Cokin P holder?

Bern Caughey said:

Bern Caughey said:

I respect your opinion but after researching a lot about this you
are the only one that do not agree to go to the cokin route.

Click to expand...

I have never used Sing-Ray filters & I've never seen even a single
one on a job. Are they new?

In your research did you find a lot of pros are using the Cokin
system?

Click to expand...

Bern, I Drool when I see Darwin landscape work and HE IS one of my favorite landscape photographers, I know he uses singh ray's filters(and I know of others that uses it too).But then I don't know if he uses these filters with another type of holder??would this be possible?I know that lee holder it is done for lee filters.
Wonder why? In all my years, I've never worked with another

Bern Caughey said:

photographer who used Cokin. There not horrible, but the system has
issues.

The thinner the filter the better. The more plano-parrellel the
filter the better. The smaller in diameter, the better. In all
these areas, there are better options than Cokin.

You have two lenses. If you bought two polarizers you'd be covered,
with the additional benifit that they fit inside your current
efficiant lens shades. The Cokin polarizers are quite thick,
especially when compared to Nikon. Nikon makes some of the
thinnest, most plano-parrellel filters made & they are an excellent
choice.

Regards,
Bern Caughey

Click to expand...

--
Alcineia Frank
http://www2.photosig.com/userphotos.php?id=665
D100 Nikon 28-105 F3.5
Nikon AFS 80-200 F2.8
Olympus C3000Z

...filters over 2 trips. I also wore out a couple grad-NDs. Mostly I lost money selling the screw-on stuff I no longer used, and I still have 58mm and 77mm filter-stacking front/back caps that I used to use.

Clearly, with subjects that move, multiple frames are impossible to use for dynamic-range enhancement (DRE). I sort of talked around it, but these filter and multiple-frame techniques I use only for landscapes, taken on a STIFF tripod. For walkaround fotografy, which I rarely do, I use a factory shade on the lens (usually a Canon 28-135IS) and the semipermanent HOYA UV(0) filter on the lens.

Michael Reichmann discussed different techniques for DRE with digital originals in one of The Luminous Landscape's 'Video Journals'. As I recall, the front end of each of the 3 techniques is identical--open both images and copy the darker one over the top of the liter. I chose Fred Miranda's action because all I do then is click 2 buttons and wait 2 seconds and it's finished. And it works, very well. I shoot my liter frame only one stop liter than my overall frame (that's exposed so the hilites don't blow out). If you visit my site (below), you'll see I like lots of contrast and, generally, dark shadows. Shooting the lite frame 2 or 3 stops liter makes the composite have not enough contrast.

--
http://community.webshots.com/user/jeffreybehr

Bern Caughey said:

Bern Caughey said:

I respect your opinion but after researching a lot about this you
are the only one that do not agree to go to the cokin route.

Click to expand...

I have never used Sing-Ray filters & I've never seen even a single
one on a job. Are they new?

In your research did you find a lot of pros are using the Cokin
system? Wonder why? In all my years, I've never worked with another
photographer who used Cokin. There not horrible, but the system has
issues.

(snip)

Regards,
Bern Caughey

Click to expand...

Bern,

Singh-Ray filters are not new at all. And they are quite highly regarded as some of the best, most professional filters available.

And, as you can see, some reasonably well known photographers use them. (Galen is, very unfortunately, a different matter.)

http://www.singh-ray.com/gallery/galleryindex.html

They make filters in a variety of mounts and sizes. Of course, polarizers have to be round. And grad filters pretty much have to be rectangular so they can be positioned. The Cokin 'P' system is readily available and does the job, so Singh-Ray makes filters that can make use of it: http://www.singh-ray.com/table.html as well as screw in filters.

Then can, and will, also make them for mounts other than the ones listed, should that be necessary. (I have no affiliation with them.)

My very best,

Ed

--
http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/
California Light and Structure

I used Cokin for diffusion and star, though I finally went with the higher priced glass ones. Reasons are simple, Cokin filters are plastic, they call it resin. I ran some tests and found the plastic filters distort the image, make it wavy is areas that is 100% unacceptable to me. With the exception of diffusion, which is a distortion anyway, and star, where it doesn't matter much, I'd stick with Glass.

Let me put it another way. Many photographers understand the value of a good lens. The camera is only a means to transfer the light gathering from the lens to the film. A good lens always has glass lenses. Thus it makes no sense whatsoever to place a plastic "lens--filter" in front of a good glass lens.

