Filter choices?

Hey folks!

Just wanted to get some opinions on choices regarding good filters to start out using. I realize there are a ton of choices out there as far as filters go, but was looking to see about some of the more common choices for starting out.

I do a lot of landscape, nature, travel, night scenes, and general purpose photography. From what I've been reading here and elsewhere, it seems that CPL's, ND's, and GND's are some of the more popular choices. I've also seen warming filters included in a lot of the "starter" filter sets. And of course there's always the UV/protective filters.

I'm looking forward to getting into filter use, but don't want to go overboard too soon (which tends to happen!).

Thanks!

-James-

Here is one place to start

http://www.tutorial9.net/tutorials/photography-tutorials/filters-and-photography/

From my experience... in digital photography you only need a high-quality filter to protect the lens. With some modest (more is even better) Photoshop editing skills you can adjust the color or black and white image to your liking. Graduated and polarizing filters are another story... but not another chapter.
--
Jesus Manuel Mena Garza
Photographer
[email protected]
http://www.jmmgarza.com/

Start buying filters when you have established a need for them. That's whey you know what you need. For example: You find the sky frequently blown out, while the foreground is properly exposed. (something that can't be fixed in pp.) Then you might want to add a GND-filter. Don't slap on a filter just because it happened to be in your bag.

UV filters: There are too many threads here already on the pros and cons. Read them and make up your own mind.

Alvatrus said:

Start buying filters when you have established a need for them. That's whey you know what you need. For example: You find the sky frequently blown out, while the foreground is properly exposed. (something that can't be fixed in pp.) Then you might want to add a GND-filter. Don't slap on a filter just because it happened to be in your bag.

UV filters: There are too many threads here already on the pros and cons. Read them and make up your own mind.

Click to expand...

I agree strongly with this advice.

I also add that filters were much more important with film photography than with digital and a lot of filters (e.g. "warming") may be old film filters that retailers are using to make their digital or filter "kits" look better. In reality they have no function on digital cameras.
--
Chris R

Old story circa 1985: A salesman at Ritz shows me this fuzzy, muddy dark landscape. He adds, "I shot this around noon and used several filters to make it look like night. Ain't it cool."

Keep in mind when shopping, filters, frames and camera bags are the most profitable sales items in retail photography. I know, because I used to manage photo shops in Austin and the San Francisco Bay Area.
--
Jesus Manuel Mena Garza
Photographer
[email protected]
http://www.jmmgarza.com/

The polarizer effect is really the only filter effect you mentioned that you cannot do in post processing.

You may be able to darken skies in Photoshop but you can't remove glare from foliage. The polarizer will remove glare and reveal the true color of the leaves. If you want, you can remove glare from water flowing in a river to reveal the rocks below. Think about what you'd need to do in Photoshop to replicate that to make it look realistic. How will the software know what was behind the glare?

Warming and GND filters can be replicated with very little effort. A GND effect can be done with two exposures composited with a mask. And unlike a filter, the border between the dark and light parts can be custom done with a brush to match the contour of subject rather than a straight line.

As for the protective filter. I dare not stir up a hornet's nest with any comments on that topic!

Robert

A POLARIZER is very, very useful, (IF you know how to use it properly).

A ND (Neutal Density) is necessary if you want to do waterfall or river/stream "flowing" images and need long shutter speeds.

STAR filters can be fun, and produce more natural "stars" than PP can.

ENHANCING filters can bring out "reds" and create a nice effect, (slightly different than obtainable in PP).

Some swear by GRADUATED ND for sunsets, etc. BUT ... I tend to put more value on HDR technique because the "line" is not always straight.

UV can indeed protect the lens in some situations, (like water-spray or dust) ... BUT I more often prefer LENS HOODS.

In fact ... RULE #1 in photography is to ALWAYS use a LENS HOOD. It protects the lens, keeps little kids fingerprints off lenses, and gives a BETTER IMAGE by reducing flare.

IF you do want to do (digital) B&W images, there are some reasons to accept using traditional RED or YELLOW, (or DARK-Red, GREEN or ORANGE), filters cause they can alter the image pror to recording and reduce "noise" in the final image cause the color channels don't have to be amplified so much. (you have to be a traditional B&W photographer to know when/where to use the appropriate filters - that was a "science" in itself)

And then there are IR filters, but that is a subject in itself also.

--
Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto

( Do You Ever STOP to THINK --- and FORGET to START Again ??? )

As for "warming" (or cooling) filters, the same debate exists. IF you want the effect, (warming or cooling), Some say it can give you lower noise by pre-altering the light before it gets to the sensor, thus needing less electronic amplification of individual color channels.

But the bottom line is that the Polarizer, ND, Star or Soft-Focus, and Enhancing filters are the only ones that significantly alter the incoming scene and can't be duplicated.

Note that star and soft-focus can be duplicated, but not in exactly the same way.

--
Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto

( Do You Ever STOP to THINK --- and FORGET to START Again ??? )