Quality - But In Prespective

[Snooks]

We were thinking about putting a polarizing filter onto the camera to not only protect the lens, but for the obvious benefits involving glare and also the colour enhancement.

When "luxury" funds are limited, it is very hard to justify spending $40-$50 on a PL when we can see some that look very good, on Ebay, for only $6. But commonsense tells you the quality is not there.

For our basic level of learning and taking photos, would we actually be able to see any difference in a photo taken using a cheap PL compared to the more expensive brands? Obviously we aren't entering major comps and stuff like that but we do still want to take a good image and it would really annoy me if we took a great photo that got spoilt by using a crap lens.

Are photos taken with cheap lens filters that obvious?

[nardes]

Apart from the optical qualities of the filter, I would look at the mechanical ones too.

I have experienced low cost filters that bind on the camera lens and are difficult to take off once fitted. This might be due to the low cost unit not allowing for the extra thickness added by the coating or anodising process, hence the threads may jam.

Cheers

Dennis

[ricktas]

You may only really need to 'protect' your lens in two situations I can think of. Water (sea spray) and sand (deserts or beaches). Lenses do not really need protection in other circumstances. The coating on the front element of the lens does a damn good job on its own. However, even putting a filter on for the above scenarios, only protects the from element, not the entire lens and camera. It has to be remembered that everything/anything you add to the front of a lens affects image quality (IQ). As nardes; has stated, the cheaper the thing you add, the more likelihood of increased image degradation. What do we mean by this.. well blurriness is probably the biggest one. Low price usually means lower quality glass or plastic in the filter, and thus your photos end up not being as sharp as they could be.

A polariser is a good investment, especially if you like shooting landscapes. But it also has its limitations. Polarisers work based on angle to the sun, so if you do not set-it up properly each time, you can end up with a graduated effect from one side of your photo to the other. So if you do buy a polariser, even if it mean saving the pennies up for a couple more months, get a good quality, brand name one, not a cheappie, and then learn how to use it.

[Tannin]

putting a polarizing filter onto the camera to not only protect the lens A polarising filter is not for protecting your lens. It is for selectively reducing the light level in parts of the picture under particular circumstances. It's a specialised item and you use it for ... oh .... maybe 10% of landscape shots and pretty much zero percent of every other kind of shot. A protective filter is called "clear", "skylight", or "UV". (There are very slight differences between those three which need not concern us here. Just think of them as clear.) The sort of polarising filter that works on digital cameras is callled a "circular polarising filter" or CPL. Lots of useful info on them in this thread: http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?58074-What-brand-of-Circular-Polarising-filter-is-best

obvious benefits involving glare and also the colour enhancement. The benefits of a CPL are real, but restricted to very specific circumstances. Remember also that you usually buy them in screw-on style, and you need one for each lens, unless you happen to have two or more lenses with the same filter diamater. (There is another way of mounting them, done by various companies, but best-known as the Cokin system. Look it up if you are interested.)

it is very hard to justify spending $40-$50 on a PL when we can see some that look very good, on Ebay, for only $6. But commonsense tells you the quality is not there. Cheap filters produce horrible results. We are not talking subtle differences only an expert eye can detect here, we are talking downright horrible. Better to escape by gnawing your own leg off than it is to own a cheap Ebay filter.

For our basic level of learning and taking photos, would we actually be able to see any difference in a photo taken using a cheap PL compared to the more expensive brands?

Yes.

Are photos taken with cheap lens filters that obvious?

Yes.

If you want to buy some glass, the thing to get is a longer lens. 24mm is fine at what it does, but something longer than that would be very, very handy.

[Snooks]

Cool. So I think we can agree that unless we are buying reasonable quality, it is not worth buying. I thought that the cheapies would be too good to be true and that in itself should (and did) ring warning bells.

I think at the moment we shall just write down a shopping list for the future and as we build up the kitty, then decide what we want, or need, because as Tannin mentioned, we can already see that a longer lens would be of great benefit.

