Camera filters..

[imamartian]

Any thoughts on what to buy?

I have just bought a polarising filter for £4 for my Canon 60D but now wondering how and when to use it.

Likewise, if you go out on a walk say, with a bag full of filters, are there technical reasons you might put on a filter? or is it all just about special effects?

 

[^woody^]

You probably want to avoid any filters where the effects can be done in software, as a good image can be wrecked forever once an inappropriate filter is used

A polariser will improve contrast (eg deepen blue skies or green scenery) and remove reflections from water and glass and suchlike. You would need a circular polariser for an autofocus camera

Consider having a UV or neutral density filter permanently on the lens to protect it, and this will have insignificant effect on the image. This will be perhaps the only filter you need

If you will be regularly dabbling with filters, then it may be best to use the square ones (Cokin) which slide in and out of a special holder rather than having to screw them on and off the lens

 

[imamartian]

Thanks Woody... (your sort of informative post should attract monetary reward...)...

Just recently got my camera, learning about aperture v shutter speed etc.. then went to whitby, and a local guy had a shop, with his photos in... they were brilliant, and all done with filters....

 

[ChrisFrost]

UV & polarising are two standard bits of kit. A UV should always be fitted to any decent camera lens that will take it for another very good reason... A scratched filter costs a few pounds to replace. A scratched lens is an altogether more expensive item to replace.

Filters is one of those old school vs new school things. I takes skill and knowledge to use filters effectively. That's no bad thing and is a valuable skill. Adding effects in the digital world is easier of course, and no less a skill in some respects, but it is made far easier with the Undo button.

 

[^woody^]

Filters is one of those old school vs new school things. I takes skill and knowledge to use filters effectively.

That's no bad thing and is a valuable skill.

It is a valid argument between the old and new ways, but my view is that if the technology is there why not use it?

Consider that most of us will use the auto or program modes [technology] rather than 'learn' full manual modes, so is it any different to do post-image processing in software rather than trial an error with filters?

To me, the end result is the only important thing, and being able to tinker with a plain image can get results not possible with the filtered one.

For example, I don't want to spoil a landscape image with a badly placed graduated filter ... which can't be checked properly on the small screen in bright light.

Even if a filter is used, then it may be wise to take a second photo without the filter just in case

As you are starting out Mr Martian, then I do recommend having a look at www.photoreflect.blogspot.com

This guy does takes some cracking pictures, all without filters. He seems to have a knack of capturing good images from mundane objects, and the way he frames, abstracts and uses (sees) shade and light is something to aspire to IMO.

As a bonus, his commentary and thought process relating to each of is images is well worth a read

What I am getting at, is that capturing an interesting image (rather than a snapshot) is so much more important than filtering the image

 

[imamartian]

... A scratched filter costs a few pounds to replace. A scratched lens is an altogether more expensive item to replace. .

this in itself is an excellent tip, thanks.

 

[imamartian]

Filters is one of those old school vs new school things. I takes skill and knowledge to use filters effectively.

That's no bad thing and is a valuable skill.

It is a valid argument between the old and new ways, but my view is that if the technology is there why not use it?

Consider that most of us will use the auto or program modes [technology] rather than 'learn' full manual modes, so is it any different to do post-image processing in software rather than trial an error with filters?

To me, the end result is the only important thing, and being able to tinker with a plain image can get results not possible with the filtered one.

For example, I don't want to spoil a landscape image with a badly placed graduated filter ... which can't be checked properly on the small screen in bright light.

Even if a filter is used, then it may be wise to take a second photo without the filter just in case

As you are starting out Mr Martian, then I do recommend having a look at www.photoreflect.blogspot.com

This guy does takes some cracking pictures, all without filters. He seems to have a knack of capturing good images from mundane objects, and the way he frames, abstracts and uses (sees) shade and light is something to aspire to IMO.

As a bonus, his commentary and thought process relating to each of is images is well worth a read

What I am getting at, is that capturing an interesting image (rather than a snapshot) is so much more important than filtering the image

Once again, an excellent reply. Much appreciated Woody.

 

[ericmark]

Interesting in the days of film I used all sorts of filters from silly star burst to the UV really there to protect lens to the polarising filter.

