Filters

[Bete]

I just bought a high definition video camcorder and I was told by the merchant to protect the lens by using a nuetral density filter or another type of filter of my choice on it. This may be more of a sales pitch.

I think the idea here is that if the camera takes a shock of any kind to the lens, the filter takes the blow and not the lens. I can see some truth to this helping out. I do have a 4 year insurance plan on the camera; so, I'm not sure I should care about doing this or not.

Also, I'm not sure I want to do this; because, I don't anticipate using the camera that much and I'm careful with it and I'm not sure how a filter will affect my video.

I'm sure you can use the same logic about a filter for a digital camera, too.

Are there any opinions out there on this matter?

[ukcatfan]

If he told you to put a neutral density filter on it, then he has no idea what he is even talking about. Those are used to reduce the amount of light going in, to force a slow shutter speed. I cannot think of a time that would ever be desired on a video camera.

UV filters are what are normally used for protection. I would not use one because any filter is going to degrade the quality of the image. Also, if you have the extended warranty that covers damage, who cares.

Kevin

[MarkBarbieri]

I agree with Kevin that an ND filter is definitely the wrong option for lens protection. An ND filter can be useful in allowing you to use a wider aperture in bright light with a low shutter speed, but it's not for everyday use.

The argument over whether to use a UV filter (essentially a clear piece of glass) or not is a long and sometimes bitter one. My view is that, provided that you buy a good one, it's not a big deal either way.

In most situations, you'll won't be able to detect any difference in the appearance between a shot taken with or without a UV filter. It won't be less sharp, lower in contrast, etc. The image degredation that are likely to see comes from two possible sources. First, because it sits in front of your lens, it increases the possibility of stray light hitting it and getting into your camera, thus washing out your shot. Second, because it adds a flat surface to your optical path, it increases the chance that bright lights in your photograph will reflect on it giving you flare problems. So in most cases it won't make an optical difference but in a few cases it will significantly degrade the image quality. You can mitigate those problems by using a lens hood to protect from stray light and using a multi-coated filter to reduce the chances of reflections.

Assuming that you always use a lens hood on your camera and video camera, scratching or breaking your front lens element is a pretty low risk. It happens, but it's not very common. In all my years of photography and video, I've never scratched a filter or front lens element in a significant way and I've taken cameras in all sorts of insane places and in sorts of conditions. I've seen other posters that you shattered UV filters in falls. Whether the front lens element (presumably much stronger than a UV filter) would have been harmed without the filter is not determinable.

So the trade-off as I see it is between spending a lot of money on a good UV filter to provide a small measure of protection against lens scratches and adding a small risk of optical problems or saving your money and risking more scratches. My advice is to always use a lens hood on your camera and video camera, whichever choice you make. For the UV filter, you have to decide based on your risk tolerance.

[Renysmom]

Traveling to the world next week and I was wondering what you suggest as the best filter for my lens? I have both UV and Polorizer for both the lens I plan to use but am not sure which I should use for the best shots and colors.

Thanks in advance for the advise.

[ukcatfan]

Only use the UV if you think you need it for lens protection. It does nothing to the results on a digital other than making it a little less sharp and possibly introducing flare (I am assuming you are using a digital). Also, do not stack it with the polarizer.

The polarizer is best for when there are reflections off of non-metallic surfaces (i.e. glass, water, etc.) and the sky when the sun is not directly overhead. If it is say 10AM-2PM, it is likely not going to do much for the sky. Also, it will not do anything if you are in line with the sun. You need to be at angles to the sun. Also, be careful of the effect if you are using it at a very wide angle (i.e. 18mm on a DSLR lens) b/c it can make the effect inconsistent across the field of view. One last word of advice on the CP; just like the UV filter, I would keep it off unless I needed it for the shot.

If you have a lens hood, it can be very helpful at WDW for protection and keeping unwanted light out.

Kevin

[H.E. Pennypacker]

For years, I insisted on keeping a UV filter on all my lenses, mostly for pretection. Then after reading many posts here about the evils of UV filters ;), I decided to remove them all. I don't know if I just had better shooting conditions this time, or finally have my D70s tweeked just right, but the color and clarity of my last batch of shots was way better than anything I'd shot at WDW before. So I'm now a firm believer in no UV filters. I probably could have used a good circular polarizer on one or two shots, but my general opinion now is to leave those filters off.

[deletedpenguin]

I'd forget about your UV and stick with CPL (unless inside or at night). UV in my opinion, is good only for protecting your glass. I kept my CPL on virtually the entire time i was there.

[alan]

The downside of the CPL is that you lose 2 (??) stops (or EV if we're wearing Sunday clothes). Even somewhere as bright as Florida, that might be important - especially when it's raining.

Are you planning on shooting scenics at the World, or pics of family and friends enjoying themselves? If it's the latter, I'd probably suggest you leave the CPL in the hotel room.

regards,
/alan

[deletedpenguin]

True, you do lose a stop or two, depending on its setting, but nothing beats those bright blue skies. In my opinion, having a great blue sky, even on portrait photos, really makes a photo. Blown out skies really detract. CPLs also help with "out of control" reflections on glass/water. I would definitely take it off later in the afternoon/evening, after the harsh midday sun takes a backseat to the nice lighting.

[boBQuincy]

No filter
http://suzieandbob.com/wdw/everest_np_5725.jpg

Polarizer
http://suzieandbob.com/wdw/everest_cp_5726.jpg

These were taken a couple minutes apart to prove a point about using a polarizer. If you have enough light, use it (but not with a UV filter, which I never use anyway).

[deletedpenguin]

Yes, definitely use it, if light permits.

NO FILTER

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2104/2043917513_d8fe61c774.jpg

CPL FILTER

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2222/2008858171_c393adce84.jpg

[Renysmom]

Thanks for all the great info, I think I will try the CP and see what type of results I am getting. I won't use the UV filter based on everyones' suggestions here and yes I will use the lens hood as well.

I received my new lens today, the Oly 70-300 so I will be playing with that alot this weekend to practice. I can't wait to try it out at AK as well.

Thanks again

[pjacobi]

I won't use the UV filter based on everyones' suggestions here ...

I would strongly suggest a UV filter for lens protection. If you use a quality multi-coated filter, there will no noticable image degregation.

Use of a polarizer filter requires practice. The polarizer must be adjusted for each shot. If you go too far, the sky will look unnatural.


-Paul

[deletedpenguin]

If you have a lens hood on and you're not carelessly swinging your camera around, you really don't need to worry about using a UV filter for protection. It will degrade the sharpness of your photos, even if it's just a slight amount.

[AndrewWG]

Does anyone know what Cokin kit I would buy to get a nice selection of ND filters for the Canon 30D? I see on the Cokin website that I would be best suited with a "P" series kit as it would be large enough for all my lenses. I would need to buy the adapter rings for my specific lenses, but they seem to offer a kit of 3 ND filters and then they offer a DSLR kit with only one filter. Is this a gimmick? Do I NEED to buy the Canon DSLR Cokin kit, or would the regular one work just as well? I'm not sure what makes the different brands of DSLR kits different? Seems silly if you ask me but maybe the lenses from different manufacturers have different threads? I'm confused. :confused: It seems to me that with the exception of the adapter rings to fit my lens diameter, this kit would be the best for me at this time.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/387434-REG/Cokin_H250_Graduated_Neutral_Density_Filter.html

I am assuming I can buy new different "P" series filters to fit this as time goes on. Please let me know if I am missing something here. Thanks in advance.

[jann1033]

Does anyone know what Cokin kit I would buy to get a nice selection of ND filters for the Canon 30D? I see on the Cokin website that I would be best suited with a "P" series kit as it would be large enough for all my lenses. I would need to buy the adapter rings for my specific lenses, but they seem to offer a kit of 3 ND filters and then they offer a DSLR kit with only one filter. Is this a gimmick? Do I NEED to buy the Canon DSLR Cokin kit, or would the regular one work just as well? I'm not sure what makes the different brands of DSLR kits different? Seems silly if you ask me but maybe the lenses from different manufacturers have different threads? I'm confused. :confused: It seems to me that with the exception of the adapter rings to fit my lens diameter, this kit would be the best for me at this time.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/387434-REG/Cokin_H250_Graduated_Neutral_Density_Filter.html

I am assuming I can buy new different "P" series filters to fit this as time goes on. Please let me know if I am missing something here. Thanks in advance.

that is the one i was going to buy...there is a different use for the different filters...if i can find the article i read about it i'll post it. my adapter doesn't say anything about canon...it screws on like a step up ring ( don't think there is a camera brand specifity with them either) but has a wide top edge that is much wider than the normal step up ring( horizontally) so the holder fits on that...don't think a normal step up ring would work for that. you slide the hold on it and it locks in place then it has grooves where the filters slide in. you can use step up rings to use the one holder and adapter on other lenses( ie my 67-72 ring for my f4 lens ) i have the middle one since that was the one the article said get first but it was almost 30(?) for one so imo the kit is a better deal and some include an adapter ring( get the size for your largest lens) and the holder as well as the filters, i had to buy the adapter ring seperately( think it was about $10 if i remember right)

this has tons of info on them
http://www.geocities.com/COKINFILTERSYSTEM/howitworks.htm

i do see it is out of stock which was the problem i ran into, maybe be some kind of problem with the manufacture since no one had them? which is why i got mine at dodd camera and even they had to get it from another store

http://www.geocities.com/COKINFILTERSYSTEM/gradual_gray.htm

[AndrewWG]

that is the one i was going to buy...there is a different use for the different filters...if i can find the article i read about it i'll post it. my adapter doesn't say anything about canon...it screws on like a step up ring ( don't think there is a camera brand specifity with them either) but has a wide top edge that is much wider than the normal step up ring( horizontally) so the holder fits on that...don't think a normal step up ring would work for that. you slide the hold on it and it locks in place then it has grooves where the filters slide in. you can use step up rings to use the one holder and adapter on other lenses( ie my 67-72 ring for my f4 lens ) i have the middle one since that was the one the article said get first but it was almost 30(?) for one so imo the kit is a better deal and some include an adapter ring( get the size for your largest lens) and the holder as well as the filters, i had to buy the adapter ring seperately( think it was about $10 if i remember right)

Yeah, that is what I thought. I think the "P" series will fit up to larger than my largest lens. I think that would be 77mm diameter. I should be good to go with that, I would just need to make sure that i had all the adapter rings to fit my 3 lenses, I guess. Seems like a bulky system, but very useful I would imagine. I had one similar to it for my film camera, but I bought the round filters to put into it. That's why it looked a little different to me. This holds both square and round I think. My old one probably did too, I just never bought the square ones I guess. That feels like it was 100 years ago, so I just can't remember my thinking. I also only used my camera on AUTO at that point... :scared1:

Yeah, I'm not liking the OUT OF STOCK thing either.

[AndrewWG]

That may be a manufacturer thing going on there as the Ritz site has them listed as "Quantaray by Cokin filters". You can buy the individual parts from Ritz. Adapter rings, the filter holder and (I assume) the filters themselves. Might not end up being cheaper, but it is available at least.

[jann1033]

Yeah, that is what I thought. I think the "P" series will fit up to larger than my largest lens. I think that would be 77mm diameter. I should be good to go with that, I would just need to make sure that i had all the adapter rings to fit my 3 lenses, I guess. Seems like a bulky system, but very useful I would imagine. I had one similar to it for my film camera, but I bought the round filters to put into it. That's why it looked a little different to me. This holds both square and round I think. My old one probably did too, I just never bought the square ones I guess. That feels like it was 100 years ago, so I just can't remember my thinking. I also only used my camera on AUTO at that point... :scared1:

Yeah, I'm not liking the OUT OF STOCK thing either.
the only thing i was a little put off by using it was since the filter is right out there, i wonder how easy it would be to scratch it..if you had an old set, unless it's to small you might be able to get another ring...i got the "p" as well.

[AndrewWG]

the only thing i was a little put off by using it was since the filter is right out there, i wonder how easy it would be to scratch it..if you had an old set, unless it's to small you might be able to get another ring...i got the "p" as well.

My old one (If I can even find it) was pretty small. It may fit the 50mm 1.8, but I'm not sure it is worth my hassle to find it. I'm sure it is beat up by now if I did find it. For some reason it wasn't in my old camera bag so the search would be extensive! :lmao:

[pisco]

I have been looking at buying the Cokin P system as well and found this (http://cgi.ebay.com/COMBO-49-77mm-Adapter-Rings-P-holder-for-Cokin-filter_W0QQitemZ300178415436QQihZ020QQcategoryZ300 59QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem) great deal on Ebay. For $25 + Shipping you can get the holder and all of the adapters from 49-77 mm. Seems like a really good deal to me considering B&H want $13 per adapter.

[SharonLowe]

I have been looking at buying the Cokin P system as well and found this (http://cgi.ebay.com/COMBO-49-77mm-Adapter-Rings-P-holder-for-Cokin-filter_W0QQitemZ300178415436QQihZ020QQcategoryZ300 59QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem) great deal on Ebay. For $25 + Shipping you can get the holder and all of the adapters from 49-77 mm. Seems like a really good deal to me considering B&H want $13 per adapter.

Those are aftermarket adapters so you aren't getting the real deal and of course, no guarantees/warranty.

[jann1033]

if you have step up rings you only need an adapter for your biggest lens then you can use step up rings to step up to that lens adapter.imo that is easier than changing the adapter/holder for each lens..i had step up rings already for my cp filters but maybe i'm the only one...and the only problem i have encountered with the 3rd party ie cheapo rings is some of them don't fit all that well and one bent pretty easy when i dropped it ( minus the cp filter at least). not sure if the others would hold up better or not, oh and i ordered it from hongkong by mistake and waited for ever for it

[Disney*Dreamer]

I am just a beginner and really don't know a lot about anything. I bought a Sony DSC-H2, since I thought it would be a good camera for me to learn on, but still have the capability of using it as a point and shoot. Now that I am learning the manuel modes a little more, I am interested in trying out some lenses or maybe filters. I am not sure what I want or what would be good to start with. I think I would like a Polerizing filter and a UV filter for sure, but I am not sure about the lenses.

So I have 2 questions.

