Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Filters

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Filters

 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Can someone tell me what a good filter manufacturer is? I bought a Fujifilm
> HS30EXR, which accepts 58mm filters. I want to get a protective filter for it.
> The Fuji filter costs $59 which seems a little steep to me. A check of Amazon
> has filters for as low as $4, but I don't know as I should/could trust them. I
> see Vivitar listed as an option. Any others I could trust? Thanks.


get something that's multicoated, such as hoya hmc or shmc or b+w mrc.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> Can someone tell me what a good filter manufacturer is? I bought a Fujifilm
> >> HS30EXR, which accepts 58mm filters. I want to get a protective filter for it.
> >> The Fuji filter costs $59 which seems a little steep to me. A check of
> >> Amazon has filters for as low as $4, but I don't know as I should/could trust
> >> them. I see Vivitar listed as an option. Any others I could trust? Thanks.

> >
> >get something that's multicoated, such as hoya hmc or shmc or b+w mrc.

>
> Thanks. Prices seem better on those. Another question. If I'm looking more for
> protection, do I want an ultraviolet or neutral density filter?


neutral density will reduce the light, increasing exposure. there are
situations where that's useful, but certainly *not* all the time.

> Also, a term
> from my old days with film cameras came to mind, skylight filter. What are my
> options for protecting the lense without distorting color? Thanks again.


skylight has a slight pinkish tint but that will be canceled by the
camera's white balance so it doesn't really matter. a uv filter is
basically clear glass and is preferable, but it's not a huge issue.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2012
In article <201210211931222196-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> However if you are going to use it in any serious
> way I would consider a Circular Polarizing Filter


a regular polarizer is sufficient. circular polarizers are only needed
if there's a beam splitter and that camera does not have one.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rob
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2012
On 22/10/2012 2:15 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <201210211931222196-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> However if you are going to use it in any serious
>> way I would consider a Circular Polarizing Filter

>
> a regular polarizer is sufficient. circular polarizers are only needed
> if there's a beam splitter and that camera does not have one.
>



For myself (take note) - I think polarising filters are obsolete -
taking images with them buggers the image and would prefer to make my
alterations within a post processing program like Photoshop.

otherwise I use a UV filter on all my lenses.


 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2012
In article <k62m17$bfu$(E-Mail Removed)>, Rob <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

> For myself (take note) - I think polarising filters are obsolete -


they are not obsolete at all. in fact, they're one filter that will
never be obsolete.

> taking images with them buggers the image


how?

> and would prefer to make my
> alterations within a post processing program like Photoshop.


you *can't* duplicate what a polarizer can do in photoshop.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rob
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2012
On 22/10/2012 6:48 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <k62m17$bfu$(E-Mail Removed)>, Rob <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> For myself (take note) - I think polarising filters are obsolete -

>
> they are not obsolete at all. in fact, they're one filter that will
> never be obsolete.
>
>> taking images with them buggers the image

>
> how?
>
>> and would prefer to make my
>> alterations within a post processing program like Photoshop.

>
> you *can't* duplicate what a polarizer can do in photoshop.
>



Take it how ever you may - read the first bit "For myself" - so stuff
what you think, don't criticise my opinion. I know what I can achieve
without a PL filter.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Polly the Parrott
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2012
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 00:48:36 -0700, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>In article <k62m17$bfu$(E-Mail Removed)>, Rob <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>> For myself (take note) - I think polarising filters are obsolete -

>
>they are not obsolete at all. in fact, they're one filter that will
>never be obsolete.
>
>> taking images with them buggers the image

>
>how?
>
>> and would prefer to make my
>> alterations within a post processing program like Photoshop.

>
>you *can't* duplicate what a polarizer can do in photoshop.



Can you duplicate a polarizer in a modern DSL with a menu setting?
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2012
In article <k62vsf$o2j$(E-Mail Removed)>, Rob <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

> >> For myself (take note) - I think polarising filters are obsolete -

> >
> > they are not obsolete at all. in fact, they're one filter that will
> > never be obsolete.
> >
> >> taking images with them buggers the image

> >
> > how?
> >
> >> and would prefer to make my
> >> alterations within a post processing program like Photoshop.

> >
> > you *can't* duplicate what a polarizer can do in photoshop.

>
> Take it how ever you may - read the first bit "For myself" - so stuff
> what you think, don't criticise my opinion. I know what I can achieve
> without a PL filter.


then explain how photoshop lets you get around the laws of physics and
optics. this ought to be good.

whatever you can achieve in photoshop might look nice but it's *not*
the same as what you get with a polarizer. period. it is *not* possible
to duplicate a polarizer's effects *after* you take the photo.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Polly the
Parrott <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Can you duplicate a polarizer in a modern DSL with a menu setting?


no
 
Reply With Quote
 
jdanield
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2012
Le 22/10/2012 10:51, nospam a écrit :

> whatever you can achieve in photoshop might look nice but it's *not*
> the same as what you get with a polarizer. period. it is *not* possible
> to duplicate a polarizer's effects *after* you take the photo.
>

to be precise, if you only use the polarizer to make clouds more
visible and sky dérker, you can make it in photoshop.

If you use polarizer to remove unwanted reflexion, I don't see how you
can acheive this elsewhere

jdd
 
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
Canon: EF filters = EF-S filters? [blu|shark] Digital Photography 17 01-28-2004 10:04 AM
Adaptive Junk filters Scott McCarthy Firefox 3 10-17-2003 02:14 PM
Mozilla for Mac and filters lugg Firefox 2 08-08-2003 03:52 AM



Advertisments