So yep. Think we will build the kitty for a few months before looking at options.

Thanks one and all :)

[MattNQ]

When "luxury" funds are limited, it is very hard to justify spending $40-$50 on a PL when we can see some that look very good, on Ebay, for only $6. But commonsense tells you the quality is not there.



Unfortunately, a $50 polariser is still a cheap one and may not be great. It pays to do a bit of research. Some of the lower end better brands like Hoya and Cokin do both a premium version and a cheaper version that is nicer on the wallet. I had one of the above brand's cheaper model (can't remember which one) and got good results.
Camera House do have their own generic brand, but I wasn't overly happy with the quality for the money.
A good CPL can enhance your photos, so definitely worth getting right.

Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk

[Nick Cliff]

Lenstip.com have an interesting ongoing review of the major CPL filters that I reference occasionally.
Digital camera warehouse sometimes have sales of good brand CPL filters at very fair prices if you are patient.

cheers Nick

[Hawthy]

Filters (and their quality) used to be important before digital photography because your opportunities to manipulate a photo after taking it were very limited - especially if you shot in colour and relied on a laboratory to develop and print your photos. If a cheap filter gave your photo an unwanted colour cast you were stuck with it.

In these digital days you can do away with quite a few filters. Graduated filters can be replaced by bracketing your photos and blending them in photoshop or even just shooting in raw. There are any number of special effect filters that you can replicate using photoshop.

Neutral density filters are difficult to replace because they are reduce the amount of light coming in and allow you to shoot at a longer shutter speed to capture waterfalls, nice smooth seas, etc.

A Circular Polarising Filter is impossible to replicate in post-processing. It removes reflections and enhances the sky colour. It's relatively easy to create reflections using photoshop but I don't think that you can remove then easily or at all. Think of a CPL as polaroid sunglasses for your camera. Some polaroid sunglasses are better than others but they all do the same thing - cut down on reflections and make the sky look nice. Some sunglasses have a blue tint and some have a red or grey tint. Same with CPL's. Good ones will have a nicer cast than cheap ones but they still remove reflections and make the sky more intense.

I have bought cheap CPL's and not had a problem with them because I shoot in raw and can remove any unwanted colour cast using the Camera Raw Filter in photoshop. I am looking at my cheap CPL and a more expensive one that I bought and, other than the tint, the only real difference is that the expensive one is about 1/3rd thinner. If it's a fine day tomorrow I will take some photos and compare the results.

I do understand that if you screw a cheap filter on too tight that they could be difficult to remove because they are made of softer / poorer quality metal. They don't need to be on tight so just don't get heavy-handed.

My two cents, spend the $6 on a cheap Ebay filter and have a play around. You won't use it all the time but they are very useful for landscapes (particularly those with water) and are really useful if you have any interest in waterfalls because they cut down the amount of light just enough to get that silky water effect. Don't worry about buying a UV filter. Waste of space and money, in my opinion.

[Geoff79]

I’m glad to see Hawthy’s reply as I didn’t want to be the only one, but I’ve only ever really used cheap CPL filters too - with maybe a single exception? Can’t remember what my current wife-angle one is worth; maybe around $30? - when I need them. And as per Rick’s post, it’s kind of up to you as the user how effective it is. As I discovered after about a year of “using” one, you do definitely need to learn how to use them, because they can completely destroy a photo - $6 one, or $50 one - if you don’t use it correctly. Or be completely ineffective, if you don’t know how to use it.

Landscapes in certain light with the sun in certain positions really struggle to work at all, regardless of filter quality? Or is that just a sign of the poor ones I use? ;)

Anyway, as mentioned, they don’t really have that much use and you definitely wouldn’t want to keep them on your camera for every photo you take. For waterfalls, imo, they are absolutely 100% essential. And likewise, landscape shots with a bit of glare and water; they also come in handy. And I do love the results they give along the coast in the middle of the day. As noted, like looking through sunglasses and getting that real tropical feel.