1) What is good to start with?
2) Can you use any brand of filter on any camera? (The reason I ask this is because when I was in Ritz camera, they only had a few uv filters and I didn't see anywhere on the packaging what camera that they were compatible with, the clerks were very busy, so I didn't wait to ask)

There is a kit on ebay that includes .45x wide angle with macro, 2x telephoto, a uv filter, flourescent filter, and polarizer filter. Now. obviously I know these are the best that can be bought, you get what you pay for, but I am wondering at $69, if this would be a good kit for me to learn with. I don't want to put a Lot into this camera, since I plan to upgrade to a dslr when I am more confident.

Thanks for any help.

[MarkBarbieri]

The UV filter won't help your pictures at all, although many people like to use them to protect their front lens element from scratches.

I would start with a polarizer. It will be very helpful in many outdoor conditions. Just be aware that it is a bit like putting a pair of sunglasses on your camera. If you are having problems because you don't have enough light, it will make those problems worse. Use it outside on bright days and you'll be fine.

As for the wide angle and telephoto, I would buy those if you find that you want to be able to take wider or more zoomed in pictures. Just be aware that at the prices you are talking about, these are likely to have a noticeable impact on picture quality.

I would ignore the flourescent lighter filter. That made sense back when people shot film, but with digital cameras, color shifts are handled by white balance (usually automatically, but you can adjust it manually as well).

[Disney*Dreamer]

Thanks for the advice, I want the uv filter to help protect my lens, so I am going to get that for sure.

I also like what I have read about the polarizer. As for the Flouescent, I know how to take care of that with the camera, so that isn't really an issue.

Wide angle and telephoto, not real sure that I would ever have any use for those, though they would probably be fun to play with. I am much more interested in stuido portrait type photography, though I enjoy natural light too.

So maybe I would be better off, if I am going to get anything else right now, getting some sort of portable lighting source. I shoot my sil's family over the weekend at their home for their Chirstmas cards, and I am going to have to reshoot it, because the lighting was terrible, and since I am new and an idiot, I forgot about ISO, and for some reason it was on 1000, so you can imagine what I got. Ran them through noiseware and they are not even usable. I hate how that distorts images, I like really good really sharp pictures, though Sister-in-law was very happy with them, I was not. The poses were great I hope I can get them again.

So any suggestions on lighting for a beginner, and portable?

[ukcatfan]

Thanks for the advice, I want the uv filter to help protect my lens, so I am going to get that for sure.

I also like what I have read about the polarizer. As for the Flouescent, I know how to take care of that with the camera, so that isn't really an issue.

Wide angle and telephoto, not real sure that I would ever have any use for those, though they would probably be fun to play with. I am much more interested in stuido portrait type photography, though I enjoy natural light too.

So maybe I would be better off, if I am going to get anything else right now, getting some sort of portable lighting source. I shoot my sil's family over the weekend at their home for their Chirstmas cards, and I am going to have to reshoot it, because the lighting was terrible, and since I am new and an idiot, I forgot about ISO, and for some reason it was on 1000, so you can imagine what I got. Ran them through noiseware and they are not even usable. I hate how that distorts images, I like really good really sharp pictures, though Sister-in-law was very happy with them, I was not. The poses were great I hope I can get them again.

So any suggestions on lighting for a beginner, and portable?

I personally believe that your money would be better spent getting a DSLR and the right lens before investing in an sort of lighting.

Kevin

[Disney*Dreamer]

I personally believe that your money would be better spent getting a DSLR and the right lens before investing in an sort of lighting.

Kevin

Yeah, pretty much what I decided last night. I am still not ready for a DSLR though, I want to wait until I am more confident in using the manuel settings. I think I am just going to get a few filters for now, and maybe a few books to read.

[fitzperry]

I'm looking at a few wide angle zooms, some of which have a rear gelatin filter slot. In fact, as far as I can tell the Sigma 15-30 and 12-24 won't accept a filter on the front. Is there a way to use a polarizer on these lenses?

[SharonLowe]

The simplest answer is no unless by some miracle they can accept a Cokin filter set, which I doubt.

[jann1033]

I'm looking at a few wide angle zooms, some of which have a rear gelatin filter slot. In fact, as far as I can tell the Sigma 15-30 and 12-24 won't accept a filter on the front. Is there a way to use a polarizer on these lenses?
there is a wide angle cokin filter holder but not sure how you would attach it-- duct tape?;) maybe check on their website( cokin) and see what kind of filters they have for rear slots.....they have lots of info on some sites and forums if you google cokin, i thought i had them marked but don't...
that is the problem ( the cp) i just asked about under my fisheye ?, the sky is exposed fine but varies in color from the left to the right depending on where the sun is and no way to attach a filter or other hood. i think someone said it would cause vignetting if you tried to use a cp with an ultra wide

[fitzperry]

Thanks for the info. I'll do a little more research into the Cokin possibility, but based on my quick review I concur that duct tape might be the only answer. :laughing: I wonder why a cp would cause vignetting on an ultra-wide angle lens. On second thought, I probably don't really want to know the technical answer. :rotfl2:

[boBQuincy]

I am not sure which camera you have but Canon's EF-S design allowed their 10-22 to have a flat front element which takes a 77mm filter. Polarizers work fine on this lens.

[fitzperry]

Thanks Bob, but I'm a Nikon gal. :cool1: I haven't seen a comparable Nikon lens, but I may be missing something. I have been focusing (pardon the pun ;)) on third-party options because it does seem I get more bang for my buck that way. If I spend $3000 on the lenses I'd like to buy right now (to say nothing of the D300 it's taken all my self-restraint not to order), I won't be able to go anywhere fun to use them next year (or the kids' college funds will suffer unfairly).

ETA: There is a Nikon 18-35 (around $450 at B&H) that takes a 77mm filter, but I was hoping to find something a little wider to complement my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and Nikon 55-200. Any other suggestions?

[Furgus]

Thanks Bob, but I'm a Nikon gal. :cool1: I haven't seen a comparable Nikon lens, but I may be missing something. I have been focusing (pardon the pun ;)) on third-party options because it does seem I get more bang for my buck that way. If I spend $3000 on the lenses I'd like to buy right now (to say nothing of the D300 it's taken all my self-restraint not to order), I won't be able to go anywhere fun to use them next year (or the kids' college funds will suffer unfairly).

ETA: There is a Nikon 18-35 (around $450 at B&H) that takes a 77mm filter, but I was hoping to find something a little wider to complement my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and Nikon 55-200. Any other suggestions?


Sigma 10-20. Awesome lens and is a 77mm front end. It is a f/4-5.6 but I use this as my primay landscape lens and don't hand hold it very much.
(BTW I am looking at the Tamron 28-75 also for my D50)

[fitzperry]

Sigma 10-20. Awesome lens and is a 77mm front end. It is a f/4-5.6 but I use this as my primay landscape lens and don't hand hold it very much.
(BTW I am looking at the Tamron 28-75 also for my D50)

I was looking at that one the other day, and I can't figure out why I started considering the other 2 Sigmas mentioned in my op. :confused3 It must have been because the 10-20 would leave me with a gap in the 20-28 range, but that doesn't seem like a big deal. I also recall noticing a few weeks ago that 2 of the 3 ribbon winners in a certain photography challenge were taken with the Sigma 10-20. It does look like a great lens.

The Tokina AT-X 124 AF PRO DX 12-24mm f/4 also seems to fare well in the reviews and takes 77mm filters.

[emmabelle]

Anybody ever use close-up lens filters on their D SLR? I've seen them on other sites and wonder if any of you have tried them?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/101154-REG/General_Brand_67CUS_67mm_Close_up_Kit_1_.html

I linked the very cheapest ones for my lens, but they range up to $83 depending on the brand. I know it will be awhile before I can buy a dedicated macro lens, I thought these might be fun in the meantime. ;)

[boBQuincy]

Yes, I have a Canon 500D close-up filter which is made to use with longer lenses. It works well, here with a 70-200:

http://www.suzieandbob.com/animals/bee_5138.jpg

This lens is a doublet and is better than most close-up filters but Canon thinks pretty highly of them too ($$$).

[emmabelle]

Beautiful picture. :thumbsup2

I saw some on Ebay for only $16.95 for a +2, +4, +8 set. Even if they stink, it's not much of an investment. ;) Maybe I'll order them.

[El Nebuloso]

My brother has used them quite successfully on his D200. I think he has a three filter set that ran about $50 or so. Sorry I can't provide photos, but I was pretty impressed with what I saw for the price.

[YesDear]

My personal opinion is that they can produce ok results, but I would rather save my money to get a decent or better macro lens. If you have the money to burn then they can be fun to play with.

I have found in over 35 years of taking pictures that the "gadet" things I bought to save money very quickly were placed to the side and then I wished I had saved my money for better things.

Just one opinion, but based from a lot of money spent over they years on camera stuff.

[MarkBarbieri]

Like Bob, I have used a Canon 500D. It's of much better quality than the single lens diopters. It's also much more expensive. Life's full of trade-offs.

Another popular option is the use of extension tubes. Having no glass, they are optically the same, so you can proudly by cheap ones without anyone disparaging the impact on your photos.

Having had close-up filters, extension tubes, and a macro lens, I can say that each has their place. The macro lens is the easiest to use. But they are relatively costly and no one makes a macro zoom lens. The close-up filters are relatively easy to use, but you have to put the filter on to shoot macro and take it off to shoot at a distance. I found the extension cubes to be a real pain to use, but they are cheap and can be used in combination with other approaches to focus even closer.

You're welcome to use my extension tubes, but you'll have to find where the @#$% that broke into my hotel room and stole them has them. That is, unless you took them. If that is the case, I want them back.

[MarkBarbieri]

Oh yeah, here's my sample shot. It doesn't have a cool bee in it like Bob's.

http://barbieri.smugmug.com/photos/3154646_fyHQx-L.jpg

[Groucho]

Are the cheapie eBay ones even glass, or just plastic?

I'd avoid the cheap ones - and once you get into the expensive ones, you might as well look as a second-hand macro lens. I have a Vivitar 55mm F2.8 macro lens that I bought for around $60 that produces terrific photos and can focus down to 1:1. It's an M42 mount (aka Pentax screw mount or universal screw mount) and most cameras have adapters to use such a lens, though most (ie, non-Pentax DSLRs) can't focus to infinity with them, but that wouldn't be a problem if you're after macro photography. So there's a complete 1:1 macro option for probably under $100 if you do well on eBay.

You may also be able to find comparable third-party macro lenses in your native camera mount for relatively cheap. I suspect that even a so-so macro lens will be a good lens with a close-up filter on it, macro lenses are by and large a very sharp bunch.

If you want to stay even cheaper, I'd lean towards the extension tubes - a pain to use, but no extra glass (or plastic) to degrade the image.

[TinksDH]

But they are relatively costly and no one makes a macro zoom lens.

Nikon came pretty close to making a zoom macro, the 70-180 f/4.5-5.6. Technically it isn't a true 1:1 macro; it only goes up to 1:1.3 at 180mm and even less magnification at 70mm. However, for all intents and purposes it is a macro, and a cult classic at that.

http://www.bythom.com/70180Macrolens.htm

[emmabelle]

You may also be able to find comparable third-party macro lenses in your native camera mount for relatively cheap. I suspect that even a so-so macro lens will be a good lens with a close-up filter on it, macro lenses are by and large a very sharp bunch.



I have a lens from my first Nikon film SLR camera that says on it macro 1:4.5 f80-205mm. I have the Nikon D40, so no focus in the camera body. Is there a way to use this lens on my camera? It fits on fine and I realize it has to be manually focused, but I can't figure out if it's possible to set the shutter speed in the camera to be the right one. :confused:

Edited to add: Never mind, I figured it out, I just didn't have the shutter speed fast enough. I think I'll bring this lens to Florida because it seems to work fairly well.

[Groucho]

I have a lens from my first Nikon film SLR camera that says on it macro 1:4.5 f80-205mm.
Well, that one's not really a "macro" lens. That's a pretty normal focus range for a zoom.

To get to be a macro, you need something closer to 1:2 (objects are half the size of real life when the image hits the sensor/film) and ideally, 1:1 (objects are the same size as real life when the image hits the sensor/film.)

With a macro of 1:4.5, your minimum focusing distance is probably a few feet... with a 1:1 macro, it's more like inches.

[emmabelle]

Well, that one's not really a "macro" lens. That's a pretty normal focus range for a zoom.

To get to be a macro, you need something closer to 1:2 (objects are half the size of real life when the image hits the sensor/film) and ideally, 1:1 (objects are the same size as real life when the image hits the sensor/film.)

With a macro of 1:4.5, your minimum focusing distance is probably a few feet... with a 1:1 macro, it's more like inches.

Actually I knew that and realized after I posted that it sounded like I wanted to use it for closeup photography, but I actually justed wanted to know if I could use it with my camera. ;) I sometimes get off on a tangent that's totally unrelated to what I originally asked, my daughter says that I have ADD. ;)

[edolyne]

I am looking to add some filters to my gear and wondering if anyone on here uses or has used the Cokin system and what their experiences have been. Thanks for the input.

[rhiansmom]

Its what I learned with and went to after I "graduated" from the series of classes I took. I love that you only have to buy one set and adapter rings to fit all your lenses. I started with a few used ones from Adorama and have been adding to my stash ever since!

[AndrewWG]

I got them but never ever use them. Why? Well, I suppose I just haven't really given them the time. The system is real easy to use and if you get the P series, it will fit most any lens with the right size adapter ring. The rings don't cost much, the filters can be expensive, but like I said, one size fits all basically. This is the advantage over the screw in filters, but the disadvantage is that it is a bit bulky of a system vs the nice compact screw ins.

[Alztybrn]

So...I am fairly new into this DSLR thing and am going to the World in June. The more I read, it looks like I am going to need some filters for my D30. Problem is...I have no idea where to begin. What type of filters should I consider? Is there someplace I can read up on different types, when to use them, how to use them ect.?
Thanks!

[MarkBarbieri]

So...I am fairly new into this DSLR thing and am going to the World in June. The more I read, it looks like I am going to need some filters for my D30. Problem is...I have no idea where to begin. What type of filters should I consider? Is there someplace I can read up on different types, when to use them, how to use them ect.?
Thanks!

D30? Sure it's not a 30D? The D30 was an incredible camera for it's time, but it's about 8 years old now. You'd probably be better off saving up for a newer camera body rather than spending money on filters.

Assuming that it's a 30D, there are only a few filters that are really useful for a DSLR.

