Filters for Landscape shooting - What do i really need?

antc

antc

Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,355
Name
Anthony
Edit My Images
Yes
Afternoon all,

I am looking to purchase some new filters for landscape shooting. I recently sold my old set (cokin nd grads) as i have just upgraded to a 5d mk1 to go with my 17-40.

I am wanting to get some good quality filters to go along with this kit, no point in putting ultra cheap filter glass in front of an L series lens.

So with that in mind are Lee filters what i should be looking at?

Also, currently doing my swede in is the variety of options available. Do i want glass or resin, do i want nds or nd grads or both ( i know that nd grads hold the sky back and an nd is used to hold the light off the whole scene)

Now i am sure someone is going to ask what type of landscapes i shoot, so just to clarify this year at least i have two trips planned, one to Glencoe and one to North Wales.

Somebody help me please before my head explodes.
 
I'm sure someone will be along with suggestions soon. Personally I don't like the filtered look and don't use any filter for landscapes unless I really have to and then only the lightest grad possible.
 
Lee is what you want, guaranteed neutral, unlike some of the less expensive ones. The most popular are their resin filters.
You'll need the foundation kit which is the filter holder.
Then you'll need adapter rings for your lenses, UWA (ultra wide angle) adapters are available for your 17-40 to prevent vignetting at the wide end.

You'll probably want a mix of NDs and ND grads, both soft and hard.
NDs are useful for prolonging an exposure to produce cloud, water or any kind of motion blur.
Hard ND grads are mostly used for landscape where the horizon is a sharp flat line (like a cloudy sunset looking out to sea).
Soft ND grads are mostly used when the horizon is not straight or is dotted with buildings, trees etc.
You can also fit a circ polariser to the lee holder.

Remember you can always double up on the filters for extra stops.
I'd start with...
0.6 ND,
0.6 + 0.9 hard
0.6 soft
The grads are available as a set of 3 if you want to save money.
Prepare to open your wallet, and prepare for a long wait! They have a huge backlog of orders to get through at the moment.
 
Really hard to say. Will you be doing just mountains, or seascapes / sunsets too? I doubt you'd need NDs unless you want to show movement in rivers / seas / clouds. In this case, get quite a strong one - anything less you can drop the ISO / crank up the aperture.

As for the grads, the 5D has quite a lot of latitude for recovering blown highlights, so I'd be tempted to go for an ND6 or 8 soft for mountains, and maybe an ND8 hard for seas etc. HiTech do inverted grads that are aimed at sunsets, as the brightest part of the frame is on the horizon
 
The only filter effects that you cannot replicate in post processing are a polariser and dark ND for really long blurry exposures.

You can replicate any grad effect with HDR technique, and do it much better in fact, though it's always nice to do it in camera.

You also don't need a square filter system, even for grad effects - screw-in is fine if you know what you're doing with f/numbers and framing. I say this as I hate faffing around with square filters, but those that know about these things say Lee is best, or Hitech. For screw-in, Hoya or B+W.
 
You can replicate any grad effect with HDR technique, and do it much better in fact, though it's always nice to do it in camera.
Click to expand...

But it's a damned sight quicker, easier, and 99% of the time more natural just to slot an ND grad in. The screw in grads are almost useless, as they dictate the horizon, not you...
 
mark_farrell said:
The screw in grads are almost useless, as they dictate the horizon, not you...
Click to expand...

Agreed!

A polariser is a must....

Then ND grads. I think most people start with a 0.6 hard grad; I use a 0.3 hard grad a lot which gives very nice skies when combined with a polariser.

You don't really need to go the whole hog straight away. Why not start with one or two grads and go from there?
 
The only filters that are essential (IMO) for landscapes, are ND grads, the ones I use most are 0.6 and 0.9 soft grads, and often stack them.

Ordinary ND filters I rarely use, preferring to use available light to 'slow down' my shutter speeds, i.e. shoot early and late in the day.

And like Mark, I disagree totally with hoppyuk's view that you can replicate any grad effect with HDR, the results I've seen using this method are usually quite ghastly, it's so much easier popping a grad in.
 
antc said:
So with that in mind are Lee filters what i should be looking at?
Click to expand...

Yes. Though some people speak highly of Hitech on here.

Also, currently doing my swede in is the variety of options available. Do i want glass or resin, do i want nds or nd grads or both ( i know that nd grads hold the sky back and an nd is used to hold the light off the whole scene)

Now i am sure someone is going to ask what type of landscapes i shoot, so just to clarify this year at least i have two trips planned, one to Glencoe and one to North Wales.
Click to expand...

