Filters (cokin/lee) - do we really need them ?

[riyazi]

I am thinking about getting a set of filters for landscape photography like a cokin or lee and have been flabbergasted by the prices !!!

So I was wondering, since we use digital and we use such programs like PS CS, are these filters really necessary ? I know that it is better to get the effect in camera than on PS, but do you guys think that spending so much on a filter is worth it ? For eg: a Blue Graduated filter effect can be easily replicated in blue tint and a gradient.

I know that ND filters are impossible to be replicated on PS. But for the others I would think that they are more relevant for SLR than for DSLR ?

Also, for those using filters - I presume a cokin P-type filter set will be sufficient to use on a 40D + 10-20mm ?

Thanks

[blackcap]

No they aren't necessary, but I find that grad ND's reduce the amount of PP I need to do. But if you are willing to take multiple exposures every time and blend during PP then no, they aren't necessary at all.

[Lowner]

Mine don't get used too often, but even though I like post processing, the fiddly work involved would take me hours - to achieve what the right GND achieves instantly.

I use the cheaper Cokins P range and did not find them overexpensive.

[ROCKFISHER]

To see the effects of colour filters on an image ,there is a free filter simulator available that will let you see the effects from COKIN/HOYA and KODAK filters on your images.
Download from www.opanda.com.

Pete

[yvonchap]

Mine don't get used too often, but even though I like post processing, the fiddly work involved would take me hours - to achieve what the right GND achieves instantly.

I use the cheaper Cokins P range and did not find them overexpensive.

Same here! :-D

[TaDa]

Well, you can replicate much in post, but for me, they're an accessory that I cannot be without. If shooting a sunset or something, the sky will obviously be pretty bright, and what will end up happening without something like a Grad ND, either I will overexpose the sky or underexpose the foreground. With a Grad ND, both will be perfect.

Also, if you're going to do something like try and feather a waterfall, you'll need an ND to be able to slow down your shutter speed enough. You also cannot replicate much of what a CPL does in post.

If price is a concern, you can still get high quality NDs from a company called Hitech and buy them from 2filter.com

[homersapien]

I never use any colored filter, but I do have GND filters and no, Photoshop can't always do what the filters do. Plus it's often much quicker and easier to simply use the filter(s) than fiddle with the image in Photoshop. I don't use them too often, but then, so much of the gear one buys for this hobby spends a good amount of time sitting on shelves ;)

They aren't at all expensive. $8 for a holder + adapter ring on Ebay. $40 for HiTech filters on 2filter.com. Cokin square filters are poor quality. Lee square filters are just too darn expensive!

[Teuobk]

In the digital age, I think that the most important filters are GNDs and polarizers. The GND is great for quickly balancing the sky and the land, and the polarizer, of course, provides an effect that can't be replicated in post.

[TaDa]

I just bought a Vari-N-Duo. Looking forward to trying it out when I get it :)

[troutfisher]

"Also, for those using filters - I presume a cokin P-type filter set will be sufficient to use on a 40D + 10-20mm ? "

Not really ideally you need Z-Pro if you are going Cokin,there is a recent post about this where the guy ended up having to chop down the holder so he did not see it at 10mm

[hollis_f]

Not really ideally you need Z-Pro if you are going Cokin,there is a recent post about this where the guy ended up having to chop down the holder so he did not see it at 10mm
Only because he didn't want to buy the wide-angle holder. That don't need no choppping.

[argyle]

Only because he didn't want to buy the wide-angle holder. That don't need no choppping.

But then you gotta carry two holders...

[argyle]

I just bought a Vari-N-Duo. Looking forward to trying it out when I get it :)

Been thinking the same thing myself...let me know how you end up liking it. I've read some mixed reviews on FM...

[pixel_junkie]

I wander if one can get away with holding an ND grad filter in front of the lens by hand. Why not? But not heaving the filter perfectly steady, the picture may even benefit from it because the gradation will be softer. When shooting sunsets, or landscape shots, I rarely have exposures longer than 2 seconds so holding the filter won't take long time at all.

[Tom Koidhis]

I wander if one can get away with holding an ND grad filter in front of the lens by hand. Why not? But not heaving the filter perfectly steady, the picture may even benefit from it because the gradation will be softer. When shooting sunsets, or landscape shots, I rarely have exposures longer than 2 seconds so holding the filter won't take long time at all.

I've tried it in the past and it works but having an adapter and holder is a lifesaver. If you hold the filter so it's not touching your lens then you can get reflections and other artifacts, and if you hold it so it touches your lens you'll get camera shake at anything less than 1/125 sec. Plus you'll have to clean your filters a lot less if you avoid touching them as much as possible.

[argyle]

I wander if one can get away with holding an ND grad filter in front of the lens by hand. Why not? But not heaving the filter perfectly steady, the picture may even benefit from it because the gradation will be softer. When shooting sunsets, or landscape shots, I rarely have exposures longer than 2 seconds so holding the filter won't take long time at all.