1) A polarizing filter (makes sure its a circular, not linear, polarizer). This cuts glare, reduces reflections, and deepens blue skies. If you take pictures outdoors, I would strongly, strongly recommend one.

These others are nice to have, but not that critical.

2) A neutral density filter. This is like sunglasses for your camera. It makes everything darker. It's useful when you want a longer shutter speed that you can get with the available sunlight. You may want a few of these for different brightness levels.

3) A split neutral density filter. A filter that is part clear, part dark. You use it when part of your picture is very bright and part is in the shadows. You really should have two - one that goes from dark to light all at once and one that goes from dark to light more gradually.


That's it for me and filters. Some people like starlight filters (make bright lights into stars). Colored filters used to be popular, but it's easy to do that in Photoshop. The same is true for softening filters.

Oh wait, here's one more. You might want a close-up filter. It's like reading glasses for your camera. It allows it to focus much closer for taking pictures of little things.

[Alztybrn]

Thanks Mark...and yes it is the 30D...

[Merrywheather]

I was wondering about filters this week, myself. (Sorry to the OP, I hope I am not hijacking your thread). I am a visual learner, so which of the 3 filters mentioned in Mark's post would have been helpful in correcting the exposure of this shot (where the water in the upper half is blown out, and the scene below is dark). I am assuming that it would be the split neutral density filter, is that correct? Or would you use a different one for waterfalls, in general?
http://hh4202.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p971843272-3.jpg

I really need to get myself some filters and experiment. I only have UV filters.

[AndrewWG]

I was wondering about filters this week, myself. (Sorry to the OP, I hope I am not hijacking your thread). I am a visual learner, so which of the 3 filters mentioned in Mark's post would have been helpful in correcting the exposure of this shot (where the water in the upper half is blown out, and the scene below is dark). I am assuming that it would be the split neutral density filter, is that correct? Or would you use a different one for waterfalls, in general?
http://hh4202.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p971843272-3.jpg

I really need to get myself some filters and experiment. I only have UV filters.

I would guess the split ND filter would have worked nicely there as there is a nice clear line of overexposed vs normal exposure areas. The darker part of the split ND would have darkened the upper portion and brought it more towards the correct exposure for the whole scene.

[MarkBarbieri]

I think that a split ND would have helped. To be honest, though, often the key to a tricky lighting situation is waiting for the light to be right. In the last wildlife/landscape workshop I went to, the instructors basically said that if you go to shoot a waterfall and part of it is in sun and part is in shade, put down your camera and play in the water.

[Merrywheather]

In the last wildlife/landscape workshop I went to, the instructors basically said that if you go to shoot a waterfall and part of it is in sun and part is in shade, put down your camera and play in the water.

Ha! Well, I just about went swimming, based upon the fact that I was perched on a rock in the middle of the stream!

Thanks for the info - it's good to know. I was really struggling to capture anything that looked decent. But, then again, that's not all that unusual!:rotfl2:

[Alztybrn]

How do I know which filters I need? Which size etc....What are some of the better brands/types to buy or avoid?

[MarkBarbieri]

Most lenses (accept perhaps some p&s lenses) have threads on the front for screwing in filters. The size is usually listed somewhere on or near the front of the lens. For a DSLR, typical sizes range from about 52mm to 82mm. Lens makers often use the same size threads for several different lenses in the same price/style category. For example, Canon uses 77mm threads for their 24-70mm, 70-200mm, and 17-40mm lenses.

If your lenses (or lenses you intend to buy soon) use different size threads, buy a filter that fits on the largest lens. You can be adapter rings that let you use bigger filters and smaller lens but not the other way.

Another thing to be aware of is that you can have vignetting problems on wider lenses. On a really wide angle lens, the filter sometimes intrudes into the edges of the picture, darkening them. For this reason, they sell extremely thin polarizing filters.

There are two major types of filters. There are those that screw directly into the lens and those that slide into holders. My personal preference is for polarizers that screw directly into the lens. That lets me use my lens hood. For graduated ND filters, I prefer ones that slide into a holder. The reason is that it gives me the flexibility to adjust the split line.

In my opinion (nothing scientific and probably wrong), Cokin, Tiffen, and Canon (who really just rebadge other people's filters) make cheap filters. Hoya makes cheap filters and really good (expensive) filters. B+W makes really good filters. The biggest difference in filters isn't so much their direct optical quality but their resistance to reflections and flare.

One other filter type that I left off is the UV filter. It's basically a clear glass filter. Many people use these to protect the front of their lens. They add additional risk of flare or internal reflections but they are otherwise invisible. My personal preference is to use a lens hood and skip the UV filter, but I'm also known for being a reckless idiot. Many people swear by UV filters. Many others swear at them. It's one of those photographic religious issues with true believers always ready to condemn the heathens with the opposite view.

[0bli0]

a graduated ND filter would definitely help with the above scene. i'd probably start with a stop or so underexposure and then go from there.

[Merrywheather]

Thanks for all the great information!

[Groucho]

FWIW, on my recent trip, I didn't mount my new ND8 filter even once, and used my circular polarizer less than I thought I might have before I left. Maybe because I was switching lenses so much, I didn't feel like switching filters, too. But I did wear my filter wallet on my belt every day so they were there waiting for me. :) I also don't have a CP for the lens I probably used the most (31mm F1.8) and my second-most-common was my fisheye, which you can't put a polarizer on. I could have used one for my macro lens but my CP in that filter size is a cheapie and I didn't want to chance degrading my image. So basically, I mainly used it on my 50-135mm, and once or twice on my 28-75mm which I didn't use often. I do think it did help, when I did use it. FWIW, it's a Hoya HMC, which isn't too cheap but not to expensive, either - bought from Spotlight Camera on eBay, I've bought from them twice and had very good results both times.

I don't think you'll find much use for ND filters at Disney parks. If things are so bright that you'll need one, then chances are it's midday and very crowded, and you're trying to get a slow shutter speed so you'll probably want to use a tripod or at least monopod, which will be even more of a pain during the day than in the evening. You need to be really after the photo. Even with all the gear I have carried my past few trips, there are shots that I think would be good that I just can't be bothered to go through the effort of taking - and that's saying something. :)

I personally don't think a split will be very useful either, as you'll rarely see a clear, open horizon - most of the time, you're looking at various buildings and structures, and those'll get darkened along with the sky.

Again, just my opinions for Disney park trips only. Not applicable for non-Disney-park situations.

[fitzperry]

So dh asks me the other day if I'd like anything particular for mother's day, and I told him I want what every girl wants--a two-stop graduated neutral density filter for the wide angle lens I haven't ordered yet. I was looking at this one on B&H: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/394722-REG/Formatt_BF77SEND6G_77mm_Graduated_Neutral_Density. html

According to the specifications, it will rotate (I assume like a cp?). The comparable Tiffen says "not applicable" in that spot on the specs list. I've never used a split nd filter. How do you line it up correctly if it doesn't rotate? Am I just being dense (edited to apologize for the unintentional pun)?

Any thoughts?

[MarkBarbieri]

I don't know anything about Formatt. I will say that I have a strong personal preference for Cokin style GND filters. The Cokin style is a little plastic holder that screws onto the front of your lens. The filters are squares of filter material that you slide into the holder. Like the lens you described, you can rotate the holder. The big advantage is that you can slide the filter up and down (or left and right). No big deal for a polarizer, but for a GND, that means that you can stick the "horizon" line right where you want it.

[fitzperry]

I don't know anything about Formatt. I will say that I have a strong personal preference for Cokin style GND filters. The Cokin style is a little plastic holder that screws onto the front of your lens. The filters are squares of filter material that you slide into the holder. Like the lens you described, you can rotate the holder. The big advantage is that you can slide the filter up and down (or left and right). No big deal for a polarizer, but for a GND, that means that you can stick the "horizon" line right where you want it.

That's a good point. I like to travel as light as possible, so a simple filter seemed preferable. But I'll look at the Cokin and similar some more.

[Golf4food]

I am ready to delve into the world of filters (beyond the UV that we already have as protection more than anything) - what do you more experienced persons consider essential in the world of filters? Based on what I know so far I am leaning towards, at minimum, the following:

Circular Polarizer
Graduated ND
Color Warming

Anything else that would be good (for mostly landscapes or indoor portraits, etc.)? Brand recommendations?

[Master Mason]

All I currently have is the CP's, I have thought about ND's but haven't made the plunge yet.

Personally I wouldn't buy a colored filter, because you can do any of that in PP with digital.

The only other one that interests me at all is one of the Star Filters for long exposure night shots.

As for brand, mine are Hoya's. Remember that if you have an expensive lens and put a cheap filter in front of it, then you will have severely degraded the quality of the lens with that.

[Golf4food]

All I currently have is the CP's, I have thought about ND's but haven't made the plunge yet.

Personally I wouldn't buy a colored filter, because you can do any of that in PP with digital.

The only other one that interests me at all is one of the Star Filters for long exposure night shots.

As for brand, mine are Hoya's. Remember that if you have an expensive lens and put a cheap filter in front of it, then you will have severely degraded the quality of the lens with that.

I am thinking of the color warming filter because I take photos for my office (employee awards and such) and we have horrid florecent lighting that makes everything yellow no matter what I do to the white balance, other settings, or do in photoshop. I am thinking that the color filter might allow me to use flash and get a better result on those. (I take them all outside whenever possible, though.)

Anyone have comments on Tiffen filters or any other brand recommendations? (Nothing against Hoya, I have a Hoya UV now, just looking at all options.)

[Master Mason]

I am thinking of the color warming filter because I take photos for my office (employee awards and such) and we have horrid florecent lighting that makes everything yellow no matter what I do to the white balance, other settings, or do in photoshop. I am thinking that the color filter might allow me to use flash and get a better result on those. (I take them all outside whenever possible, though.)

Anyone have comments on Tiffen filters or any other brand recommendations? (Nothing against Hoya, I have a Hoya UV now, just looking at all options.)


For the horrid floresents get an 18% gray card and set your own custom WB. The one I have came from www.balancesmarter.com it is pretty slick

http://www.balancesmarter.com/images/tula.jpg

[boBQuincy]

One concern if you use a UV filter is to take it off before using other filters. Stacking filters multiplies any image degradation, especially flare.

The only filter I normally use is a polarizer. I have a 8X ND for lowering shutter speed on bright days but rarely use it. Instead of a split ND I use HDR with three images.

[MICKEY88]

I am thinking of the color warming filter because I take photos for my office (employee awards and such) and we have horrid florecent lighting that makes everything yellow no matter what I do to the white balance, other settings, or do in photoshop. I am thinking that the color filter might allow me to use flash and get a better result on those. (I take them all outside whenever possible, though.)

Anyone have comments on Tiffen filters or any other brand recommendations? (Nothing against Hoya, I have a Hoya UV now, just looking at all options.)


you should be able to color correct in photoshop,


I take pics in my office all the time, and color correction is simple with PAint shop pro..

[Golf4food]

you should be able to color correct in photoshop,


I take pics in my office all the time, and color correction is simple with PAint shop pro..

The software I have available is basic Microsoft picture editor on the work computer, and an old version of PSP5 that is many years old and behind the times. I am by no means skilled in the arts of digital photo manipulation. :)

[mabas9395]

Try posting a sample of one of your office pictures. A lot of us love tweaking other people's photos. Maybe we can help you find a way of fixing them with the tools you have.

I have the same problem you do taking pictures in my church's gymnasium; fourecent lights plus a yellow cast to the basketball court floor. Pictures of my son's cub scout meetings look awful. Do you use a flash in your office? In my case, the yellow from the gym plus the blue from the flash equals a white balance nightmare. Custom W/B is the best way to go.

[DueyDooDah]

I, too, would suggest you forego the colored filters. Everything can be done in post-processing (still a stupid term to me. either you're processing or you are not.)

Now, if you are shooting JPG, you will have trouble correcting for the lighting in your office. If you have the option on the camera, set white balance to tungsten or white florescent (depending on the lighting) before the shot. This should help.

If your shooting RAW, then your camera surely came with some type of software that will help. It will have the capability to change the WB quite easily and it will not be necessary to set it on the camera. If you don't have the software, your manufacturer may have it available for download.

[Groucho]

You'll definitely want to start shooting in Raw if you're getting yellowy colors indoors (as virtually every digital camera will under tungsten lights) - Raw makes it completely trivial to adjust the colors later, which you just can't do as well with a jpg. Assuming that you're using a DSLR, your camera probably already came with conversion software that can do these kind of adjustments. You may also want to invest in a better photo editor rather than filters - I know the full version of Photoshop can replicate any number of color filters.

I have an ND8 filter but haven't really gotten around to using it yet. I do have a star filter also but rarely use it (I didn't use it at all on my last WDW trip, but did a few times on the penultimate one). For Disney use, I don't think a graduated ND would make much sense, I think those are probably mainly useful for open landscapes.

Getting back to color filters... they may still have applications in the digital world, but not so much for tinting colors but rather for situations where one particular color is much brighter than others. You could use a filter to darken the overbright color, in order to grab more light from the other colors, and post-process it later to give you the colors that you want. But I'm not running out and buying any, that's too much bother for me at this point. :teeth:

[Golf4food]

I have not tried shooting the office shots in RAW, only JEPG under all the various WB settings. I will try the next one in RAW and see what happens.

I would be using the graduated ND outdoors for nature/landscapes out in the open, not at Disney so much.

For the record, my camera is a Pentax ist*DL.

I am afraid that my current PC would not hold up to a fully modern photo processing program - so I'd not only have to spend a few hundred on the program, but many hundred more on a PC to run it! :) It can handle PSP5, but the newer ones are bigger and require more RAM - since one of my RAM slots are dead I'm only really running around 1.5GB of RAM at the moment and the HD is getting full (I also do music and the music program and files are huge.) So I don't know that updating my software at the momet will work too well. When I am able to replace the computer I will certainly be updating all of the software, especially the photo editing.

[NostalgicDad]

I currently have but carefully use my CPLs. You'll want to make sure the sun is at a right angle to the subject or you won't realize the effect of polarization if, for instance, the sun is directly behind you. Also, you'll want to be really careful when using with an ultra wide angle lens. If not, you can get some really strange looking deep blue skies on one side of the frame. Also with wide angle lenses, you'll want to use a thin CPL to avoid vignetting. However, they can help a great deal with glare though and I wouldn't totally discount using them as they can be really useful. In fact, I think it's almost a necessity to have one in the bag. The brand I use is Hoya and I've found their Pro1 Digital line to be pretty good quality. Another good brand I've used is B+W.

