anyone buy in square filter system and was sorry?

great answers here. very practical considerations. i have right now a B&W nd 1000 (or whatever their 9 stop is called), and a cpol (thin micro something-or-other version from B&W, i think) - both 77mm. My main use is on the 10-22 (and hopefully soon the 16-35 f4).
and since so many of the POTN members really rave on their square /rectangular filter system (e.g. LEE, Cokin, Hitech, etc...) I was really interested.
I may go on to get a full system, but I do worry about the size, the portability, the durability, and just plain dynamics of dealing with the system. I am glad to see that there are others here who have similar experiences.

I have a Lee system and I debate this too so I'm not really sure if its worth it or not. IMO the most useful filters with this system are the grads. I can't really see using the Lee filters unless I am using a tripod. For that reason I tend to use my screw on filters more often. I almost always keep a CPL/ND in my bag along with step rings (77 to 72 ) but IMO the rings are a PITA. Thinking of getting some dedicated 72mm filters for my 50/135.

not really feeling GND's, though SE GND does a fairly good job. I do prefer square polarizers and ND's.

Xyclopx wrote in post #17122000
pretty much my experience. I've had more shots ruined by the lee grad filters than helped. the reason is because almost any good composition would not have a simple horizon of bright on top and dark on bottom. there should be mountains, or foreground objects, or whatever, and because the gradation is straight, it inevitably will darken the tops of objects/moutains/etc. incorrectly. it is much better to take 2 or more exposures and blend them manually in photoshop, that is if you care to have everything absolutely perfect. but if you wanna avoid heavy post-production to save time, I guess the grad filters can be used.

I can see these filters being necessary for film, but in today's digital age there are better alternatives if you are computer savvy.

I think the main advantage of rectangular filters is just to save $. you buy one set of filters and many cheaper adapters to fit them to different lenses. but even then, you can get a similar savings by getting a larger filter and using stepping adapters.

I have a lee collection myself but am slowly phasing it out by getting a set of polarizer and nd's for each filter size. expensive, but much easier to use and carry.

Snydremark wrote in post #17122024
It isn't the angle isn't the problem; it is when there are features that extend above the horizon, such as trees, mountains, etc. A grad filter doesn't work quite as well there.

tagnal wrote in post #17122117
How would you rotate it to match this horizon for the proper effect in this image?

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/fBTc​AD
Morning Star by Riven Imagery, on Flickr

Thanks all - it now makes sense to me.

Xyclopx wrote in post #17122000
I think the main advantage of rectangular filters is just to save $. you buy one set of filters and many cheaper adapters to fit them to different lenses. but even then, you can get a similar savings by getting a larger filter and using stepping adapters.

So the advantages of the rectangular filters that I use are:
1) Don't have to worry about vignetting, especially when stacking filters
2) I can slide the filter up or down so that the GND is positioned to darken only the part of the image that I want it to. I can have it darken only a sliver on the top of the frame, or have it darken most of the frame. All I have to do is slide it up or down.
3) I am able to darken the top AND the bottom of the frame using 2 filters while leaving the center portion of the frame untouched. This has been useful when the bright sky is reflecting a lot of light off of the water in the foreground of an image.

People select their filters for many different reasons that may reflect their working methods, their personal preferences, the equipment they already have, special lenses that require special filters, or any number of other reasons. Having said that, there are some things that seem to be generally true:

1. The only time the square system is really needed is when using GNDs which current technology is making more and more unneeded in most (but not all) cases.
   
2. Presuming that all filters are of the same optical quality, the cheapest filter system is glass screw-ins in your largest lens diameter (probably 77mm but maybe 82) and a set of step rings for smaller diameter lenses. This kit is also lighter and more compact.
   
3. As a general rule, glass filters are likely to be optically superior to plastic.
   

tagnal wrote in post #17125653
So the advantages of the rectangular filters that I use are:
1) Don't have to worry about vignetting, especially when stacking filters
2) I can slide the filter up or down so that the GND is positioned to darken only the part of the image that I want it to. I can have it darken only a sliver on the top of the frame, or have it darken most of the frame. All I have to do is slide it up or down.
3) I am able to darken the top AND the bottom of the frame using 2 filters while leaving the center portion of the frame untouched. This has been useful when the bright sky is reflecting a lot of light off of the water in the foreground of an image.

Could you show us an image illustrating #3 in your list please?

Maxdave

rgs wrote in post #17125677
The only time the square system is really needed is when using GNDs which current technology is making more and more unneeded in most (but not all) cases.

Indeed.
The dynamic range on newer bodies is getting to the point where I don't usually need to worry about darkening the bright areas to make sure I retain detail. A couple weeks ago I was photographing a sunset beside a grain elevator & there was no clipping on either end. If I want a GND, I'll do it in post.

Maxdave wrote in post #17125893
Could you show us an image illustrating #3 in your list please?

Maxdave

Sure. For these, I used a Lee .9 GND on top and either a .3 or .6 GND on the bottom. Don't remember anymore.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/oGEk​K6

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/oGDT​MC

ozzmodan wrote in post #17126107
Indeed.
The dynamic range on newer bodies is getting to the point where I don't usually need to worry about darkening the bright areas to make sure I retain detail. A couple weeks ago I was photographing a sunset beside a grain elevator & there was no clipping on either end. If I want a GND, I'll do it in post.

