do you still use filters?

hait0622 wrote in post #18437180
I am looking into long exposure with a no filter for landscapes. Just curious do people still use filters? I seen a youtube video where a guy takes several shots and merged them together for the effect a nd filter. If you still use filters what brand/type and what do you use it for.

I've also seen some of these Youtube videos, one in particularly where, hmm guest what, they also sell a Lightroom technique book! You'll probably find that most photographers who do landscapes as their main 'bread and butter' will use filters. They don't want to be spending ages in Lightroom merging images together plus you won't know what you have until you've done all of that editing. As already mentioned, a polariser is hard to replicate later though same said Youtuber also claimed that you didn't really need that filter either.

I'm from the old school of photography where I like to get as much done in camera as possible. There are some advantages of this technique though, notably you don't need to go to the expense of buying filters or carrying a tripod though for me filters are as much of an investment as the lenses or camera and putting my camera on a tripod helps me to stop, slow down and compose my image.

Apart from the extra time having to spend editing, other disadvantages include the extra images taking up space and the wear and tear it creates on your cameras shutter life.

fma wrote in post #18438092
...
I'm from the old school of photography where I like to get as much done in camera as possible. There are some advantages of this technique though, notably you don't need to go to the expense of buying filters or carrying a tripod though for me filters are as much of an investment as the lenses or camera and putting my camera on a tripod helps me to stop, slow down and compose my image.

Apart from the extra time having to spend editing, other disadvantages include the extra images taking up space and the wear and tear it creates on your cameras shutter life.

I have given up carrying all but a polarizer and maybe at times a ND or GND filter. The biggest advantage I see of applying filter effects in post is that you have much greater flexibility. Filters applied in the field are set and more difficult to correct if it didn't come out perfect. Filter effects applied in post are infinity adjustable in terms of strength, position, color and effect. Also, it gives you some time to look at the image and decide what the best approach would be. Trying to visualize what you want in the final image is much more limiting. You look at the scene, cogitate for a minute or two on what you want the image to look like, set up and shoot. Applying filter effects in post all you need to concentrate in the field is getting a properly exposed and framed image. Then back home you can look at the image, try a few things to see what speaks to you, then work the image.

Circular polarizer, and a ND filter...dont see the point of graduated ND's

DreDaze wrote in post #18438292
Circular polarizer, and a ND filter...dont see the point of graduated ND's

GND work great if you have a high dynamic range scene and HDR is not wanted or possible.

I've tried screw-in GND filters. IMHO, they are a complete waste of time and money. Seems I never need a GND that starts exactly in the middle of the frame, and increases in density at some predetermined rate. Square filters/bracket in which I can select where I want the effect may be useful, but the entire system is expensive. On the bright side, you only need to buy one set to cover all your lenses. I do without.

Bassat wrote in post #18438307
I've tried screw-in GND filters. IMHO, they are a complete waste of time and money.

Absolutely concur. My GND filters are 4x6 and that gives a great deal of control.

Personally, I still use grad NDs (well, primarily a reverse grad ND):

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/XvmP​RP

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/XqP1​KK

gjl711 wrote in post #18438301
GND work great if you have a high dynamic range scene and HDR is not wanted or possible.

That'd be one situation when I use my ND grads indoors: to tame the overhead lighting.

I use cpl, nd, and gnd. I find them indespensable. Some say you can just blend exposures and I realize you can. That gets far more complicated when you have movement of some type in the scene, wildlife or even water. It can be done but it is far more difficult and tedious than just getting the information in the frame.

Bassat wrote in post #18438307
I've tried screw-in GND filters. IMHO, they are a complete waste of time and money. Seems I never need a GND that starts exactly in the middle of the frame, and increases in density at some predetermined rate. ...

Pigpen101 wrote in post #18438309
Absolutely concur. My GND filters are 4x6 and that gives a great deal of control.

I tri-cur. Screw in GNDs are way too limiting as you are shooting to accommodate the filter and not adjusting your filter for the image you want to capture.

I went without ND and gradient filters forever, always "fixed" it in post, until last year. I bought a set of Cokin filters for a Rocky Mountain foliage trip and later winter trip in the Grand canyon. I like the gradient filters a lot better than post processing. I get better detail and can use a single frame far more often, so the images are sharper. They are also super easy to post process.


I will not go out to shoot landscape with out my filer kit ever again. I use them with time lapse too.

gjl711 wrote in post #18438301
GND work great if you have a high dynamic range scene and HDR is not wanted or possible.

Oh, I know what they are used for, I have em...just find it a lot easier to blend exposures either manually or hdr to get the images I want

OK what is a decent filter kit for plates? I don't want to break the bank. Doing it as a hobby not professional.

I went the Lee Filter with adaptor ring solution. It means it is easier to accommodate any new lenses too, and you can bur replica adaptor rings if you really want which are cheaper. The Cokin system is cheaper and can still yield great results.

Tastes vary of course, but there are 3 filters I use most often. I use a .90 ND (square), .90 sGND (100 mm wide), and I use CPL's. I have others, like the Little Stopper and the Big Stopper which I use occasionally but if I had the 3 I mentioned first I could get by easily. I also have a reverse GND that almost never gets used even with sunsets.

When shooting over water, you have to consider the reflection of the water itself. With a reverse GND or the hard edge filters used on the horizon the water ends up looking more exposed than the sky. Instead I use a 3 stop soft edge and place it at the shore line to get more exposure on the foreground. The blend looks far more natural to me that way between the water and the sky. I've tried many ways but that is the best for me. If I want to use longer exposures, I will add a ND filter to that stack.

I use a CPL in my forest shots religiously. I purchased round CPL's for all my lenses unless they happened to use the same size. For me the utility of being able to screw the CPL on and off far outweighs the extra expense for them. If you shoot many waterfalls you will get tired of switching that holder and the appropriate adapter ring between lenses.

I have a 105mm CPL to use for the holder, but it never gets used anymore. I suppose with the right combination of lighting I might pull it out, but it would be because I needed to use a GND in the scene, which I almost never need in my forest shots. You don't want to have to use them, since they also decrease exposure on the trees etc. that are between you and the horizon.