Filters
Author
Discussion

UKBob

Original Poster:

16,277 posts

295 months

Monday 24th July 2006
quotequote all
Can anyone explain what the main types of filter are, and whether there are any which will be suitable for ALL shots.

I dont know much about filters. Id like to fit one to my 24-70, to help protect the lens.

I find the colours and appearance of foliage in a forrest just "looks better" with sunglasses on. What are my sunglasses doing to tone down the harsh light, and what is the equivalent filter called.

Will shooting with a filter reduce image quality, or cause any chromatic abberation?

In summary I like the idea of having a filter which will help protect the lens and keep dust out, preferably one which I can keep on at all times.

Edited by UKBob on Monday 24th July 16:03

_dobbo_

14,619 posts

278 months

Monday 24th July 2006
quotequote all
As far as your sunglasses go, if they are polarising ones then to emulate this you need a polarising filter. However since you are already struggling to get fast enough shutter speeds as it is, then a polarising filter will make this much worse, and because you wont go over ISO200 you will find it pretty much useless in anything other than bright sunlight.

Quite a few people here will tell you that why would you buy an expensive lens then whack a cheap bit of glass in front of it at all times? I'd tend to agree with that - a hood offers just as good protection, and if it breaks? That's what insurance is for.

Only filters I would use now are a polariser and graduated filters of the lee/cokin type which go in a holder. I don't bother with skylight/uv filters any more.



Edited by _dobbo_ on Monday 24th July 16:17

V6GTO

11,579 posts

272 months

Monday 24th July 2006
quotequote all
Bob...I'm not clever enough to spout off about filters, but as soon as I'm back in the UK I'm going shopping here...

www.leefilters.com/home.asp

Martin.

PS - To get a filter thet works like your sungalsses you need a "circular polarising" lens...it cuts out a lot of glare (and, usually, about 2 stops of light) but saturates colours and gives, generally, the most pleasing effect of all the filters.

UKBob

Original Poster:

16,277 posts

295 months

Monday 24th July 2006
quotequote all
Thanks guys. Im using up to 320 iso, and will be moving up to 400 when I've bought some noise removal software. Points noted about the quality of the filters, and further loss of light.

Does anyone use a similar filter in photoshop?

_dobbo_

14,619 posts

278 months

Monday 24th July 2006
quotequote all
Emulating a polariser in PS is basically a nonstarter, because of the way it acts upon light hitting the sensor, you can't really fake it.

Things like ND Grads or coloured filters can be emulated providing the detail is in the original. The purpose of graduated filters is to preserve detail in the sky when taking landscape photgraphy. Otherwise when you expose for the land, the sky will invariably be over-exposed.

UKBob

Original Poster:

16,277 posts

295 months

Monday 24th July 2006
quotequote all
_dobbo_ said:
Emulating a polariser in PS is basically a nonstarter, because of the way it acts upon light hitting the sensor, you can't really fake it.

Things like ND Grads or coloured filters can be emulated providing the detail is in the original. The purpose of graduated filters is to preserve detail in the sky when taking landscape photgraphy. Otherwise when you expose for the land, the sky will invariably be over-exposed.

I remember reading about coloured filters (cant see the point with PS) and graduated filters - Im sure those come in handy from time to time.

poah

2,142 posts

258 months

Monday 24th July 2006
quotequote all
a circular polorizer will increase contrast and reduce refections from some things but it will also reduce ligh by aroun 1.3-1.7 stops depending on make.

GetCarter

31,293 posts

309 months

Monday 24th July 2006
quotequote all
Although, having seen your latest photos, I think your money would be better spent on professional psychiatric help.

Then when you feel better, a Lee filter or two would be good.

V6GTO

11,579 posts

272 months

Monday 24th July 2006
quotequote all
GetCarter said:
Although, having seen your latest photos, I think your money would be better spent on professional psychiatric help.

Then when you feel better, a Lee filter or two would be good.



At last, Steve...something we agree on Although I must say, after chatting for ages on the phone with Bob, he sounded very normal and very nice. Just can't tell sometimes huh?

Martin.

UKBob

Original Poster:

16,277 posts

295 months

Monday 24th July 2006
quotequote all
V6GTO said:
GetCarter said:
Although, having seen your latest photos, I think your money would be better spent on professional psychiatric help.

Then when you feel better, a Lee filter or two would be good.



At last, Steve...something we agree on Although I must say, after chatting for ages on the phone with Bob, he sounded very normal and very nice. Just can't tell sometimes huh?

Martin.
Well I... suppose Im glad you've both reached an agreement about something.

Ive binned the filter idea. Filters equate to more darkness, are therefore evil, and thus should be burned.

Andrew Noakes

914 posts

270 months

Monday 24th July 2006
quotequote all
_dobbo_ said:
Quite a few people here will tell you that why would you buy an expensive lens then whack a cheap bit of glass in front of it at all times?


Good question, but you could instead get a decent quality filter and put that in front of it.

If you keep a filter over the lens it not only gives you an extra line of defence against damage, it also means that you end up cleaning the front element of the lens far less. Instead you clean the filter - and if you scratch the filter you can (relatively) easily and cheaply replace it.