Although called circular they are not. They are now just like the old linear filter but have a 1/4 wave filter combined so the light hitting the sensor is omnidirectional. They must be mounted right way around with 1/4 wave filter to camera. And like the older filter you need to rotate them to get the effect required.

The downside of any filter is it reduces the light hitting the camera. Also the coatings are often not as good as those on the lens so one can get reflections which would not be there without the filter. However as already said the filter is cheaper than a lens so I always use one.

The graduated filter can reduce the dynamic range required and in theory as such it still has a place saving the need for multi exposures and HDR or layers and masks. However I have found rarely have I the time to keep swapping filters so down to two UV or polarising. Using an old polarising filter in front of new type makes a good neutral density filter which is variable but my old one is wrong size for new lens.

Star burst and pop filters will of course still work but in the main I use RAW 5.7 in Photoshop to add filtering. The graduated filter works well in RAW 5.7 and where there is not a problem with dynamic range this is my preferred method. In RAW one still has a 16 bit depth and one wants to do any software filtering before reducing to 8 bit depth. The software filter shown here

RAW

• ericmark
• 17 Sep 2011
• 1

has so many options one would need hundreds of hardware filters to do the same job.

With the 6400 ISO limit light should not be a problem. Although there are very few cameras with the special HDR CCD able to capture the whole range without using multi images.

The filters I am more interested in are the close-up and fish-eye as yet I have not got the fish-eye but have a set of close-up filters. Using the close up filters I got a better picture of a small screw than using the light microscope at lowest magnification. However comparing them to a reversing ring with a zoom 105mm to 210mm lens I have to admit the reversing ring has some clear advantages.

But one of the problems with the D-SLR is how it tends to rely on automation and to use the reversing ring all the auto settings are switched off. There are some expensive ones which do retain auto settings but one does not tend to do macro in a hurry. With my Pentax the camera shake reduction is part of the camera but with Canon and Nikon they rely on the lens to preform this function.

There is no best camera or best method each has plus and minus your camera has a faster ISO than mine. But one problem I have is dust on the CCD in spite of the dust shaker and in hind sight I would have bought a compact but anything which reduces the times you need to remove the lens must be a plus.

 

[pyounger]

Not that I am 'puffing my chest out' but I speak as an ex-professional 'still' photographer (now a broadcast videographer) and would disagree with Woody when he supposes that you don't really need a filter as you can use software afterwards.

This is not the way to go. Any adjustment to the image via software leaves its mark. Even taking a RAW image file and making all NEEDED adjustments - you should adjust minimally - to keep the camera image as 'pure' as possible. Do as much in-camera as you can that way you will save the image quality and a lot of time in post production! And so shoot in RAW I think Canon enables you to shoot RAW & JPG at the same time.

RAW is, as the name imples, a raw uncompressed file with no adjustments meaning you do all the adjustment on the camera the tweak to perfection using Photoshop or similar (Canon has its own Canon RAW program). People tend not to use RAW because the see the RAW and JPG image files and think the JPG is a much better image - it isnt, it's just been fed through the cameras image processing.

As others have mentioned a UV or skylight filter is bog standard kit mainly to protect your lens, as both these filters are superfluous these days with moderm lens coatings.

Keeping a ND filter on your lens is acceptable but..... it will greatly reduce your exposure settings meaning you will probably have to up the sensitivity (ISO) to get a good shutter speed and aperture - especially if hand-held or taking moving images.

Increasing the ISO can degrade your image, the higher the ISO the more 'grain' (to use the old film term) or artifacts are likely to appear. These may not be noticeable on small prints, but on larger prints of darker subjects (for example) the more they will notice.

A Canon 60D is a pretty good camera and Canon are only fractionally behind Nikon on dealing with ISO induced artifacts so it is probably unlikely you'll need to be bothered too much by this, but you do need to think about it when you are 'in-the-field' standing behind the camera and deciding what to do that little 2x3inch preview screen will not show you!

For both still and video I always carry a couple of graduating ND filters as they are a must for any kind of landscape setting. Mounted in a Cokin P type filter holder, they can be inserted so that the darker area of the filter 'covers' the skyline thus the brighter sky will not be washed out when you expose for the darker 'land' area. If you tend to shoot in automatic mode landscapes can be anightmare because the in-built light meter will expose for -say- the sky in shot one.... move the camera just millimeters and it will expose for the land - either way whatever happens, you end up with a load of photos all either under or over exposed!