One of the sharpest lens I have for 35mm was made just after the war in Germany, it sits on my Grandfathers Lieca IIIC, a 50mm Elmar that is slow, hard to use since the f-stops have no clicks and you have to use your fingernail to set it----but it is blazingly sharp.

Try to stick with good quality glass filters, that at least have a coating. In a side by side comparison, you will notice a radical difference.

JM

Alcineia said:

I am interested to know if this holder hold a singh Ray warming
polarizing(for cokin P) + the linear graduated ND.Does it hold a
circular and/or square/linear filters?My intention is to have both
in future but I don't if it is the holder for there is another one
to hold the above filters.thanks
--
Alcineia Frank
http://www2.photosig.com/userphotos.php?id=665
D100 Nikon 28-105 F3.5
Nikon AFS 80-200 F2.8
Olympus C3000Z

Click to expand...

...in your blanket condemnations. I agree that lots of the Cokin-brand filters are marginal in quality, but the only Cokin-brand filter I recommend is the circular polarizer #164. And you apparently fail to recognize that even if you and I would never use any of those weird Cokin-brand filters that produce those phony-looking results, some fotografers find them highly useful at least occasionally.

I believe the Cokin-P SYSTEM is ingenious, affordable, and effective. Certainly Lee makes higher-quality filters and a somewhat-more-versatile system because it's a bit larger and includes an optional bellows-shade. But it's also LOTS more expensive. (They do make a highly functional and protective filter pouch that I used with all my stuff. Even added a wire loop to it so it would hang on the front of my Kinesis harness.)

So I recommend that you be more precise and less sweeping in your recommendations, either for or against something. Your note's subject header is inaccurate and perhaps just attention-getting. You got mine.

Oh yes...Hitech makes some excellent-quality neutral-density filters, graduated and not...from optical resin. Just because it's plastic doesn't mean it's low in quality.

--
http://community.webshots.com/user/jeffreybehr

the one I am interested is the Singh ray's warming polarizing.Since this is a polarizing and a warm one in the same filter, how would work the warming effect when I don't have the right angle for the polarizing?Example: I know that if I am shooting the sunset right in front of me I know that the polarising will not work but will I get the warm effect anyway?(I am aware about the polarizing angulation/effect I am just interested to know if the warming of this filter will always work no matter angles).What do you think?

Jeffrey Behr said:

...in your blanket condemnations. I agree that lots of the
Cokin-brand filters are marginal in quality, but the only
Cokin-brand filter I recommend is the circular polarizer #164. And
you apparently fail to recognize that even if you and I would never
use any of those weird Cokin-brand filters that produce those
phony-looking results, some fotografers find them highly useful at
least occasionally.

I believe the Cokin-P SYSTEM is ingenious, affordable, and
effective. Certainly Lee makes higher-quality filters and a
somewhat-more-versatile system because it's a bit larger and
includes an optional bellows-shade. But it's also LOTS more
expensive. (They do make a highly functional and protective filter
pouch that I used with all my stuff. Even added a wire loop to it
so it would hang on the front of my Kinesis harness.)

So I recommend that you be more precise and less sweeping in your
recommendations, either for or against something. Your note's
subject header is inaccurate and perhaps just attention-getting.
You got mine.

Oh yes...Hitech makes some excellent-quality neutral-density
filters, graduated and not...from optical resin. Just because it's
plastic doesn't mean it's low in quality.

--
http://community.webshots.com/user/jeffreybehr

Click to expand...

--
Alcineia Frank
http://www2.photosig.com/userphotos.php?id=665
D100 Nikon 28-105 F3.5
Nikon AFS 80-200 F2.8
Olympus C3000Z

The resin filters are better & thinner then the platic ones, but they are also much more prone to scratching. I believe Cokin is the only one of these filter systems that accept polarizers. You can place a polarizer behind another system, but you then need to rotate the entire filter holder, which can be an issue with square shades.

Regards,
Bern

Jeffery, as I said, "from my tests" and that is where it ends.

I don't buy marginal filters that go in front of my lens, period. It takes a $400 lens and turns it into a $29.95 piece of junk.

JM

Jeffrey Behr said:

...in your blanket condemnations. I agree that lots of the
Cokin-brand filters are marginal in quality, but the only
Cokin-brand filter I recommend is the circular polarizer #164. And
you apparently fail to recognize that even if you and I would never
use any of those weird Cokin-brand filters that produce those
phony-looking results, some fotografers find them highly useful at
least occasionally.

