Newbie Question on Filters (ND and others)

[bcys1961]

Hi ,
I have just bought a brand new :ologo: OMD EM-1 with 12-50mm kit lens, but apart from that ( and a tripod) I have no other camera equipment . I want to start to build up a bit of a tool kit of essentials and accessories. One thing I[d like to get are some filters. Most of my photography is landscape , bushwalking, beach etc...

I have read I can but either a series of individual ND filters (which can be "stacked") or a Variable ND filter . The variable filters are more expensive but obviously cover the whole range , and as cheap as buying 3 or 4 individual filters.

So questions are :

1. Which way to go - variable or a few singles? If singles what would be a good range to get ?

2. What are good quality brands that won't break the bank? eg. Hoya OK?

3. Any other filters you think the new photographer should not be without ?

Thanks in advance for your advice.:D

[AnthonyT]

Im only new at the photography game myself and I too am looking at getting some filters... I was watching a video presentation of "Moose" Peterson who is a Pro working for or has worked for National Geographic... He mentioned during this presentation to avoid the stacking of filters as the adding of additional layers reduces image sharpness. His preference was to use individual filters...

Link to the 2hr video presentation Im referring to. Sorry I cant remember at what point he talks about filters..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt0wZsVDe70&list=WLtS9MawmdmJZkIZbBKP3JOLrr_Vmg_d4c
His website:
http://www.moosepeterson.com/blog/about/biography/

Polarising filter and ND filter seem to be the main ones I see referred to when reading about landscapes, natural/wildlife photography and are the 2 on my shopping list..

[ricktas]

For landscape photography a polariser and more likely graduated ND filters would be more suited, but you cannot get grad filters in the vari- option

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?110857

[MattNQ]

This is my take on it. Others may differ.
I'd suggest a CPL first. Landscape & beaches particularly come alive. Enhances blue sky & green foliage and cuts glare and reflections. Mine rarely leaves my 9-18mm on my Oly.

Next, a set of graduated ND filters. While you can bracket, I prefer to take a single exposure - this then gives more freedom to avoid the tripod and still manage bright skies etc

Then maybe a solid ND filter. I started with an ND400 (9 stop) . Between the CPL (about 1 stop down I think) & GND 3 stop, and judicious stopping down the aperture, I haven't found a need yet for anything in between. ....so far:)

[bcys1961]

Thanks Matt!
I'll get in that order .
For the GND I read the slip in rectangular type give more flexibility to position horizon where you want it ?

[MattNQ]

Yep, slip in are the way to go. You can also stack without vignetting
You'll need to decide how much money you want to spend, what system suits you and what sized filters you will need.
Like lenses, you generally get what you pay for, so do your research.

[William W]

Firstly I think that you should understand what a CPL and an ND can and cannot do.

In simple terms:

> a CPL will cut reflections and "bring to life" many landscape features;
> a ND will allow a longer shutter speed or larger aperture for any given lighting condition at any given ISO - so for landscapes an ND is often used to make the sea ripples or the river smoother (by using a longer exposure)

So, an ND is for many beginners a more specialized filter, I think that is why you are getting suggestions to get a CPL first as a CPL will likely be more often used.

Also mentioned was a Graduated ND Filter.

(In simple terms) a GND is one where 1/2 of the filter is ND and the other half is not - so it can be used to cut down the exposure of a very bright sky and not cut any exposure on the darker landscape, below it - so that allows the whole scene (with a very wide DYNAMIC RANGE) to be capture in one shot.

*

If you want to look at a VARI-ND I have used Singh-Ray and they are excellent, the best I have used and I would unconditionally recommend them


Apropos single ND filters I keep a: 1 Stop; a 3 Stop; and 8⅔ Stop.
I have all these ND filters in a very large size and I sue STEP UP rings to attaché these filters to a lens with a smaller filter size. I’ve found that these three densities are the most useful for me, and I very rarely stack them, but now I don’t use the 1 Stop very often at all – I did with film.
I have a few Circular Polarizing Filters in the sizes to suit the lenses that I use in open sun and water / snow.
I use my Circular Polarizing Filters much more than any of the ND Filters.


WW

[ricktas]

Also remember that a Polariser does cut down the light, so it acts as a ND filter as well (prob about 1 f-stop worth)

[Abeniston]

I use Lee Filters. Most of the time I use the 1.2 soft grad for landscapes. I seem to get a good contrast between the land and sky with this one. I highly recommend this and possibly the 0.9 soft grad as well in case the 1.2 turns out to be a little to dark, or on the other hand, turns out that you need a little more than the 1.2. All these filters can be stacked. The Lee filter holder takes 3 at once.