Go for glass (do Lee do resin options?).

You want at least some ND grads. If mainly land I would say go for soft, for seascapes hard is better. If you want to do longer exposures in daylight you will also need an ND.

In my experience the 0.6 ND and 0.6 ND Grad are the ones that get used the most. The 0.9 Grad is a little too 'obvious' looking, if the 0.3 is needed I tend to try and do it PP.



jerry12953 said:
A polariser is a must....
Click to expand...

Yes if used with care. I used a Cir-Pol way too much initially with my Ultra Wide Angle lenses and the banding is a little too obvious :cool:
 
Les McLean said:
And like Mark, I disagree totally with hoppyuk's view that you can replicate any grad effect with HDR, the results I've seen using this method are usually quite ghastly, it's so much easier popping a grad in.
Click to expand...

I would say it depends on your photoshop skills. You could even blend a number of exposures (and why not shoot them if the subject doesn't move). I feel more comfortable on the computer as I make my living doing pre-production, so could apply much more control than any filter could provide (that excludes filters that change the characteristic of the shot, such as polariser and NDs - if movement blur is recorded).

But some feel the filter solution is the more 'pure', but if you're shooting digital and raw, you may have moved away from this form of purity anyway.

Graham
 
mark_farrell said:
It's still a damned sight easier not to make it look like a nuclear warzone if you simply slot in an ND6, adjust to desired horizon, and release the shutter...
Click to expand...

You say that like you walk round with a filter system attached to your lens all the time.

I don't :)

Graham
 
Lee are very good - I have a few resin grads and am impressed with the quality.

If you want to try them out before you buy give me a yell - I'm probably not far from you!
 
blue max said:
You say that like you walk round with a filter system attached to your lens all the time.

I don't :)

Graham
Click to expand...

I do, I have my filter holder on the camera at all times (when out taking landscapes), with my filters in a pouch, so slipping a grad on takes seconds, a much quicker and satisfying solution than trying to do it in computer.
 
Hi, if you're going to North Wales, Anglesey is great. I've just spent a long weekend there again and to see my dad who lives there now. It's a great place to get some dramatic skies and also there are some good rock formations, cliffs and beaches.
 
This may help steer, just gone through the 'Landscape Photographer of the Year-Collection 3' book , in the information section for each shot-the most popular kind of filter mentioned was ND grads, with 0.6 grad being the most popular, followed by 0.9.

ND filters were mentioned less (only twice compared to 30 grad mentions), the exception being the more specialist ND filters, typically a 10 stop filter.

For filter make, Lee was the most popular.

On a different note, if you are going to Glencoe, I have a pdf file with maps, and good location info. If you are interested, drop me a pm and I'll send you it.
 
I think HDR gets a bad rep because you only recognse it as HDR when it is garish and horrid. Bet you can't tell which of these used a grad and which are in PP:
1
2
3
4
5
6

I do enjoy using grads, I find it more satisfying somehow, but the fact is a full set of decent quality ones to cover every situation would cost me a lot. For this reason I seem to be phasing them out in favour of multiple exposures, at least til I'm rich.
 
Les McLean said:
I do, I have my filter holder on the camera at all times (when out taking landscapes), with my filters in a pouch, so slipping a grad on takes seconds, a much quicker and satisfying solution than trying to do it in computer.
Click to expand...

:D But are you the exception or the rule?

Graham
 
mark_farrell said:
But it's a damned sight quicker, easier, and 99% of the time more natural just to slot an ND grad in. The screw in grads are almost useless, as they dictate the horizon, not you...
Click to expand...

I knew I should have explained that. You can actually do a lot with a screw-in grad, varying the density significantly with f/number (higher number equals much darker) and shifting the grad line by zooming back a bit, recomposing and cropping in post.

No, it's not ideal, but it saves having to buy a square filter system and faffing about with it. Then I prefer HDR anyway, though I agree that doing it in camera is more satisfying which I try do do when the horizon is flat, but actually that's not often.

Les McLean said:
The only filters that are essential (IMO) for landscapes, are ND grads, the ones I use most are 0.6 and 0.9 soft grads, and often stack them.

Ordinary ND filters I rarely use, preferring to use available light to 'slow down' my shutter speeds, i.e. shoot early and late in the day.

And like Mark, I disagree totally with hoppyuk's view that you can replicate any grad effect with HDR, the results I've seen using this method are usually quite ghastly, it's so much easier popping a grad in.
Click to expand...