But yeah, again, it’s all useless until you get a good feel for them, and even then, in strong light where you can’t really accurately assess your photo on the back of the camera, they can throw up a nasty surprise or two when you load the photos onto the PC. :(

[Hawthy]

This might be the beginnings of a new thread...Cheapskate Accessories. :lol:

[Snooks]

This might be the beginnings of a new thread...Cheapskate Accessories. :lol:

LOL. Some very interesting comments and opinion, thank you.

[Nick Cliff]

Would it be worthwhile trying to source a good second hand CPL to see if it would suit your purposes.
Some photographers need the newer versions with the latest nano coatings for easier cleaning qualities and performance I gather,

cheers Nick

[Hawthy]

I did the experiment! Here are three shots taken today using no filter, a cheap Ebay $5 CPL filter and a $60 CPL bought from a camera store. Each was shot using Aperture mode at f/11. The processing for each was identical:

* Image >> Auto Tone
* image >> Auto Contrast
* Image >> Auto Colour
* Image >> Adjustments >> Curves >> Auto
* Create Duplicate Layer >> Filters >> Other >> High Pass >>2 pixels >> Layer Blending Overlay

(I don't usually shoot jpeg so ai wanted to keep processing as simple as possible).

In order these are: No Filter, $5 Filter and $60 Filter.

137217

137216

137218


Work commitments meant that I had to take these in the middle of the day so the polarising effect is not as great as it might have been when the sun was at a more side on angle rather than quite high. I mainly wanted to see if either filter threw a noticeable cast on the photo.

Arguably, the more expensive filter looks a bit nicer and is more effective as a polariser but for just $5 the Ebay filter works out ok. I looked at them zoomed in to 100% and 200% and can't see any nasty artefacts. Happy to post these if people want to see them. I think that both filters put some purple fringing in the trees. If you shot in raw you should be able to remove that.

My thoughts, if you are an amateur and on a tight budget the cheap CPL could be the way to go.

[Hawthy]

Actually, the order is no filter, expensive filter, cheap filter. Sorry.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ameerat42]

...I had to take these in the middle of the day so the polarising effect is not as great as it might have been when the sun was at a more side on angle rather than quite high...

In fact, Hawthy, it was about the best time to take the shots because your sky is about 90° from the position of the sun, the zone of maximum sky
polarisation. Have a look here. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizing_filter_(photography)) Something else must have been going on.

[Hawthy]

Well, it could also be the elevated shooting position. Ideally, I should have been on Lanikai Beach on Oahu, late afternoon, cocktail in hand. Sometimes life just deals what it deals.

[Snooks]

Well, it could also be the elevated shooting position. Ideally, I should have been on Lanikai Beach on Oahu, late afternoon, cocktail in hand. Sometimes life just deals what it deals.

Hi Hawthy,

Somehow I missed this post. (I think I forgot to subscribe).

Well I could see a bit of difference in the colors but not any real difference in the quality, as far as I can tell. Though I do think that it is like a pair of Polaroid Sunnies, in that you will get what you pay for. I certainly would not buy a $4 pair in a BP Petrol Station but I wont be paying $500 for the latest Oakleys.

I appreciate the time you spent in taking the photos and although you can't see much difference in those ones, the photos at beaches, or ones that I have seen of cars, people fishing in a stream or kids playing in a paddling pool..... they all seem to benefit immensely by using a CPL.

So it appears that circumstances and environment will certainly denote how important the CPL will be and how much effect it can have on the finished product.

Cheers Mate:)

[Tannin]

A $60 filter is a cheap one. Good ones are around three times that price.

(There is a really interesting set of tests of them somewhere on the Lens Rentals blog. Worth hunting up. Some expensive ones are a bit ordinary, some mid-price ones are excellent. It's a minefield out there!)

[ameerat42]

OK, time to re-gress... - to the word "Perspective" in your title.
I haven't used a polarising filter since film days. Phew! The main
reason has been - I haven't felt the need for one, and even then
it was sparing.