[bcys1961]

Thanks all for the feedback . As a newbie to photography I'm finding this forum invaluable.

I'll definitely get a CPL filter first .

I'll compare Vari vs single ND's . Vari filter's seem to divide the photography community. Some love them and others seem to think they are terrible and report problems , but it looks like Singh Ray is the way to go if /I get one.

Next the GND and slip in is the general recommendations.

Thanks !

[Greg Johnston]

Thanks for the great discussion on filters. I am also thinking about investing in a polarizing filter but a few sites I have visited have suggested that polarizing filters are a bit tricky on a wide angle lens. The suggestion has been that due to the wide angel you can get variations in the degree of effect across the photo. Is this an issue?

[MattNQ]

Thanks for the great discussion on filters. I am also thinking about investing in a polarizing filter but a few sites I have visited have suggested that polarizing filters are a bit tricky on a wide angle lens. The suggestion has been that due to the wide angel you can get variations in the degree of effect across the photo. Is this an issue?

Yes, it can be an issue. You often get a range of tones across a deep blue sky for landscapes - I don't tend to notice it anywhere else (eg reflections/foliage)
Personally it doesn't bother me a lot.
Example below. The blues are darker on the upper LH side than the RH side. (pls ignore the light spot in the centre of this one - didn't notice it before posting )
This is at 9mm on a M4/3 sensor (equivalent field of view to 18mm on a full frame)
http://mattlarsen.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Colours-of-Townsville/i-cfg7c9v/0/L/P5274541-L.jpg

It is a problem if you are creating a pano from several shots - you need to remove the CPL so you do not have to try & merge dark blue into lighter blue

If the sun is low & close to flaring into your lens, it can amplify this effect as per the image below.

http://mattlarsen.smugmug.com/Travel-/Valley-of-Lagoons/i-xBMwbbd/0/L/P7063944mod1-L.jpg

[ricktas]

As Matt has shown, a polariser can cause variations across the image, so using one and turning it to get the effect you want, it is paramount to watch for an even result across the viewfinder. Polarisers are just that, they polarise light. Therefore the angle to the sun, can affect the outcome. Matt mentions taking them off for shooting several photos that are to be stitched together for a Pano etc, this is because as you turn to take each frame, your angle to the sun changes and thus the polarising effect changes along with it.

So as the thread starter is a new photographer, please be aware that adding filters into the equation at this time, will lead you to another range of things to learn on your photographic journey. Be careful to not try and learn to much, to fast. You can take great photos without filters and you should get your head around all the camera settings first, be getting good photos and then start adding filters etc to the mix.

[bcys1961]

Hi forum,

I now have a CP filter (Hoya CIR-PL).

Without starting a war about if I should have a UV filter permanently in place on my lens or not ( I do ) what is the view on if I can put the CP filter on top of it . Can I stack it on top or should I take the UV filter of when I want to use the CP filter ?

r,
Brad

[davsv1]

Hi Brad, you can leave the uv filter on if it makes you feel comfortable but I would suggest not stacking them. Even then though it is debatable whether you would really notice the degradation under normal viewing conditions....do a couple of test shots and see if you can pick the difference. Of course you may notice vignette at wider angles with stacked filters

David

[MattNQ]

Personally, I just leave my CPL on my 9-18mm all the time & keep the case in my bag for when I don't need it.
It is my primary landscape lens, so the CPL is on more often on than it is off anyway.

[Coco]

One thing I will add if you are buying filters such as ND.. You might want to invest on a good tripod.

[Bonsai Jason]

Amazing thread, came in with questions and left with all the answers. So just wanted to say thanks :)

I'm also off to invest in a CPL which I'll have a bit of a play around with before investing a bit more in ND filters :)

[MadMax1412]

This is my take on it. Others may differ.
I'd suggest a CPL first. Landscape & beaches particularly come alive. Enhances blue sky & green foliage and cuts glare and reflections. Mine rarely leaves my 9-18mm on my Oly.


I currently have a UV filter on, mostly to protect the lens. Should I put a CPL on top of that or just use the CPL?

[MattNQ]

I currently have a UV filter on, mostly to protect the lens. Should I put a CPL on top of that or just use the CPL?

