Filters

[max.morch]

Hi there
Ive been reading these forums for abit now, and just getting into photography, ive just got a 350d with a 18-55 kit lens at the moment. I shoot mainly landscapes and have been reading more and more about filters.
As I understand UV filters are mainly designed to protect the lens and has little effect on the actual photo bar a small reduction in quality (which doesnt bother me whatsoever at my level!). What are the other filters like polarising fliters etc and are they recommend for a beginner?
Im definitely after a UV one for protecting my lens at least, what size would I need for a 18-55mm lens.
Cheers

 

[Digifrog]

If you are into landscapes then grad filters are a must. LEE are probably the best but not cheap. As for your size of filter, the filter size should be printed on the reverse of your lens cap (I believe it's 58mm). I use a Hoya Pro UV filter, which cost somewhere around £30.

Rgds.

 

[artyman]

It is indeed 58mm, don't buy a cheap filter. Some will say that any filter will degrade your image, others that they provide essential protection for the lens. As your lens arsenal gets more expensive, you may want to take a pragmatic view, I can't see any difference whether on or off the lens, but prefer to clean salt, sand, cow snot, ice creams and general rubbish from a filter rather than a lens. That said a decent lens hood provides good protection and will improve your shots.

 

[canon_togger]

I dont bother with uv filters for protection to be honest, just keep lens cap on until setting up a shot.

As said above lee filters are perfect for landscapes but not cheap.
These are rectangular and they slot into a holder that you put on front of the lens via an adaptor.
So you have an adaptor for every lens thread size that you use, and just slot in the desired filters.
Graduated filters are probably used most as they darken the sky and prevent highlights from blowing out. You can also use non grad neutral density filters though to create blurry water effects/cloud movement etc (slow shutter speeds). Grads and non grads come in different stops e.g. a 0.3 is a one stop, 0.6 is two stop etc
A circular polariser can be useful to reduce reflections in water, cut out glare etc when shooting in sunny conditions. You can get polarisers that slot into the lee holder but they are expensive, or you can use a screw-in type.


I'd recommend starting out with a lee holder, adaptor and maybe a 2 and a 3 stop grad. You can add from there as and when you wish.

 

[Woodsy]

I dont bother with uv filters for protection to be honest, just keep lens cap on until setting up a shot.

As said above lee filters are perfect for landscapes but not cheap.
These are rectangular and they slot into a holder that you put on front of the lens via an adaptor.
So you have an adaptor for every lens thread size that you use, and just slot in the desired filters.
Graduated filters are probably used most as they darken the sky and prevent highlights from blowing out. You can also use non grad neutral density filters though to create blurry water effects/cloud movement etc (slow shutter speeds). Grads and non grads come in different stops e.g. a 0.3 is a one stop, 0.6 is two stop etc
A circular polariser can be useful to reduce reflections in water, cut out glare etc when shooting in sunny conditions. You can get polarisers that slot into the lee holder but they are expensive, or you can use a screw-in type.


I'd recommend starting out with a lee holder, adaptor and maybe a 2 and a 3 stop grad. You can add from there as and when you wish.

Couldn't agree more. Graduated filters are about the most usefull when it comes to landscapes. I own a Circular polariser, but personally very rarely use it. Indeed, as said above, Solid NDs are handy as well. I only own a solid 3 stop, but that in itself proves very handy indeed!

If you know landscapes are your thing, then I strongly recommend getting some lees. Cokin are a waste of money if this is the area you want to get into as you'll only sell them eventually anyway.

 

[jurat]

not to hijack your thread but is there a big noticeable difference between a UV filter and a skylight filter?

 

[HoppyUK]

I'm not sure it's a great idea to suggest to a newcomer that they should spend as much on a Lee starter kit as they just paid for their 350D camera and lens. Especially when graduated filter effects can generally be done better using HDR technique and free software.

To the OP, don't bother with a protection filter unless there is a real danger of damage to your lens. Just be careful, and use a lens hood.

The only filter that cannot be replicated in any other way is a polariser - for darkening blue skies and reducing reflections. It's generally the filter of choice for landscapers. Then I also know that you fancy having a go at milky water stuff so a dark ND filter might also be on the list some time in the future.

 

[Digifrog]

I was under the impression that attaching a UV filter permanently to the lens was a good idea. This action as I understand it properly seals the lens as a unit and thus stops dust from being sucked into the camera etc.

Rgds

 

[canon_togger]

I'm not sure it's a great idea to suggest to a newcomer that they should spend as much on a Lee starter kit as they just paid for their 350D camera and lens. Especially when graduated filter effects can generally be done better using HDR technique and free software.

To the OP, don't bother with a protection filter unless there is a real danger of damage to your lens. Just be careful, and use a lens hood.

The only filter that cannot be replicated in any other way is a polariser - for darkening blue skies and reducing reflections. It's generally the filter of choice for landscapers. Then I also know that you fancy having a go at milky water stuff so a dark ND filter might also be on the list some time in the future.

The OP asked a question about filters which has been answered pretty thoroughly here. Its up to him whether or not he chooses to buy them now or in the future. At least he now has some insight into what they are for.

HDR is better than using grads.....really?

 

[HoppyUK]

The OP asked a question about filters which has been answered pretty thoroughly here. Its up to him whether or not he chooses to buy them now or in the future. At least he now has some insight into what they are for.

Sure, all useful info. But when you had only got a basic camera and kit zoom, did you then go and spend your very next £200 on one of the most expensive filter kits on the market? And one that doesn't even include the polarising filter the OP specifically asked about? I just think that starting off with a screw-in CPL first is more realistic.

HDR is better than using grads.....really?

