Filters v Bracketing

Clot on the Landscape

Clot on the Landscape

Suspended / Banned
Messages
438
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
Yes
Im more and more getting the almost irresistible urge to part with silly amounts of money on a quality filter system, (im thinking Nisi)...in all honesty though, long exposures aside, am I going to get any more out of them than I can with my usual bracketing approach?
Thanks,
Alan
 
I think, nine time out of ten, using good quality filters will always give you a more natural looking image.

HDR/bracketing can work well if it's done right and it definitely has it's place (ie if the dynamic range is too much for grads to handle) but you've also gotta consider the amount of time you spend in PP merging, tweaking and blending when you could get it more or less right from the offset.
 
Last edited:
The problem i always find with filters, is they only work when you have a perfectly straight horizon, how do you deal with a landscape with trees/buildings/boats etc on the horizon as surely the filter will under expose those areas too
 
MattyW said:
Soft edge Grads as opposed to hard edge grads? Thats what I use
Click to expand...

That's still a compromise though, you are either still underexposing whatever is protruding above the horizon, or not fully covering the area above the horizon

But i suppose it all depends on how far said item protrudes above the horizon

At least with bracketing you can select which areas you want at which exposure

And yes, i know bracketing isn't perfect either, probably the worst example is anything with trees (especially in Winter, no leaves), it is not easy to blend the sky around the tree and make it look natural
 
rpsmith79 said:
That's still a compromise though, you are either still underexposing whatever is protruding above the horizon, or not fully covering the area above the horizon

But i suppose it all depends on how far said item protrudes above the horizon

At least with bracketing you can select which areas you want at which exposure

And yes, i know bracketing isn't perfect either, probably the worst example is anything with trees (especially in Winter, no leaves), it is not easy to blend the sky around the tree and make it look natural
Click to expand...

Yeah, there's no hard and fast rule to get it perfect, I guess each have their place, and a combination of the two would be able to solve most issues.
I've not been using grads for too long, but a .6 soft edge doesnt affect the protruding parts of the shot to a degree where it looks out of place.
Plus - I can't get my head rouned exposure merging, so there's that haha
 
rpsmith79 said:
That's still a compromise though, you are either still underexposing whatever is protruding above the horizon, or not fully covering the area above the horizon

But i suppose it all depends on how far said item protrudes above the horizon

At least with bracketing you can select which areas you want at which exposure

And yes, i know bracketing isn't perfect either, probably the worst example is anything with trees (especially in Winter, no leaves), it is not easy to blend the sky around the tree and make it look natural
Click to expand...


One way using LR or Photoshop is to use the eyedropper tool to select the sky then reduce the exposure, that will reduce the sky brightness between the trees too without affecting the trees.

Paul
 
If you're going to do exposure blending, then in my experience using luminosity masks for selections gives the best possible results.

There's some good tutorials etc out there by Jimmy McIntyre on YouTube. I use his RayaPro panel for Photoshop CC and it is very, very useful. Having said that, I'm just about to invest in some filters to reduce the amount of time I spend blending exposures after a shoot. I have no doubt that I'll still exposure blend for some things, but I do want to try and perfect getting as much right in camera through the use of filters.

Cheers,

Simon.
 
I use both… I prefer using filters but when they're not practical I bracket and use merge to HDR in Lightroom which is simple to use and capable of producing natural results.

If you invest in a filter system I'd personally go for the Lee holder over the Nisi one.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your input everybody. I love the thought of the filters, Iv played about a little wth some cheap cokin ones but the picture quality is pretty poor. Iv seen some beautiful stuff on you tube by Joe Cornish with Lee filters and he mskes it look so easy but I cant help thinking that using bracketing and merging and LR filters and brushes gives me as good, if not better results. Iv got a trip to Derwent water in the pipeline and Im trying to find a reason to treat myself to a shiny new set but Im stuck...the devil on my left shoulder is telling me how amazing my images are gonna be but the angel on the right is saying its a waste of money!
 
The Princess & I said:
the angel on the right is saying its a waste of money!
Click to expand...