One further point worth mentioning - filter quality. A filter should be considered as a 'lens' albeit without magnification. Now you have just purchased your nice new 60D - would you bung a £4 lens on it? well, apparently you have! You have effectively reduced the quality of your £200?) kit lens to £4... well, ok maybe not that severe but that is how you should look at it. I have a polorising lens on my video camera that cost £145 - not for any reason other than quality! it is optically correct thereby no flaws, no distortion, etc. It is false economy to buy a cheap filter especially if you might want to use two filters at once and in my experience cheap polorisers do not always do the job correctly and/or effectively.

Also did you buy the 'correct' circular poloriser,a d not a linear poloriser? I will not add a further paragraph trying to explain the difference but there is one and you can 'wiki' for the difference.

The main thing really is before you start adding filters learn to use the camera fully without, then add then from time to time to see the difference. Shoot as much as possible in manual mode too if you really want to learn about what you are doing and thus what is possible to achieve with your kit - DO NOT RELY ON PHOTOSHOP

Photoshop takes your photograph and turns it into a painting!

Gosh... I've just written my first book!

 

[imamartian]

Thank you for such a detailed response.....

I am a beginner, and lucky enough to own a 60D. And my aim is to learn how to use it properly. I do tend to use it in Aperture mode primarily - never auto ! - and have had some ok results thus far. Next step is to get on a course, or join a camera club... time permitting.
Plus, i don't own, or intend owning photoshop.... it's cheating in my estimation.

However, can i challenge your thoughts on the expensive filter thing?
Is it really worth spending £145 over £4? is the difference that great in the result? To me it's a bit like those that spend £4000 on a pair of speakers.... if next door are mowing the lawn, or the acoustics are wrong in your front room... is that difference in quality discernable?

To me, so far, i've learnt that depth of field, focus, and exposure make or break a good photo ... oh and composition of course

 

[^woody^]

Not that I am 'puffing my chest out' but I speak as an ex-professional 'still' photographer (now a broadcast videographer) and would disagree with Woody when he supposes that you don't really need a filter as you can use software afterwards.

That is all fine from a pro viewpoint, but the OP is doing a bit of hobby photography.

If he is starting out then he needs to master the basics and not worry about a plethora of filters ... or even settings.

And composition is so much more important than anything else - set the camera to auto if it means getting a good photo rather than a crap one where the settings have been misjudged

He can take his image and if need be apply his filters afterwards - in software, and then print out on his A4 printer or whatever .... and the "marks" of which you speak will not be visible at all at this level.

If, as you imply the OP should use a filter on camera, then there is a high probability of messing up the shot straight away and he may never be able to retake or recover it.

If however, he takes untouched (ie unfiltered) image, then he can filter it to his hearts content afterwards and there is always an original untouched image to revert to if need be

The technology is available now, so there is no need to think as if it is the 1950's and worry about filters and settings. Just take pictures

 

[ericmark]

I would agree a graduated neutral density filter will work better as a lens than with software. However not sure if the new starter will be able to use it effectively as unlike the software where one can watch the screen until you get the right effect with the glass filter you need some experience which of course you have so you can use it to good effect.

I would also agree as to using the cameras built in programs the Nikon has really gone to town with loads of pre-set options which adjust the camera to very close to what is required including unsharp mask when using Jpeg.

The whole process is a trade off and often one has to rely on the camera's built is system working as there is just not the time to set it as we know we should. I love my tripod and will when time permits set up the camera with the idea that it will be A1 without the need for Photoshop but often there is just not the time so I will bracket my shots. Not only for exposure but also focus my eyes are not perfect and now with the lack of the old split screen and penaprism either one has to rely on auto focus or take a few. In theory once set the viewfinder should be good enough but I find my eyes change through the day so with my old manual lenses I have had a few out of focus results.

So yes I do use software after but mainly because I have failed to get it correct in first place. In some cases I have from onset decided to use software and I have taken a series of 3 or 5 images with the intention of using either HDR or layers and masks. But this can be a very long winded process and it is not unknown to spend 8 hours processing one image both due to a slow PC and not being satisfied and doing it all again.