You can do anything with HDR, and it can be as subtle or as garish as you want. As The Matt shows above. Shoot Raw and you can even do quite a lot without multiple exposures, kind of faux-HDR but it often looks good. Or set the camera to shoot a sequence in auto-bracket mode and it's done in a fraction of a second, without a tripod.

The problem with grads is that unless the horizon is straight, the grad is also applied to everything that breaks the horizon line. It looks so obvious and tacky to me. HDR avoids that.
 
HoppyUK said:
You can do anything with HDR, and it can be as subtle or as garish as you want. As The Matt shows above. Shoot Raw and you can even do quite a lot without multiple exposures, kind of faux-HDR but it often looks good. Or set the camera to shoot a sequence in auto-bracket mode and it's done in a fraction of a second, without a tripod.

The problem with grads is that unless the horizon is straight, the grad is also applied to everything that breaks the horizon line. It looks so obvious and tacky to me. HDR avoids that.
Click to expand...

Most recognised Landscape Photographers use grads to balance exposure not HDR, going back to to the 'Landscape Photographer of the Year collection 3', Grads were used on a lot of the images, looking through the image information section, HDR processing was mentioned on two of the images, a small number mentioned 'blending' one or more images to create a pseudo-grad effect, but was minimal compared to the use of grads.

HDR (or blending images) is not a method of choice for most serious landscape photographers.

But if it works for you-fine :)

I think we will have to agree to disagree.
 
Les McLean said:
Most recognised Landscape Photographers use grads to balance exposure not HDR, going back to to the 'Landscape Photographer of the Year collection 3', Grads were used on a lot of the images, looking through the image information section, HDR processing was mentioned on two of the images, a small number mentioned 'blending' one or more images to create a pseudo-grad effect, but was minimal compared to the use of grads.

HDR (or blending images) is not a method of choice for most serious landscape photographers.

But if it works for you-fine :)

I think we will have to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

It might be the method of choice for some people Les, they are probably purists to a certain extent and I respect and appreciate that, but we're not shooting film any more.

All I am saying is that, a) HDR is not ghastly or garish if you don't want it to be, b) you can replicate any grad effect in post processing, c) HDR works with non-straight horizons whereas grads do not.

The only thing you cannot do by merging multiple exposures is capture subject movement (rarely a problem) though you certainly don't need to use a tripod.

I guess the answer is it's nice to use both grads and HDR. I prefer the latter but I'll admid that's mainly because of the non-straight horizons thing which really bugs me with grads :)
 
ruvor said:
Quite often because they are shooting LF film.
Click to expand...

And there's a lot to be said for that. It's a wonderful way of working that digital can't even get near. But I don't think anybody on this thread is shooting large format film.

I also suspect some people have not even tried HDR. Merged panoramas is another great landscape technique that is easy with digital, is brilliantly effective, and extremely hard with film.

Here's a guy that shoots panoramas both horizontally and vertically, and in HDR at the same time. His pictures are fantastic http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/cambridge-gallery.htm
 
Can you even use HDR for seascapes where you have moving waves etc?
 
dubcat said:
Can you even use HDR for seascapes where you have moving waves etc?
Click to expand...

Depends how you do it. I tend to use 2 exposures, one for sky and one for land/sea and use a gradient between the two. If I'm careful about where I put the graduation, most of the time you can. It'll have to go on distant parts of the sea where the waves don't really show up as clear shapes.
Moving subjects are the biggest problem with this type of thing, I find.
 
Circular polarisers have other uses to - I often use mine to give a general 2 stop reduction when I can't be bothered digging out the square filter holder.
 
Personally I am going to get a 10 stop filter for doing some creative moving cloud type shots, a regular nd filter for doing moving water as in waterfalls and two hard grad nd filters (one upside down) which i can stack for talking seascapes. Well that's the plan anyway.
 
The Matt said:
I do enjoy using grads, I find it more satisfying somehow
Click to expand...

I think it makes you slow down and think about the shot more, you've got to stop, set the tripod up, select the correct filter, line everything up etc... It gives you a bit more time to look at what you're shooting and think about the composition. This often leads to better results than just grabbing a couple of bracketed shots and thinking "oh well, I'll sort it out in PP later".
 
Jim.R said:
I think it makes you slow down and think about the shot more, you've got to stop, set the tripod up, select the correct filter, line everything up etc... It gives you a bit more time to look at what you're shooting and think about the composition. This often leads to better results than just grabbing a couple of bracketed shots and thinking "oh well, I'll sort it out in PP later".
Click to expand...