Yes, I think so. A lot better. Grads are a hang-over from film days, when there was no alternative. In particular, with a grad anything that breaks above the grad line - like trees, buildings, hills, most things really - gets darkened along with the sky and, IMHO, spoils the whole thing.

 

[canon_togger]

Sure, all useful info. But when you had only got a basic camera and kit zoom, did you then go and spend your very next £200 on one of the most expensive filter kits on the market? And one that doesn't even include the polarising filter the OP specifically asked about? I just think that starting off with a screw-in CPL first is more realistic.



Yes, I think so. A lot better. Grads are a hang-over from film days, when there was no alternative. In particular, with a grad anything that breaks above the grad line - like trees, buildings, hills, most things really - gets darkened along with the sky and, IMHO, spoils the whole thing.

No, I bought the cokin filter kit which I then had to sell on to buy a decent kit (lee).
A decent cpl isnt cheap and has limited use.

But everyone has their own opinion. I'm just speaking from my personal experience as you are presumably from yours
Its up to the OP to decide what he buys at the end of the day.

 

[Digifrog]

Yes, I think so. A lot better. Grads are a hang-over from film days, when there was no alternative. In particular, with a grad anything that breaks above the grad line - like trees, buildings, hills, most things really - gets darkened along with the sky and, IMHO, spoils the whole thing.

I disagree entirely. For someone that uses HDR (specifically tonemapping) and Lee's there is no comparison. The aesthetic is completely different.

As for 'film throwbacks', digital cameras still need grads, as shooting a scene using one has a completely different look to the same scene using the HDR method. Moreover, photographers that shoot long exposures for example will find grads indespensable, particularly with landscapes.

I agree that taking several exposure of a scene and then masking those exposures together in Ps is cheaper but then I believe a higher competence can be achieved by using one file and thus saving space on the memory card. Then again, if you can afford Ps cost shouldn't be an issue.

As for 'breaking the grad line', this is what soft edged grads are for. You probably would not want to use a hard edged grad if the horizon is unequal.

Rgds

 

[menthel]

Have to agree, HDR and digital grads are just not as good as a set of ms grad filters. I have hitech ones and they are very good and much cheaper than Lee.

 

[Woodsy]

I disagree entirely. For someone that uses HDR (specifically tonemapping) and Lee's there is no comparison. The aesthetic is completely different.

As for 'film throwbacks', digital cameras still need grads, as shooting a scene using one has a completely different look to the same scene using the HDR method. Moreover, photographers that shoot long exposures for example will find grads indespensable, particularly with landscapes.

I agree that taking several exposure of a scene and then masking those exposures together in Ps is cheaper but then I believe a higher competence can be achieved by using one file and thus saving space on the memory card. Then again, if you can afford Ps cost shouldn't be an issue.

As for 'breaking the grad line', this is what soft edged grads are for. You probably would not want to use a hard edged grad if the horizon is unequal.

Rgds

Couldn't agree more. I personally HATE the look and feel of HDR. Only when it is so subtle that it is unnoticeable does it even remotely work.

Besides, you would have thought that in the, what, 8 years or so since the 300D was released... the popularity of Grads appears not to have fallen, and companies such as Lee, Singh Ray, and Cokin etc all seem to be doing ok? A throwback? Perhaps. But why fix something that isn't broken? I personally shall continue to use them.

 

[Digifrog]

Oh I like HDR, I just don't do them that often, it has its place. It can be subtle or it can be 'artistic', as long as it's done well. For me I don't use HDR for practical reasons like capturing details, I use it because sometimes I like to achieve a certain look depending on the particular subject matter I'm working on and to achieve a certain look. Examples if I may...

subtle (but still obviously hdr)

artistic (I sometimes like a grungey look, subject matter pending)

 

[max.morch]

Just a quickie about cheap uv filters, i snapped up an ebay special one for £3. Whats the worst thats going to do? LIke I said before as im just starting out I only want a UV one to protect the lens and a small reduction in quality doesn't bother me at my level. Will it just be a bigger reduction in quality than a more expensive filter such as a LEE?
Cheers

 

[AndyB1976]

It will possibly cause a reduction in quality.

I say possibly because it may depend if it can actually be noticed, therefore does that make it an issue? ;-)

Now if you 'pixel-peeped' the image, it is more likey you will see a reduction in quality, however at a typical print size it will probably be less apparent.

I'd happily shoot away with a cheap filter to protect my lenses as I am still learning and not intending to do anything with the image other than try and improve on them.

If there is a shot I REALLY like the look of, I'll simply unscrew the filter and snap away.

More expensive filter generally do better here but as I've not compared a side by side shot in lab conditions I can't say just how massive the difference is.


Andy

 

[HoppyUK]

Just a quickie about cheap uv filters, i snapped up an ebay special one for £3. Whats the worst thats going to do? LIke I said before as im just starting out I only want a UV one to protect the lens and a small reduction in quality doesn't bother me at my level. Will it just be a bigger reduction in quality than a more expensive filter such as a LEE?
Cheers

The main problem with filters is usually not an obvious loss of sharpness, but flare, ghosting and double-images.

Flare (light scatter) is generated within the glass itself, and the ghosting is a reflection off the surface of the sensor which is then bounced back off the rear of the filter. Coating reduces this effect quite a lot, and multicoating even more, but it is present even with the best filters.

In some circumstances, it is very noticeable. Mainly bright lights against a darker background. Like a sunset, or a street scene at night, car headlights etc. To see the effect, shoot a bright light source (like a street light, security light, even a torch) against a dark background and compare with and without the filter in place. If the light is very bright, the effect can be quite alarming. If you have live view, just move the filter in front of the lens (you won't see the ghosting effect through the viewfinder).

Edit: good example on this thread - see The Ritz in post #23
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=130960