

I haven't used colored filters since moving to digital. One can get similar effects, with far more flexibility, in postprocessing. I have only three types of filters (all multi-coated to minimize flare):

1. Protective filters, which I often leave on but remove when they are likely to be a problem, e.g., if there are point light sources in front of the lens (night photography is an example). I used to use UV filters for this, but because of the point that Richard made--digital sensors are not affected by UV--I now buy simple protective filters.

2. Circular polarizing filters. A must for landscape work, etc. I now use the top level of Marumis, which are very highly rated but less expensive than some competitors.

2. Neutral density filters, e.g., to get longer exposures of running water. I don't often use these.

[Glenn NK]

I haven't used colored filters since moving to digital. One can get similar effects, with far more flexibility, in postprocessing. I have only three types of filters (all multi-coated to minimize flare):

1. Protective filters, which I often leave on but remove when they are likely to be a problem, e.g., if there are point light sources in front of the lens (night photography is an example). I used to use UV filters for this, but because of the point that Richard made--digital sensors are not affected by UV--I now buy simple protective filters.

2. Circular polarizing filters. A must for landscape work, etc. I now use the top level of Marumis, which are very highly rated but less expensive than some competitors.

3. Neutral density filters, e.g., to get longer exposures of running water. I don't often use these.

With the advent of digital imaging, this has become a more common approach it seems. Some photographers are using multiple exposures and blending to avoid the use of graduated ND filters (if applicable in the situation). The mountainous topography where I live doesn't suit the straight line cutoff of grads.

The large store where I deal doesn't even carry any of the other filters any longer; in fact they had a fire (clearance) sale a few years ago to get rid of stock that was no longer in demand because of digital.

[Shadowman]

I also have a film camera that I haven't used in about a year which has a skylight filter. The skylight filter was also used to lessen the effects of UV light for color film and also improve contrast when black and white film was used.

[kintatsu]

...I haven't used colored filters since moving to digital. One can get similar effects, with far more flexibility, in postprocessing...

I have yet to find a way with digital to match the ranges from a real filter. Many applications come close, but I'd prefer using my filter to get it in camera.

As I also said, using an 8 or 12 can make for interesting portrait effects. A 15 or 58 can make for some nice effects in your forest shots, also.

It seems, though, that most folks prefer to use software.

[kintatsu]

Yep! The UV filter often improved the contrast when shooting with film since film was very sensitive to UV light. Digital sensors are not sensitive to UV light so the UV filter can be considered a protective filter rather than one which will alter the image in any major way...

My standard filters for digital photography are:

1. some sort of protective filter. I don't use it all the time but, there are occasions in which it is quite valuable for the protection it affords my expensive lenses...

2. circular polarizer (CPL) I would not travel anywhere without this filter.

I actually could stop there but I usually carry two additional filters:

3. Neutral density filter (ND) to allow longer daytime exposures for projects like smoothing water, etc...

4. Graduated neutral density filter (GND) to cut down the brightness of the sky

I have these filters in 77mm (for my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens) and 67mm (for my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens).

A photographer could simply purchase the larger filter and use a step ring to reduce it to 67mm. This saves a lot of money but, it is a big PITA to me since, every time lenses are switched the filter must also be switched AND since I shoot with two bodies, I really need a filter for each lens.

There are other filters which I have and (very) occasionally play with. These filters such as various star filters and various fog and diffusion filters. These filters have been left over from my film days and, since they are not worth selling, I have kept them to play with...

My lenses run from 49mm to 77mm. I have a set of filters for the largest, with step up rings for all but the 77mm lenses.

As for starlite and other "effects" filters, I find using the traditional methods more to my individual taste. Although, I nice set of grad NDs squares might be nice, just to tame the SBR of high contrast landscapes.

[kintatsu]

I also have a film camera that I haven't used in about a year which has a skylight filter. The skylight filter was also used to lessen the effects of UV light for color film and also improve contrast when black and white film was used.

I prefer the 81a color balancing filter to the skylight. I also helps lower the blue tint to shadows when illuminated by open sky.

[IzzieK]

Just a question for you guys? -- what filter should you use for an overblown sky? A little background here, on the second to the last airshow that I attended I seem not to be able to get the sky right...I did not use any filters at all and when I looked at my shots in my teenie weenie bit review at the back of the camera, they really looked OK but when I load them in Photoshop, the skies had been overblown. I shoot raw. I know it did not matter because I can edit it and put contrast and all that but I wish I shouldn't have to too much. It was hard work just editing quite a few hundred shots..