I also use the Cokin Z-Pro filter holder for using the 4x5" GND filters. It's pretty versatile and allows you to use up to 3 4x5" filters to achieve less light transmission or unique effect. The holder can be rotatated as needed depending on the scene. I currently use the soft edge .6 (2 stop) and .9 (3 stop) Hi-Tech brand 4x5" filters as they seem to do the trick at a reasonable price. The Singh-Ray brand is the most expensive. These filters use a neutral gray tone that reduce light transmission but don't affect color. Although, I have used these at the parks, they are best suited for landscape and wide open scenery shots as Groucho mentioned.

I'm also on the bandwagon of not buying color warming filters. It's just too easy to achieve these effects in PP rather than buying and fumbling around with the filters in the field.

[MarkBarbieri]

Count me in with the "don't use colored filters" crowd.

Be aware, however, that there is a limit to what you can correct with white balance. If you have different colored light sources, white balancing won't solve your problem. If you correct the green cast from the flourescent lights, you'll add a magenta cast to the sunlight.

If you want to be picky about color balancing, you should consider gels for your flashes and lights. You can use them to balance (or unbalance if that's what you want) the light itself rather than trying to correct it yourself. A good example is using fill in flash during a sunset. The daylight white of the flash will look out of place with the warm glow of the setting sun. You'll be happier if you stick an orange gel on your flash for that shot.

[MarkBarbieri]

You also want to be aware that reflected light can screw with your colors. I remember taking some shots of people standing in the sun on a beautiful green golf course. They were wearing visors and I didn't have any juice left in my flash for fill in. I figured I'd just bump up the shadows in Photoshop. When I did that, I quickly discovered that the light in the shadows was primarily coming from the sunlight bouncing off the grass. It was really, really green.

[Groucho]

I have not tried shooting the office shots in RAW, only JEPG under all the various WB settings. I will try the next one in RAW and see what happens.

I would be using the graduated ND outdoors for nature/landscapes out in the open, not at Disney so much.

For the record, my camera is a Pentax ist*DL.

I am afraid that my current PC would not hold up to a fully modern photo processing program - so I'd not only have to spend a few hundred on the program, but many hundred more on a PC to run it! :) It can handle PSP5, but the newer ones are bigger and require more RAM - since one of my RAM slots are dead I'm only really running around 1.5GB of RAM at the moment and the HD is getting full (I also do music and the music program and files are huge.) So I don't know that updating my software at the momet will work too well. When I am able to replace the computer I will certainly be updating all of the software, especially the photo editing.
Your camera (which I am well familiar with, I just recently sold mine to a friend actually ;) ) came with Pentax Photo Laboratory (which is a version of Silkypix), and is not too demanding on resources. It may run a little slower on an older PCs but should definitely work.

I would recommend going to Pentax's website and downloading the newest version - it's an upgrade, though, so you have to install the version from the CD first. You can download the upgrade here (http://www.pentaximaging.com/customer_care/show_software?softId=6552159). While you're there, you can also get the latest firmware here (http://www.pentaximaging.com/customer_care/show_firmware?firmId=6552159).

The software is mildly confusing at first glance, but it's not bad once you get the basics down, and it's very powerful. As with all raw converters, it lets you do almost anything you want with the white balance, so you don't even need to think about it when taking the photo (unless you want to shoot an 18% gray card for reference later.)

[dweitzel0]

About 15 years ago I bought a film SLR. No really knowing much about photography, the salesman sold me a yellow tint filter (I lived in Utah and he said it would improve pictures in the snow). Turns out I never used the filter. I did recently upgraded to a dSLR (Nikon D60) and was wondering, is there any use for this filter with a dSLR?

[mabas9395]

Not really. Some filters can be useful with digital (UV, CPL). But generally, any filter that adjusts just the color, you can get the same effect with your photo software.

[dweitzel0]

That was my thought, but I thought I would check with the "experts". Thanks

[dr_zero]

Does anyone still use filters or has everyone gone to doing it in photoshop?

I love my Cokin filters for all kinds of effects and the screw on ones also can be fun! From stars to center spots to softening filters.

Take a pic of Christmas tree and the lights look pretty and all but add a star filter and it totally changes the image.

http://photo.lvthunder.com/v/other/IMG_0882.jpg.html
http://photo.lvthunder.com/index.php?q=gallery&g2_view=core%3AShowItem&g2_itemId=924&g2_imageViewsIndex=1

Here is some more examples of filters in use
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-lens-filters.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filters.htm

[DVC Jen]

I do occassionally - mostly my polorizing filters though.

I should dig out and try some others - especially the fun ones.

[Furgus]

I just bought a couple of Cokin filters a few weeks ago. I like them and will continue to update my filter library now that I have started.

[fhirleighinn]

I use a circular polarizer the most. Other than that, a Neutral Density so I can get some longer exposures (now if my camera qould do ISO 12 I would not need one). Other than those two, the last filter that I used was my Enhancing filter (but sadly it is too small to use with my current lenses)
I do not use photoshop to simulate filters, actually I do not use photoshop at all. If there are effects that you are intending at the time that you shot, I think that you are better to use filters instead of post-processing.

[jann1033]

i use a nd, cp often since you can't really do that except in real life. i have some fog, star etc filters i use very very very rarely if i feel like something different. personally i don't see the sense of using color filters since i can do it with one click in photoshop and do different things as the mood strikes

[jann1033]

I use a circular polarizer the most. Other than that, a Neutral Density so I can get some longer exposures (now if my camera qould do ISO 12 I would not need one). Other than those two, the last filter that I used was my Enhancing filter (but sadly it is too small to use with my current lenses)
I do not use photoshop to simulate filters, actually I do not use photoshop at all. If there are effects that you are intending at the time that you shot, I think that you are better to use filters instead of post-processing.
wondering why you feel this is better

[thomas998]

CP and ND only... everything else can be done better with photoshop or a plug-in... just as I would never set a camera to B/W because I might someday want color in the shot, I would never use a filter like stars, or fog because once you put that filter on the lens you are stuck with it in the shot... decide later that the stars look cheesy and what are you options? You have none unless you want to dink around with photoshop trying to clone over them.

[alan]

I frequently use a polariser. Pictures like this one from our holiday last week just wouldn't look the same without it!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3033/2675319042_ba524df259_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/atp/2675319042/)

regards,
/alan

[handicap18]

I don't use them often, but I do have a Circular Polerizer and a 4 stop Neutral Density. I haven't used the ND yet, but I do know a few places where I can use it, just haven't gotten there yet. I've used the CP a few times, especially in mid day around the water on bright blue sky days.

[dr_zero]

I do occassionally - mostly my polorizing filters though.

I should dig out and try some others - especially the fun ones.

I think you hit upon a good point they can be fun to try and experiment with the different effects.

And if you want take one pic with and one without if you want to play with it in photoshop.

Some of the look and feel that come from the computer just isnt the same kinda like vinyl and cd's to some I guess.

[bob100]

I frequently use a polariser. Pictures like this one from our holiday last week just wouldn't look the same without it!
/alan

actually they can look the same using Photoshop plug-ins such as Redynamix and other HDR filters. I've tried it! If you want that deep blue sky you can get it without filters but if you don't know about post processing sometimes it's just easier to use a filter

[dr_zero]

I frequently use a polariser. Pictures like this one from our holiday last week just wouldn't look the same without it!


regards,
/alan

Very nice!!

[wenrob]

So that's how they get Christmas trees to look like that. Believe it or not I've been thinking on asking advice on shooting pics of Christmas trees etc but figured it was too early yet.

I'm still learning my camera so haven't even thought about filters yet. Would love to hear/see descriptions of some and what they do.

[dr_zero]

So that's how they get Christmas trees to look like that. Believe it or not I've been thinking on asking advice on shooting pics of Christmas trees etc but figured it was too early yet.

I'm still learning my camera so haven't even thought about filters yet. Would love to hear/see descriptions of some and what they do.

Here are some more stars to check out
http://www.2filter.com/tiffen/Tiffenstarfilters.html

If you can look for a cokin filter book there are some neat pics in there also to show the different effects.

There are multiple image filters that do like the little toys you used to get in your cracker jacks and when you look there are five or six of what you are looking at and rainbow filters you see them sometimes when they are shooting jewelry and they have that cool rainbow sparkle.

[jann1033]

Here are some more stars to check out
http://www.2filter.com/tiffen/Tiffenstarfilters.html

If you can look for a cokin filter book there are some neat pics in there also to show the different effects.

There are multiple image filters that do like the little toys you used to get in your cracker jacks and when you look there are five or six of what you are looking at and rainbow filters you see them sometimes when they are shooting jewelry and they have that cool rainbow sparkle.
never got anything cool like that in cracker jacks( just dumb little cardboard things;) ) but if you download a free mehdi plug in for photoshop( works in elements, i have 5) you can do kaleidoscopic like stuff very fun to do..sorry i am killing the cokin stock huh...my nd is a cokin so i'm not anticokin but this one is photoshop and free, i couldn't help myself from mentioning it ;) :)this was originally a photo of windows in Charleston SChttp://jforsythe.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p855575457-3.jpg
i think this might have been the original or at least similar since i have a few shots of this place
http://jforsythe.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p388069663-2.jpg

[dr_zero]

Cool will check it out!

[NostalgicDad]

In this shot, I wanted motion blur but it was about 3pm and about as bright as it gets outside. To achieve a shutter speed of 1/5 and without overexposing everything, I set the aperture at f/22 and ISO at 100 while using a .6 GND 4x5" filter in my Cokin Z-Pro filter holder.

If you want to get some strange looks in the park, throw one of these contraptions on the end of your lens. :thumbsup2


http://ddbimages.smugmug.com/photos/255495579_zhfXU-L.jpg

[MarkBarbieri]

I use polarizers, close-up filterss, neutral density (ND) filters, and graduated neutral density (GND) filters. These all do things for me that cannot be done in post production. You can sometimes work around the lack of a GND using HDR, but not always.

I do not use photoshop to simulate filters, actually I do not use photoshop at all. If there are effects that you are intending at the time that you shot, I think that you are better to use filters instead of post-processing.
I feel otherwise. I find that for many types of filters (color filters, soft focus and diffusion filters, spot filters, and some other special effects filters) you can get better results with more control in post production. You aren't limited to the exact colors, powers, etc of the filters you have on hand. You can preview the effects better on a computer screen than on a viewfinder.


Quote:
Originally Posted by alan http://www.disboards.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?p=26280238#post26280238)
I frequently use a polariser. Pictures like this one from our holiday last week just wouldn't look the same without it!
/alan

actually they can look the same using Photoshop plug-ins such as Redynamix and other HDR filters. I've tried it! If you want that deep blue sky you can get it without filters but if you don't know about post processing sometimes it's just easier to use a filter

You can often replicate the deepening of a blue sky in post production (though it is often more work than just using the filter), but you can't do many of the other things that a polarizer does in Photoshop. If you have glare on water, a polarizer can eliminate the glare and reveal items below the surface of the water. If you didn't use the polarizer, you didn't capture what was below the water so you can't do much about it in Photoshop. The same is true for other forms of glare.

There are also lots of cases where a polarizer eliminates lots of little glare, like on the surface of leaves on a tree in your picture. With the polarizer, you capture rich natural tones on the leaves. You can't really add those back in later.

[MarkBarbieri]

Oh, and I don't use a UV filter because I'm either a smart, with-it kind of guy or a totally crazy lunatic. It all depends on your UV filter religious views.

[InsertWittyNameHere]

There are also lots of cases where a polarizer eliminates lots of little glare, like on the surface of leaves on a tree in your picture. With the polarizer, you capture rich natural tones on the leaves. You can't really add those back in later.

Are there any rules of thumb as to when or when not to use a polarizer? Since I'm fairly new to the DSLR world I'm still in the experimental phase.

Oh, and I don't use a UV filter because I'm either a smart, with-it kind of guy or a totally crazy lunatic. It all depends on your UV filter religious views.

I only use a U/V filter for lense protection. I haven't noticed any real quality differences so far when I've removed it.

[MarkBarbieri]

Are there any rules of thumb as to when or when not to use a polarizer? Since I'm fairly new to the DSLR world I'm still in the experimental phase.

Polarizers filter light to a specific polarity. I imagine that's a particularly unilluminating sentence, so I'll try to be more clear. It would benefit you to read some articles about polarized light to get a better feel for what I'm babbling about.

Polarizers generally do two things for you - darken blue skies and remove glare.

They darken blue skies by removing a lot of the light from the sky that isn't blue. The blue light happens to mostly all be coming with the same polarity. There is a lot of other light coming from the sky that has all kinds of different polarity. When you use your polarizer and twist it right to the right angle, you filter out a lot of the other light but leave almost all of the blue light. The result is that your sky looks bluer.

This trick only works for certain angles. If you are looking directly towards or directly away from the sun, it doesn't work very well and the polarizer has little effect. If you use a really wide angle lens, you can have parts of the sky that the polarizer works well for and parts that it doesn't in the same picture. This can sometimes look goofy because the color and brightness of the sky shifts in the picture for no apparent reason to the viewer.

Reflected light is often polarized. By twisting your polarizer, you can often filter out most or all of the light being reflected from some surfaces. The classic example is light being reflected from lake. With the polarizer off, you see a reflection on the surface of the water. With the polarizer on, there is no reflection and you see what is under the water.

Sometimes, there are lots of small reflections on things that make things look less saturated. Lots of flat or shiny surfaces (leaves are a good example) look better through a polarizer. The best way to learn where it helps and where it doesn't is to use one. Look through your camera and turn the polarizer to see what effect it has.

The downside to polarizers is that, because they filter out some light, they make your image darker. Your camera will compensate for that, but it has to do that by either increasing the ISO, opening the aperture wider, or using a longer shutter speed. It'll do the work for you, so don't worry about it being complicated. It just means that polarizers make it harder to take pictures when there isn't a lot of light.

I only use a U/V filter for lense protection. I haven't noticed any real quality differences so far when I've removed it.

