filters ? ? ?

[Rich Brown Photography]

anybody here use filters such as polarizers, starlight, uv or especially diffusers for wedding photography or even portaiture? thanks for your input in advance. :)

[PIXI_666]

I did on my first wedding but this is because i had a film SLR and using photoshop was a lot harder when i didn't have a very good scanner. But i used them a lot with the cokin system, now with digital i find that i use photoshop actions to produce the looks i want...i havent gotten a cokin ring to be able to use my filters again, but i found it too hard to switch around constantly with the filters.
So i doubt id use them again in weddings, as for portraits MAYBE but then again - i use PS all the time for this stuff...hoenst answer - no i dont use them and i dont think i will unless the time really is right for a particular shot?

Del

[PIXI_666]

Did you need advice on any of the filters or was it just a general question to see how many people use them?

[tim]

I never use filters, the only ones I have are polarizers and I never feel the need to use them.

[PIXI_666]

oh yes i have a CP polarizer that i use because my last 2 shoots were on the water...

[CyberPet]

I have some UV filters on my lenses to protect them, but if I risk some odd reflexions, I try to remove them and just be careful where I put my fingers.

[Rich Brown Photography]

thanks for your input. I too have the cokin filter setup but just have a nd filter and a yellow filter for some creative effects (not for portraits). I bought the diffuser from cokin but thought it was really poor quality or maybe i just didnt quite get it, but it didnt really give the effect i wanted. i have a uv filter too just for lens protection, but no polarizer.

What i was really curious about is the diffuser... any good use for them? or can the effect be photoshop created and therefore it is unecessary? Do you have clients that like the diffused look or not? mostly that was my question. maybe i should have been more specific. lol.

[PIXI_666]

iD SAY PHOTOSHOP ALL THE WAY, PLENTY OF ACTIONS OUT THERE oops caps sorry lol

I use the glam blurr for a diffused look, and it works better i find on close up portraits...and only with a slight blurr if you blurr to much it just well...looks BLURRED haha!

I recommend just PS instead of filters, i foudn the same thing happened with me and the diffuser, just doesn't look right - you can control this in PS :)

[Rich Brown Photography]

thanks for the advice pixi. probly save me money from not buying one anyways. lol

[PIXI_666]

Well they arent much i think i paid $20 for most of my filters, but its just a more classic look (In my opinion) when you can control the effect through photoshop, and if you ever bought some filters and weren't happy with them, then there's always ebay haha :) (Where msot of the stuff i dont use anymore goes!!!)
NO PROBS! Im glad i could help someone hahaha, seems like i get lots of help but cant give much advice!

[BLINN]

I always us UV filters on all my lens for protection. I also us a polar once in a while to cut window glare down. Or if I want to capture a deep blur sky.

[kawter2]

i don't use them.. i have a lot of money invested in B+W UV fulters and end up taking tehm off as well for some reason..

[Rich Brown Photography]

would there be any reason not to use a high quality or even a lower quality uv filter? all i can see are good things like lens protection and haze reduction. why would you take them off??

[tim]

Low quality filters can degrade your images, with flare especially. I take mine off when i'm in a situation when flare is an issue. I only have filters on my 28-75 and 70-200 IS.

[sapearl]

I couldn't agree with you more. When I shoot medium format I use either the original Hasselblad filters or their B+W equivalents. If you have top notch glass with multi-coated/anti reflective coatings, why buy filters with lesser quality? I just got a 5D and the 77mm B+W uv is on order for the 24-105mm.

You also never know when wedding cake shrapnel may come flying your way at the reception :eek: . It's much less harrowing to scrape that stuff off a filter than the front element of that fine lens.

I also do a fair amount of hiking with the gear. Tree branches, bugs, mud, thunderstorms.... all are undpredictable projectiles for the front of a lens. A filter, even if expensive, is just good cheap lens insurance.

would there be any reason not to use a high quality or even a lower quality uv filter? all i can see are good things like lens protection and haze reduction. why would you take them off??

