Filters and DSLR

[seandudding]

Hi

I have heard that using a filter with a DSLR is pointless as you can use post processing to gain the desired effect.

I buy UV filters for all my lenses just to protect the front element. But if I used 1B or a Circular Polarizing lense would I see any benefit especially for landscape photography.....

Cheers Sean

[simpo two]

I agree that effects filters are pretty pointless; I prefer to shoot 'normal' and mangle later in PS if required.
UV/Skylight filters are generally recommended for protection rather than any modifying effect - visual differences are virtually nil, and if you use Auto WB the camera will remove the subtle pink hue anyway. However a polariser WILL make a difference - it increases saturation, reduces reflections and takes about a stop off your exposure.

[350wedge]

Agreeing with Simpo2..... A polariser is worth its weight in gold even on a Digi Slr.

I'd also keep a set of ND Grads as well, very useful set of filters for landscape's whether digital or not. Yes I know the effect can be done post production but if you use a filter at the taking stage its takes a lot of work out afterwards....

[ehasler]

Filters aren't pointless at all - much better to spend a few seconds getting the shot right in the field than ages huddled over a PC sorting it in Photoshop.

Also, some things can't be fixed unless you take multiple images at different exposures and then merged, which is a lot more hassle than popping an ND grad filter on.

In addition, the effects of a polariser can't be faked in Photoshop, so this is one filter that you will need to use for real even if you do decide to use Photoshop for the others.

[simpo two]

ehasler said:

Filters aren't pointless at all - much better to spend a few seconds getting the shot right in the field than ages huddled over a PC sorting it in Photoshop.

And then two weeks later I decide I don't want a graduated purple sky after all...

One thing I like about digital is the ability to make several versions of a shot from one original, even if it's jusrt to see what wokrs best. But this is where photography explodes into a myriad bits, because everybody has different likes and different methods. If you get a result you really like, does it matter how you got there? Nope

[te51cle]

Is there an equivalent to the starburst type of filter in Photoshop, or is that another one you'd have to stick on when you wanted ? ...and then wish you'd taken another exposure without it

[Andrew Noakes]

I dont think there's a lot of point using something like a 1B to make a small difference to the overall colour balance. You can do something similar with white balance settings - in fact I generally leave my D100 set with its white balance slightly 'warm', which is much the same thing.

As simpto two said, a polarizer is still useful.

I'd also stand up for graduated filters on a DSLR. They're useful for, say, darkening the sky to retain some cloud detail when your basic exposure is for a foreground object. I did a low-angle shot of an old MG at Silverstone the other week and with correct exposure for the car, the sky was washed out. What I needed was a grey grad on the sky, but sadly I didn't have it with me.

[ehasler]

simpo two said:

ehasler said: Filters aren't pointless at all - much better to spend a few seconds getting the shot right in the field than ages huddled over a PC sorting it in Photoshop. And then two weeks later I decide I don't want a graduated purple sky after all...

I was thinking more about getting the exposure correct (using ND filters) rather than slight (or not so slight) colour changes, which I personally don't see as "getting the shot right"

I guess it comes down to whether you like working with a camera and filters in the field, or if you prefer to do it sitting at home in front of your PC. As long as you get the result that you want, then either way is good.

I can only think of two situations where you couldn't get the same result in PS - using a polariser and using an ND filter to slow down the shutter speed to create a particular effect (e.g., blurred water on a sunny day).

[simpo two]

ehasler said:

I can only think of two situations where you couldn't get the same result in PS - using a polariser and using an ND filter to slow down the shutter speed to create a particular effect (e.g., blurred water on a sunny day).

True indeed. A grad ND as Andrew mentioned to help even out bright skies also has a useful place in a DSLR kit. I might have to attend to this for my NZ trip.

>> Edited by simpo two on Thursday 11th August 09:51

[Bee_Jay]

I don't even bother with filters most of the time - a lens hood provides the 'protection' I deem necessary. I used to buy, and still have, a UV(0) filter for all my lenses.

However, the only time I would want to use a UV filter would be in 'interesting conditions' such as out at sea etc...

Putting a very flat piece of glass on the end of your lens, however many layers of coating they have, can cause some interesting flare and internal reflection effects in certain conditions, as well as some saturation and contrast loss.

The only filters I use regularly now are circular polarisers.

[t0ny99]

If you have a UV filter fitted all the time, for lens protection, and conditions warrant the use of a polarising filter, is it best to remove the UV filter first or can you use them in combination?

[Andrew Noakes]

AFAIK you can use both together if you like, but I tend to remove the UV filter I have fitted (as lens protection) to avoid the vignetting you can get with two filters fitted.

[Bee_Jay]

t0ny99 said:

If you have a UV filter fitted all the time, for lens protection, and conditions warrant the use of a polarising filter, is it best to remove the UV filter first or can you use them in combination?

Best to remove the UV filter, as it is essentially negated by the Polariser...

You can use both, but you are lowering image quality unneccessarily...