Yeah, if you have no clipping then you definitely do not need to use a filter or do HDR on that image (even though so many people seem to want to tonemap everything...)

I think they have their time and place.

First and foremost, they are more involved as far as application and installment time vs. a screw-on filter. Plus, you'll need to carry more to make use of them (adapter ring, mounting plate, filters, filter pouch, etc). For travelling, they aren't exactly user friendly.

That all aside, I find they are great to have and use when you're in a situation that you can make use of them. I do mostly landscape style and I will take my LEE ND Grad filter any day of the week over a screw-on, reason being that the screw-on only allows you for half of your shot to be framed with the shaded portion whereas a square (in this case, rectangular) style allows you to move it up and down and the mount allows you to rotate accordingly.

I also like shooting longer shutter speeds making my Big Stopper and .6 ND valuable to me. Any water shots I've done have been improved through the use of these filters, same with sunset shots. Maybe it's just me, but I've also found that just in general I can use them to manipulate the lighting during the daytime and compensate some for harsh lighting.

I do think in many areas, screw-on filters are a better option, however, my main complaint is the amount you'd need and the cost of any good filters. I've learned my lesson about filters and you do get what you pay for. I like how with the LEE system I can buy one filter and whatever size adapters I need, but then I can use an array of filters with a variety of lenses.

In summary: it comes down to use, carrying and overall, expense.

For me...at least.

tagnal wrote in post #17126671
Yeah, if you have no clipping then you definitely do not need to use a filter or do HDR on that image (even though so many people seem to want to tonemap everything...)

The problem is that the display on your camera is likely to show clipping about 3 stops before it actually occurs. See "The Digital Negative" by Jeff Schewe. The histogram will be more accurate. Many shots that get HDR or GND treatment just need good post.

TheInfamousGreedo wrote in post #17126699
I think they have their time and place.

First and foremost, they are more involved as far as application and installment time vs. a screw-on filter. Plus, you'll need to carry more to make use of them (adapter ring, mounting plate, filters, filter pouch, etc). For travelling, they aren't exactly user friendly.

That all aside, I find they are great to have and use when you're in a situation that you can make use of them. I do mostly landscape style and I will take my LEE ND Grad filter any day of the week over a screw-on, reason being that the screw-on only allows you for half of your shot to be framed with the shaded portion whereas a square (in this case, rectangular) style allows you to move it up and down and the mount allows you to rotate accordingly.

I also like shooting longer shutter speeds making my Big Stopper and .6 ND valuable to me. Any water shots I've done have been improved through the use of these filters, same with sunset shots. Maybe it's just me, but I've also found that just in general I can use them to manipulate the lighting during the daytime and compensate some for harsh lighting.

I do think in many areas, screw-on filters are a better option, however, my main complaint is the amount you'd need and the cost of any good filters. I've learned my lesson about filters and you do get what you pay for. I like how with the LEE system I can buy one filter and whatever size adapters I need, but then I can use an array of filters with a variety of lenses.

In summary: it comes down to use, carrying and overall, expense.

For me...at least.

I'm not aware that anyone here has suggested using screw in GNDs for exactly the reason you describe.

I carry three 77mm screw-ins. At about $300, they are more economical than the Lee squares even before the cost of the adapters. The only way screw-ins get expensive is if you insist on a set for each lens diameter you have rather than using step rings. I have a CPL, a 3 stop ND and and 8 stop ND. It's a light kit that fits in a pouch on my belt and will do everything a Big Stopper will.

I always use my histogram when doing landscape shots. I just meant that I see many people on here and on social media sites turn a shot that has no clipping (dynamic range is already covered by the sensor) into HDR messes.

tagnal wrote in post #17126720
I always use my histogram when doing landscape shots. I just meant that I see many people on here and on social media sites turn a shot that has no clipping (dynamic range is already covered by the sensor) into HDR messes.

Agreed. Here's one very much like yours made from a single 6 meg D60 (not 60D) file and a good deal of work in LR. No brackets or GNDs except for the LR grad tool.

rgs wrote in post #17126711
I'm not aware that anyone here has suggested using screw in GNDs for exactly the reason you describe.

I carry three 77mm screw-ins. At about $300, they are more economical than the Lee squares even before the cost of the adapters. The only way screw-ins get expensive is if you insist on a set for each lens diameter you have rather than using step rings. I have a CPL, a 3 stop ND and and 8 stop ND. It's a light kit that fits in a pouch on my belt and will do everything a Big Stopper will.

not necessarily. If you want compact size, then screw in ND's work well, but I find square filters really fast to switch in and out. My solids included 3 stop haida, 10 stop haida, and lee polarizer, to the tune of ~280 (2 new, 1 second hand), add on a generic holder and rings, and you're at around $320 for 2 lenses. I dont have to worry about crossthreading or unscrewing in the field, which makes life much easier.

I can stack and not have vignetting issues, even on an ultrawide.

if you stick strictly with lee, then it will be more expensive, but haida is a top tier filter.