So using graduated or polarising filters is still best with glass in fact latter there is no option. Also star burst again glass seems to work best. However from the days of slide film I still have filters for tungsten, and florescent lighting these are now redundant. I also have masks stars, Hearts, slots etc. Again redundant now done with software.

To me RAW is like the negative and jpeg is like the print. The negative captured far more than one could print and we sat there with bits of card masking out light to certain areas (Dodge and Burn) so we could increase the dynamic range shown on the print. While still in 16 bit mode we can do the same and using the graduated filter or adjustment brush to lighten and darken areas. But there is no question both in dark room and with Photoshop RAW 5.7 these corrections take a lot longer than they would have done if I had got it right in the first place.

Colour is a real problem as how can one remember what it looked like. Yes I have Auto, Daylight, Cloudy, Shade etc. But many scenes don't look as you remember them and as you rightly say it's more like painting then photography with artistic licence playing a big part.

But this has always been the case. Many still work with monochrome and this was clearly not what the scene looked like unless you are fully colour blind. Now because unless using a really expensive camera without the mask on the CCD you taking three photos and blending them with the three colours. To use colour filters to get the effect wanted in monochrome as well as built in ones is pointless this is all done with software after. But we are clearly not taking as seen when using monochrome so it is completely different.

 

[ericmark]

I decided to learn again when I moved to digital both joining a camera club and doing an A level. Very different.

Although with the A level they did teach about depth of field, ISO, etc. In the main it was the subject. We had to select people we liked and say why we liked it and most of the portfolio was made up of other peoples work.

Photoshop CS4 was a must and we had to take screen shot after screen shot to show we understood what we were doing and we were not shown how to use any filters on the camera. We were more interested in the rule of thirds etc.

The camera club is very different and entering pictures for competitions is an art in itself you must not over expose even if the effect looks good. Nearly every picture the judge wants you to crop the picture. And you are trying to compete with people who have spend four times the price of your camera on their lens alone well out of my league I spent £35 on my zoom lens 105 - 210mm only my standard lens is automatic.

Many use lightroom rather than Photoshop but unless you set levels and the unsharp mask you have very little chance of wining any competition. You will be marked down if full range is not used.

The same applied to A level you are expected to use the full dynamic range of the medium you are displaying in. Oddly even though called digital photography everything had to be printed the final exam is 12 hours long and that is to process, print and mount 4 pictures and write the report as to how you did it. The photos are all taken before the exam and your not permitted to alter them until you enter the exam room.

Yes I learnt a lot doing my A level but learnt more with camera club. Although we do have competitions people do realise there is more to photography than satisfying the judges. When we all go for a walk it is interesting to see what others see as worthy of a picture. With the speed photography motor sport for example the lens does help a lot. The same with wild life. But landscape is something we all can do. Macro and close up is also interesting and since talking about filters I bought a cheap Close-Up set "Zeikos" and was impressed. However in the main I reverse the lens. With a zoom lens when reversed often the zoom becomes focus.

 

[pyounger]

OK let me explain myself more and clarify a few things.

Firstly in my post I do tell the OP to master the basics, get out of auto mode and learn about exposure I'd go one step further and suggest that a cheao secondhand light meter might encourage the learning curve even more. I pciked up a Weston Master IV - a gem in it's day for juse £6.25 on Ebay a while back (complete with invacon and case!).

I was merely illustrating a point about the cost / quality of the filter. I do not expect any amatuer or semi-pro to pay that much, but photography is a hobby and as such you should aim to buy the best you can afford and under certain possible situations you may (MAY!) live to regret not paying more.

I actually have an example of this. Back in my film days I took a photo of a big posh country house. I was using a Practika Nova camera with its very basic cheap and nasty lens - it was all I could afford during college days. Fast forward a few years and I am at a job interview showing a portfolio which included this shot with a beautiful sunset behind. The guy knew the new owners - a small hotel group and suggested I showed them the picture. They were jumping up and down wanting a copy - for their main entrance hall, a print 20x30 inches or bigger was the order. This is where I was let down, the lens wasn't up to that kind of detail and the largest print I could get without severe distortion was 11x14 - they cancelled the order and - what really hurt, they got someone else to take a similar shot!

