Common Lens Filters? and there uses?

[gryffinwings]

I've been wondering about lens filters, to see if I can improve my knowledge and possibly create better pictures. So far I've been basically using UV filters, even though I'm not even sure what benefit they provide:

So I know of these:

Clear Filters - Don't do any except protect the lens as far as I know
UV Filters - Filter UV, not sure what effect these have on them.
CPL - I think these get rid of non-metallic reflection. I'm not sure what that means. Would it be a good idea to stack with a UV filter?

Other than that, I don't know what else there is for filters to use and what uses they would have.

[Ads]

[Infidel]

Let's assume you're shooting a digital slr. That said, you likely don't need a clear or uv filter...some people like to use these for protection, but this comes with a caveat. The protection these filters afford is generally thought to be most useful when the front element is exposed to a lot a dirt/contamination and frequently wiped clean with a less-than-perfect cleaning cloth (think dirty t-shirt). The uv filtering doesn't do much, as the digital imaging sensor usually already incorporates such a filter.

The circular polarizer is great for filtering polarized light that is apparent during certain atmospheric conditions and reflected from some surfaces (foliage, water). This is one effect that can not be replicated in photoshop.

Remember, any piece of glass you put in front of the imaging sensor can potentially degrade image quality, and this effect is cumulative. I suggest you don't use filters unless they're necessary. Use a lens hood and lens cap to protect the front element from incidental bumps.

[Joshonator]

An ND (neutral density) filter reduces the amount of light coming in allowing you to take long exposures in bright conditions or with large apertures. These are usually used in the picture you see with water looking really soft (waterfalls and waves)

[KmH]

Specialized UV filters, like a Skylight 1-A can help cut haze.

Circular PoLarizing (CPL) filters are useful for minimizing specular reflections, and reflections from non-metalic surfaces. A CPL filter will also add saturation to greens and blues. How much saturation is added and how much reflections are controlled is dependent on where in the sky relative to the camera the Sun is, and/or where relative to the camera the lights causing the reflections are.
Note that CPL filters are 2 pieces of glass, and one moves such that the filters effect is adjustable. CPL filters are most effective when the light source/Sun is less than 30° above the horizon and at 90° to the lens focal length axis (the side).

Graduated neutral density (GND) and neutral density (ND) filters are also useful. GND filters can darken a bright sky so that multiple exposures don't have to be blended post process. Joshnator mentioned a use for ND filters. ND filters are often purchased in sets so they can be stacked to give more density options and GND filters can have sharp or diffuse graduations. ND filters can be stacked with a GND filter.

Plus, not all lenses have the same size filter threads. The very common 18-55 mm kit lens usually accepts 52 mm filter threads whereas a pro grade wide angle zoom may have 77 mm filter threads. Some opt to use a filter holder that holds rectangular or square filters eliminating the need for a variety of filter thread sizes and/or step up/step down rings.

Good filters are not inexpensive. A quality multi-coated CPL filter with 77 mm threads and Schott glass could run $180 or so.
I recommend always selecting multi-coated filters. As far as brands I recommend B+W (it's not B&W), Singh-Ray, Heliopan, Formatt, Lee.

[gryffinwings]

I think I'll stick with getting a CPL filter. To be honest not sure if there is a difference in performance between a lower cost vs a more expensive one. Could anyone recommend a low cost alternative?

[JG_Coleman]

I think I'll stick with getting a CPL filter. To be honest not sure if there is a difference in performance between a lower cost vs a more expensive one. Could anyone recommend a low cost alternative?

You can find low-cost CPLs pretty much anywhere. A quick browse through Amazon, for instance, reveals that CPLs in the $10 to $40 range are made by Tiffen, Hoya, Zeikos, Olympus, Sunpak, Polaroid, etc (some of these manufactuers, like Hoya, make more expensive models as well).

Be warned that these are cheap for a reason! They simply aren't made with the same precision and quality materials as more expensive CPLs. The more expensive models aren't just priced priced high for the hell of it. They really are better pieces of equipment.

That being said, there seems to be very little consensus on just how much of a negative impact a cheaper CPL will actually have on your photographs. Some people will swear to you that using a $30 polarizer is so detrimental to your photographs that you might just as well stay home and not bother in the first place. Others, such as myself, will tell you that while more expensive polarizers are undeniably better than the bargain pieces, all CPLs generally work the same way and will generally produce the same effect in photographs.

In short, a $250 B+W CPL is definitely better than a $30 Sunpak CPL. No question about it. At the same time, the improvement you will see between a $30 polarizer and a $100 polarizer is not going to be too remarkable. And the difference between a $100 polarizer and a $250 polarizer, while undoubtedly real, will be hard to discern unless you know what you're looking for while pixel-peeping in Lightroom. My point is that, for every $100 dollar increase in price, what you're gaining are generally subtle improvements in quality. For people that are sincerely invested in photography... either serious hobbyists or professionals... those expensive subtleties are worthwhile. But for the ordinary hobby shooter... especially one that may or may not use a CPL all that often... an expensive CPL may prove to be overkill.