I believe the Cokin-P SYSTEM is ingenious, affordable, and
effective. Certainly Lee makes higher-quality filters and a
somewhat-more-versatile system because it's a bit larger and
includes an optional bellows-shade. But it's also LOTS more
expensive. (They do make a highly functional and protective filter
pouch that I used with all my stuff. Even added a wire loop to it
so it would hang on the front of my Kinesis harness.)

So I recommend that you be more precise and less sweeping in your
recommendations, either for or against something. Your note's
subject header is inaccurate and perhaps just attention-getting.
You got mine.

Oh yes...Hitech makes some excellent-quality neutral-density
filters, graduated and not...from optical resin. Just because it's
plastic doesn't mean it's low in quality.

--
http://community.webshots.com/user/jeffreybehr

Click to expand...

Alcineia,

Since I actually have a Singh-Ray warming polarizer, let me answer this one for you...

In general, polarizing filters are a gray filter--with the polarizer added to them. I don't know if they have to be gray rather than clear, but the ones I have seen are. The warming polarizer has just the slightest bit of warm coloration added to the gray. It's not a great amount of warmth, just the slightest bit....people don't want to make every photograph look like a sunset.

The extra warmth is there for every photograph you take with the filter, even if the angles and surfaces are not right for the polarizing effect. So the answer is that every photograph gets the warming, but only photographs where things are right get the effect of the polarizing.

My best,

Ed

--
http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/
California Light and Structure

Great! That what I was hoping to hear.But if I shoot with the best angle for the polarizing it should be even warmer,is that right?

Ed Leys said:

Alcineia,

Since I actually have a Singh-Ray warming polarizer, let me answer
this one for you...

In general, polarizing filters are a gray filter--with the
polarizer added to them. I don't know if they have to be gray
rather than clear, but the ones I have seen are. The warming
polarizer has just the slightest bit of warm coloration added to
the gray. It's not a great amount of warmth, just the slightest
bit....people don't want to make every photograph look like a
sunset.

The extra warmth is there for every photograph you take with the
filter, even if the angles and surfaces are not right for the
polarizing effect. So the answer is that every photograph gets
the warming, but only photographs where things are right get the
effect of the polarizing.

My best,

Ed

--
http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/
California Light and Structure

Click to expand...

--
Alcineia Frank
http://www2.photosig.com/userphotos.php?id=665
D100 Nikon 28-105 F3.5
Nikon AFS 80-200 F2.8
Olympus C3000Z

Alcineia,

I just rotated mine as I was looking through it during daylight outside (didn't have it mounted on a lens). It did seem that things were a bit warmer when the polarization effect was at a max, but I'm not entirely sure if that was not because the polarizer was making things a bit more dramatic. But, yes, in at least this one case, additional warmth was something I saw.

I think you will be happy with it. If you like a bit more warmth to tones, which is always there with the filter, it's a great way to go. If you would ever like polarization without the additional warmth, it may not be the best choice. But even then, you should be able to later cool things down a touch in PhotoShop.

Singh-Ray make what are probably the very best filters. It's made out of optically excellent glass, distortion free, and used by some very capable photographers.

My best (and have fun),

Ed

Alcineia said:

Ed Leys said:

Alcineia,

Since I actually have a Singh-Ray warming polarizer, let me answer
this one for you...

In general, polarizing filters are a gray filter--with the
polarizer added to them. I don't know if they have to be gray
rather than clear, but the ones I have seen are. The warming
polarizer has just the slightest bit of warm coloration added to
the gray. It's not a great amount of warmth, just the slightest
bit....people don't want to make every photograph look like a
sunset.

The extra warmth is there for every photograph you take with the
filter, even if the angles and surfaces are not right for the
polarizing effect. So the answer is that every photograph gets
the warming, but only photographs where things are right get the
effect of the polarizing.

My best,

Ed

Click to expand...

--
Alcineia Frank
http://www2.photosig.com/userphotos.php?id=665
D100 Nikon 28-105 F3.5
Nikon AFS 80-200 F2.8
Olympus C3000Z

Click to expand...

Thanks so much Ed to help me with this.I do prefer my pics warmer so in this case I think I will be happier,If sometimes I need I can take it off or desaturate a bit in PS.I am soo ansious!I did order through BH should be here soon ))

Ed Leys said:

I just rotated mine as I was looking through it during daylight
outside (didn't have it mounted on a lens). It did seem that
things were a bit warmer when the polarization effect was at a max,
but I'm not entirely sure if that was not because the polarizer was
making things a bit more dramatic. But, yes, in at least this one
case, additional warmth was something I saw.

