 Calgarey Penn |
Filters for Digital SLR Hi, I have been involved with photography for sometime but have never used filters. I now have an Olympus E-Volt 500 which offers a varity of filters to choose from contained withing the camera program. What I benefit from purchasing external filters that screw onto the lens? If so, which ones would you recommend and why? Thanks very much. Calgarey
|
|
|
|
||
|
robert G. Fately |
Calgarey, the one filter whose effect cannot be replicated in post-processing (like Photoshop) is a polarizing filter, so you might want to think about one of these. You will need to get a so-called "circular polarizer" (which is basically what all the new ones are anyway) in order to let the camera's auto-focus mechanism work properly. Beyond that, neutral density filters (or gradient versions of them) also allow you to reduce the amount of light (for instance, if you want a slower shutter speed AND shallow depth of field, but it's too bright for both). Or if you take a scenic shot at the beach and the foreground/ocean is much darker than the sky itself then a gradient filter would be helpful.
|
|
|
|
||
|
W. |
Bob's right. Also, get a UV filter (always in tandem with a lens hood against flare, but never 'stacked' with other filters) to avoid a bluish tinge and to protect the glass and coating of your lens. The effects of all other filters that were used in film photography can be replicated in digital post-processing.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Calgarey Penn |
Thanks for your responses. It sounds like I probably don't need to purchase very many filters. I do use Photshop CS2 and am familiar with the filters available there. Thanks so much for your advice. Calgarey
|
|
|
|
||
|
Deborah Bettencourt |
To piggyback another question about the neutral density filters. If you're shooting the beach shot and the foreground/ocean is much darker than the sky would you have the darker part of the filter positioned to cover the sky? I've heard conflicting instructions over time. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
||
|
robert G. Fately |
Deborah, for the scene you describe, one would use a gradient ND filter - this is the type that varies from virtually no filtration on one side to a 2 or 4 stop density on the other. When using this filter, you would want the ND filter part on the top - effectively filtering out the "excess" light from above the horizon. This is the only way it will work - if you use the filter "upside down" then you'll be darkening the already dark shoreline. Perhaps the person advising you on that method was referring to view camera work - where the image you focus on in the ground glass is upside down, so it looks like the sky is below the shoreline in the foreground. But even there you would have to use the filter itself with the darker portiono on top.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Joe Ging |
On the filter question.......don't know the details of the camera you have but most of the digital SLR's have various white balance settings that eliminate the need for filters beyond Polarizers and Neutral Density. While post processing does give filter "like" effects, unless you are doing and "expression", getting it right in the camera is still where the art lies.
|
|
|
|
||
|
W. |
OR, Deborah, you can apply "HDRI" here: you need a rocksteady tripod. Then you meter the problematic parts of the scene. Like foreground, subject, background and sky. Take notes of each. Then compose the image in the cam on the tripod the way you want it. Then make an exposure for each of the settings. Then merge/blend them in PP. About HDRI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDRI
|
|
|
|
||
|
W. |
OOPS! "Deborah" should of course read "Calgary" . . . Apologies to both.
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
A UV or polarizer filter can also be used to protect your lens. The UV and Polarizer will only make your pictures look better so I keep one or the other on my camera at all times.If you scratch the lens then you will have to spend lots more money on a new lens, but if you have the filter on then you will just have to spend 10 or 15 dollars to replace the Filter.
|
|
|
|
||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
A filter screwed onto the lens is outside the camera. No more art?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jack Utter |
Calgarey, The FIRST thing you should always remember…the ONLY thing between the Film, or Sensor, and the Subject is the Glass!!! You could buy the 16 MegaPixel 1Ds Mark II ($8,000), attach the EF 50mm F/1.2L ($2,000) Lens and then screw on a junk filter and the image will suffer sever degradation. You’ll never get a quality filter for $10-$15! If, of course, you don’t care what the image looks like or you never print bigger then 4X6, it won’t matter what’s on the front. Buy the highest quality lens (& filters) you can afford and only attach a filter when it’s needed. One of the best filters made is from Singh Ray, but not everyone can justify those. Best, Jack
|
|
|
|
||
|
Calgarey Penn |
Thanks everyone...Jack, I understand exactly what you mean and I agree about the lens cap and hood. I always use both. Everyone has provided great insight and advice. I do appreciate everyone taking time to address my concern. Calgarey
|
|
|
|
||
|
Keith Waugh |
Calgarey, Forget the UV filter. Year before last 1,000+ photojournalists were polled and virtually NONE of them ever had a UV filter save a lens from damage. Also, why would you want a cheap piece of glass between your subject and an expensive, precision-made lens?
|
|
|
|
||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
I agree with Keith. Better to use a good lens hood. As to any filters, why are there now "digital" filters if they are simply pieces of glass. Could this be a way to perpetrate a hoax on the new digital camera owner? Zounds. But, one thing - when I use my Tiffen multi-coated wide angle [that is thin, so as to avoid vignetting] circular polarizer on my Canon 30D with 17-85 mm IS zoom lens, I sure don't get the great effects I did on film. Blue skies just aren't as deep even though they appear so through the viewfinder. Even Photoshop doesn't help. Has anyone else experienced this?
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
I have been photographing football games for 2 years now and I am glad that I had my $10 UV filter on my lens. It has saved my lens from numerous scratches when a football player not paying attention to me runs by and hits my camera on the side lines. My pics look just as good and better with that filter on. oh and who knows I could have bought one of those really expensive "Tiffen multi-coated bull shit filters" on ebay, for 10 or $15. Keith what poll are you talking about? Give me the web address or wherever you found it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Joe Ging |
Trebor, One of the web Addresses is BetterPhoto.com. I have taken several courses and the instructors are pretty unified that any glass on glass detracts and they carry only polarizers and ND's for their digitals. They use hoods for protection. I also belong to a Photographic Society that includes 15 teaching pro's...they follow the same thought. The one exception is an environment where there is blowing sand. Bottom line, whatever works for you is what you should do, but an attitude because someone disagrees doesn't serve any benefit here. Opinions are for guidance, you make your own decisions.
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
Thanks joe! I was just trying to be of some help to calagrey, but obviously I wasnt. I am 18 yrs old and I havent taken any couses or had any teaching in actual photography. I have taught myself everything I know. So Im sorry if my advice was not any good I am here to learn and help IF I can. But thanks I will also try to use a lens hood for protection and I will take the filter off.If I notice a change for the Better I will be sure and let everbody know. sorry I was wrong. But thanks for the advice on the lens hood.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||