LISTEN to this angel, she's spot on :)

When they make Grads that perfectly fit the bumpy (mountains, trees, buildings etc.) scene in front of me I'll buy some filters, until then there are about as useful as asking directions from a mute bloke who has no hands = pointless :D

OP - work out how much you're considering blowing on these (bordering) useless bits of glass then go spend it on a weekend away or two actually taking photos :)

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
LISTEN to this angel, she's spot on :)

When they make Grads that perfectly fit the bumpy (mountains, trees, buildings etc.) scene in front of me I'll buy some filters, until then there are about as useful as asking directions from a mute bloke who has no hands = pointless :D

OP - work out how much you're considering blowing on these (bordering) useless bits of glass then go spend it on a weekend away or two actually taking photos :)

Dave
Click to expand...
Hahaha..Thats pretty much what shes saying tbh!
 
rpsmith79 said:
The problem i always find with filters, is they only work when you have a perfectly straight horizon, how do you deal with a landscape with trees/buildings/boats etc on the horizon as surely the filter will under expose those areas too
Click to expand...
Depends on camera, but my D750 has so much shadow detail that I can pull out those darker areas in Lightroom with no issue.
 
I have four filters (ignoring the UV ones):

1 Circular Polarising filter
2 10 stopper*
3 3 stop graduating filter*
4 2 stop neutral filter*

(*Hitech system)

In reality, I probably dig out filters 2-4 just twice a year and instead use AEB for most shots. And instead of blending I am tend to pick my favourite and work just on that one. I wouldn't go so far as saying that filters are a waste of time and money but they do take a fair amount of time to use, as does the tripod.

Are my photographs better without? No - filters definitely make a positive difference. I just don't have the time to use them as much as I should.

Just my tuppence worth :)
 
There's lots of angles on this as you can clearly see.... and as a user of filters and blending unbiasedly I see the benefits of both. To say that filters are a waste of money is a wide sweeping and dare I say misinformed statement. The likes of Joe Cornish obviously have a vested interest (to a degree) to extol the wisdom of using filters (so would I, if I were being paid to do so). However this doesn't mean they are a waste of money.
I have no idea why people get so hung up on all this .......... its simple...
You have to produce a photograph, you have an armoury available to you, you use what works best for the situation you are in! How is this difficult to comprehend. If you happen to have a full range of weapons in your armoury all the better, it multiplies your chances of success.

It all boils down to a few things and the skill set of the individual photographer ....
Do you know how and when to use filters, and more importantly can you use them effectively? In todays "Instant" world people pick up an SLR shoot landscapes and expect results, but its not quite like that is it? It takes a lot of practise to perfect the technique, as with anything.
How good are your LR / PS skills? If you are very experienced at post production, then you can easily whistle through processing 100 landscapes that's great. Equally you must also ask, do I prefer to sit in front of my monitor for hours in PP or would I rather be at the business end of Photography "Taking Photographs".
IMHO with a fairly experienced photographer its a question of balance (Moody Blues;)). You use all the tools available to you. If you don't have filters, you have an alternative of blending, or with filters in the right circumstances and the knowledge you can save some PP time, or combine both.
If your relatively new to photography, give yourself time to develop (excuse the pun). Use what you have and learn to use it effectively. Prove things for yourself don't believe that "You Tube" is the oracle.

There is no doubt you don't NEED filters because today you can manipulate everything in PP. However they are a very useful addition to your armoury;).
That's all a bit high brow for me:), but its just as I see it, at the end of the day you just use what works for you and more importantly what your budget allows! At the end of the day its the person that take the photograph not the equipment, as they say.;)
 
EdwardL said:
I have four filters (ignoring the UV ones):

1 Circular Polarising filter
2 10 stopper*
3 3 stop graduating filter*
4 2 stop neutral filter*

(*Hitech system)

In reality, I probably dig out filters 2-4 just twice a year and instead use AEB for most shots. And instead of blending I am tend to pick my favourite and work just on that one. I wouldn't go so far as saying that filters are a waste of time and money but they do take a fair amount of time to use, as does the tripod.

Are my photographs better without? No - filters definitely make a positive difference. I just don't have the time to use them as much as I should.

Just my tuppence worth :)
Click to expand...

Edward, how do you find the Hitech Filters? I'm particularly interested in IQ and colour cast when stacking a couple together. I'm looking at either investing in the 67mm Hitech ones of the Lee Seven5.

