Filter kits query

G

gabe

Suspended / Banned
Messages
259
Name
carrie
Edit My Images
Yes
A friend told me that you can buy 'starter' filter kits that don't cost too much. Are they any good?
 
Depends on the manufacturer, whats in the kit, price and what you want to do with them.
 
Depends on the make, have you got a link to the ones in question?

You may be thinking of the Cokin sets which are useless and overpriced rip offs and the filters aren't that useful that come with it.

What sort of filters are you looking into? what photography do you shoot?
 
If it's for evening/night time shooting how about bumping the aperture up (higher number) that produces star effects on lights.

Assuming that is what you are getting at.
 
Thanks for your replies! I mainly do landscape photography.
 
gabe said:
Thanks for your replies! I mainly do landscape photography.
Click to expand...

What is it you actually want from the filters though? do you actually need them at this time because you may easily just "want" them because all the other photographers have them which is called gear envy.

For landscapes you'd typically use a Circular Polariser, Neutral Density, and Neutral Density Graduate filters however it all depends on what type of landscapes, what images you are trying to achieve etc, have you got any images of landscape that you've already taken that you can show us to give us a better idea. Some photographers may say at one point oh I could do with an ND 4 filter and so they buy one but they may buy a CPL filter and use it once and then never use it again, it all depends on shooting style and what images you are trying to achieve.
 
TinaC said:
Are you talking about a starter set of square ND grads and the holder? i got a set of Lee that set me u, they are ok imo.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what I'm talking about. Thanks for that.
 
just "want" them because all the other photographers have them which is called gear envy.

For landscapes you'd typically use a Circular Polariser, Neutral Density, and Neutral Density Graduate filters however it all depends on what type of landscapes, what images you are trying to achieve etc, have you got any images of landscape that you've already taken that you can show us to give us a better idea. Some photographers may say at one point oh I could do with an ND 4 filter and so they buy one but they may buy a CPL filter and use it once and then never use it again, it all depends on shooting style and what images you are trying to achieve.[/QUOTE]

Lol...gear envy. Love that expression! I'm not envious at all. I was just curious about the filters. I do have a Circular Polariser which I use a lot. I've tried to upload photos onto this forum but I've never managed to do it!
 
Hi Gabe... I have just sold all the effects filters I ever owned ( about 100 ). because they are redundant. For the last ten years I have used photoshop to do the same thing better....
 
we11ingon said:
thats nice coming from "lunaticsamurai"... :-) I
Click to expand...

Hahaha, you got me on that one, :lol:

I doubt you can produce the same results that a filter can on something like a landscape shot with a blown sky using no filters. If that was the case whats the point in filters, and why do all the pro's use them. You might be able to reproduce a similar result but i doubt anywhere near as good.

I could be wrong though. :cool:
 
With that I'd simply create two or three bracketed exposures in quick succession and blend them on separate layers. this is too easy ( this also saves me faffing around screwing the filter on...) ... next .. ! :-)
 
we11ingon said:
With that I'd simply create two or three bracketed exposures in quick succession and blend them on separate layers. this is too easy ( this also saves me faffing around screwing the filter on...) ... next .. ! :-)
Click to expand...

Now your talking HDR, i'm talking 1 shot. Properly exposed landscape with a blown sky.
 
all your doing with a filter is creating two areas of differing exposure in one frame... also my method will shape itself around mountains/ trees etc.. and above all doesnt look like I used a filter with a straight blend line on it.. Now that does look fake.. :-) I,m not calling this HDR as the two parts of the image are directly substituted.. not "blended as such.. ( except at the joins.. )
 
we11ingon said:
and blend them on separate layers.
Click to expand...

we11ingon said:
all your doing with a filter is creating two areas of differing exposure in one frame... also my method will shape itself around mountains/ trees etc.. and above all doesnt look like I used a filter with a straight blend line on it.. Now that does look fake.. :-) I,m not calling this HDR as the two parts of the image are directly substituted.. not "blended as such.. ( except at the joins.. )
Click to expand...

All that faffing aorund as you call it when you could have just used a filter in the first place. There is more than one way to skin a cat, CS5 is not the be all and end all of photography. Next, :-)
 
Lunaticsamurai said:
All that faffing aorund as you call it when you could have just used a filter in the first place. There is more than one way to skin a cat, CS5 is not the be all and end all of photography. Next, :-)
Click to expand...

You seem to be moving the goalposts here.. On one hand you say "use a filter in the first place" and then saying I cant take two exposures because thats not fair or (how the pros do it") Sure photoshop isnt the "be all and end all" as you said. BUT,You require forethought, planning, talent to frame and capture and above all POST PROCESSING. ....:D NEXT! Why buy filters when I already have the tools to do the job...? If I show you three pictures... can you tell me which one was done with multiple exposures or filters??
 
gabe said:
Lol...gear envy. Love that expression! I'm not envious at all. I was just curious about the filters. I do have a Circular Polariser which I use a lot. I've tried to upload photos onto this forum but I've never managed to do it!
Click to expand...