Now if you think that's heresy, what about this...?

I bet there are a lot of people like that.:nod:

Exegesis has been based on the following fundamental questions:
Is there a preponderance of pesky reflections that could be minimised?
Is there such a thing as universal "glare"?
Are the daily colours in life so dull as to need "enhancing"?
Does a polariser provide a saving fix for all photos?
Was Rome built in a day? (Woops!)

Don't forget the basic science:
Not all light is polarised, so the main use of a polariser to analyse
the light will be lost. It will only act as a density filter, likely unwanted
at the time. For instance, a polariser will not do much for bright reflected
bright sunlight on choppy water. It does help for other reflected
light off smoother water, cutting down on the polarised reflections to show
beneath the surface.

Anyway, good luck in your quest, and where it has been said to try for a cheaper
one first - sometimes it's useful to give vent to urges at the time - I agree.

[Snooks]

A $60 filter is a cheap one. Good ones are around three times that price.

OMG. I just looked at the prices in some major online Camera Shops and some went up to HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of dollars. :(


Don't forget the basic science:
Not all light is polarised, so the main use of a polariser to analyse
the light will be lost. It will only act as a density filter, likely unwanted
at the time. For instance, a polariser will not do much for bright reflected
bright sunlight on choppy water. It does help for other reflected
light off smoother water, cutting down on the polarised reflections to show
beneath the surface.

Anyway, good luck in your quest, and where it has been said to try for a cheaper
one first - sometimes it's useful to give vent to urges at the time - I agree.

Perhaps I had better ensure that what I am looking for, is something that the filter can actually provide. I just like looking into the water, seeing the darker blue skys and the greener grass. I like seeing into the car rather than the windscreen reflection shining back......... Says the man who has yet to take a photo of anything but a flower (RAFLMAO)


Was Rome built in a day? (Woops!)
It should be noted that I was not the Supervisor on that project :angel6::2angel:

[Geoff79]

OK, time to re-gress... - to the word "Perspective" in your title.
I haven't used a polarising filter since film days. Phew! The main
reason has been - I haven't felt the need for one, and even then
it was sparing.

Now if you think that's heresy, what about this...?

I bet there are a lot of people like that.:nod:

Exegesis has been based on the following fundamental questions:
Is there a preponderance of pesky reflections that could be minimised?
Is there such a thing as universal "glare"?
Are the daily colours in life so dull as to need "enhancing"?
Does a polariser provide a saving fix for all photos?
Was Rome built in a day? (Woops!)

Don't forget the basic science:
Not all light is polarised, so the main use of a polariser to analyse
the light will be lost. It will only act as a density filter, likely unwanted
at the time. For instance, a polariser will not do much for bright reflected
bright sunlight on choppy water. It does help for other reflected
light off smoother water, cutting down on the polarised reflections to show
beneath the surface.

Anyway, good luck in your quest, and where it has been said to try for a cheaper
one first - sometimes it's useful to give vent to urges at the time - I agree.

Out of curiosity, Am, do you ever photograph waterfalls? I could easily do without a CPL filter for every photo I take, and I do... except waterfalls.

Way back before I ever knew what a CPL filter was, I never used one. But most of those photos are now write offs. I still clearly remember the thread I posted here (probably about 8 years ago now) where I posted some Blue Mountain waterfall shots and Dylan alerted me to the CPL filter and that they needed to be operated to be effective. I think I had one on my camera by that point, but I didn’t know you had to play around with it for it to be effective. :)

Anyway, point being, even shooting waterfalls this weekend, after some rain, I always take a shot or two where I forget to re-adjust the CPL filter, and they’re useless. Quick adjustment and I’m back in business. :)

Anyway, just curious if you shoot waterfalls without a filter, or if it’s just not your jam. ;)

[ameerat42]

Not really. I have hardly shot any waterfalls - that I can remember - in a good few decades.