Take off the UV & just use the CPL. The UV offers no contribution to image quality.
Try not to stack filters of any sort if you can help it. It will affect the image the more layers of glass/plastic you insert between your subject & your sensor.
Eg. a single darker ND will giver better image quality & less colour cast than two lighter filters stacked

Another aspect to watch is that sometimes when you stack screw in filters on the wider lenses, the edges of the filter will intrude into your image corners

[Mark L]

I currently have a UV filter on, mostly to protect the lens. Should I put a CPL on top of that or just use the CPL?

And it's debatable if a UV filter does much to protect the lens. Doesn't do anything for image quality really. Lens hood can give just as much protection in some cases.

[ameerat42]

I currently have a UV filter on, mostly to protect the lens. Should I put a CPL on top of that or just use the CPL?

Here you are in a position to actually try this for yourself. (I'm not saying one way or another.)

Pick a subject with some texture in it - a brick wall flat on, or something.

Take a number of shots: no filters at all; a UV filter; A CPL alone; a stacked UV and CPL.

Pixel peep the images, and make a set of 100% crop images to post here with your findings.

That will be empirical evidence rather than just relying on the experience of others.

---If you want to, that is.

Am.

[MadMax1412]

Take off the UV & just use the CPL. The UV offers no contribution to image quality.


I also use hoods as I assume these are to stop flaring on the lens from the sun striking at an angle. With a hood on, I find it hard to turn a CPL filter without my hand obscuring the view.

Are hoods all that good or should I ditch it.

[Mark L]

Are hoods all that good or should I ditch it.
It all depends on what you are trying to take a photo of, and how much time you have.
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?137486-Lens-hoods suggests that if you can use a lens hood, good, but I'd think the times you need a CPL, it may be more important (but it all depends on what you are trying to take a photo of and how much time you have.;))

[Steve Axford]

I think the best feature of a hood is that they protect the lens from both dust and more serious scratches. They are much better than a filter for this purpose. A hood on a wide angle lens has limited value as a dust protector, though they still serve some purpose in protecting your lens from accidental scrapes or falls. If you want to use a CPL, you should take off the hood as it does get in the way.

[MattNQ]

I also use hoods as I assume these are to stop flaring on the lens from the sun striking at an angle. With a hood on, I find it hard to turn a CPL filter without my hand obscuring the view.

Are hoods all that good or should I ditch it.

Hoods generally reduce flare & improve contrast. Up to you if you are finding it makes much difference or not in what you are shooting.
I find most hoods are not effective on my wide angles as the sun comes in from such a spot I need to use my hat at arms length to block the glare :lol2:
A screw in rubber hood can work well with a CPL - you just turn the hood to turn the CPL (Just remember to turn it the right way & don't unscrew it :D)
I use a rubber hood on my 80-200. Gives a the pointy end bit of knock protection when its swinging around on a black rapid type strap

[Tin Whistle]

Hi All could someone please explain what CPL and ND means? I know they are filters but what sort?

[MadMax1412]

Is there any issue in using a CPL when taking indoor shots?

I have a large camera bag that I keep everything in when I am at home but when I go out, I usually just take a small bag big enough for the body and lens I think I'll be using for the occassion as I don't want to be carrying around too much all day.

[MattNQ]

Hi All could someone please explain what CPL and ND means? I know they are filters but what sort?

CPL - Circular Polariser. Wikipedia gives a reasonable explanation on how they work
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizing_filter_(photography)


ND - Neutral Density - Effectively block a fixed amount of light. Usually used to allow a slower shutter speed for a given aperture & ISO to avoid overexposing. Handy for doing milky waterfalls in bright light etc. Also handy if you want a really shallow depth of field in bright light but your shutter is not fast enough (eg, my old EPL1 only had 1/2000 max shutter).

Again Wikipedia gives a fairly simple overview
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_density

- - - Updated - - -


Is there any issue in using a CPL when taking indoor shots?

I.

Not really, but they will reduce your exposure by a stop or two, so you will have to adjust your settings to compensate.

[Tin Whistle]

Thanks Matt your explanation is much appreciated

[ricktas]

Tin Whistle; this might assist too : http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?110857-Filters-What-Why-When-Which

[Tin Whistle]

Thanks Rick for the link, very helpful. I am not entirely new to photography, I used to take a lot of pics about 27 or so years ago and used a Practica camera and used a UV and a polarising filter, but that was a long time ago and I am finding the world of digital photography a bit overwhelming. Once you would stick the film in the camera set the film speed and all you had to worry about was aperture and shutterspeed and focus. Now there are about a zillion things to take into account and then you get to play with your photos on your computer, which at the moment has me completely baffled (I have GIMP2 and Photoshop CS2 if anyone has any tips) Anyway I an determined to keep banging my head against the wall until I get where I want to be. Thank goodnes for this forum!!!!!