[Rich Brown Photography]

thanks for the input, my one lens (being a poor college student) isnt of the best quality but i will definetnly go for the high-end filters when i can afford some high-end glass. in a normal shooting situation will a less expensive uv filter have negative effects? I know it will probly not substantially make my shots better but what i really use it for is protection of the front element. I dont believe i have had negative effects so far but next time im shooting when there is a chance of flare i will definently start taking mine off. thanks for everyones thoughts

o yeah, and for future reference, what brand filters would you suggest?

[PIXI_666]

its OK Richard im poor too lol but im working full time and still im poor....admin doesn't exactly pay the best wage! (No wonder im moving soon!) I dont have very good quality lenses, in fact i really didn't know the difference 6mths ago, i thought they were all the same so i opted for the cheap ones!!
So ill be spending up some some more decent ones when i get a better paying job...

Del

[sapearl]

Richard, not worry - I'm sure your images are fine. Remember, so much of creating that image is the person behind the lens ;) .

Also, remember how effective the basic lens hood can be for reducing flare even on an inexpensive lens. I use a lens hood all the time. Again, it offers great protection for the glass as well a goodly amount of protection against flare. In sufficiently crappy lighting conditions it's amazing how a hooded lens will improve the color, saturation and contrast of an image over the lens that lacks a hood.

And from the standpoint of more "cheap insurance," I can't tell you how many times I've accidentally banged the hood on something in the "heat" of a wedding when things are moving quickly. It's got the nicks to prove it. Better a scraped plastic hood than a bent filter ring or outer lens component.

thanks for the input, my one lens (being a poor college student) isnt of the best quality but i will definetnly go for the high-end filters when i can afford some high-end glass. in a normal shooting situation will a less expensive uv filter have negative effects? I know it will probly not substantially make my shots better but what i really use it for is protection of the front element. I dont believe i have had negative effects so far but next time im shooting when there is a chance of flare i will definently start taking mine off. thanks for everyones thoughts

o yeah, and for future reference, what brand filters would you suggest?

[PIXI_666]

i have a collapsible lens hood and i find it really good to use, only downfall for me is when i am zoomed right back you can see parts of the hood in the photos lol but it doesn't wory me too much - it also minimises me when im trying to focus manually...

i guess those are the perks of having a plastic one though?

Good advice - i didnt think to mention this myself!

[Rich Brown Photography]

thanks for all of the advice everyone. I nearly always shoot with my petal shaped lens hood to prevent flare and damage, unless i have to use the stupid pop up flash on my 20D because it gets in the way. I hate that flash....its just not high enough, even without the hood. I think a new flash is going to be my next purchase. any suggestions on which will work best with the 20d, possibly price range?

[PIXI_666]

i got the 580ex only because it was reccomended all around the forum, plus i think where i got it from it was only an extra $200 so i spent the extra money, my hubby told me to get the best always in my photography, and he is right as always haha! BUT in saying that im not sure the 20d might work better with another flash?

[sapearl]

Ah, the world of flash - the easy answer would be Canon. It will give you good reliability, maximum automation with your camera functions and total automatic compatibilty. But you pay a price for that ..... and that WOULD be that substantial price. It is possible to pick up a deal here and there.

I just got the 580ex for my 5D, and I'm still reading the manual. For many years I used the wonderful strobes built by Metz. They too are extremely heavy duty, well built, powerful, come in a variety of size/power flavors.... but are also quite pricey.

You will get some automation compatibility between them and the 20d with extra components that you need the purchase (ask Wilt on these forums, he is FAR more expert in these matters than I am and has given me good advice.) but not as much as with a Canon I believe.

Rule of thumb with strobes and quality. You get what you pay for. More money = more durable flash tube, better, faster, more efficient recycling, better overall build quality. Little things like the flash shoe are important too. Cheap ones will wear out and break off quickly. Inexpensive electrical connectors will make poor contact. Check out the reliability ratings on these forums, other photo sites and Epinions.com. Have fun!

thanks for all of the advice everyone. I nearly always shoot with my petal shaped lens hood to prevent flare and damage, unless i have to use the stupid pop up flash on my 20D because it gets in the way. I hate that flash....its just not high enough, even without the hood. I think a new flash is going to be my next purchase. any suggestions on which will work best with the 20d, possibly price range?