I'm not saying you're envious, I was saying that some photographers who start out in landscape photography think they need all the gear alot of professional landscape photographers use but alot of the time you may only need 50% of the gear they use!

That's why I said that you don't know what filters you need until you need them and that's when you consider a purchase. It happens in all walks of life, I know loads of people who are doing there driving tests and getting cars yet I still take bus travel because I get free family travel until I'm 19 so I don't see the need to spend out on about £4000 for a car when I can save it for a couple more years and buy camera gear not to mention I need to get a part time job...but that's another story:lol:
 
we11ingon wrote:- 'I am happy to be proven wrong ... show me an effect I can't produce better /faster/more accurately in photoshop...??' (how do you do a quote box?)
Whilst I'm a great fan of PS, what about the surreal long exposure of sea or waterfalls. Gotta be easier with filters?
 
we11ingon said:
You seem to be moving the goalposts here.. On one hand you say "use a filter in the first place" and then saying I cant take two exposures because thats not fair or (how the pros do it") Sure photoshop isnt the "be all and end all" as you said. BUT,You require forethought, planning, talent to frame and capture and above all POST PROCESSING. ....:D NEXT! Why buy filters when I already have the tools to do the job...? If I show you three pictures... can you tell me which one was done with multiple exposures or filters??
Click to expand...

Moving the goal posts? i think you are reading into something that is not there.

At no point did i say it is not fair, what i did was to challenge you and say that you cannot produce the same results on a blown sky without a filter, by all means prove me wrong, shoot a scene (1 shot), show the original with a properly exposed landscape then do your magic and show the result.

To be honest your post in this matter have come across as really arrogant, "NEXT".

Please prove yourself if your up to the challenge.
 
mahseve said:
(how do you do a quote box?)
Click to expand...
Like that? ;) (just click on the "Quote" button bottom right of each post.

Whilst I'm a great fan of PS, what about the surreal long exposure of sea or waterfalls. Gotta be easier with filters?
Click to expand...

I think in that case, sometimes, yes you do need filters and it can't be done purely in photoshop*. These are ND filters though not ND grads.

*because it was too bright at the time to get the 10 second or longer exposure required to create the misty water effect purely by adjusting aperture or ISO.
 
we11ingon said:
thats nice coming from "lunaticsamurai"... :-) I am happy to be proven wrong ... show me an effect I can't produce better /faster/more accurately in photoshop...??
Click to expand...


Polarizing flter
 
Davec223 said:
Polarizing flter
Click to expand...

Not exactly an effects filter that one... I see your point but, if I just want to make the skies "bluer" and the clouds whiter Or reduce flare. I can boost the black point and then mask a layer to add as much blue ( Or another colour) as you want and use the lens hood or change position etc. the point I,m trying to make is related to "effects" filters. such as the "half smoked type such as Landscape users use to reduce the light level across the top half of the frame. They were "over" used in my opinion for many years and to replicate the same effect is a 20 second job in Photoshop or lightroom. ThEY also cannot mask just THE OBJECT YOU WANT ! Most others that I can think of such as the old "soft focus spot" favoured by portrait togs about 20 years ago are absolutely no longer required in a digital workflow. Multi image Prism types that gave all kinds of cheesy multiple images like a Kaleidoscope were just plain silly at the time and silly now... Solid colours of yellow brown and every colour imaginable ( I have used them all... and they are ORRIBLE! Glad to see the back of em.. I have ruined perfectly good exposures by commiting the image to a negative. Now if I make the same mistake.. There is always "undo"
 
Last edited:
Polarizing filter cuts down on reflections and enhances colours, in camera.
Neutral density filter cuts down on light so that you can use slow shutter speeds, in camera.
The old saying of "get it right in camera" applies to digital as well as film, so getting it as close to right as possible at time of taking will mean you spend less time post processing and more time taking pics.
Horses for courses.
 
photoimaging said:
Polarizing filter cuts down on reflections and enhances colours, in camera.
Neutral density filter cuts down on light so that you can use slow shutter speeds, in camera.
The old saying of "get it right in camera" applies to digital as well as film, so getting it as close to right as possible at time of taking will mean you spend less time post processing and more time taking pics.
Horses for courses.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more.
 
photoimaging said:
Polarizing filter cuts down on reflections and enhances colours, in camera.
Neutral density filter cuts down on light so that you can use slow shutter speeds, in camera.
The old saying of "get it right in camera" applies to digital as well as film, so getting it as close to right as possible at time of taking will mean you spend less time post processing and more time taking pics.
Horses for courses.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, It appears we agree after all....
.. so why pollute your capture with a "tobacco" filter..... ND and Polarisers arent "EFFECTS" filters... they allow you to capture MORE.... not less as "effects" filters do.
 
I didn't think Gabe was talking about effects filters.??

Joan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top