[ricktas]

with film a UV filter was often recommended. Digital camera sensors have a thing called a low pass filter that sits right on top of the sensor and this eliminates most UV, so UV filters that attach to the front of the lens basically serve no purpose on a digital camera. They can be good if you shoot in sandy and windy, or sandy and wet environments to protect your lens, but the modern lens coatings do a damn good job of that anyway. So I would not recommend a UV filter at all. Certainly your CPL, graduated ND and ND filters are great for the land/sea scape photographer.

As for Gimp and Photoshop. Youtube is your friend, there are great tutorials on there for beginners. Just seach photoshop cs2 for beginners for example and the videos will take you through things as simple as opening and saving files to how to straighten horizons and clone out that bit of rubbish etc.

We also have this: http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/forumdisplay.php?142-Photoshop-Tutorials for some photoshop help, some tutorials might be a bit beyond your experience but have a look back through them all and there are some great ones in there.

[ameerat42]

With GIMP and CS2, determine what you would like to do to an image. If you can't find out how, then ask.
I will say, though, that though both programs do much the same thing, their approaches vary. After using
Photoshop for years (now up to CS2 like you) I found GIMP's methods cumbersome. Just a case of what you're
used to. But I'd stick to one. Also IMO, Photoshop is the more comprehensive of the two.

Oh, and another thing about your lament: with digital, you've got to do the processing, where previously you
took the shot and (generally) left it to others:D. Welcome to a WHOLE approach in imaging:D:D

[Machiavelli]

with film a UV filter was often recommended. Digital camera sensors have a thing called a low pass filter that sits right on top of the sensor and this eliminates most UV, so UV filters that attach to the front of the lens basically serve no purpose on a digital camera.

My Nikon D5500 doesn't have a LPF - does that mean I would benefit from a UV filter?

M.

[William W]

with film a UV filter was often recommended. Digital camera sensors have a thing called a low pass filter that sits right on top of the sensor and this eliminates most UV, so UV filters that attach to the front of the lens basically serve no purpose on a digital camera.
And:

My Nikon D5500 doesn't have a LPF - does that mean I would benefit from a UV filter?

Good question.

I think the answer is: probably some benefit in some shooting scenarios. Especially when shooting in bright sunlight. In this case you’d probably get UV reduction (though the Nikon Sensor probably is not as sensitive to UV as some film emulsions were/are) and also there’d probably be a benefit in reducing some Chromatic Aberration. Thought it might be difficult to ever see a difference in most other shooting scenarios.

I think Nikon’s logic to omit the OLPF in those models, (the 5300 is the same I think), was to get greater/better resolution.

Omitting the OLPF would, I think, result in a more noticeable and prevalent issue being: Moiré Patterning.

A common occurrence when shooting Portraiture and the Subject(s) is/are wearing silk or other very fine sheen-like fabric or a very tight weave pattern on a their garment.

Moiré Patterning can be (usually is) hideously difficult to remove in Post Production.

Example of Moiré Patterning is here (the oval/circular patterns formed on the footpath’s metal grates):

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/16524354-md.jpg
“(Not so) Smart Car” - Paris 2012

WW

Image ©AJ Group Pty Ltd Aust 1996~2015, WMW 1965~1996

[ameerat42]

(Aside: I must say, WW. You'd really need PP skills to get out of that bind!:D)

[Steve Axford]

No problem. In Paris it is customary to park with no brake on, so others can move your car if needed. You just push the other cars out of the way. Most cars in Paris seem to have dents - I wonder why?

[William W]

. . . In Paris it is customary to park with no brake on . . .

Ta.

I didn't know that.

WW

[arthurking83]

...... Digital camera sensors have a thing called a low pass filter that sits right on top of the sensor and this eliminates most UV, so UV filters that attach to the front of the lens basically serve no purpose on a digital camera. .....

The filter isn't actually just one filter.
It's a stack of filters one on top of the other.


My Nikon D5500 doesn't have a LPF - does that mean I would benefit from a UV filter?

M.

So no! no benefit other than that already mentioned where in very severe conditions the added protection could be handy.

But in terms of UV light through the lens to the sensor and hence on your images, the benefit of a UV filter will be close enough to zero to not make a difference.