Slowing down is a good thing, and thinking for a moment. But you don't need a tripod to do that, you don't necessarily need a tripod when using grads nor when shooting landscapes in general, and usually not even shooting multiple exposures for HDR or a panorama.

I've never understood the need for a tripod for landscape per se and if I'm out for a picture-taking hike probably the only thing I won't take is a tripod. I use a tripod when I'm unable to hold the camera myself, or when exposures are too long for handholding. I'm a big fan of IS though ;)
 
You're right, you don't need a tripod to make you slow down and think, but it does encourage it more.
And yes, you don't need a tripod when using grads, but it makes the whole process a lot easier* (especially if your front element rotates during focussing like my kit lens does :()

Personally, I'd rather spend a few more minutes outdoors trying to get it a right as possible in camera, rather than spending those minutes sat at a computer afterwards (I do enough of that at work).

Each to their own I guess.

* Unless you were born with an extra hand/arm or two :D
 
Slightly off topic but it does concern filters.
I did find using the linear polariser on my old OM2 easier than the circular one on the DSLR.
It was brought up at the camera club last night. The old linear one was more definite whilst |I do find that I have to do a bit more fiddling to get the sweet spot with the lee circular.
Any thoughts other than just rotate through 90?
 
Some interesting info in this thread, thanks. I am a compulsive LR fiddler, but would like to try out some of the daytime slow shutter stuff with a ND 10 stop or something.
 
Trappe said:
Slightly off topic but it does concern filters.
I did find using the linear polariser on my old OM2 easier than the circular one on the DSLR.
It was brought up at the camera club last night. The old linear one was more definite whilst |I do find that I have to do a bit more fiddling to get the sweet spot with the lee circular.
Any thoughts other than just rotate through 90?
Click to expand...

I always set the polariser by looking though the viewfinder and checking the effect. I usually end up with 90 degrees for max darkening of blue skies, but altering the rotation affects the amount of darkening.

There is a school of thought that says linear polarisers are slightly stronger than circular, because they don't have the quarter-wave plate stuck to the back, but I've never seen any real evidence of it.
 
HoppyUK said:
I always set the polariser by looking though the viewfinder and checking the effect. I usually end up with 90 degrees for max darkening of blue skies, but altering the rotation affects the amount of darkening.

There is a school of thought that says linear polarisers are slightly stronger than circular, because they don't have the quarter-wave plate stuck to the back, but I've never seen any real evidence of it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. I always thought that the old linear used to make the clouds and blue skies stand out more.
 
Trappe said:
Slightly off topic but it does concern filters.
I did find using the linear polariser on my old OM2 easier than the circular one on the DSLR.
It was brought up at the camera club last night. The old linear one was more definite whilst |I do find that I have to do a bit more fiddling to get the sweet spot with the lee circular.
Any thoughts other than just rotate through 90?
Click to expand...

Sometimes I find it's really easy to see the effect, other times it's like it's not doing anything.
Aren't they most effective when the sun is on either side of you, not directly in front, overhead or behind you?
No idea if this was the case for linear filters as well though.
 
Trappe said:
Thanks for that. I always thought that the old linear used to make the clouds and blue skies stand out more.
Click to expand...

Jim.R said:
Sometimes I find it's really easy to see the effect, other times it's like it's not doing anything.
Aren't they most effective when the sun is on either side of you, not directly in front, overhead or behind you?
No idea if this was the case for linear filters as well though.
Click to expand...

Since we've got a bright blue sky right now, I dug out an old linear polariser to compare with my circular one. Tried hard to get the exposures exactly the same, polariser dead on max, to see if there was any difference. I have to say, absolutely nothing that I see between them.

There are times when a polariser does very little, or nothing significant - overcast days usually. They need some polarised light to work, the right shooting angle to the light, and the right degree of rotation.
 
I would say 0.9 soft nd grad is the most used by me, im also a tripod user when it comes to landscapes in general. If i walk past and see something then handheld it is but if i find a loctaion and want to try for the shot i will spend 20 mins messing around to get it which includes setting up tripod, filter holder, correct filter required and even remote shutter release.

Each to their own and all that, im just a beginner really and have lots to learn but for me it took until i started using filters before i manged to get some great responses to my landscapes. I did try the HDR learning curve but found the filters was the way to go for me.

Mike
 
can anyone recommend good places to purchase filters, particularly interested in the mythical 10 stop beasty :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top