stacking filters?

[Abby Rose]

How is it done, and why is it done? With what filters is it done?

I am finally finally finally getting a polarizing filter soon, something I've been dithering over for most of this year. :er: I'd like to understand these things.

 

[Blake.Oney]

One filter threads onto the lens, and it should have thread on it's outer end for another filter.

 

[tirediron]

Filter stacking is done exactly as Blake described it; it's normally to create a specific effect, for instance I will stack several stops of ND on top of a CPOL to get a very long shutter speed which might allow me to capture a soft, flowing stream.

 

[Buckster]

Alternative to screw on filters are the square Cokin style filter systems, which is especially useful for stacking. Here's an example of how they can be used:

I shot the following with:

2 Neutral density filters to turn the waves into mist
1 graduated blue filter to turn the water blue
1 graduated sunset filter to color the sky, blended with...
1 graduated mauve filter to color the sky some more

Result:

Because they're not screwed on, I can move them up and down in their frame-like holder in front of the lens, adjusting where the fade lines are on the graduated filters. The same is true for graduated neutral density filters, which help control exposure values where half the scene is brighter than the other half.

In addition to those advantages, each filter you get will fit every lens you have, just by getting the proper adapter ring for each lens, which is cheap. Buying a filter to fit each lens you have or might get in the future is way too expensive a way to go.

And yes, they have a circular polarizer that fits the system as well.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

As with every other filter question, the only filters you need ( and in turn would ever need to stack ) would be CPL and ND/Split ND/ Graduated ND. Everything else can be done in post so there is no sense in stacking layers upon layers of glass in front of your lens or spending boatloads of cash on all of the filters.

But your question on HOW its done has been answered. Don't forget though that CPLs need to be able to turn easily so they should be the last filter on top. To expand on what TiredIron said about the stream, the CPL could be cutting down on reflections and boosting some colors, while the ND allows the slow shutter speed. ( he didn't really explain the CPL purpose in that set up although it also cuts back on light slightly as well )

 

[tirediron]

As with every other filter question, the only filters you need ( and in turn would ever need to stack ) would be CPL and ND/Split ND/ Graduated ND. Everything else can be done in post so there is no sense in stacking layers upon layers of glass in front of your lens or spending boatloads of cash on all of the filters.

That has to go down in history as just about the worst advice ever. Yes, many filter effects can be replicated in post-processing, which is a boon to those who can't afford tons of filters, but there is no substitute for getting it right in the camera. I would very much like to see you produce without the benefit of any filters an images like the Buckster posted which would be identical at say, 11x14 print size.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

As with every other filter question, the only filters you need ( and in turn would ever need to stack ) would be CPL and ND/Split ND/ Graduated ND. Everything else can be done in post so there is no sense in stacking layers upon layers of glass in front of your lens or spending boatloads of cash on all of the filters.

That has to go down in history as just about the worst advice ever. Yes, many filter effects can be replicated in post-processing, which is a boon to those who can't afford tons of filters, but there is no substitute for getting it right in the camera. I would very much like to see you produce without the benefit of any filters an images like the Buckster posted which would be identical at say, 11x14 print size.

Every filter effect can be replicated in post. The only things that can't be fixed if they are too far gone, is exposure, and reflection. You can't throw a graduated color on top a picture? Its really not difficult. If I had the RAW file from Buckster, I along with most people on this forum could replicate the effects of his colored filters. I am in no way trying to put down Bucksters photo, its a great shot. I don't want my advice of not needing filters to somehow be twisted into a put down to his work or anything. If you like using filters, great, but as stated above, unless it effects exposure or reflection, it can be replicated. Depending on your skill level, it may or may not be faster and easier for you to use the filters instead ( especially if you came up in the film days and this is what you are used to doing ) but the worst advice ever? Just because you have some mantra about "get it right in camera" thats fine, but the fact stands whether you like it or not, its the digital age and you don't need nearly every filter out there. They stick around because of the people who are used to using them, don't want to spend time in post, don't know how to post process, or still shoot film. No need to get insulting because you don't agree with it.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Every filter effect can be replicated in post.

You should never use such an absolute.

Oh, oops. :blushing:

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Every filter effect can be replicated in post.

You should never use such an absolute.

Oh, oops. :blushing:

HAHA, ok ok, there MAY be a few other filters I am not thinking of, and I can accept that. But the MAJORITY ( is that better bitter? ) can be replicated in post. Some harder than others, and some I am not capable of yet, but that doesn't mean they can't be.

 

[kundalini]

.... If I had the RAW file from Buckster, .....

The RAW file included the ingenuous use of filters, so your point is mute. Yeah, sure, the effects could probably be done similarly in post, but I am more enthralled with the thinking that happened before the shot was taken. That, my friend, is a photographers vision, not a "oh let's see what I can do with this shot".

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

.... If I had the RAW file from Buckster, .....

The RAW file included the ingenuous use of filters, so your point is mute. Yeah, sure, the effects could probably be done similarly in post, but I am more enthralled with the thinking that happened before the shot was taken. That, my friend, is a photographers vision, not a "oh let's see what I can do with this shot".

Yeah, I meant if the shot was taken without them. Obviously the challenge to me was silly because doing stuff with limited low rez online images isn't as clean or easy.

I respect your taste in how you go about shooting, but just because someone chooses not to use a filter on the camera doesn't mean they don't have vision. In fact, to pull it off successfully, I would argue that they have more vision. They aren't standing in the field using trial and error before moving on, they don't have a computer with them ( well most don't ) to actually edit the pic to make sure it works before moving on ( this I guess could be one benefit of using real filters ). They see a shot, and see what they are capable of making it into. Now if you are just simply trying to "FIX" picture by adding whatever you possibly can, thats a different thing all together. If you set out to take a shot, because you plan on adding a color to the sky, or to the water, or whatever, it is absolutely the same as the guy that stands there and slaps on a bunch of filters. Its just a different order of doing it, with different tools.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Yeah, let's not suggest using filters while taking the shot is in anyway superior to someone who takes the shot with the same goal in mind, via post work.

 

[Abby Rose]

thanks for the information, guys, sans arguments.