SUnsets and Filters

[sovietdoc]

in 2 weeks I am going to a sunset shoot at the ocean shore. Last few times I've done it, I didn't like the result as reflection from the waves messed it all up. I wan to bring those reflections down and I hear CPL's are good for that? I don't want a GND because I can easily do what those filters do when working with RAW in photoshop with a few of my plugins. But getting rid of reflections I can't do in PP.

Also I'll be going to shoot lakes/mountains and I take it CPLs are very useful for that?

If my assumptions about the usefulness of a CPL filter for the type of shots I want are correct then I want to get one. I see that there are tons of brands out there. If money is no subject and I want the highest possible IQ what should I go for?

B+W? Hoya? Heliopan? Kenko? Tiffen? Zeiss? Singh-Ray?

BH Lists Singh Rays as the most expensive for 82mm thread but are they that good? Has anyone used them?

Thanks guys.

 

[table1349]

B+W Kasemenn Circular Polarizer to fit you largest lens and step rings to fit the rest.

As for ND filters, I am still waiting for someone to show me how to accomplish this in Photoshop instead of with a ND.
[h=1]
[/h]

 

[tirediron]

If you're shooting out of doors, CPOLs are essential IMO; they're excellent for reducing glare and reflection on water. While I don't have a 'without' version, this image was shot on a very bright, sunny day in Crete; you can see how little reflection is on the water. This was done with a B+W CPOL.

FWIW, you can't easily do in post what an ND of G-ND can do in-camera. In post you can create an effect similar to that of a real filter, but it's never going to be as good. DO NOT RELY ON POST to "correct" things or to do what should be done in-camera.

As to brands, Tiffen and Hoya (in their mutli-coated versions are decent. B+W and Heliopan are MUCH better and Lee and Singh-Ray are at the top of the heap. That said, most of my filters are B+W and I am very happy with the results they provide. Singh-Ray is that good, however I'm not convinced that it's as much better than a B+W as the price might lead you to believe.

 

[KmH]

CPL filters are very angle dependent. You could get a very uneven CPL filter effect on the sky depending on the angle of the Sun to the lens long axis. The sky could be much darker on one side of the photo than the other.

In other words, if the reflections from the water are not within the 'family of angles' the CPL will do little, except reduce the exposure by 1.5 to 2 stops.

Often, people look to gear as a substitute for knowledge, and are often disappointed when the gear falls short of their expectations.

 

[table1349]

FYI, yes my choice of filter was expensive, however I only own/need the one and when you factor in the number of lenses it fits that I own, it is actually quite cheap in the long run. No matter what CPL you choose, get one with a brass housing instead of aluminum. Never had a brass housing filter get stuck on any of my lenses and they operate in extreme temps better than aluminum.

 

[sovietdoc]

When I was talking about doing GND effects in PP I wasn't referring to the smooth water. That can only be done with very slow aperture and yes, GND's definitely help for that.

As for CPL, I guess I'll look more into various brands but yes, B+W, Heliopan and Sigh are up top of my list.. I guess I can't go wrong with either of these brands.



After looking at the filters more closely, I think I'll need a GND as well, that with a CPL should be the combo I can use in different conditions.

 

[TheBiles]

B+W Kasemenn Circular Polarizer to fit you largest lens and step rings to fit the rest.

As for ND filters, I am still waiting for someone to show me how to accomplish this in Photoshop instead of with a ND.
[h=1]
[/h]

Just shoot in the evening.

I think he was mainly referring to using a reverse grad ND filter to equally expose the sky and land.


You also don't need a filter for sunsets:


Tampa Sunset (26 of 37) by Quentin Biles, on Flickr

Every image in that set was done with no filler.

Sent from my Galaxy S III

 

[table1349]

B+W Kasemenn Circular Polarizer to fit you largest lens and step rings to fit the rest.

As for ND filters, I am still waiting for someone to show me how to accomplish this in Photoshop instead of with a ND.

Just shoot in the evening.

I think he was mainly referring to using a reverse grad ND filter to equally expose the sky and land.


You also don't need a filter for sunsets:


Tampa Sunset (26 of 37) by Quentin Biles, on Flickr

Every image in that set was done with no filler.

Sent from my Galaxy S III

While that may be and you and I understand that, statements like this can be confusing to newbies following posts to learn. "I don't want a GND because I can easily do what those filters do when working with RAW in photoshop with a few of my plugins."

 

[sovietdoc]

Well, in PP I can't remove reflections on the water so that part of what CPL does I can't reproduce. All of its other qualities like colors and contrast, yes, no problem.

ND's that slow the water down, you can mimic the effect but it's a lot of work so it's easier to just use a filter for that, and it will look better in the end. Other than that, I can't think of anything ND can do that can't be somewhat easily done with Photoshop.

Grads are basically used for separating sky and the ground because you want to control the exposure since the sky is always a lot brighter than the ground. When shooting RAW, with the help of some nice plugins, you can replicate the result of pretty much any GND filter if all you used it for was Sky/Ground exposure control and maybe some color casts like making sky more red.

Now, the way I see it, in PP I can't do to things as I mentioned, I can't filter reflections as well as polarizer can, because it actually filters light waves and you can't just PP and get the same effect. And in photoshop you can do smooth waterfalls but it requires more work than slapping a filter on your lens, so I'd use a ND filter just to save me time, plus it would arguably look better at the end.

As for ND filters, I am still waiting for someone to show me how to accomplish this in Photoshop instead of with a ND.

Here is a link for photoshop newbies who want to learn how to make smooth waterfalls. Create Silky Smooth Waterfalls In Photoshop

Actually, most photographers I know only know about 5% of things you can easily do in photoshop, and a lot of time they would rather invest into more hardware, to get the same result as others can get without going out of their office. Of course, it always feels right when you actually get the shot the way you want without any PP but the only thing that matters is the final product. The way you do it, is all up to you and your skill.

As far as filters are concerned, I've been recently looking at Lee's System as someone has mentioned their name. As a platform, I think their system is very nice for landscape shooting because it's really flexible. Not being able to mount a lens cap doesn't bother me, I don't sit around and wait for a sunset with a cap on anyways.

Biles, great set btw, I've done some sunset shots in Seattle and the colors are EXACTLY the same as the ones on those shots and yes, I didn't use a filter then either.

 

[Derrel]

The idea that PS is a perfect substitute for a Graduated ND filter is erroneous. PS work can "simulate" ND filtration, but not equal it. In the hands of a skilled shooter, an ND grad is irreplaceable. As for polarizing filters...at times, removing reflections from the surface of bodies of water creates a very BAD effect; our brains are very much used to seeing glare on top of bodies of water. At times, removing said glare can make a body of water look like...the bottom of the creek,river,or pond...the visual "fingerprint" of a body of water includes at least "some" glare, and when that glare is removed, often the scene does not look quite right. Exactly "how much glare to remove" is pretty easily discerned these days with d-slr captures...simply shoot with varying degrees of polarization! No film cost!

Polarizers ALSO remove a HUGE amount of glare from grasses, and foliage. The degree of glare that is present in foliage is hard to believe unless one has experienced it himself. Trees and plants typically have thousands and thousands of leaves, all causing glare. A polarizer can remove much of that glare, and the scene appears VERY different than it does without the polarizer over the lens.,

The world's leading landscape shooters are STILL USING ND grads for their work...because they work better than pushing pixels around...there really is no true replacement, although the phrase good enough for government work does apply to PS simulation of ND filtration. Image the possibilities of combining actual ND filtration AND post plug-ins....hmmm...

 

[sovietdoc]

^ Yes, I agree.