Going back to the 'accidental damage' theory, FWIW I've only ever managed to write off two lenses, both were wearing filters and in neither case did the filter make any difference. One of those lenses snapped clean in two...

_dobbo_

14,619 posts

278 months

Monday 24th July 2006
quotequote all
Andrew Noakes said:
_dobbo_ said:
Quite a few people here will tell you that why would you buy an expensive lens then whack a cheap bit of glass in front of it at all times?


Good question, but you could instead get a decent quality filter and put that in front of it.

If you keep a filter over the lens it not only gives you an extra line of defence against damage, it also means that you end up cleaning the front element of the lens far less. Instead you clean the filter - and if you scratch the filter you can (relatively) easily and cheaply replace it.

Going back to the 'accidental damage' theory, FWIW I've only ever managed to write off two lenses, both were wearing filters and in neither case did the filter make any difference. One of those lenses snapped clean in two...


You've argued for and against my comment in the same post!

Decent quality filters cost lots of cash - and you are still sticking a bit of glass there that isn't supposed to be there.

Furthermore I'd be astonished if even the most rigourous cleaning technique would damage the front element of a modern lens.

So - do you spend up to 20% of the cost of your lens on a filter to "protect" it? And can you even be sure that your expensive filter is up to the same quality of the rest of the glass in the lens? Personally I'll take a chance on having to make an insurance claim.

UKBob

Original Poster:

16,277 posts

295 months

Monday 24th July 2006
quotequote all
_dobbo_ said:
Andrew Noakes said:
_dobbo_ said:
Quite a few people here will tell you that why would you buy an expensive lens then whack a cheap bit of glass in front of it at all times?


Good question, but you could instead get a decent quality filter and put that in front of it.

If you keep a filter over the lens it not only gives you an extra line of defence against damage, it also means that you end up cleaning the front element of the lens far less. Instead you clean the filter - and if you scratch the filter you can (relatively) easily and cheaply replace it.

Going back to the 'accidental damage' theory, FWIW I've only ever managed to write off two lenses, both were wearing filters and in neither case did the filter make any difference. One of those lenses snapped clean in two...


You've argued for and against my comment in the same post!

Decent quality filters cost lots of cash - and you are still sticking a bit of glass there that isn't supposed to be there.

Furthermore I'd be astonished if even the most rigourous cleaning technique would damage the front element of a modern lens.

So - do you spend up to 20% of the cost of your lens on a filter to "protect" it? And can you even be sure that your expensive filter is up to the same quality of the rest of the glass in the lens? Personally I'll take a chance on having to make an insurance claim.

Its an interesting debate chaps. In less than a minute, Id managed to change my mind again. Twice And have decided for now not to get one.

Dobbo, what do you know about modern lenses, and their resilient nature as regards cleaning? Sounds reassuring.

_dobbo_

14,619 posts

278 months

Monday 24th July 2006
quotequote all
UKBob said:

Dobbo, what do you know about modern lenses, and their resilient nature as regards cleaning? Sounds reassuring.


I'm glad I sound like an expert! I'm not. It's basically received wisdom, I read an article a while back (I think on Luminous Landscape) which basically said modern lenses with their coatings are fairly resilient, and even a fairly large scratch on the front element wont show on an image.

If I remember, they suggested sticking a small blob of vaseline on your lens, then trying to pick it out in an image.

GetCarter

31,293 posts

309 months

Monday 24th July 2006
quotequote all
_dobbo_ said:


If I remember, they suggested sticking a small blob of vaseline on your lens, then trying to pick it out in an image.


That would just look like Martin.

UKBob

Original Poster:

16,277 posts

295 months

Monday 24th July 2006
quotequote all
GetCarter said:
_dobbo_ said:


If I remember, they suggested sticking a small blob of vaseline on your lens, then trying to pick it out in an image.


That would just look like Martin.
I supposed you'd know if it was also a job to get off? *cough*

poah

2,142 posts

258 months

Monday 24th July 2006
quotequote all
Andrew Noakes said:


Going back to the 'accidental damage' theory, FWIW I've only ever managed to write off two lenses, both were wearing filters and in neither case did the filter make any difference. One of those lenses snapped clean in two...


nikon?

UKBob

Original Poster:

16,277 posts

295 months

Monday 24th July 2006
quotequote all
lucas put vaseline on the camera's lens to blur out the wheels of lukes speeder during the tatooine driving scenes.

V6GTO

11,579 posts

272 months

Monday 24th July 2006
quotequote all
GetCarter said:
_dobbo_ said:


If I remember, they suggested sticking a small blob of vaseline on your lens, then trying to pick it out in an image.


That would just look like Martin.


Steady Tiger!

M.

Andrew Noakes

914 posts

270 months

Monday 24th July 2006
quotequote all
_dobbo_ said:
I read an article a while back ... which basically said ... even a fairly large scratch on the front element wont show on an image.


So how much difference is a bit of flat glass going to make?

poah said:
nikon?


Sigma. It selfishly gave itself up to protect the D100 body it was connected to.