Se if you can get the nub of that advice, Geoff, because Dylan knows his way about good landscapes.

There might be some specific point that...:confused013

[Tannin]

I use a CPL frequently, but it has never occurred to me that it might be useful on a waterfall. Why? What do you do with it? A tutorial would be an education for me, Geoff, and perhaps for other members too.

[Hawthy]

I use a CPL frequently, but it has never occurred to me that it might be useful on a waterfall. Why? What do you do with it? A tutorial would be an education for me, Geoff, and perhaps for other members too.

A CPL is great for a waterfall because it cuts down on the amount of light coming in so you can reduce your shutter speed by about 2 stops, which will assist in achieving that nice silky water effect. Given that many waterfall photos also incorporate the water flowing in a stream after it has fallen, a CPL reduces reflections from the stream and allows you to photograph submerged rocks, etc. I think that a CPL is the first choice for filters for waterfalls.

[Tannin]

Thanks Andrew, that's useful. But you may need to read the post at the start of this thread: http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?153125-Forgive-me-Father-for-I-have-sinned :)

[Snooks]

The silky, smooth, sort of "Godly" or Spiritual appearance of the water is what makes the waterfall image, in my opinion.

It gives an Angelic sort of unreal, ghostly effect like an "Apparition" would give.

Each to his own but that is the nicest point of the photo. :)

[ameerat42]

--But it's got nuffin to do with CPLs:cool:

It leads me to suspect that the main thing you need to photograph a waterfall, besides a camera, is a
waterfall:p

[Snooks]

--But it's got nuffin to do with CPLs:cool:

It leads me to suspect that the main thing you need to photograph a waterfall, besides a camera, is a
waterfall:p

RAFLMAO @ Ameerat42

Well it's been raining on and off for days here so tomorrow I'm going to pop up to the well known Knapsack Gully cause there should be some water flowing there now. I'm gonna find me a dang good waterfall and :tog: the silky smoothness of the water.

But for now it's bed time, so G'Night all :2tranq2:

[ricktas]

Here is an old thread, I wrote many moons ago, about filters, types, use etc. : http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?110857-Filters-What-Why-When-Which Which may be useful for general information about filters.

[arthurking83]

Hopefully some of my thoughts on CPL filters will help too:

Contrary to Tannins' comments, CPLs are handier in more situations than most folks think of.
The most common usage is for landscapes, but this is barely 1/2 a percent of what they actually do to a scene.

I use them more than not during the day, very rarely at night.

$60 for some CPL filters is actually quite expensive!
Size is the major factor here.
A 77mm filter of the same quality as a 52mm version is goign to cost more than 2x the price.
So; $60 for a 77mm CPL is 'cheapo', whereas for a 52mm CPL is over-inflated!

Your first decision is not whether you want one or not, it's going to be for which lens you want it for.(otherwise you may want one for each lens you have).
The limiting factor is the thread size of the filter.
Can't remember the lenses you have but you have the 18-55 kit lens listed as one lens, and I remember you had a prime lens with an issue a while back(so I'm assuming you have multiple lenses!)

Take lens cap off, look on the inside of the lens cap and note the size in millimeters.

I'm pretty sure that the 18-55 lens is 52mm, so will be marked as such inside the lens cap.
This is your thread size for that lens. All other lenses need to be checked.

do a search for "Marumi polariser CPL 52mm" on ebay you should find many sources for less than $30.

You can also find Hoyas in that price range too, but they fall apart on 'ya after a few mount/remove cycles tho. Avoid!

best value for money CPLs in the only test data I could locate anywhere.
There are 'better' filters, but they cost many times more, and their additional 0.01% performance advantage is not worth the expense.

[Tannin]

I am assuming a standard 77mm filter, Arthur. Yes indeed, small ones are cheaper, but you have to buy about four of them.