I don't want to get into the whole religious debate on UV filters, but I'll summarize it for anyone unfamiliar. UV filters don't do anything useful for your picture (assuming that you aren't using film). They do provide a layer of glass between the world and your lens. That can protect your lens from scratches or impacts. Except for really crummy ones, they don't usually have much of an affect on your pictures at all. The exception is that they significantly increase the chance that you'll have flare problems or reflections of light sources in your picture. More expensive ones (multi-coated) are designed to minimize (but can't eliminate) this problem. If you're worried about protecting your lens, a lens hood will help more than a UV filter. If you want to be extra safe, there is no reason why you can't use both.

[InsertWittyNameHere]

Thanks for the info!! :thumbsup2

[bob100]

If you want to get some strange looks in the park, throw one of these contraptions on the end of your lens. :thumbsup2

http://ddbimages.smugmug.com/photos/255495579_zhfXU-L.jpg

I like the pic !

[Quicklabs]

One would be a neutral density filter; the other a circular polarizing filter. (Camera body is a Nikon D80)
Looked at B&H to see what that had: Holy Moley! What a selection! I would have no idea what to chose (especially for the ND filter--I'm assuming the different numbers are for different depths of "shading")
I am inspired by the skies in the photography on this guy's site: I am assuming he is using a filter to get those. ('Course it helps when you live where he lives, instead of middle-America suburbia, where I live)
http://www.pbase.com/birsay
So what the heck should I be looking for to get shots like that (other than moving to England).
Thanks, you guys

[DueyDooDah]

It looks like the gallery you are looking at had quite a bit of PP done to them. High saturation, vinetting, tone separation, etc.

But, you are right. A CP looks like it was used and probably a ND filter on some.

I use only a CP and love it. I use it more than most people on this forum, 1) cuase it's new; 2) as a lens protector; 3) for the great skies we're having this summer. The CP really helps minimize blown highlights on bright days when you can't shoot at a decent hour.

I also bought the lens to help with water reflection, which I have yet to take advantage of (but allergy season is almost over for me, so watch out).

Others may have info on ND filters.

[YesDear]

I have a suggestion for you . The 72 mm of the 18-200 is what is considered an off size. I purchased a step up ring from 72-77 mm and then purchased filters from there. I use a standard ND filter as a protector and spent good money for the cp.

[Quicklabs]

Thanks...

I have a suggestion for you . The 72 mm of the 18-200 is what is considered an off size. I purchased a step up ring from 72-77 mm and then purchased filters from there. I use a standard ND filter as a protector and spent good money for the cp.

[dr_zero]

If you are going to limit yourself to two then you picked the right ones, and the step up ring is a very good point.

If you wanted to venture out into the old school of filters before everything was done in the computer check out the Cokin filter system.

This web sight have pics and info of just about all the ones they offer and how they effect the picture.
http://www.geocities.com/COKINFILTERSYSTEM/gradual_blue.htm

Here is a graduated blue filter

http://www.geocities.com/COKINFILTERSYSTEM/22440d30.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/COKINFILTERSYSTEM/222da2c0.jpg

[Code]

Some of the skies in those galleries are well done in terms of saturation for the overall effect, but some are just blatant overuse of HDR. I always feel the need to point out that blue skies on bright sunny days with nothing but wispy clouds in the sky do not have dark grey/black in them. Also the halo effect between the ground and sky just drives me nuts!!!

OK I feel better :rolleyes: Sorry to jump on the soapbox in your thread...

[Furgus]

I second the post for Cokin filters. I just got started in the system and it is great. One filter for all my lenses, I just have to buy rings, which are cheap.

http://www.cokin.fr/ official site

I used a cokin ND4 filter on this image, and did very little post work.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3037/2678669648_d642c6b69a.jpg

BTW, this is not an HDR...... I used about 3 steps in Scott Kelby's 7 point system. Since the sky was already a nice shade of blue from the filter, and the ground was almost perfect on exposure...I just made a new layer and brightened it up a bit, and painted out the rocks. Whole process took me about 5 min.

[Suburbanmom]

I just bought a circular polorizing filter for my Nikon 70-300mm VR and now the lens cap won't clip on. My kit lens (18-70mm) will support a filter and a lens cap, so I assumed this one would too. WRONG! :)

Anyone else who has this lens...do you have any filters for it? Can you still attach your lens cap? Thanks, Amy

ETA: I do like the filter. Here's a shot from last weekend with the filter on. I just wish I could use it and the lens cap at the same time.
That's Cedar Point in Sandusky, Ohio in the distance.

http://amyhenkel.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p386104157-4.jpg

[Code]

Did you buy a "slim" filter? Filters marketed as slim don't have threads in front so you can't add any other filters on top of them, and lens caps don't have anything to grab onto.

[My2Girls66]

Thats strange. I have 2 Tiffen filters- one circular polarizer and 1 UV- for mine and the lens cap snaps on no problem:confused3 Must be the brand of filter. Cool photo, btw! Love the rides in the background!!

[senecabeach]

Just checked mine and I have the CP & cap on now with no problem. Its a Quantray.

[Suburbanmom]

I brought a Promaster....like my other one. I'm guessing that I, without intent, bought a "slim" one. Oh, well...live and learn. :)

[handicap18]

I just checked mine. I have a Quantaray 67mm CP filter. I put it on my 70-300mm VR and the lens cap fit fine.

[YesDear]

If you have a slim fit filter it is correct that there are not threads on the outside to put a cap on. You can go to Wolf, Ritz, your local photoshop and get a push cap for that filter. Some of the slim ones will come with a push cap.

[jann1033]

look for the lens cap lost thread from a few days ago. it has a link someone posted (newman? dr zero? ) that had lens caps with the little hanger thing for around $2. i have a step up ring i use with one cp so might get that additional cap so i could leave the cp on my smaller lens i use the step up for.(clear as mud again)

[dr_zero]

look for the lens cap lost thread from a few days ago. it has a link someone posted (newman? dr zero? ) that had lens caps with the little hanger thing for around $2. i have a step up ring i use with one cp so might get that additional cap so i could leave the cp on my smaller lens i use the step up for.(clear as mud again)


Dealextreme was the place :)

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1911118

[Suburbanmom]

Thanks, everyone, for the tips. I'll look into Dealextreme or finding a pushcap.
I was so put out because I like to wear my camera like an accessory (I should see the "Biggest Geek" thread, I know). Without a lens cap, I didn't feel like I could just go, especially at the beach. I appreciate the feedback.

Cool photo, btw! Love the rides in the background!!
Thank you!

[quietgirll]

ok, so ive decided i need to buy a few filters for my olympus evolt, but im trying to learn what i can about them- anybody have a good website with info, or some tips you want to share??? i think ive decided i at least need a UV filter, but im trying to decide what others i need (polarizer, star 8, etc.). also, what website is a good place to buy them??? i know, lots of stupid questions- please help!!

[Quicklabs]

In addition to the UV that I keep on to protect the lens, I have a circular polarizer, which does beautiful things to clouds and sky shots. I want to get a gradient fillter or a neutral density as well. I'm not sure if you'd get much use from a star. If the exposure is long enough, you will get star effects simply from the lens. I am not experienced like so many others here, but the one thing I've learned is that there are no stupid questions.
I got my stuff from B&H.

[ukcatfan]

I personally do not go for the UV to protect the lens thing. To get a filter that is not going to degrade the image quality noticeably, you are going to spend the better part of $100. I am very much in the lens hood for protection club. Other than that, I say that the CP is a must. I also have a star filter, but I hardly ever use it. You might also consider a ND filter. Other than those, almost all other filter effects can be duplicated in software, so why use an actual physical filter.

[Quicklabs]

I've never used the lens hood, but maybe I'll start trying that to see if there's a difference.
I personally do not go for the UV to protect the lens thing.

[MarkBarbieri]

Lens hoods help both in protecting the front of the lens and in shading the lens from stray light. They are most useful on longer lenses and prime (non-zoom) lenses. I use them on all of my lenses except my 17-40mm and use them almost all the time.

I'm also not a fan of UV filters, but to each his own. If you do use one, watch out for reflections and flare problems when shooting with a bright light source in your picture.

As for creative filters, the three I consider worth bothering with on a digital camera are a polarizer, a neutral density filter, and a graduated neutral density filter. The polarizer is great for cutting down on reflections and glare and also helps to darken skies.

A neutral density filter is like putting sunglasses on your lens. If you want a longer exposure than you could otherwise get, they come in handy. They are most often used when you want motion blur (waterfalls, moving subjects, etc).

A graduated neutral density filter is a filter that is partially clear and partially dark (like a neutral density filter). It is useful when part of the scene you are shooting is in the sun and part is in the shade. You can use one to balance the two. They come in many different strengths and two flavors. With one flavor, the change from dark to light is very sudden. With the other flavor, it is gradual. I recommend that you get a Cokin-style GND rather than a simple screw on type. This allows you to adjust the split up and down.

Some people say that GND filters aren't needed anymore because of HDR. That's true for static scenes. For scenes where important subject elements change between exposures, they are still good to have.

On a scale of importance (to me), I'd rank a polarizer a 9 out of 10. If you shoot a lot outdoors, you are crazy not to have one. An ND is more like a 3 and a GND is like a 2. I rank all of the others - star effects, soft focus, colors, etc more like 1. You can do almost all of that in post production so don't mess up your original capture.

[KAT4DISNEY]

I've been wondering if there's any good use for colored filters with digital cameras? I have a very nice red that I used the B&W film and was wondering if there's anything to be done with it now - other than to turn a picture red!

I imagine the principal would still apply if I shot using a B&W setting?

[MarkBarbieri]

There is very little point in using an on-camera color filter on a DSLR. You can make the same color adjustments in post production with more control. You definitely want to adjust your colors in post production when your goal is a B&W print. Many B&W newbies don't realize this and miss out on a tremendous way to enhance their pictures.

The one area where colored filters are still very useful in the digital world is on your lights. For example, when shooting near sunset, you'll want an orange filter on your flash or anything lit by your flash will look jarringly out of place. You can also do some neat effects by lighting your subject with a colored flash and then white balancing away the effect of the filter. The result is that the background recieves a color shift that is opposite of the color of the filter while your subject looks normal.

[mabas9395]

The first thing I thought of when I read this post what a camp fire portrait using a flash (which I think Mark posted an example of).

[KAT4DISNEY]

Pretty much figured that it would only get used if I ever decided to pull out my film SLR and shoot some B&W. I'll just pack it into it's case and tuck it away.

Thanks!

[Pinky166]

I need to buy some filters for my Canon EOS 20D. Can any of you recommend a good UV filter and polarising filter?

Also what lens manufacturer is a good alternative to Canon?

Thanks in advance.

[dr_zero]

I need to buy some filters for my Canon EOS 20D. Can any of you recommend a good UV filter and polarising filter?

Also what lens manufacturer is a good alternative to Canon?

Thanks in advance.

Hoya makes some good filters you can find them on Amazon or look on ebay you can find them there pretty cheap.

As far aftermarket lenses you might want to look at the Tokina or maybe sigma I am a nikon person and try to stick with them.

[Pinky166]

Hoya makes some good filters you can find them on Amazon or look on ebay you can find them there pretty cheap.

As far aftermarket lenses you might want to look at the Tokina or maybe sigma I am a nikon person and try to stick with them.

Thank you very much for this information. We were looking at Hoya filters so good to have some feedback. :thumbsup2

[edolyne]

I use Tiffen filters on my camera, I tried Hoya once but ended up going back to the Tiffen filters.

[ukcatfan]

You can find good lenses from many third party manufacturers. There can also be some bad ones from the same companies. Be sure to research the individual lens instead of the brand.

As for filters, I would not use a UV. I personally feel that the protection benefit is not worth the degradation of the image. I always use a hood though.

[dr_zero]

As far as the UV filter debate I agree with this fellow at this link

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/B+W-UV-Filter.aspx

Synopsis

I am a member of the UV filter users. A high quality UV filter such as the B+W 77mm MRC UV Filter will not degrade the final picture in most instances.

You spent a lot of money for your camera and lens in quest of good quality pictures. Don't throw away your investment with a cheap UV filter.

[H.E. Pennypacker]

As for filters, I would not use a UV. I personally feel that the protection benefit is not worth the degradation of the image. I always use a hood though.

I second that. For years I swore by having a UV filter on my lenses. One day I decided to take them off and was shocked at the improvement in image quality without it. Now the only filter I use is an occasional circular polarizer and will probably pick up a good graduated neutral density before my next trip.

[Groucho]

For buying, I've bought Hoya filters a couple times from Spotlight Photo on eBay. Cheap prices, quick shipping... I'll check there first next time I need to buy another filter.

I'm most definitely in the "no UV filter" crowd, too. They are an unnecessary degradation in IQ. Lens hoods give you solid protection and give a very clear and noticeable improvement in image quality.

Are there certain circumstances where a UV filter may save a lens where a lens hood wouldn't? Maybe. Am I willing to buy and use UV filters and deal with IQ loss to protect against those pretty unlikely occurances? Nope. If you're that concerned, Op/Tech and others sell foam wraps you can put around your entire camera that will help protect the rest of it. :)

(I also don't use an LCD protector on the back of my camera, either. I just don't like 'em. I guess I live dangerously!)

[PhotobearSam]

I am really looking into Infrared and have even bid on a camera on ebay...Does anyone here do IR? Do you like it?

Filter or converted camera? What company did the work?

[JR6ooo4]

Filter, on my sony F717. I have not tried any IR since I got the Canon Rebel.

My favorite:
http://mnmstudios.smugmug.com/photos/2605974_uJQfW-M.jpg

what camera are you looking at? Is it fully converted to IR?

Mikeeee

[PhotobearSam]

Yup...looking at cameras converted to IR by companies like Life Pixel...

I was thinking I would love a DSLR converted to bring to France but now I am thinking more like a Canon G7 or S3IS converted as I want to keep the weight of all the things I need to carry each day down a bit.


I just love the look of IR...so cool. Love the one you did. I assume tripod, long exposure then some photoshop?

[JR6ooo4]

Yup...looking at cameras converted to IR by companies like Life Pixel...

I was thinking I would love a DSLR converted to bring to France but now I am thinking more like a Canon G7 or S3IS converted as I want to keep the weight of all the things I need to carry each day down a bit.


I just love the look of IR...so cool. Love the one you did. I assume tripod, long exposure then some photoshop?

Yes, tripod and manual exposure. It has been a while since I did that one, I think it was just autolevels in PS to get that look.

Mikeeee

[TheLionKing]

Since the Canon 50D is coming out, I bought a 40D that was on sale and had it converted by LifePixel to the standard IR.