I do it all the time when I'm rushed or just too lazy to set up the holder. About the only risk you'll face is scratching the filter if you're not too careful. Just be sure to hold it by the edges to minimize fingerprints...its really not that big a deal.

[pixel_junkie]

Thanks guys!

[turbo212003]

A GND was used for this shot. It just takes less time to process in Photoshop. I love using it.

http://www.grantwphoto.com/photos/485347896_5GVDm-M-1.jpg

[batch]

I just ordered a P-series Hitech grad ND filter (.6 soft). My first foray into graduated ND filters. Looking forward to trying it out soon.

[riyazi]

Thanks for all the comments guys

Majority of the comments are on the NDs (GNDs included) as being essential - I know they are as I have already mentioned in my OP that I know that the effect of NDs are impossible to replicate and GNDs are difficult to replicate as it involves taking 2 shots etc

I was more interested in getting opinions about the colour filters - like in the example I mentioned in my first post. I dont understand why people would use a Blue gradient or orange gradient to enhance the sky when it could easily be done on PS.

I had already decided on getting some ND/GND filters and was wondering whether I should get colour filters as well - which was the reason for my post.

Another question for you guys - some NDs are rated as ND2, ND4, ND8 etc whereas some are ND .33, ND.66 etc - is there a difference between the 2 set of numbers ?

[jacobsen1]

I'd agree GNDs and CPs are the only filters worth buying at this point. Anything else can pretty easily be done in PS faster than you can even screw one onto your lens. BUT!!! Even with GNDs, if you're good with HDRs you can throw them together about as fast as you can line up and attach the filter set. Also, filters graduate in straight lines... that works well for horizons on the ocean and other straight breaks in the exposure, but if you're dealing with odd shapes you'll have issues (like dark tips to trees). Basically, don't rule out one for the other, both have their place, you just need to know how to use both and when. And when I say HDR, I DO NOT MEAN the overdone, dime a dozen, photomatixed HDRs. Those are interesting in their own right, but not what people who are discussing GNDs are after. ;)

The other filter I like is my 10 stop ND. Yes you can acheive the same look in PS stacking shots, but it's a hell of a lot easier with the filter. :lol:

here's an HDR from 2 Saturdays ago just because I hadn't put the filters on yet:
http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/weekapaug-beach-3-7-2009/img_2721x.jpg

here's a GND shot once I broke out my setup:
http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/weekapaug-beach-3-7-2009/img_2790.jpg

here's the same shot w/o a GND and w/just one exposure:
http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/weekapaug-beach-3-7-2009/img_2789.jpg

and I'll admit. I bought my GND setup because a bunch of my landscape friends kept telling me it was a must have bit of kit... But then never used them for at least a year... Then we were all shooting the morning those shots were taken and they were using their GNDs for EVERY shot and I hadn't even used mine yet (EVER). So I took them out figuring it was the perfect time in case I had questions. Well those last 2 shots PROVED (to me at least) why GNDs are very much better/easier than PS when you have a straight exposure break.

[Jon]

Thanks for all the comments guys

Majority of the comments are on the NDs (GNDs included) as being essential - I know they are as I have already mentioned in my OP that I know that the effect of NDs are impossible to replicate and GNDs are difficult to replicate as it involves taking 2 shots etc

I was more interested in getting opinions about the colour filters - like in the example I mentioned in my first post. I dont understand why people would use a Blue gradient or orange gradient to enhance the sky when it could easily be done on PS.

I had already decided on getting some ND/GND filters and was wondering whether I should get colour filters as well - which was the reason for my post.

Another question for you guys - some NDs are rated as ND2, ND4, ND8 etc whereas some are ND .33, ND.66 etc - is there a difference between the 2 set of numbers ?If you're looking at using a gradient colour filter (and you're prepared to keep around several colours as well), these will have similar advantages over post-processing that using graduated ND filters will. If you try to apply a colour gradient in post, you'll have to adjust the appropriate colour layer in much the same way you would the overall picture with a grad. You wouldn't be layering two consecutive photos (unless you played with the white balance between the shots) but you may either layer two different WB renderings or adjust the curve for one or more of the "base" colours (R, G, B) to achieve the effects you want.

There's no difference between (ND2, ND4, ND8), (0.3, 0.6, 0.9) and (1 stop, 2 stop, 3 stop) density ratings. The first is the "multiplier" (2x means you need 2x the exposure, i.e. 1 stop), the second is log density (0.3 is log of 2, so it needs 1 stop), and the third is just the filter factor in stops. I haven't actually seen any 0.33 log density, although colour correction filters come in log density values of 0.025, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2 and on up.

