camera filters
 

My photography is pretty good, but certainly not excellent.

I put a lot of thought into the composition of photos, and the image clarity is good. But they don't have that dramatic look, that standing out look, that great photos have.

I think I could raise my game a little by using filters.

I'm interested in doing good interior, real estate type pics, plus exciting landscapes. But don't know which filters to experiment with. My camera is a DSLR Sony a290

What are you guys using and for what?

Unless you have a complete aversion to the computer- photoshop can easily replicate almost any filter. You may have to stack a couple of images- but much easier and faster in the field than a filter.
Polarizing filters are about the only one you cannot match later. It can darken skies and take the shine off of water, leaves, etc. But be careful- it can look artificial, and also give a weird gradient in the sky.
Save your money- get better at photoshop.
Gary

I don’t think on-camera filters are what you need. The Photoshop Camrea Raw filter works wonders ar bringing out color and detail in a photograph.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1537961777.jpg

Raw Image

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1537961777.jpg

Jpeg image as processed in camera.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1537961777.jpg

Raw image processed in Photoshop "Camera Raw" filter.

Nikon D610
Nikkor 70-100 4.5-5.6 lens

^^^it may be me but the final pic above looks over-sharpened and synthetic. It hurts my eyes.

For landscape, maybe HDR? Which can also look weird.

For interior, what about golden light? The only thing I can think of that might give you some "pop."

not a photo guy by any means (thought I might learn something) but I agree about the last pic. too much

first pic looks best. contrast on tower lost on second one.

I may be wrong and probably am, but it looks like it was an over cast day, not much sunshine.

would like to see that as a black and white

Camera RAW is the real answer. Don't use the "stock" import, adjust it to fit your tastes.

Back in the olden days of photography when film was the only way, I was a professional photographer. I would work with some of our customers and using a Sinar-P 4x5 and 90 MM lens we could see most of a room. The tilt and shift would eliminated the distortions and we might spend 4 hours on one shot. We shot at night to avoid daylight, and spent hours replacing bulbs, filtering some areas with sheets of tinted Mylar. In the end, we had a series 4x5 transparencys that were accepted into Architectural Digest. It was a full night of work.

Now with digital, walk up click, go home and do it all in Photoshop and get a better result. It is just amazing. With the full dynamic range beyond what film could do, and the ability to tweak everything. Photography is mostly done with a good computer and a fancy monitor now.

Most important have fun. Find some tutorials on how to use Photoshop, the full version not the cheap version. The filters are now all applied after the fact.

You can adjust the filters in photoshop it to whatever you want, from just like the first image to even sharper than the last. It's not like a filter on the camera where you get what you get.

There isn’t a filter that screens out bad composition. :)

Or gives awesome DOF.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1537976200.jpg

I agree the last image is too sharp, especially the foreground. This time I applied a little less sharpness and contrast to the top half and none to the foreground.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1537976200.jpg

Here is black and white.

It was early in the morning, broken clouds with a red sun rising. I was trying to catch the light from the rising sun on the clouds and on the silo and contrast them with the unlit trees and field.

there is something about the sky
it looks like "art" as in painted. make me think of this paint by numbers my wire has that her grandmother did.
not trying to be insulting by any means.
seems like some photographers can make their shots look vivid and colorful. I can not. like you, was thinking there is a filter I am missing.


this one looks better IMO.

little more contrast on the BW.

I agree with others. These days it's all about catching the right light, good composition, and processing in post. If you get a good shot in raw you can do wonders in post. Lots of good quickie tutorials in Youtube these days. For interior RE shots you need good wide angle lenses and fill lighting.

Filters, photoshop, plugins, lenses, cameras. These are all tools. Nothing more.
Like anything else, tools can be used well. They can also be used poorly.
Photoshop can certainly be taken too far- as in the above case.
Lens filters can also be used poorly.
Me, I am a pretty good photographer. Been shooting for over 40 years. Won juried competitions, show in galleries, published in international art books. Rarely use filters. 10stop neutral density filter lets me get long shutter speeds if needed in sunlight. Rarely a circular polarizing filter is needed. Otherwise my filters sit unused.
If you are trying to get a great look for your images shoot in raw format. Then learn to use the tools. Read,study. I believe it is a learnable skill.
It can be a wonderful life long journey.
Gary

It did look like a painted sky that morning, that is one reason I took the photo. One purpose for a photo is to try to capture what you see with your naked eye (or what we think we see). So in this case, if it looks like a painted sky, that's good.


There are lots of reasons to take a photo. Most of mine were used in offset printing, they had to be sharp and contrasty to make up for the muddying effect of the printing process and I generally err in that direction. In general, photos that intended to be viewed in a reflective medium (prints, magazines, etc) need to be more sharp and have more contrast than images viewed in a projecting medium (computer screens) that add their own sharpness and contrast. The processes of getting the color to your eyes are completely different.

+1

A circular polarizer is pretty much the only (hardware) filter I'd bother with.
The only other exception would be a quality UV filter. Though, I ran those primarily for the benefit of protecting the optics, and less for the UV (haze) reduction.

One caveat with a polarizer is that they can be hard (and sometimes impossible) to "tune" with digital cams that only have LCD screens, and not an actual (optical) viewfinder.
Also, keep in mind they can/will act as an ND filter in most cases as well.

As above, almost anything can be remedied in post, but it is nice to minimize your PS workload by getting good shots to begin with.