What I like about it the shutter speeds I can get without having to use the deep red filter. The "colors" don't come out quite the same though, so I usually just convert it to straigh black and white.

It is definitely fun to play with and am looking forward to the spring when the mountains are greener for a better effect.

Here is one of our local train station converted to black and white.

http://www.pbase.com/sbdigitalimages/image/101151718.jpg

[kenny]

I recently bought the Nikon D60 with the 18-55mm VR kit lens. I am leaving for Disney on Saturday and wanted to get UV and Polarizer filters. I am confused. I thought I read in the book that the Nikon lens take a 52mm filter. Is that correct or am I supposed to get a 55mm filter?

At BestBuy they had a SunPak 55mm Polarizer that says compatible with 55mm lens. Is this what I want or do I need a 52mm filter? Yet they do not sell a 52mm Polarizer in the store. Thought that was odd as there are lots of Nikon users and figured that would be something to carry. Guess that is why I was confused.

Thanks

[annnewjerz]

I recently bought the Nikon D60 with the 18-55mm VR kit lens. I am leaving for Disney on Saturday and wanted to get UV and Polarizer filters. I am confused. I thought I read in the book that the Nikon lens take a 52mm filter. Is that correct or am I supposed to get a 55mm filter?

At BestBuy they had a SunPak 55mm Polarizer that says compatible with 55mm lens. Is this what I want or do I need a 52mm filter? Yet they do not sell a 52mm Polarizer in the store. Thought that was odd as there are lots of Nikon users and figured that would be something to carry. Guess that is why I was confused.

Thanks


52mm would be correct! I just got my D60 and bought a neutral density filter for my kit lens. If you want to buy a 55mm filter, that's fine, you will just need to buy a step-down ring.

[H.E. Pennypacker]

That lens takes a 52mm filter. Different lenses can take different sized filters. If you look on the lens, it's usually engraved somewhere on the lens as a circle with a diagonal line through it followed by a number. That number is the filter diameter. What some do is buy filters for the largest diameter lens they have and then buy step-up rings for the rest of the lenses. You would only use a step-down ring to put a smaller filter on a larger lens, which you typically don't want to do because you'll likely get some vignetting.

Also, make sure the polarizer you get is a circular polarizer. Linear polarizers can interfere with proper metering.

[annnewjerz]

That lens takes a 52mm filter. Different lenses can take different sized filters. If you look on the lens, it's usually engraved somewhere on the lens as a circle with a diagonal line through it followed by a number. That number is the filter diameter. What some do is buy filters for the largest diameter lens they have and then buy step-up rings for the rest of the lenses. You would only use a step-down ring to put a smaller filter on a larger lens, which you typically don't want to do because you'll likely get some vignetting.

Also, make sure the polarizer you get is a circular polarizer. Linear polarizers can interfere with proper metering.

I've got to say, step down and step up still confuse me. If you are buying a big filter and putting it on a smaller filter size, to me, it seems logical to call it a step-down ring (sort of like pants sizes - you would go down a size). Who knows!

[H.E. Pennypacker]

I've got to say, step down and step up still confuse me. If you are buying a big filter and putting it on a smaller filter size, to me, it seems logical to call it a step-down ring (sort of like pants sizes - you would go down a size). Who knows!

One way to think of it is that the rings are always in reference to the diameter of the filter threads on the lens. You either step up the diameter or step down the diameter of the lens threads. Take a 67-77 mm ring as an example. The first number is the lens filter thread diameter, the second the filter diameter. Therefore, this one is a step-up ring. You're "stepping up" the lens diameter to match a filter that is larger than the lens diameter. If it were a 77-67 mm ring, it'd be a step-down ring because you're "stepping down" the lens diameter to match a filter that's smaller than the lens diameter.

[YesDear]

I believe the original poster was confused with the mm size of the lens 55mm and the size of the barrel of the lens that accepts the filter, 52mm.

I will use a step up ring on a smaller off sized lens when a larger one is normal for several other lens.

[Tickla]

Just wondering if DSLR's need to have filters on (like a uv one) all the time? And also, is a polarizing filter good? We bought a Nikon D40 for my DH's parents for Christmas, & the salesperson said they would need those both--thanks for the help!:)

[MICKEY88]

Just wondering if DSLR's need to have filters on (like a uv one) all the time? And also, is a polarizing filter good? We bought a Nikon D40 for my DH's parents for Christmas, & the salesperson said they would need those both--thanks for the help!:)

generally there are 3 schools of thought on this...

1.. those of us who will not put any extra glass between the subject and our sensor, due to image degradation, unless there is a real benefit to doing so...such as a circular polarizer to darken a blue sky and make white clouds really jump out..

2.. those who always use a filter as a form of protection for the front lens element..
those in #1 believe a lens hood does a better job of protection..

3...salespeople who will sell every filter they can, because more sales = more money in their pocket...

[ukcatfan]

3...salespeople who will sell every filter they can, because more sales = more money in their pocket...

We have a winner!!!

[PhotobearSam]

I have always had a UV filter on all my lens just as a form of protection...I was be naive but I don't usually use lenshoods so ....

I also owned a polorizer when I shot film as all my lens had a 58mm diameter and so I thought it was a good buy but only if pone knows how to use it.

[MICKEY88]

I have always had a UV filter on all my lens just as a form of protection...I was be naive but I don't usually use lenshoods so ....

I also owned a polorizer when I shot film as all my lens had a 58mm diameter and so I thought it was a good buy but only if pone knows how to use it.

lenshoods offer protection against bumps etc... there is a train of thought that filters being rigid/metal don't reduce shock and therefore can actually cause more damage..the breaking glass of the filter can scratch the front lens element..whereas a lens hood, usually plastic will reduce impact if the lens is dropped, kind of like the theory behind crumple zones in cars, they reduce damage to people, by absorbing the impact..

[Tickla]

Thanks! I knew I could find the truth here! I will pass this info along to the in-laws when they open it & let them decide.:thumbsup2

[MarkBarbieri]

UV filters are inadequate for protection. Keep the lens cap on. It offers the best protection. Just make sure that you bump up your ISO and open your aperture really wide because lens caps block A LOT of light.

[annnewjerz]

UV filters are inadequate for protection. Keep the lens cap on. It offers the best protection. Just make sure that you bump up your ISO and open your aperture really wide because lens caps block A LOT of light.

:rotfl: As funny as that is, I'm embarassed to mention that I have done that plenty of times. I pick up the camera, get my shot and try to press the shutter only for my camera to tell me the subject is too dark. Doh! The lens cap was still on. Live and learn.

[boBQuincy]

UV filters are inadequate for protection. Keep the lens cap on. It offers the best protection. Just make sure that you bump up your ISO and open your aperture really wide because lens caps block A LOT of light.

Oh great! Now you have given away the secret for my next project, to sand down the thickness of a lens cap to make an inexpensive 12 stop ND filter!

[MarkBarbieri]

Oh great! Now you have given away the secret for my next project, to sand down the thickness of a lens cap to make an inexpensive 12 stop ND filter!

I'm working on a different approach. I'm trying to outfit my lens with eyelids and lashes and rigging them so that the lens can squint.

[mickeymaker2003]

My husband wants a UV filter for his Nikon 18-105 VR and 70-300 VR lenses. He wants them as protection for the lens (against scratches and dust). Which brand(s) would you recommend? He needs the 67mm size. I'd prefer if the lens cap and the hood still fit after the filter was on if possible. Thanks!

[MICKEY88]

tell him to just use the hood at all times, any extra glass between the
subject and sensor increase the chance of lens flare..etc..

the belief is also that the plastic lens hood will soften the impact, whereas a metal filter will not, if the lens is dropped..

[mickeymaker2003]

Thanks for the advice. I'll tell him that. His friend has him all worried about somehow scratching the lens while cleaning it.... If he insists on using the filter, which one should we get?

[rossb]

Use the Nikon NC filter.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/362564-REG/Nikon_2288_67mm_NC_Clear_Glass.html

[YesDear]

Here I go again. I support using a UV or skylight filter on all of my lenses. I have done so for 30 yrs. I have had lenses saved by a filter three times. I have never had a lens scratched by a broken filter.

I know that every time you put another piece of glass in front of a lens you potentially change the image. I still continue to do so and will continue to do so.

That is my story and I am sticking to it.

I would not get a $5 filter but I would not get a $50 filter. Any major brand in the $20-30 range is fine for me.

[MICKEY88]

Here I go again. I support using a UV or skylight filter on all of my lenses. I have done so for 30 yrs. I have had lenses saved by a filter three times. I have never had a lens scratched by a broken filter.

I know that every time you put another piece of glass in front of a lens you potentially change the image. I still continue to do so and will continue to do so.

That is my story and I am sticking to it.

I would not get a $5 filter but I would not get a $50 filter. Any major brand in the $20-30 range is fine for me.


I've gone filterless for 32 years, use my cameras every day, and have never scratched or broken a lens..:thumbsup2 :thumbsup2

I never said the lens gets scratched,, the reduction of the impact can keep internal damage from occuring.

I recently read a thread on this subject over on Photocamel, one of the photographers stated that a friend of his who is a salesman, confessed that the only reason salespeople push filters is because the profit is higher on filters than any other photo item..

good insurance on photo equipment negates the concern for a filter..

[MICKEY88]

Thanks for the advice. I'll tell him that. His friend has him all worried about somehow scratching the lens while cleaning it.... If he insists on using the filter, which one should we get?


if he cleans his lens properly he will not scratch it,, I have lenses that I've been using since the mid 80's and I've cleaned them often..

[boBQuincy]

I used to use filters to protect a lens, but in recent years I have stopped that practice preferring a hood instead. I do know one person who had a filter possibly save their lens, although a hood would probably have done at least as well.

It is not likely that anyone who uses one or the other will change their minds anytime soon. ;)

[My2Girls66]

I have Tiffen UV's on my 67mm lenses(18-135, 70-300mmVR)- I also have Tiffen CP filters for them. I think I got them thru Amazon. I've always used filters and can't seem to get myself to feel safe without them. I never had hoods until this year. Old habits I guess. For now they stay- I use both hoods and filters together, now.

[YesDear]

So I guess you can see this issue is one of preference. You have a devoted to and a devoted not to and a convert. I am probably not going to change my ways.

Mickey88 I do agree about having insurance. I am by the way an insurance agent! So I have very good insurance and I use filters!!!

[My2Girls66]

This is the one I bought for my each of my Nikon lenses.
Regularly $25.99 for $7.99
http://www.amazon.com/Tiffen-67mm-UV-Protection-Filter/dp/B00004ZCJK/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1227710591&sr=8-1
and this CP filter
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00004ZCFQ/sr=8-1/qid=1227710591/ref=noref?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1227710591&sr=8-1

[boBQuincy]

Mickey88 I do agree about having insurance. I am by the way an insurance agent! So I have very good insurance and I use filters!!!

Hmm, we have our photo equipment insured but if our agent is a "filter guy" and we do not use filters would he consider that contributory negligence? ;)
And can the filters be insured too or are they in a high risk area? ;)

[InsertWittyNameHere]

Hmm, we have our photo equipment insured but if our agent is a "filter guy" and we do not use filters would he consider that contributory negligence? ;)
And can the filters be insured too or are they in a high risk area? ;)


Don't these policies typically have a filter exclusion :rolleyes1

[boBQuincy]

Impressed by ZackieDawg's blurred motion daylight photos, and bummed by the inability to get good blurred photos of Yosemite Falls, I ordered a Hoya ND400.

This neutral density filter, with a light transmission of less than 1/500 allows an exposure of about 9 stops more than usual, or about 1 second at f/8 on a sunny day! About the only thing more impressive than how dark this filter looks is how much it costs in 77mm size!!!

Oh well, it's all for the sake of art... ;)

[MICKEY88]

Impressed by ZackieDawg's blurred motion daylight photos, and bummed by the inability to get good blurred photos of Yosemite Falls, I ordered a Hoya ND400.

This neutral density filter, with a light transmission of less than 1/500 allows an exposure of about 9 stops more than usual, or about 1 second at f/8 on a sunny day! About the only thing more impressive than how dark this filter looks is how much it costs in 77mm size!!!

Oh well, it's all for the sake of art... ;)

I hope Art appreciates the gift,

now if you'd like to buy one for me, I can give you my mailing address

[YesDear]

Well Bob, it is so nice to see those who are helping the economy these days.

By the way, 77mm fits a number of my NIKON lenses!! Let me know when you are planning on leaving it in your car for the day!

[annnewjerz]

I completely agree... I think those pics are awesome. I purchased a 52mm nd400 when I first saw them to use on some shots to blur water.. The 77mm just wasn't in the budget... yet. For now I have a 77mm nd8 on the Christmas list and that'll just have to do on my 18-200 lens.

[zackiedawg]

Glad to hear the fun is spreading! I'm looking very forward to Disney next weekend so I can play with the filter - it was too hot on past trips, but I'm hoping a cool front will breeze through while I'm there to make lugging around a tripod and standing around holding shutter release cables more tolerable!

It is pretty dark, isn't it Bob? It doesn't look see-through - it can practically be mistaken for a lens cap. :)

I have been getting all the thrift I can from my 58mm ND400 - I bought a step-up ring so I could use it on a 49mm threaded lens, and am looking to buy a step down ring to use on a 62mm threaded lens. So far, with my DSLR, I am limited to using it on only one lens, and it's 75mm with the crop factor - so I need to be able to start playing with it on my 18-250!

[DisneySuiteFreak]

Is it better to use a step up adapter for circular polarizer filters or is is better to get a biger size filter and a step down adapter?:confused3 I really would prefer to get one filter and step it down/up accordingly unless it's going to create serious viginetting problems. I am buying a B&W multi coated one, it's pretty expensive and I can only afford 1, not one for each lens that I have! :scared: Help!

[dpic]

In you really need to use just one, use a bigger filter. If you put a smaller filter on a lens you'll probably get vignetting (darkness in the corners). One place to look for filters is 2filter.com. Great prices and fast service (I'm not affiliated with them in any way). Look at their Sunpak filters--an excellent bargain.

[pdmedic]

What filters do you normally use and carry. I currently have U/V filters on my lenses but that is it and am thinking about getting some to try out. I liked the star filter pictures posted and am wondering about a polarizing filter to cut down glare for shots in the Living Seas and possibly Coral Reef but not sure if I have a fast enough lens to get the shots.