Most good quality zoom lenses have a 77mm filter thread. For example, amongst the Canons, 100-400, 24-70/4, 16-35/4, 24-105, 10-22, 400/5.6, 300/4, 85/1.4, 28-300, and 70-200/2.8. A 77mm filter thread is a significant plus when I'm thinking about buying a lens, and I go out of my way to avoid buying lenses which have some other, less common size. Not only do you have to buy different filters for them (expensive), you have to cart the damn things around, and you never have the one you want when you need it. Or you can use step-down rings, which are a pain. Or you can use square filter system (e.g. Cokin), but you still have to mess about with step-up rings for the filter holder mount.

Obviously, some lenses require something bigger (e.g., 24-70/2.8, 16-35/2.8) and others are quite a lot smaller so they use a motley assortment of other sizes, but with two or three standard zooms (my three are 16-35/4, 24-105/4, and 100-400) a single filter can fit the whole lot. This is a great advantage. In practice, I have two, an old Hoya which was quite expensive 15 years ago, and a B&W which cost twice as much and is five times better because it's better glass and - very important! - it has a brass thread. Brass treads don't bind on the camera and you can always get them off without tools. I actually travel with a very large pair of multi-grips hidden away under the floor of the car alongside the spare tyre specifically for getting stuck filters off. I don't need it very often, but when when you need it you really do need it, and Mr Murphy makes sure that it only ever happens when you are hundreds of miles away from anywhere. (An alternative is one of those rubber-belt-with-handle things your granny uses to open jam jars.)

(Snooks, feel free to ignore this post. We are miles off your original topic now.)

[Snooks]

(Snooks, feel free to ignore this post. We are miles off your original topic now.)

You may be off topic but the information is still interesting, worth reading and may teach my that I need a pair of multi-grips in the car, just in case :)

[arthurking83]

Tannin makes good points re choosing lenses with certain physical aspects.

I reckon I have about 10 CPL filters, some of which I now no have a lens for(I think).

Of the lot of them is one cheap Hoya which falls apart when trying to rotate it.
Remember that a CPL filter has two parts to it's build, the static section that screws onto the lens, and then a separate front piece that you rotate to match the angle of the light.
It's this rotating section piece that always falls off as the retaining ring is very weak.

On a Nikon camera, I've yet to find any lenses that will vignette easily, so if you see any CPL filters that say slim, or ultra slim design, I'd say avoid(from my experience), they can be hard to remove sometimes.
Just a regular CPL with a regular front thread on it, this way you fit to lens, and replace cap onto filter when moving around but still in photography mode.
When storing camera lens for a long time(ie. between shoots) .. it may be best to remove filter and store it in it's case.
I've forgotten to remove a filter on some lenses, and they become stuck(on the lens) and CPLs(due to the rotating front bezel) can be harder to remove than a regular filter(ie. like a grad filter), as it rotates and it feels like you're taking it off, but it's not coming off.
But in saying that, I do remember that this was more of an issue if the lens(body) had a rubberised front section that the filter 'stuck' onto when seated in it's thread.

ps. my recommendation of Marumi, wasn't as exact as it could have been. More specifically, look for the Marumi DHG version, not the non DHG or 'DHG Super'

The test I read on the net was CPL comparisons, basically all name brands, it was Polish(but in English), and I remember of the top 10 filters(or of 20 or so) Marumi got 5 spots, failing with the cheapest non DHG version(I think).

In saying that tho, I did a quick search and found digitalcamerawarehouse have a relatively cheap Kenko CPL in 52mm thread size for a semi reasonable $39. Local retailer, so 'you know what you're going to get'.

This can be important, and as the saying goes, you usually get what you pay for.

I have no doubt that sometimes you get lucky and the $5 ebay special CPL may turn out to be usable, but I think those cases are probably more rare than common!

I also bought a cheapo polariser off ebay, but I paid $25 for it.
The reason this one was considered cheap was that it's a rather large 115mm filter.
In terms of polarising, each step up in filter size almost doubles it's price, compared to the filter size below it.