SmileWavy

A bit exaggerated for effect, but here's another example to show that PS is an indispensable tool. In this case, bringing up the shadow detail, increasing contrast, and removing color cast took less time that it would to dig through your filter pouch, find the right filter(s), and install/remove on a lens.


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1537986513.jpg

SmileWavy

How are you processing your images? The lens will have a lot to do with it. I'm paging ckcarr, who does phenomenal landscape photography who hangs out here.

If you could post some examples, especially links to original images, that would help a lot.

+1 on the polarizer, especially if you are shooting metallic surfaces. The polarizing effect is one thing you can't add in post.
Another caveat is that the polarizer can add vignetting, so shoot big and crop it down in post.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1537988607.jpg

But if you post on a message board, the vignetting virtually disappears!
It's very obvious on all four corners in previews on my laptop screen.

You probably understood this, but the color cast was actually part of the goal of the photo. I suspect an image from just 5-10 mins earlier would have been even better (more of the golden glow that you get at dawn and dusk, that's why they call it the "golden hour")
I see it.

I was a bit confused by this thread. When I read the title and post, I was thinking filters, like the sort that get screwed to lenses, but most of the folks have been talking about post processing, but then I guess these days, it's easier to get exactly the affect that you're looking for that way than being stuck with a few bits of hardware.

I know my dad always had the straight UV filters or whatever they were called screwed to the front of his lenses with the goal being to protect the optics from dust, scratches, etc.... I have read that the problem with that is that most folks will buy cheap versions of those, and screwing a cheap filter to the front of an expensive lens is more likely to hurt the quality of the photo than protect the lens.

I also have a circular polarizing filter, it's good for glass and water and certain reflective surfaces. I have had, and my dad had some star filters 4 and 6 point, I think the 4 point was adjustable. Then there are the filters for making the sky darker or for using with infrared photography to enhance the sky color. I once had a soft focus filter, but didn't much care for the results that I got with it and didn't really know what I was doing with it anyway.

On camera, get a circular polarizer. It'll cancel out reflections and saturate the colors.

Some examples that utilized a circular polarizer.

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...0b&oe=5C53AF1C

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...19&oe=5C590B40

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...4c&oe=5C26604D

Yep, just illustrating that removing (or adding) color cast when applicable/desired is done much easier/faster via post-processing these days, as opposed to attaching/detaching physical lens filters. I exaggerated the pic a bit as monitors vary. Also, as you mention, the quality of filter optics is another consideration, which usually aligns with cost. A myriad of quality lens filters can add up to a pretty penny. I remember a single B+W circular polarizer I purchased many moons ago being well over $200.
Exactly.
Totally. It makes no sense to put a cheapo UV filter on any quality lens. When I was more "in the game" eons ago, I only used B+W UV filters on all my lenses, and noticed zero differences in sharpness/distortion/aberration on enlargements. The only vignetting issue I ever had was from using filters on zoom lenses at their max wide setting. However, that is more a function of the lens design than any quality issue with a filter. It's the same phenomenon you get with a lens hood.
Yup, BTDT (back in the 35mm days). I had all sorts of filters, most of which were rarely used. These days, PS basically replaces your filter pouch.

SmileWavy

Eric H., if you don't mind me asking, what kind of post processing steps (if any) went into those pics? Is that all from the circular polarizer?

Well, these are pretty old shots. at that time I would have tried to do everything in the camera. My photoshop skills at the time were limited.
So mostly the CP filter helped add pizazz. Photoshop just enhanced it a little more.

Cool thing about the CP filter is you can see the change in reflections and saturation as you turn the filter.

Thanks! I can't wait to get home to see what filters I have- either the linear or the CP filters- and if so playing with them. I've got some polarizing filters on my lenses, but they are either linear, or circular, and if they are circular, I forgot you could spin the circular ones! Doh!

(great pics btw!)

Great shots E. Just wanted to reiterate/clarify that the above is only true for DSLR cams with an optical viewfinder.
If your cam is not an SLR and/or only has an LCD viewfinder (or rear LCD screen only), it will not be very usable.
They still function obviously, but it's more "trial-and-error" method.

I've had a couple quality rear-LCD-only P&S digi-cams and trying to "tune" a CP with them for max effectiveness was an exercise in frustration. ;)

Nuetral Density filters can be fun when shooting moving water. It allows a slower shutter speed to get the motion blurred water effect. They make adjustable nuetral density filter too. They are kind of like two polorizing filters mounted in one frame. They can be fun to play with too. for effects.
A good quality graduated nuetral density filter is nice for some landscapes. I like them better than screwing around in Photoshop.

Thanks Eric H. Those are the sort of improvements I'd like to make without getting too immersed in photoshop. I've got too many hobbies already, I just want better pics.

I have many times had to bracket my polarizer shots. If I was shooting a car and wanted the windshield and side windows to be free of reflection and wanted to get rid of some sky reflection on the hood as well I would take three shots, one to eliminate each of the glare situations, and combine them in photoshop.

I think you will find there is no magic bullet.
Your images will improve as you shoot more.
Filters can help, or they can make things worse. There is a learning curve.
Software can help, or it can make things worse as well- big learning curve.
Equipment can help- lenses make a huge difference. Camera bodies make a smaller difference.
Shoot lowest iso you can. Helps with noise, but really can help with color and dynamic range.
Read. Study. There is no quick fix.
I have been shooting for 40yrs. I think my images are still getting better as I learn.
Gary