I think you will be happy with it. If you like a bit more warmth
to tones, which is always there with the filter, it's a great way
to go. If you would ever like polarization without the additional
warmth, it may not be the best choice. But even then, you should
be able to later cool things down a touch in PhotoShop.

Singh-Ray make what are probably the very best filters. It's made
out of optically excellent glass, distortion free, and used by some
very capable photographers.

My best (and have fun),

Ed

Alcineia said:

Ed Leys said:

Alcineia,

Since I actually have a Singh-Ray warming polarizer, let me answer
this one for you...

In general, polarizing filters are a gray filter--with the
polarizer added to them. I don't know if they have to be gray
rather than clear, but the ones I have seen are. The warming
polarizer has just the slightest bit of warm coloration added to
the gray. It's not a great amount of warmth, just the slightest
bit....people don't want to make every photograph look like a
sunset.

The extra warmth is there for every photograph you take with the
filter, even if the angles and surfaces are not right for the
polarizing effect. So the answer is that every photograph gets
the warming, but only photographs where things are right get the
effect of the polarizing.

My best,

Ed

Click to expand...

--
Alcineia Frank
http://www2.photosig.com/userphotos.php?id=665
D100 Nikon 28-105 F3.5
Nikon AFS 80-200 F2.8
Olympus C3000Z

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Alcineia Frank
http://www2.photosig.com/userphotos.php?id=665
D100 Nikon 28-105 F3.5
Nikon AFS 80-200 F2.8
Olympus C3000Z

The tests I made were with both the round and square ones. Both distorted and while the thinner ones were better, the distortion was still there. I suppose it has to do with laying down plastic, as opposed to optical quality glass, that it is impossible to get a flat surface that does not bend the light with plastic and resin. Thus, unless the photo does not really matter if the image has some distortion (soft or star effect are the only two I ever used, after my tests) then I would stay away from plastic filters.

The best filters I ever used were gels, but you have to handle them with kid gloves.

JM

Bern Caughey said:

The resin filters are better & thinner then the platic ones, but
they are also much more prone to scratching. I believe Cokin is the
only one of these filter systems that accept polarizers. You can
place a polarizer behind another system, but you then need to
rotate the entire filter holder, which can be an issue with square
shades.

Regards,
Bern

Click to expand...

Did you ever test the Sinar 4" resin filters? They have no distortion & are superior optically to glass filters. Unfortunately, they are no longer made. Wratten gels are the best optically, but they are difficult to use around ocean spray, mist/rain/snow or strong wind. I used the Sinars when wratten gels were impractical.

Regards,
Bern Caughey

No, have not used the Sinar filters. I have serious missgivings about any optical plastic or resin, simply because I have never seen anything that doesn't look cheap. But Sinar is noted for superior construction and I imagine they made some great optical quality resins. But, I wonder why they were discontinued? Maybe because of people like me who wouldn't put plastic in front of a lens, no matter what? Or they found they were not up to their quality? Or the market was too small?

Yes, gels are a pain in the rear end.

JM

Bern Caughey said:

Did you ever test the Sinar 4" resin filters? They have no
distortion & are superior optically to glass filters.
Unfortunately, they are no longer made. Wratten gels are the best
optically, but they are difficult to use around ocean spray,
mist/rain/snow or strong wind. I used the Sinars when wratten gels
were impractical.

Regards,
Bern Caughey

Click to expand...

Member said:

BTW, after accumulating various Hitech- and Sing Ray-brand grad-NDs
and a couple Cokin blue-grads, I no longer use any graduated (or
color-balancing) filters. Dynamic-range enhancement is MUCH easier
to do with 2 digital frames and Fred Miranda's $8.50 Photoshop
action, and Photoshop is always optically perfect in its color
rebalancing. If you have time to put your camera on a tripod, you
have time to mount a Cokin circ-pol AND shoot 2 frames.

Click to expand...

I believe you just saved me a load of money. I will stick with my normal polarizer and the 2 shot approach.

Ed Leys said:

In general, polarizing filters are a gray filter--with the
polarizer added to them.

Click to expand...

No, they're not. The polarizing material IS the gray filter, not something that's being added together with some other filter. It only transmits about 20-25% of the original light, so it's gray instead of clear.

If the gray filter was really a separate item, you can bet that someone in the last 100 years would have come out with a polarizing filter without it.

Mike