[tkoutdoor]

Only because he didn't want to buy the wide-angle holder. That don't need no choppping.
Cokin makes a wide angle holder for the P-series, but it only has one filter slot. I found that wasn't enough for me as oftentimes it's necessary (or at least desirable) to have more than one filter on at a time to vary/increase the effects. I'm still using my normal P-series until I can get the Z-Pro holder or until I consider another system. Getting the Z-Pro holder will be getting a new system essentially, because it needs new filters too. Until then I'll just stay out of the focal lengths that cause vignetting.

But then you gotta carry two holders...
I don't see what carrying two holders does for someone. The point of the wide P holder is that it only holds one filter so it can't stick out far enough for the extended part of the filter holder to cause vignetting (it still uses the same P-sized filters). If one uses two holders it's still gonna stick out further and that would defeat the purpose it seems to me.

[tkoutdoor]

There's no difference between (ND2, ND4, ND8), (0.3, 0.6, 0.9) and (1 stop, 2 stop, 3 stop) density ratings. The first is the "multiplier" (2x means you need 2x the exposure, i.e. 1 stop), the second is log density (0.3 is log of 2, so it needs 1 stop), and the third is just the filter factor in stops. I haven't actually seen any 0.33 log density, although colour correction filters come in log density values of 0.025, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2 and on up.This is all Greek to me. Can you put it in simpler terms? I follow you with the "stops" comparison in the first sentence, but "log density" is an undefined word for me. I don't have a sufficient math background for that word to be meaningful. I'm guessing that log is short for "logarithmic", but that doesn't add anything to the meaning of the phrase since that level of math is not something I'm well versed in. I'm actually wanting to know how to tell what filters I have by the Cokin code so what you're saying sounds relevant enough to ask the question. "Can you put it in simpler terms?"

[Jon]

Log density is the logarithm of the "multiplier", which is the density. Log (base 10) of 2 is 0.3; of 4 is 0.6, and of 8 is 0.9. So ND2=0.3=1 stop; ND4=0.6=2 stop; ND8=0.9=3 stop. The log density (and number of stops) are more convenient than the "multiplier" since they're additive. If you stack 2 or more filters it's easier to figure the exposure change when you just have to add a couple of numbers. Say you stack an ND4 and an ND8. That's 0.6+0.9=1.5 log density; divide by 0.3 and find it's 5 stops. Or 2 stop+3 stop=5 stop. But if you're using ND2, ND4 and ND8, you need to take 4x8=32 and then calculate that 32 is 2^5, so you need 5 stops (or multiply the exposure time by 32, so 32x1/60" is 32/60", or about 1/2 sec.). Which would you rather do?

[riyazi]

Jon - thanks for that. Understood about the gradient stops. I would just remember that ND2=1 stop; ND4=2 stops and ND8=3 stops and forget about all the calculations !!! :) I presume from a practical point of view, knowing how many stops each filter gives is the most useful ?

With regard to the colour filters - I am not sure whether I understood your reply. My idea about applying colour filter effects was not as complicated as what you had said. I would use the photo filter layer (warm, blue, etc) and add in a gradient mask. I believe a photo filter layer gives the same effect as using the physical filter when taking the shot ?

Ben - great shots - just solidifies my intention to get NDs and GNDs - especially as I could have used them yesterday when I went out using my 10-20mm. Do you have/use any colour filters like blue, orange or red ?

[riyazi]

Any of you guys have an opinion about these - ebay cokin alternatives (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=250379207628)

I emailed a couple of people who brought from there and they were happy with the quality and when of them said that it is equivalent to the cokins he has

[jacobsen1]

There's no difference between (ND2, ND4, ND8), (0.3, 0.6, 0.9) and (1 stop, 2 stop, 3 stop) density ratings. The first is the "multiplier" (2x means you need 2x the exposure, i.e. 1 stop), the second is log density (0.3 is log of 2, so it needs 1 stop), and the third is just the filter factor in stops.

thanks, I always wondered why they all use different numbers, at least now I know what they all mean... :lol:

Ben - great shots - just solidifies my intention to get NDs and GNDs - especially as I could have used them yesterday when I went out using my 10-20mm. Do you have/use any colour filters like blue, orange or red ?

thanks and nope, I just have a 1, 2 and 3 stop soft GND, 10 stop ND and a CP. Anything else I do in PS because I'd rather be able to undo it if the colors go too crazy, plus it's easy enough in PS. As I said earlier, you can use PS over GNDs, but I prefer to get that right in the camera. That look is basically impossible in camera w/o then, so it'd multiple exposures or filters, pick your poison.

[jacobsen1]

oh, and you guys might get a kick out of this, I've been shooting timelapse shots with my gopro when I go out shooting (it's on one leg of my tripod):
http://vimeo.com/3676880
you can actually see me working with the filters in some of those shots (it's much easier in the frame by frame, not sure if you can do that online though).

[col4bin]

I use singh ray GND and ND filters. I would rather get as much right in the camera as opposed to getting lazy and just fixing in post processing.

i would avoid any cokin GND of ND filters as they are not true and will add a pinkish cast to your photos.