Anyway, Woody, I am sorry but NO, forget software do not buy photoshop (and all) concentrate on learning the camera and as I said (or at least implied) take a picture with and without the filter(s) use different shutter speeds and apertures with the same picture just so you can see the difference and learn from it - it is the only way. Learn the camera now while you are a VERY amatuer rather than experiement later when you feel you are at the next level.

Yes the OP may be confused by ND filters and there use but hey, this is the digital age - it costs nothing to experiement except your time and an extra five minutes taking a photo now is much better than 2hours on photoshop in a years time trying to achieve what you 'could' have achieved in-camera. God, when I started out every 'test' every 'experiement' cost money in film and printing paper so take as many shots as you need to to experiemnt and view the images at your leisure ensure you make a note of what you did with each shot, that is the ONLY way to learn PHOTOGRAPHY

Once you have mastered this - and it can take a while, then and only then is it time to look at tweaking your images in a 'photoshop' type program, but go easy with it. the more you do in Photoshop the more you are going away from photography and more into painting - as someone else stated above a .raw file is the negative they added the .jpg is the 'print' and for me anything beyond .jpg is painting because the very definition of photography is an image made from light ANYTHING you do in Photoshop is artificial and not something you actually saw / witnessed - so it's a painting.

I did a Dip Ad (diploma in art & design) so I had it screwed into me that composition was vital. I had being photographing and developing and printing since I was just 9, so I already knew just about all that could be known about exposure but composition to me was just making sure I didn't get washing lines threading through people's ears or lamp posts growning out of their heads. I had a great teacher in art and he gave me a very important piece of advice to learn about compositions - he took me to an art gallery to see painting (long before Photoshop ). He told me that artists all knew about composition and light and that every 'would-be' photographer could fast-track their career so much be studying the masters.

The thing is photography is a great hobby so enjoy it and you never stop learning from it but please please please do yourself a big favour and learn the basics first - actually, I mean 'perfect' the basics first. Afterall a carpenter is no use if he can't saw in a straight line - even if he has got a nice new black & decker jigsaw!

 

[ericmark]

In the main I would agree with pyounger it is very good. However I would not totally agree with:-

very definition of photography is an image made from light ANYTHING you do in Photoshop is artificial and not something you actually saw / witnessed - so it's a painting.

The problem with digital is it does make errors from time to time. Be it lens flare or dirt spots there are times when one does need to correct an image.

However there are many programs and you do not need to pay out for Photoshop. Gimp is totally free and with UFRaw it will even handle RAW files. Picturenaut is also free and will combine images for HDR nearly as well as photoshop in some cases better. It is likely you will need software and each package is slightly different. And this is where the problem lies. It takes a lot of practice to learn how to correct faults and you don't want to do it all twice. Had I not done my A level I would have never have used photoshop I had the Pentax software bundled with the camera and also an old copy of Paint shop pro and Photoshop version 5 I think. At least pre-RAW days. But at college I was only allowed Photoshop CS4 (Version 11 really) so had to learn how to use it.

Opening a file with Gimp the UFRaw does not offer the easy options which Photoshop RAW 5.7 has which means you need more skill to do same thing. However this may be a good thing. But I would say if you intend doing a course don't buy any software until you start the course.
1) You may get it cheaper with student licence.
2) You need the software taught with course.

Photography of course was a part of the painting process. The camera obscura was used by artists to assist them in capturing a life like image well before any type of photosensitive medium had been found. Jean-Baptiste Vanmour (January 9, 1671 – January 22, 1737) was a Flemish-French painter and he was very good at showing shadows and exploiting the full dynamic range. It is thought he was very much helped in this by using the camera obscura. Today it seems we strive to do the reverse lighting up dark areas and darkening light areas. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_obscura.

I think the photographer is an artist and with the exception photos for legal work I would expect some intervention and enhancement. But having said that one of the challenges we run with the camera club if to be given a set of subjects and your allowed one photo for each must be in jpeg and given just 2 hours to take them and no out of camera correction allowed.

I think the kids school open day is one of the hardest to get good photos of. Your herded into an area so you can't get the position you want. Some speed is involved. And you are expected to return with A1 results. Far different to the walk where if you see nothing special you can return with nothing and when you do see the good scene you have time to set it up as you want. So you need to be able to use every trick in the book. At least with a wedding if you get brides mother on your side to can select at least some locations.