From my research, a 125mm filter(if you could actually get one, you can get them, but very hard to find) would ideally cost in the low to mid $1000's price range, so to see one for a measly $25 .. I simply couldn't resist.
Knowing full well I was going to be a kaleidoscope quality filter, I kind'a hoped for something usable. Of course it ended up being worse in optical quality than the bottom of a plastic drink bottle, but it was expected.
But the actual frame, ie. all non glass parts, are supremely well made.

[Hawthy]

Thanks Andrew, that's useful. But you may need to read the post at the start of this thread: http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?153125-Forgive-me-Father-for-I-have-sinned :)
Yes, if it is overcast or dark enough, you can get that silky look without using any filter. I still think that a CPL would have helped that shot. Here is one of Dylan and Marianne Toh's images where they used just a CPL and stacked multiple images.

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?155029-Rocky-Creek-Canyon&highlight=dylan

Here is a link to another photographer who uses CPLs on all of their waterfall shots to reduce glare and saturate the plants: http://www.australianphotography.com/photo-tips/photo-tip-of-the-week-take-better-waterfall-shots

I know that you take pride in producing images with minimal out of camera processing and outside assistance. But can't the rest of us just use a CPL if we want to? Please?

[Tannin]

But I hate the "silky look"! :(

And of course you are allowed to do horrible things to pictures if you want to. No law against it. And I'm allowed to laugh and point. :)

Jibes aside, I will read that link with interest. I am of course pure of mind and do not sin. But sometimes I look at the pictures.

[Hawthy]

Well...the "silky look" provided by using filters to slow the shutter speed is pretty well accepted these days. I like the additional range allowed to expose shadows, etc.

Of course, if you prefer to show choppy, bright, and contrasty images of waterfalls, that is your artistic choice.:)

[Tannin]

I just like water to look like water, Andrew.

When you look at a waterfall, you see splashes and drops of water, not milky abstract expressionist sculptures.

I am, however, bang alongside the idea of cutting down on reflections (the camera sees them far more than the eye does, after all, so toning that down increases realism) and open to doing things with colour and contrast, provided that it doesn't offend the eye with over-exaggerated colours or unrealistic water.

My eye, on the other hand, does not object in the slightest to shallow depth of field for (e.g.) portraits. One could argue that this is equally unrealistic. Or one could claim (as I do) that it simply mimics the mental editing our brains perform when we are looking at a person against a busy background, and helps make up for the fact that pictures are two-dimensional where, in real life, our binocular vision makes foreground objects stand out far more than they do in pictures unless the background is muted in some way (such as by blurring).

Please note that I am learning interesting things from this discussion: one learns little talking over stuff where everyone agrees. As you'd expect, I didn't care for most of the waterfalls in that link you provided; however the first one is quite delightful. Yes, the water is a bit milky, but it's subtle enough not to offend the eye and makes a truly lovely scene.

[Snooks]

Please note that I am learning interesting things from this discussion: one learns little talking over stuff where everyone agrees. As you'd expect, I didn't care for most of the waterfalls in that link you provided; however the first one is quite delightful. Yes, the water is a bit milky, but it's subtle enough not to offend the eye and makes a truly lovely scene.

That's why I love this forum Tannin :)

We even allow you to have your incorrect opinion :lol::nod:

- - - Updated - - -

But it is becoming obvious that each person does have their own likes and dislikes and that many people can see the same image, yet achieve different levels of satisfaction or dissatisfaction.

I guess it really does get down to what you do or do not like and what you personally see, or do not see in the photo. Many people have made comments in the CC section on the many hundreds of photos that I have been looking over and I swear that I would have noticed the point that they have mentioned, on less than 5% of occasions.

So with experience comes an eye for detail and one that needs to be learnt. It appears that at first, looking at photos technically is not something that I do naturally. I guess it will come in time :)

[ameerat42]

Ta Hawthy/Very nice waterfalls by DTOH/if you like them like that (Tannin)/...