Anyway what do you normally carry and use. Is there any good place to learn what filter does what other then trial and error?

Thanks
Travis ::cop:

[MarkBarbieri]

I'm not a UV filter guy (different religion). I carry a polarizer (skies, reflections, saturation). I also carry a few neutral density filters (longer exposures for motion blur). I've played with graduated ND filters, but I don't own any.

I find that it is better to emulate most other filters in post production rather than fiddle with filters in the field. Filters were really important in the old slide/film days, but much less so now.

I guess the one sort of exception is gels for my flash. I almost always carry at least a light orange gel for my flash. I'm probably going to order some polarizer gels as well.

[kevrab]

Everyone one of the lens that own has either a skylight or a UV filter on it primarily to protect the front element. I have a tendency to beat up my lenses and these filters have saved me ALOT of money.

I used a star filter on the Osborne Christmas lights. They turned out really nice, other than that I usually just enhance photos in PhotoShop.

[ukcatfan]

I liked the star filter pictures posted and am wondering about a polarizing filter to cut down glare for shots in the Living Seas and possibly Coral Reef but not sure if I have a fast enough lens to get the shots.

I agree with Mark's religion ;) Use a hood on all lenses, but why degrade your IQ with a UV filter for the "very limited" protection it offers.

As for the CP filter for the Living Seas, I do not think you will have much luck with it there. The best method is to get close to the glass so that reflections are not an issue. You are already at a disadvantage with low light, so the last thing you want to do is lose another stop or two with the CP on. Other than that, I think a CP is one of the few essential filters. I have a star filter and it is fun, but it is really just a gimmick filter. It can also be used as a soft filter b/c it does "about" the same thing to sharpness.

[WDWFigment]

I find that it is better to emulate most other filters in post production rather than fiddle with filters in the field.

The only "star filter" I own: http://photoshoptutorials.ws/photoshop-tutorials/photo-effects/star-filter.html

[Chikabowa]

I have UV filters on on my lenses mainly for protection of the front element (I also use hoods). Otherwise, I don't mess with any other filters. And I hate post-process in front of the computer, so any starbursts or other effects, I do in camera at the time when I'm shooting.

[edolyne]

I have always had a UV filter in front of my lens, while it may degrade the quality the protection it offers is worth it to me. What brands do you guys use? I have always used Tiffen in the past but there appears to be quite a bit of banter online that they are not good quality.

[jann1033]

i was raised as a uv filter user but a few yrs ago converted to the hood.

i bought some filters off ebay( a bunch for like $10) a while back, ie stars, soft focus, can't think of the others off the top of my head and also have some cps and a cokin graduated nd...i use the ebay ones once in a while, the cps most and the nd if it's applicable (although lightroom has nds now so i can cheat some with that if i forget, don't have it, whatever). instead of the ebay/ "decorative" type filters, i use the "filters" in lightroom or photoshop more than the real ones although i personally don't think i can really get a good star effect in processing( maybe i just haven't found it )

one of my uv filters was/is a tiffen and truthfully i couldn't see a lot of difference with or without but i try not to be rough with my lenses and so would rather get the best photo i can. i did see a video of a uv filter test and the tiffen really did degrade it considerably compared to the pricier brands although they all did some, sorry it was a while ago and no idea what site it was but that is what converted me

[MarkBarbieri]

As for brand, I like B+W and the high end Hoya filters (not their cheapies).

One other filter I use is a dust filter. I put one on my lenses when I put them away.

[WDWFigment]

I have always had a UV filter in front of my lens, while it may degrade the quality the protection it offers is worth it to me. What brands do you guys use? I have always used Tiffen in the past but there appears to be quite a bit of banter online that they are not good quality.

If using a filter, I use B+W. Best quality glass, in my opinion.

[Disneyfreak92]

I have Circular Polarizers (all high end Hoya), a soft focus, and a star filter (I think those are both Tiffen). I also have a UV filter or two (high end Hoya as well). I have to say, I use the hood for protection rather than the UV filter. I stopped buying UV filters for my lenses after the first one or two. I'm actually behind on buying polarizers. Something I need to add to my list!

[Poohbear5]

My hubby bought a D60 kit for me for Valentines.:yay:
He bought three filters:
Skylight-1A "Reduces glare from UV rays.
UV- "Reduces glare from UV and blue Ray".
Circular-"Eliminates reflection from water,glass, leave"

Which is the best for a lense protector to keep on the lense all the time without changing the photo? (Got the two kit lense with VR on both).

Does the circular polarizer alter the photo outcome if you leave it on for general use?
I can exchange them if I don't open them if anyone has suggestions.

[VVFF]

My hubby bought a D60 kit for me for Valentines.:yay:
He bought three filters:
Skylight-1A "Reduces glare from UV rays.
UV- "Reduces glare from UV and blue Ray".
Circular-"Eliminates reflection from water,glass, leave"

Which is the best for a lense protector to keep on the lense all the time without changing the photo? (Got the two kit lense with VR on both).

Does the circular polarizer alter the photo outcome if you leave it on for general use?
I can exchange them if I don't open them if anyone has suggestions.

The first two are very similar filters with the skylight not being quite as neutral as the UV. So I would recommend returning one, probably the skylight. Also note that many people suggest not using a protection filter because it will somewhat reduce photo quality especially the cheaper ones.

The circular polarizer will affect your pictures. It tends to increase contrast and can be used to remove glare from glass and water. It wouldn't be appropriate to always have it on but it is a useful filter. It's effect is adjusted by rotating the filter.

[jann1033]

keep the cp for sure. it's great for sky to pop up clouds and color as well. i don't use filters for protection but if you want to you could probably use the other two , one for each lens. but if you have lens hoods they will help with protection as well. less expensive filters can degrade the image some, so it's up to you if you think it's enough not to use them
my thinking really is if you bang/drop it hard enough to break the front glass you could have done some damage inside as well...but that's jmho, others feel opposite
i've only dropped two lenses in lots of yrs using an slr and not hard enough for them to break. i think my biggest fear is falling face down on my camera but so far that hasn't happened and don't think anything would be enough protection if that happened

[boBQuincy]

This issue has been discussed plenty, to recap:
some use a UV/Skylight filter for protection, some say it degrades the image and prefer to use a lens hood for protection. In any event the UV/Skylight filter can not do anything good for the image.

A polarizer can improve color saturation and remove some reflections but takes about 2 stops of light so it is not a good filter to leave on the lens.

[Poohbear5]

Would you pop a filter on for the beach to prevent scratches to the lense?

If not, what is the best method of cleaning the front of the lense to prevent scratches from salt/sand fog?

[ukcatfan]

Would you pop a filter on for the beach to prevent scratches to the lense?

If not, what is the best method of cleaning the front of the lense to prevent scratches from salt/sand fog?

Sorry to say, but I would not bring my DSLR to the beach at all. There are many other dangers to your camera than the front element being scratched. The only way I would consider it is if I was going just to take shots, I would never be sitting it down, would not be there long, and it was a calm day (no wind). I have a p&s with a waterproof case for the beach. The sand and salt spray can completely ruin your camera, not just the lens.

[Groucho]

In the film days, a UV filter did serve an actual image-quality purpose as well as being protection, but DSLRs don't need them for UV protection.

I never use one, I use lens hoods whenever possible and rely on being reasonably careful to protect them. No problems yet! Also, a lens hood can improve image quality by blocking stray light, giving better contrast.

If you're in an environment where you are concerned about damage to the lens due to the elements, it's probably best to keep the lens cap on as much as possible.

[boBQuincy]

I agree, at the beach a scratch on the lens is only one worry and not the biggest one. I use a modified ziploc bag as described by WillCad in one of his threads. It works well, costs almost nothing, and provides adequate protection as long as we don't go in the water.

Try to keep it out of the sun as much as possible, it heats up in there.

[Poohbear5]

Thanks all!
I'll try to find the Willcad thread about the ziploc..

[NateNLogansDad]

Extreme newbie here. I have recently learned that there are other settings on my camera besides AUTO :rotfl2: . Anyway, in the last month or two I have learned SO much by reading on here and PRACTICE. So first I want to say THANK YOU for all of the info you guys put out there. Even stuff from yrs ago is helping newbies like me.

Now for my question. Is there a type of lens or filter that would help me taking night shots?

I currently have a PnS (Nikon Coolpix P80) and lenses are hard to come by it seems. I found 2x and 10x telephoto, .20x and .42 fisheye, and .5 wide angle but that's about it. (To be honest, I don't really know what they do but I am slowly piecing it together.) Would any of these help?

[Pea-n-Me]

Is there a type of lens or filter that would help me taking night shots?

I currently have a PnS (Nikon Coolpix P80) and lenses are hard to come by it seems. I found 2x and 10x telephoto, .20x and .42 fisheye, and .5 wide angle but that's about it. (To be honest, I don't really know what they do but I am slowly piecing it together.) Would any of these help?

What are you trying to accomplish? Less blur? Better exposure?

[NateNLogansDad]

I bought a small tripod that I'm hoping would help with the blur, so I guess I'm looking for better exposure. (?) I am totally facinated by some of the pictures I have seen on here from both Wishes and Spectromagic. The color in some of these pictures is just amazing and the clarity I used to think was impossible. My wife thinks I'm nuts because, like I said in the first post, I just found out not too long ago that I could make my own adjustments when I turn the knob off of AUTO :rotfl:

[VVFF]

I bought a small tripod that I'm hoping would help with the blur, so I guess I'm looking for better exposure. (?) I am totally facinated by some of the pictures I have seen on here from both Wishes and Spectromagic. The color in some of these pictures is just amazing and the clarity I used to think was impossible. My wife thinks I'm nuts because, like I said in the first post, I just found out not too long ago that I could make my own adjustments when I turn the knob off of AUTO :rotfl:

A lens isn't going to change your exposure on a P&S. The only thing you'll be changing is the field of view.

[Pea-n-Me]

I just found out not too long ago that I could make my own adjustments when I turn the knob off of AUTO

I understand the feeling. Many of us here have had that same lightbulb moment. Welcome to the club. ;)

If you're going to spend money improving your photography, you'll probably want to look into upgrading your camera as opposed to buying lenses and such for a point and shoot. It's limited in what it can do, although with practice, you can definitely improve your shots - without additional lenses or filters.

One of the best places to start is probably to begin learning about photography basics. There is a book that lots here like called Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson; and another I like for real newbies called Kodak's Most Basic Book of Digital Photography. Both can be found on Amazon.

Once you figure out the basics you could try applying them to your current camera. You'll have fun learning and trying out new things. But at some point, like many of us, you may decide you want/need something more.

Remember that some of the more amazing pictures you see here are from people who've been at this for many years and have really great equipment. Others are newer to it but have invested time, and often money, into learning the craft and improving their equipment. Surely there are great photos out there, too, with point and shoot cameras, but usually the person behind the camera is quite skilled at photography in general and can make that baby sing, LOL. I guess once in a while someone gets lucky, but usually it's more about the person knowing how to get the most out of it. Start there.

[zackiedawg]

For night shots, you don't need any filters or special lenses. In fact, filters can sometimes give unwanted reflections, so you're usually better without.

The keys to nicely exposed night shots, assuming you are willing to take the time to set up the shot and not looking for hand-held candid style shots, are:

Tripod - or at least a level surface to put the camera down on.
Self-timer - or remote release - anything that lets the camera snap the shutter without your hands on it.
Low ISO - set your camera to the lowest ISO setting available, be it 80, 100, or 125.
Longer shutter speeds - things that are moving will blur or streak, but things standing still will come out sharp, detailed, and nicely lit, with that crisp night shot look most people like. Longer shutter times will give you great colors and bright, vibrant lighting, while shorter shutters will retain more of the dark composure for more realistic dark-sky appearances...how long you choose is based on what you want to achieve.

Manual mode is usually best, once you get to know how to set shutter speed and aperture for the right effect. But until you master that, you can use the Night Scene mode (usually looks like a moon icon), or you can use Shutter Priority mode and set the shutter to 5 seconds or so...check the results and if you want it brighter, go longer on the shutter, or darker, go shorter.

[NateNLogansDad]

Guys and Gals, thank you all so much :worship: .
After getting used to the camera, I started to see lens after lens on the internet, and before I start dishing out money I wanted some info from the pros. I had a feeling a different camera would be my best bet but I'm going to keep practicing with the one I have for now. The daytime pictures come out real nice with minimal adjustment even if there's some movement in the background. I really want to keep practicing the darker shots before we go back to Disney (67 more days! :woohoo: ) so I can be proud of the pics I bring home.

This past weekend I was able to take quite a few indoor/dark shots when I took my wife to a David Cook concert (and got to play with the settings ALOT since I'm not really into him that much.) I blushed a little when she said a few of my pics could have been in a magazine or a fansite :yay: Maybe she's just trying to boost my ego a little but I'll take it!:thumbsup2

[NateNLogansDad]

I think tomorrow may call for a trip to the library and check out some of the basic books. :teacher:

[jann1033]

adorama has a good series of tip of the day tips and some include p&s tips...most are basic but ya gotta start somewhere;) http://www.adorama.com/Catalog.tpl?op=academy_new&article=100in100

[NateNLogansDad]

Thank you! I'm going to check it out now! (Beats working)

[11290]

Took this one a couple of weeks ago. Needs straightening (seems that a lot of my pictures lately have been leaners and no I do not have one leg shorter than the other and my name is not Eileen ) and some cropping but it was taken handheld with ISO 800 in "P Mode" with a Canon Xsi (450D). Not the "greatest" technically, a bit soft, but it is one that I was pretty happy with. Would have been better with a tripod (didn't have with me), a lower ISO and a longer exposure, but as I said, I am pretty happy with it.

http://pat-n-steve.smugmug.com/photos/494368797_djPdi-M.jpg

[NateNLogansDad]

Very nice! Maybe this week I'll learn how to post up some pics of my progress. It's comming along but the real teset starts May 31!