Maybe I should also asked -- what about grey skies? What sort of filter should I use just to make my life easier on the PP later on? The Blue Angels will be making a comeback here in MO very near to our airport and I would like to be able to shoot properly...

Thanks for any replies....

[Shadowman]

Just a question for you guys? -- what filter should you use for an overblown sky? A little background here, on the second to the last airshow that I attended I seem not to be able to get the sky right...I did not use any filters at all and when I looked at my shots in my teenie weenie bit review at the back of the camera, they really looked OK but when I load them in Photoshop, the skies had been overblown. I shoot raw. I know it did not matter because I can edit it and put contrast and all that but I wish I shouldn't have to too much. It was hard work just editing quite a few hundred shots..

Maybe I should also asked -- what about grey skies? What sort of filter should I use just to make my life easier on the PP later on? The Blue Angels will be making a comeback here in MO very near to our airport and I would like to be able to shoot properly...

Thanks for any replies....

When you setup your camera in the brightly lit sky scenario, do you expose the shot for the sky and adjust your settings until the blinkies are under control?

[Glenn NK]

When you setup your camera in the brightly lit sky scenario, do you expose the shot for the sky and adjust your settings until the blinkies are under control?

I agree - it's not a filter problem, but an exposure problem, and if the aircraft are dark coloured, it will be difficult.

OT, but in LR, I've been able to fix many over-exposed skies on a RAW file by clicking on Auto. Just today I had two images with the sky one big red blinky - it's acceptable now.

[IzzieK]

No I didn't... but I will remember this one when I go to my next air show...we have one in Spirit of St. Louis for the Blue Angels and another one at the Scotts Air Base (Illinois) for the Thunderbirds. Thanks for the reminder...

When you setup your camera in the brightly lit sky scenario, do you expose the shot for the sky and adjust your settings until the blinkies are under control?

[IzzieK]

Actually I was thinking I will get an answer like use a GND filter but I like John's response...

The Blue Angels will be blue, of course...then I have to determine the sky conditions; the Thunderbirds are red, mostly white and black underneath. I got some good ones last year but it took a lot of PP-ing...with hundreds of photos.

Thanks for the response...

Now back to regular programing....

I agree - it's not a filter problem, but an exposure problem, and if the aircraft are dark coloured, it will be difficult.

OT, but in LR, I've been able to fix many over-exposed skies on a RAW file by clicking on Auto. Just today I had two images with the sky one big red blinky - it's acceptable now.

[Manfred M]

Izzie - a GND (and I shoot with these a fair bit) is used to reduce the amount of light from the sky versus the light reflecting from the ground.

I assue that most of the shots you are referring to show sky, plane and nothing else The issue that you have is that your reflective light meter is underexposing the scene because it is not 18% gray. Use exposure compensation to get the exposure right.

For the people that bracket shots and blend them in post to get the effect that an GND gives, yes, it can be done. It's a lot faster to use the grad while taking the shot versus doing multple shots and blending in post.

[rpcrowe]

Izzie...

You wrote, "The Blue Angels will be blue, of course...then I have to determine the sky conditions; the Thunderbirds are red, mostly white and black underneath. I got some good ones last year but it took a lot of PP-ing...with hundreds of photos. "

I suggest that:

1. You shoot in RAW so you have grater control of your imagery
2. Use a circular polarizer so that (given the correct angle of the sun) the sky will be darker.

Peruse this tutorial on shooting birds (after all, a plane is just a bird made of metal and propelled by a motor).

http://www.digitalbirdphotography.com/contents.html

Most of what you might be interested in should be in Chapter 6

[kintatsu]

Just a question for you guys? -- what filter should you use for an overblown sky?...
Maybe I should also asked -- what about grey skies? What sort of filter should I use just to make my life easier on the PP later on? The Blue Angels will be making a comeback here in MO very near to our airport and I would like to be able to shoot properly...

I would suggest that you meter the sky and set your exposure for 1 stop greater than your meter indicates. On a clear day, with a CP you should get good results that way. On an overcast day, if the overcast isn't too thick, just remove the CP and shoot 1 stop over meter. If the overcast is very thick, expose the sky at meter.

Overcast skies are a bit tricky with color balance if there's no ground based reference point, but with a small amount of work can be made nice.

In all cases don't let your sky expose at more than 1-1.5 stops greater than metered.