Cheers,

Simon.
 
srhmoto said:
Edward, how do you find the Hitech Filters? I'm particularly interested in IQ and colour cast when stacking a couple together. I'm looking at either investing in the 67mm Hitech ones of the Lee Seven5.

Cheers,

Simon.
Click to expand...
Absolutely fine for my needs - the image quality is good and I'm lucky enough to have sufficient knowledge in Photoshop (and Lightroom) for the colour cast not to be a major issue. From what I gather, Lee is the top quality - I couldn't justify a Lee system for just a few days a year.

I have the 100mm ones - I think bigger is better, especially for the vignette but am prepared to be told I've misunderstood this aspect.
 
My choice is based really around one thing, keeping editing to a minimum..so I use NDgrads, 90% of the time I pretty much have the shot I want in the camera when I leave the location and editing is just basic raw tweaks.

I'd say use the method you prefer, it really doesn't matter which as it's the end result that counts

Simon
 
ST4 said:
Go onto my blog at www.sftphotography.co.uk

Practically every image there is used with grads, try spot the filter line in each one.

Soft edges work well for me
Click to expand...


They certainly do work well for you Stephen, some stunning photography in there and at a level I can only aspire to, but the point is do I need filters to get that end result or can I get it using bracketing and LR? I understand that I would save time in PP with filters but for me editing isnt a chore its a part of the process, I love sitting on my laptop, usually within seconds of getting home, and pulling my image about to get the vision I have in my head. The question really is will filters help me improve?
 
69Bonni said:
There's lots of angles on this as you can clearly see.... and as a user of filters and blending unbiasedly I see the benefits of both. To say that filters are a waste of money is a wide sweeping and dare I say misinformed statement. The likes of Joe Cornish obviously have a vested interest (to a degree) to extol the wisdom of using filters (so would I, if I were being paid to do so). However this doesn't mean they are a waste of money.
I have no idea why people get so hung up on all this .......... its simple...
You have to produce a photograph, you have an armoury available to you, you use what works best for the situation you are in! How is this difficult to comprehend. If you happen to have a full range of weapons in your armoury all the better, it multiplies your chances of success.

It all boils down to a few things and the skill set of the individual photographer ....
Do you know how and when to use filters, and more importantly can you use them effectively? In todays "Instant" world people pick up an SLR shoot landscapes and expect results, but its not quite like that is it? It takes a lot of practise to perfect the technique, as with anything.
How good are your LR / PS skills? If you are very experienced at post production, then you can easily whistle through processing 100 landscapes that's great. Equally you must also ask, do I prefer to sit in front of my monitor for hours in PP or would I rather be at the business end of Photography "Taking Photographs".
IMHO with a fairly experienced photographer its a question of balance (Moody Blues;)). You use all the tools available to you. If you don't have filters, you have an alternative of blending, or with filters in the right circumstances and the knowledge you can save some PP time, or combine both.
If your relatively new to photography, give yourself time to develop (excuse the pun). Use what you have and learn to use it effectively. Prove things for yourself don't believe that "You Tube" is the oracle.

There is no doubt you don't NEED filters because today you can manipulate everything in PP. However they are a very useful addition to your armoury;).
That's all a bit high brow for me:), but its just as I see it, at the end of the day you just use what works for you and more importantly what your budget allows! At the end of the day its the person that take the photograph not the equipment, as they say.;)
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree with Steve more. Each to their own.

I personally almost always use filters. As much as I enjoy sitting at my Mac, I'd prefer to get it as close to right in the camera. Hence I use filters a lot. I'm not being paid to say this but without question I'd recommend Lee Filters. OK they're not cheap but neither is the camera or lenses that I've got sat behind it. If someone wants to dip their toe in the water then HiTech are pretty good but if you think you are going to jump in totally then save up and purchase once - purchase Lee (advert over ;))
 
Delta Skies said:
I couldn't agree with Steve more. Each to their own.