I still reckon ya need a waterfall first :cool:

[arthurking83]

Well...the "silky look" provided by using filters to slow the shutter speed is pretty well accepted these days. I like the additional range allowed to expose shadows, etc.

.....

The way this one has been worded is that the longer shutter time allows the "additional range" to expose shadows.

Of course this is not correct, as shutter speed has nothing to do with tonal range.

I'm assuming you meant the use of the polariser to achieve the tonal range response.

On the few times I've shot waterfalls or flowing water and wanted the silky look, my first choice is to use the lowest ISO(even if that meant non native Lo values) and smaller aperture up to a value that won't obviously affect sharpness too much.
That aperture value varies with each lens, some being f/16(too fast anyhow in bright light), some lenses(more commonly) f/22 .. and on the Nikon 105VR that's about f/32! 105VR is still good at about f/29 or so(can't remember the exact value between f/22 and f/29 that it also has).

My preference is always to not use filters if I can avoid it. Filters present their own issues.


....
I guess it really does get down to what you do or do not like and what you personally see, or do not see in the photo. Many people have made comments in the CC section on the many hundreds of photos that I have been looking over and I swear that I would have noticed the point that they have mentioned, on less than 5% of occasions.

So with experience comes an eye for detail and one that needs to be learnt. It appears that at first, looking at photos technically is not something that I do naturally. I guess it will come in time :)

You've just realised probably the most important point to photography as a serious hobby.
Some folks just do it for the ability to capture moments in time to record that moment .. ie. don't really care for the artistic value, just want to capture the moment.
I think in some way we all probably do that(I know I do). I have many thousands of images not worth sharing because all they are, are simply recorded points in time.

Mostly tho, I prefer to shoot any image for it's artistic point.
I have no preference for silky water either way, I've done both(frozen and flowing)... I think for me, it's a matter of what's appropriate for the setting.

But, to comment on this quote, I think it's an important part of your own sense of self awareness(in what you want from photography) to comment on other images as CC.
That is, express your opinion on what you like and what it was you don't like in another photo. it's not going to be right or wrong, just your own point of view. It may also help the person that shot the image with 'seeing' another way to see it too.
I think the thing is thaqt, you do this often enough, you basically 'train' yourself to see something in a scene that you want to capture, even before you turn the camera on! It becomes a subconscious thing.

[Geoff79]

I use a CPL frequently, but it has never occurred to me that it might be useful on a waterfall. Why? What do you do with it? A tutorial would be an education for me, Geoff, and perhaps for other members too.

Wow did I miss this one. Sorry folk, don’t see the forum much on the weekends but just so as not to appear rude, I’ll happily answer this. It has certainly been covered by many replies since, but for me it is 100% about the harsh glare removal.

If you have a local waterfall nearby, with a nice tall rock face, just head down there, stand before it, put your eye to the viewfinder and slowly turn your CPL filter around. The differences you’ll see are anything but minor. As noted above too, it’s not only the surface of the rocks, but also often the body of water beneath the waterfall is home to some really harsh glare too. Makes a huge difference.

Regardless of your preferred shutter speed, the effect on the harsh glare is why I use CPL filters.

And just on the shutter speed, I realised on the weekend that it’s far more difficult to get a shot of a water in real time as opposed to getting that silky feel.

Assuming the conditions are favourable (quite overcast) and you want a good DOF (around f/11 to f/13 for me) and good picture quality (low ISO) you’re kind of stuck with a slower shutter speed whether you like it or not.

I guess you have to weigh up if using a shallower DOF and/or boosting your ISO up to try and achieve a more realistic water movement in your shot - is that going to benefit your photograph, or take more from it than what silky water might?

I do quite like the silky water look, thankfully, but I don’t like it too silky and often wish to freeze it a little more than I do. For waterfalls I like to sit around f/13 and ISO 100. This weekend, however, I found myself around f/10 and ISO 200, just to try and freeze it a little more. Even tried a couple at f/6.3. I’ll see the results in a few months when I climb this PP backlog mountain. :(