Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Filters - Advice Please

Reply
Thread Tools

Filters - Advice Please

 
 
Toby
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-15-2007

"Ed Mullikin" <(E-Mail Removed)> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:0YrQi.340519$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Kinon O'Cann" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:fmpQi.1506$pl2.1128@trndny09...
>>
>> "colly" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
>>> I've just bought a Canon 400D with a Sigma 17-70mm lens and a Canon
>>> 50mm lens. I have read a little about how useful lens filters can be,
>>> and would appreciate some advice.
>>>
>>> What are the essential filers? Polariser, UV, Fluorescent? I saw a
>>> gallery of beautiful landscape shots the other day and the
>>> photographer used an "ND Grad" filter on all his shots. I think there
>>> are many different types.

>>
>> Almost forgot; a good multicoated UV filter to keep on the lens at all
>> times, except when using the polarizer.
>>
>>>
>>> What filters are essential, and which ones are a nice extra?
>>>
>>> I've found some on ebay that are very cheap, are cheap filters a false
>>> economy?
>>>
>>> Advice appreciated.
>>> Thanks
>>>

>>

> Regarding a UV filter; I have nearly always used one but I've heard the
> arguement, "Why pay a lot of money for a Zeiss (for instance) lens and
> then crap it up with a dime store UV filter?" Any comments?


Actually a Kenko or other decent quality Japanese filter is fine, unless you
are using longer telephoto lenses, in which case you will get more image
degradation with any filter that is not perfectly flat. That being said, I
doubt you would ever notice the difference between a decent filter and a
super-expensive one, although the pricey ones often have much nicer mounts.

Toby


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Doug McDonald
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-15-2007
John Bean wrote:

>> Warming filters do just that, warm the image getting rid of blue tones.

>
> As can setting a correct WB, making a warming filter totally
> redundant.
>


Not entirely. There will be a difference in photos with a
warming filter and without, even if you post-adjust color
balance to be the same. This is because the colors of
objects that are yellow or blue-green or violet will be different.

Doug McDonald
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
HTangler
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-15-2007
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 17:42:38 -0400, Bob S <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>HTangler wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:06:35 -0400, Bob S <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>

>
>> Interesting that you should mention Tiffen, as their $80+ polarizer filters are
>> the ones that were worse than $12 generics when I tested various brands.
>>
>> You get what you pay for! Right? Think again.
>>

>
>True, not always....
>
>How did you or how do you test a polarizer?



From my first reply in this thread:

>
>
>Use a known good polarizer and cross it at 90-degrees to the unknown. The
>unknown will usually show defects clearly in the form of banding, spots and
>gashes of lesser strength, and brighter lights showing through easily overall.
>It should appear nearly black (slight tinge of blue or purple) and uniform when
>crossed with another good one. I use a lab-grade polarizer for this simple test.
>Two of those crossed at 90 degrees to each other extinguishes nearly all visible
>light and show zero defects.


You can do the same in-store by comparing various brands. Seeing which one has
the defects by which defects move with the one you are turning or moving past
the other.

Compare enough of them, always selecting the better one, you can narrow it down
to 1 or 2 good ones in just a few minutes. Have a sales-person that really wants
to make a sale and is willing to put up with you testing a half dozen or more
filters. You'll be surprised how often the most expensive ones are no better and
often worse than the bargain-basement ones.



 
Reply With Quote
 
HTangler
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-15-2007
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 21:56:32 +0100, John Bean <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:06:35 -0400, Bob S
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>UV reduces haze in the air that the human eye can't always see [...]

>
>Nor can ordinary digital cameras for all practical purposes.
>
>>Polarizers reduce reflection and help bring out detail and color on many
>>subjects.

>
>Yes.
>
>>Warming filters do just that, warm the image getting rid of blue tones.