[jann1033]

Took this one a couple of weeks ago. Needs straightening (seems that a lot of my pictures lately have been leaners and no I do not have one leg shorter than the other and my name is not Eileen ) and some cropping but it was taken handheld with ISO 800 in "P Mode" with a Canon Xsi (450D). Not the "greatest" technically, a bit soft, but it is one that I was pretty happy with. Would have been better with a tripod (didn't have with me), a lower ISO and a longer exposure, but as I said, I am pretty happy with it.

http://pat-n-steve.smugmug.com/photos/494368797_djPdi-M.jpg

see if you tilt your head, i kept coming up with photos one or two degrees off and couldn't figure out why...till i realized i was tilting my head slightly when i shot:rolleyes1

[11290]

Another one, handheld, 1/8 second, ISO 400 earlier in the evening. Still a little bit of a leaner.

http://pat-n-steve.smugmug.com/photos/494366773_ZQ36A-M.jpg

[NateNLogansDad]

This is my first attempt at posting a pic. It's from yesterday at work, we went out for some fresh air and there he was. I had the camera in my pocket so I tried a shot. First one was off, there's the 2nd. He was up about 60 ft or so.

http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss53/natenlogansdad/DSCN2736-1.jpg

[NateNLogansDad]

Cool, I'm shocked at how easy it is to post pics!

Here's a sample of my progress.....


This is how I was....

http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss53/natenlogansdad/disney%202008/100_2570.jpg

this was last weekend.....

http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss53/natenlogansdad/DSCN2720.jpg

[kyak]

Hey everyone, I leave for WDW on Sunday (Wahooo!) followed by a week-long cruise, and just purchased a mess of new filters for my camera. I don't know how I should store them.

I have a total of 6 filters now, but I need a recommendation for a good case for them (one will always be on camera, so will need room for at minimum 5 filters). I'd prefer a hard case or something more compact than the filter wallets (something I can slide into a lens spot in my bag). Any suggestions? I am probably going to be buying from Adorama since shipping is pretty quick.

My filters are 67mm, which from my searches appears to be the odd size out. Everything I see online is either 52mm or 82mm. Would my filters be okay in a case made for 82mm filters?

[Spectro is #1]

I don't use filters anymore, I can reproduce the same effects with Photoshop but I use to use a filter wallet. They are around $20 bucks and come in different configurations. The trick is to buy a wallet design that will fit in you bag. Do a google search for filter wallet.
Have a great Trip!

[My2Girls66]

http://www.amazon.com/Tiffen-fp6-Filter-Wallet-Filters/dp/B00009UTCD

[boBQuincy]

Another option is the nice round embroidered pouches sold at the gift shop near Yak & Yeti in Animal Kingdom. They can hold up to two 77mm filters each.

[jann1033]

i have a filter wallet that has slots for 3 although i could put more than one in a slot. it fits on my tamrac case strap but probably would fit on any case strap, it's padded, not hard http://www.tamrac.com/welcome.htm i know dodd camera carries them.

[kyak]

Thanks for the advice! I'm weary of the wallets because they appear to be mesh and there's no microfiber or cloth protecting the filters on both sides, but I guess I should make my decision by tomorrow so what I order will be here in time! :)

[jann1033]

Thanks for the advice! I'm weary of the wallets because they appear to be mesh and there's no microfiber or cloth protecting the filters on both sides, but I guess I should make my decision by tomorrow so what I order will be here in time! :)
the tamrac strap one has complete padded kind of nubbyish cloth/nylon slots between each filter slot just like the inside of the case.( not like the memory card wallets they have pictured although i am guessing those have a plastic lining like the card holders on my case) the slots in that one are large enough to hold a filter with a step up ring attached. i could easily fit 2 filters in each pocket( wrap each in a lens tissue ) but since i only usually carry my cps no need. the larger filter wallet i have( was cheap, off someplace online for like $10) has pockets of mesh but folds up ( like a business letter) and i've never had anything get dusty in the 3 or so yrs i have had it. the outside of that one is nylon( looks like an envelope from the outside when it is folded up. the only thing i don't like about that one is it's big, doesn't really fit in my bag when i have the bag sectioned off for lenses

[boBQuincy]

To be honest, the best thig is probably to store 4 or 5 of them at home and only take the one ior two that you really need. Except for a polarizer and neutral density (and even that is mostly for special effects) most filters are not necessary with digital, filtering is more easily and more effectively done on a computer.

[Groucho]

I have the same wallet (I think) as Jann, it was pretty stuffed last trip and I think it was smearing my new 77mm CP. As least, I assume that it was the filter, as I'd take it out, use a glass-cleaning spray and my microfiber cloth and get it all clean, use it, put it away, then find it smeary again next time. I did have it overstuffed (>3 filters) but was still a little bummed and tended to rarely use the CP. I haven't used it enough since then to say that it definitely was the filter wallet, but I have my suspicions.

I did not notice this issue on previous trips with smaller filters, FWIW.

[ukcatfan]

I recently invested in the Cokin filter system. While picking up some things I needed for it at Adorama, I found a Red/Blue polarizing filter on clearance for about 75% off so I bought it. Here are a few shots I took playing with it. I think it will be fun to use on water.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b309/kmhobs/IMGP1117.jpg

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b309/kmhobs/IMGP1119.jpg

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b309/kmhobs/IMGP1124.jpg

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b309/kmhobs/IMGP1125.jpg

[RBennett]

Those are AWESOME dude!! Can you give me the specifics on your filter system and everything? I have a anniversary gift from work coming to me that I get to pick out! :cool1::thumbsup2

[ukcatfan]

Here is the actual filter
http://www.adorama.com/CKP171.html

The holder
http://www.adorama.com/CKBPP.html

Various adapter rings
http://www.adorama.com/CK52P.html
http://www.adorama.com/CK55P.html
http://www.adorama.com/CK58P.html

I bought into the system to get a graduated ND filter, but also picked up a three stop regular ND filter.

[oregondaddyof2]

Those pics are amazing... I am going to look into getting a filter soon...

[jann1033]

kind of like looking at the world through rose colored glasses;) i like the blue and pink effect. you probably would have hard time doing that in photoshop, well at least i would have a hard time doing that in photoshop

[JoeDif]

Those are some pretty cool effects :thumbsup2

[TheGoofster]

Is anybody familiar with these?

I enjoy trying to shoot macro / close up shots, but I don't think I'll be able to get a good macro lens anytime in the near future. How effective is a diopter lens?
I came across a set of these lenses (+1, +2, +4, and +10 for the Nikon D3000) on amazon for under 20 dollars. Would you recommend for or against something like this?

Any comments / info would be great.

thanks

[boBQuincy]

Most of the diopter "filters" have lots of aberrations, typical of a single element. This may be acceptable but if it is not then Canon's 500D and 250D close-up lenses are doublets and have much better performance (at a much higher price). I have a 500D and can confirm that it is very good.

Here is an example of a 500D with a Canon 70-200:

http://www.suzieandbob.com/animals/bee_5138.jpg

[MarkBarbieri]

My advice is to buy a cheap set of diopter filters. Play with them for a while. See if you like shooting macro.

If you really get into macro, buy a dedicated macro lens (or a few). If you enjoy it, but don't want to spend that much money, then buy a good set of close-up filters or some extension tubes. As far as I know, only Canon makes really good close-up filters (the 500D and 250D that Bob mentioned). The filters screw onto the lens, so they are system agnostic. I've seen several Nikon guys using the Canon filters.

As Bob said, the cheap filters aren't that good optically. Still, they are good enough to play with and to get a sense for whether you really want to get into macro. I'd start cheap unless you are sure that it is what you want to do.

[jann1033]

since money is usually always an object with me, i originally went the cheap extension tube and/or filter route and found it very frustrating. like to much of a pain to even bother with

next i bought a very good but not fantastic macro lens for around the same price as good af extension tubes and enjoy using it much more...main problem is it is sharp but is 1:2 rather than 1:1 unless you add the filter which i still find frustrating. it limits the focus distance so much it's really annoying so i usually use it 1:2 and crop. wish i had saved the money wasted on the cheap filters and non af extension tubes and just applied it to something less frustrating.. eventualy i'll replace it for a canon but really don't have to as much as want to so i can save up and not feel like i can never take a macro shot till then.

the particular lens i have is a phoenix 100mm f3.5 macro 1:2 with a 1:1 filter included and was marketed under vivitar, phoenix and one or 2 other brands i can't remember. it is no longer sold by phoenix nor i think vivitar but since it was only around 100-150+ new, you might be able to find a used one really cheap. it has a 5 yr warranty so it's almost sinful how low a price it is :rotfl: but not sure how the warranty would work with a resold one. omega sater is the new distributor for phoenix and has a macro lens for around 200+ but no idea how good it is

[TheGoofster]

Thanks guys.

I'll probably go ahead an order the set (since it is so inexpensive) and give it a try.

[xipetotec]

has anyone used inexpensive screw-on close-up filters?
What kind of results have you gotten?

I've only got the kit lens ( 18-55mm ) and a 85-300mm that came with my Canon XTi kit as well. Neither of these allows me to get REALLY up close a subject. ( the 18-55 is 1.4ft I believe ) and I don't have the dough to invest for a 400-600$ lens to get real close-up macro shots.

I know these screw-ons can't possibly work as well as a good quality macro lense, but has anyone found them to be at least half decent?

[KarenAylwood]

I love macro photography so I went with the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro lens, but yes- it was $500. After I got the lens I bought Bryan Peterson's Understanding Close-Up Photography. In it, he raves about the Canon 500D close up filter (and he's a Nikon photographer!). I'd look into that- it has pretty good reviews on B&H.

[jann1033]

they don't work well. the really cheap ones are not good quality so basically you probably get the same effect by putting a nice thick pickle jar on the end of your lens and using that. cheaper too!;).
i have a macro that has a 1:1 filter( lens is 1:2) and i hate using it. it makes the distance you are from the object critical, ie with mine you need to be exactly 12 inches away for it to focus( af or manual). so that means moving the tripod constantly, then moving the macro attachment i have on my tripod ,then finding out i am still 12.5 inches away and it won't focus. i don't know it the canon would have the same problem but i find it a real pain. by the time i get it set up perfectly, bee is long gone and flower has wilted and died ;) my 3rd party macro was only about $100+ but no longer made ( build =very cheap ie like the canon 50mmf1.8,glass not so bad)

other inexpensive macro alternatives might be the kenko auto focus extension tubes that are ( i think ) still under $200 don't buy the non AF tubes unless you want to have to do all focusing, setting exposures etc yourself. you could add the step of using something like av, set the speed etc with the lens on af, remove the lens, set lens to manual, put on the non af tubes, replace manually set lens but imo the bug probably would have flown away by then:rotfl2:. iirc they don't need a large aperture lens to work but you might need to add some light . since no glass is involved as long as the electronics work you should be in business. i have a non af set which i used once when i first got my dslr( few yrs ago) maybe i would have an easier time now but then i constantly blew out the highlights with them and haven't pulled them out since

or maybe you can also buy reversing rings but i don't know if they would work on your lenses or not.

or keep your eyes open for a used macro. now that canon had the new IS macro maybe you could find a used non is one even though it might take a while.

[kenny]

Looking to get some filters for Xmas. I am thinking I probably need a circular polarizer and a neutral density filter.

I was looking at the Hoya introductory kit that comes with the circular polarizer, UV and Warmer filters.

Do I really need the UV and Warmer? From what I read on these boards most of you are not too high on the UV and couldn't find much on the warmer.

What are your thoughts?

[gokenin]

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/74221-raynox-macro-club.html

The link is to another forumn that has a lots of pictures from people using the Raynox adaptor for macro us the pictures I think are definately an alternative to buying a dedicated Macro lens

[JarrothsMom]

I would like to knoe too...and WHY the ones you choose! :thumbsup2

[xipetotec]

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/74221-raynox-macro-club.html

The link is to another forumn that has a lots of pictures from people using the Raynox adaptor for macro us the pictures I think are definately an alternative to buying a dedicated Macro lens

You mean the Raynox DCR-250 ?

[jann1033]

cp cause you can't really cheat with that one in photoshop and it helps in many instances: glare, makes prettier skies, lowers the light if you want to slow the shutter speed ie to blur water and don't have an nd handy or it's a really bright day and you need more than the nd you have handy and (g)nd, yes( (g)raduated doesn't have a hard line where it shifts gradually from light to dark. useful when you want to slow the shutter or it's a big contrast ie sunset verse foreground and background. the dark part darkens the lightest part so you don't end up with nothing but silhouettes ). warmer is what would make skin tones warmer which if you have even photoshop elements it has 2 warmer filters under the "filters". Uv opens a can of worms, personally i have a bunch i never ever ever use.
imo buy the filter for the biggest size lens you have in the best quality you can afford of the first two and then get step up rings for the smaller lenses. i have a cokin gnd which i really like...i can just hold it in front of any lens i have or use the handy dandy holder if i feel like it. they are a little less expensive than some others. they used to even offer a whole set of gnds for maybe under a hundred(?).

[Groucho]

Like Jann said... the warmer is a bit unnecessary for digital use and the UV is only worthwhile as protection but may negatively impact image quality. (I have to admit that I like buying used lenses with UVs in place, though; they often has perfect front glass! I do immediately remove the UV though.) A CP is very nice though, make sure you get a good one though. Hoya is very reputable (they own Pentax, how bad could they be? :teeth: ) but I would probably still spring for one of the HMC ones.

As for the Cokin filters and/or step-up/down rings... my big concern is lens hoods. A correct-size filter will not affect the use of the "correct" lens hood for any given lens, unlike a Cokin or a step-down ring.

[My2Girls66]

A CP will get the most use other than UV ones for protection which I do use. I bought a .6 ND filter to do the silky waterfall thing and have only used it once. Works well, tho. I bought Tiffen's from Amazon. Good prices.

[spinetnglr]

A few years ago I bought a bag full of photo equipment (mostly for the Canon AE-1 film camera) at the auction where I work. I shot a few rolls of film thru it and then resold it. In the bottom of that bag though I found a few other goodies that I kept. One of the items was a set of 52 mm Vivatar +1 +2 +3 closeup filters. I did play around with them a bit and they are fun to use. I got some acceptable shots using them. As long as your expectations are not high they are a fun filter to use. Here is a shot I took using I think just the +1 on my D40 using the kit 18-55mm lens.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3130/2896724952_c8e30e49c1_b.jpg

[edolyne]

I also concur that a CP is a great one to have at your disposal. As for UV, I place them on all of my lenses, yes it may degrade IQ a little bit but invest in good quality filters. In the past I purchased Tiffen & Hoya however I have since moved onto B+W and find the quality of their products to be excellent. The prices are more expensive than Tiffen but well worth the extra expense.