I personally almost always use filters. As much as I enjoy sitting at my Mac, I'd prefer to get it as close to right in the camera. Hence I use filters a lot. I'm not being paid to say this but without question I'd recommend Lee Filters. OK they're not cheap but neither is the camera or lenses that I've got sat behind it. If someone wants to dip their toe in the water then HiTech are pretty good but if you think you are going to jump in totally then save up and purchase once - purchase Lee (advert over ;))
Click to expand...


Thanks mate, Iv done an awful lot of you tubing whilst pondering whether or not to prise open my dusty wallet on this and Iits down to one of two systems, either Lee or Nisi, the Lee is an obvious choice but Nisi seems to be equal in quality and cheaper to start up with too. I have a few hi- tech nds and one grad tbh Iv found the quality to be very poor, horrible colour cast and degrading the sharpness of my shots
 
I have the Nisi filter holder v5 system and it's excellent value and every bit as good as the Lee holder and better value. I say better value because you get the intergrated CR-PL filter, 82mm native plus step down rings all included.

For actual filters i use Zomei 6 and 10 stop both are excellent and great value. A 16 stop Hittech Firecrest which i've yet to use in anger but by all account they are sublime. And i've got some more Firecrest ND grads coming.
 
Just to put another spanner in the 'which filters shall I get' investigation take a look at http://progreyusa.com these are also exceptional filters comparable to Lee from talking to those who have used them. They are also a little cheaper than Lee I think but you have to consider postage ( and the price of dollar vs pound ).
I know it's not always the case the expensive is always the best however there is something to be said about optical quality and Lee have been in the business of filters for more years than I can remember. So if you happen to have £x,xxx lens maybe hanging a 10 bob filter on the front of it might be good idea like @Delta Skies Pete says... Just saying!

PS don't ask me what a bob is!;)
 
I don't think grad filters will help. As Stu Meech said, depending on the dynamic range of your camera they can be irrelevant these days and just slow you down. I have a set of hard grads and don't use them anymore, too cumbersome for me and even if your camera doesn't have a wide dynamic range you can achieve the same result with exposure blending which saves you a lot of money. I would get a solid ND and polarising filter if you don't already have them
 
Last edited:
69Bonni said:
Just to put another spanner in the 'which filters shall I get' investigation take a look at http://progreyusa.com these are also exceptional filters comparable to Lee from talking to those who have used them. They are also a little cheaper than Lee I think but you have to consider postage ( and the price of dollar vs pound ).
I know it's not always the case the expensive is always the best however there is something to be said about optical quality and Lee have been in the business of filters for more years than I can remember. So if you happen to have £x,xxx lens maybe hanging a 10 bob filter on the front of it might be good idea like @Delta Skies Pete says... Just saying!

PS don't ask me what a bob is!;)
Click to expand...


Hahaha...Unfortunately Im more than qualified to talk in bobs!
 
Scirocco_09 said:
I don't think grad filters will help. As Stu Meech said, depending on the dynamic range of your camera they can be irrelevant these days and just slow you down. I have a set of hard grads and don't use them anymore, too cumbersome for me and even if your camera doesn't have a wide dynamic range you can achieve the same result with exposure blending which saves you a lot of money. I would get a solid ND and polarising filter if you don't already have them
Click to expand...


Thanks mate, I think Im pretty much convinced now, I have a d7100 that has a pretty good range. Iv a kood polariser on my sigma 10-20, I'll probably upgrade that, maybe a hoya. I dont have an nd for this lens so Ill probably get a 10 stop to give me the long ex option and see where that takes me
 
Scirocco_09 said:
I don't think grad filters will help. As Stu Meech said, depending on the dynamic range of your camera they can be irrelevant these days and just slow you down. I have a set of hard grads and don't use them anymore, too cumbersome for me and even if your camera doesn't have a wide dynamic range you can achieve the same result with exposure blending which saves you a lot of money. I would get a solid ND and polarising filter if you don't already have them
Click to expand...
Just for the record, I meant when I use a hard grad on a cluttered horizon, I can pull out the dark areas using the dynamic range/shadow recovery.

Personally I wouldn't be without my grads as I can't be arsed to always merge two shots.
 
It depends what you are trying to achieve. I very rarely use filters but I never blend. It just depends where you want to spend your time. Do we need to see absolutely everything all the time? Perfection is rarely atmospheric.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top