>
>As can setting a correct WB, making a warming filter totally
>redundant.
>
>Your choices seem more film-centric than I expect in aq
>digital group


I agree that his list is film-centric but some specialty colored filters can
actually improve on some subjects. I was rummaging in a store's "misc. free
stuff" box one time. I was looking for mounting rings to make lens-caps for the
back of my accessory lenses (replacing the glass with strong plastic or disks of
metal). I found a strange "skin-tone enhancement" filter that was probably sold
over 30 years ago. I took that one, among others, for my filter-ring needs. The
hue (a unique yellow-brownish tint) of the filter strongly reminded me of my
favorite, albeit expensive, Serengeti sunglasses. The bandpass of those
sunglasses greatly enhancing fall colors. Out of curiosity I mounted that
"skin-filter" to my digital camera to see how it might effect fall foliage
colors. The camera compensated for the filter's color shift with its
white-balance creating a normal scene. But because the filter was subduing
everything but reds, golds, oranges, and yellows (and some bright yellow-greens)
all the fall colors became much more deeply saturated than without the filter,
just like my favorite sunglasses. It has now become a favorite filter for fall
photography. (The filter was in the box due to a nasty chip at one edge, but I
just blackened that out with a sharpie. Since it was an oversized filter, that
portion wouldn't even influence the image. Well worth the salvage job.)

Some colored filters with unique band-pass curves are like shooting with a new
color-space assignment, shifting the data created by the standard Bayer filter.
New RGB data that would be difficult to duplicate in post-processing, the same
as the effects from a polarizer being impossible to duplicate. Simple
bandpass-curve filters will have little to no effect, the same effect duplicated
in post-processing. Some filters with complex bandpass-curves will be to
advantage of the digital photographer under the right circumstances.

 
Reply With Quote
 
John Bean
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-16-2007
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 23:53:07 GMT, HTangler
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Some colored filters with unique band-pass curves are like shooting with a new
>color-space assignment, shifting the data created by the standard Bayer filter.
>New RGB data that would be difficult to duplicate in post-processing, the same
>as the effects from a polarizer being impossible to duplicate. Simple
>bandpass-curve filters will have little to no effect, the same effect duplicated
>in post-processing. Some filters with complex bandpass-curves will be to
>advantage of the digital photographer under the right circumstances.


You and Doug make valid points, although I dispute that
creating the effect digitally is in any way difficult - but
that's a matter of opinion of course. Polarisers and opaque
filters aside, there are few (if any) transmissive filters
that can't be replaced with digital processing of some sort,
but depending on the photographer's skill set and personal
preferences I can see the value in using filters instead for
some.

Choice is good

--
John Bean
 
Reply With Quote
 
colly
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-16-2007
Wow - thanks for all the advice guys, very much appreciated. However
with all that new info and difference of opinions, I'm still a little
confused, so a few specific questions - opinions appreciated.

I was going to buy this one:
http://cgi.ebay.ie/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?...MEWA:IT&ih=013
But there are other way cheaper ones like this one made by CPL:http://
cgi.ebay.ie/72mm-Circular-Polarizer-Polarizing-CPL-For-Canon-
y35_W0QQitemZ160168324946QQihZ006QQcategoryZ15217Q QssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Am I wasting my money on something this cheap?

and if I buy a UV Filter, maybe this:
http://cgi.ebay.ie/C013-Hoya-72mm-72...QQcmdZViewItem

Do you always have a filter on your lens? Like maybe a UV at all times
to protect the glass? Do you only use a Polarizer sometimes?
I'm getting all this for a trip to Dubai - lots of sun and sea etc - I
hope it will be worth it.

Thanks for your help

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Stacked polariser filters instead of ND filters? peter Digital Photography 5 12-13-2010 10:25 PM
using the Filters DLL (image filters) Dieter Vanderelst Python 1 02-15-2006 09:56 AM
Nikon 8700 - Advice on filters Dirk Digital Photography 7 10-15-2004 01:59 AM
Advice needed on filters for Sony DSC-P50 Jonathan Digital Photography 7 07-31-2004 11:09 AM
Canon: EF filters = EF-S filters? [blu|shark] Digital Photography 17 01-28-2004 10:04 AM



Advertisments