If your hobby shooting and you'd like to try out a polarizer without dropping $100 to $200, then by all means pick up a bargain CPL at BestBuy or something and have fun and experiment. If you find that you use it often, then by all means, upgrade a little ways down the road.

[gryffinwings]

What about a warm polarizer? Like what this guy uses? What's the difference in using that and using a regular polarizer and just upping the saturation in camera? Link: Focus on Singh-Ray Filters: Seven Rules for Effectively Using a Polarizer

[fjrabon]

What about a warm polarizer? Like what this guy uses? What's the difference in using that and using a regular polarizer and just upping the saturation in camera? Link: Focus on Singh-Ray Filters: Seven Rules for Effectively Using a Polarizer

well, it also changes the white balance, which a lot of times your camera will then undo anyway unless you're constantly manually controlling white balance, and if you shoot RAW you can adjust how warm the photo is in PP very easily (the linked article's reasoning makes it sound like changing WB is difficult in PP, which couldn't be further from the truth).

I knew somebody who bought one of those warming CPLs was like "dang if I can tell the difference" then realized that the AWB in their camera was simply undoing the warming effect anyway.

And getting more saturation through a CPL is selective, ie it ups the saturation on things that have lots of glare on them that would be otherwise washed out, it doesn't up saturation for the entire picture, and thus makes the image's saturation more 'even', and generally looks a little 'better' than upping it 'in camera' (which only works if you're shooting JPEG anyway) or if you're upping the saturation in PP.

Edit: Also, the saturation effect you mentioned isn't peculiar to warming CPLs, all CPLs do that. The only difference between a warming CPL and a regular CPL is that warming CPL's filter out some blue and add some yellow, ie 'warm' the image up a bit.

[JG_Coleman]

What about a warm polarizer? Like what this guy uses? What's the difference in using that and using a regular polarizer and just upping the saturation in camera? Link: Focus on Singh-Ray Filters: Seven Rules for Effectively Using a Polarizer

A warming polarizer is essentially just a "combo" filter...a polarizer which incorporates a warming filter. The "warming" aspect, quite simply, just causes the colors in the scene to be rendered warmer. Note that a "warming" filter is not really a general "saturation booster"... it strictly warms the colors. So, colors that are already warm to begin with will probably experience a saturation boost as result of being warmed further... but a warming filter shouldn't really be thought of as an all-purpose saturation booster.

Hypothetically, you can achieve a similar warming effect by simply adjusting white balance digitally.... either in-camera or during RAW post-processing. Of course, this was not the case with film cameras, which is originally why these filters were developed. Some people still like to use them on digital cameras... though, I'm not really sure if the physical warming filter offers any major advantages over warming the photo digitally. One thing is for sure... unlike the effect of a polarizer, which cannot be accurately duplicated digitally, you can definitely call upon software to warm up your photos in post-processing... especially if you're shooting in RAW.

[gryffinwings]

I'm looking at getting a Tiffen CPL filter: Amazon.com: Tiffen 67mm Circular Polarizer: Camera & Photo

[gryffinwings]

I might also be considering a Neutral Density Filter as well. I've been reading that these allow you to use wide apertures in bright lighting conditions, if this is correct, how exactly does this affect a picture that is taken?

Also since I'd be considering Tiffen in this area as well, what level should I get for an ND filter? If I get one at all.

[KmH]

Go to www.bhphotovideo.com and look at filters. There are comparison images for the filters.

Neutral Density (Solid) | B&H Photo Video

Tiffen is a somewhat lower grade filter maker than say B+W. A lot of Tiffen's filters are resin (plastic), and not glass.

The Tiffen CPL you linked to is not multi-coated, and it may soften the focus of any lens it is used on.

[gryffinwings]

Go to www.bhphotovideo.com and look at filters. There are comparison images for the filters.

Neutral Density (Solid) | B&H Photo Video

Tiffen is a somewhat lower grade filter maker than say B+W. A lot of Tiffen's filters are resin (plastic), and not glass.

The Tiffen CPL you linked to is not multi-coated, and it may soften the focus of any lens it is used on.

I was looking at the sample picture with and without that, that website has and I have to say that the pictures a lot of the time look like crap with the filter on, what's the deal with that.

[gryffinwings]

Is there any more information anyone can provide.

[gsgary]

I think I'll stick with getting a CPL filter. To be honest not sure if there is a difference in performance between a lower cost vs a more expensive one. Could anyone recommend a low cost alternative?

No, you get what you pay for, the only filters i use are Lee, my collection would probably set you back $600