Filters for Outdoor Wedding

<p>I am shooting an outdoor wedding next week and started thinking about filters for my lenses. Can anyone suggest a good filter for both a sunny day and a cludy day as I would like to be prepared in either event.</p>

<p>Thank you</p>

<p>Perhaps a polarizer if it's sunny, otherwise skip the filter and be sure to use a lens hood (cloudy or sunny).</p>

I usually don't use filters for outdoor weddings. If you decide to use filters stay stay with B&W, Tiffen, and the better brands.

<p>The polorizer has been used by many wedding photographers in Hawaii to create stunningly blue (sunny day) skies. There are plenty of filter options in post production.</p>

<p>I also think a deep red filter is worth a mention if you are going to shoot some dedicated black and white photographs to get those deep blacks and bright whites but still holding the detail. You can pick one up for an affordable price so it may be worth thinking about it black and white is your thing.</p>

<p>I don't understand why you think you need a filter for an outdoor wedding to begin with? For sunny days, possibly an ND filter if you want wider apertures, and the polarizer mentioned can help with the blue sky. Some people use it in place of an ND filter although they act slightly differently.</p>

<p>For cloudy days, there is no filter that will restore a white sky. You can only overcome the ambient to show the clouds if you don't want a blank white sky. That means possibly adding light to the subjects, usually in the form of flash, which can sometimes look fake. Any needed extra contrast or saturation on cloudy days can be added in post. What you need more on cloudy days is slight fill flash to fill eye sockets.</p>

<p>Beyond the above, if you are talking about UV filters, or protection filters, just get a top brand, top of the line filter. No sense putting cheap filters in front of an expensive lens. This goes for any filter.</p>

<p>Forgot that one could use a graduated ND filter for cloudy days, to help with bald, white skies. But it is not usually a highly successful method, since the exact amount of ND can't be 'dialed in', and you have to watch your horizons, or you'll get uneven exposure on your subjects too.</p>

<p >I agree with above, but, a few more comments:</p>

<p > </p>

<p >My guess is that my colleagues are recommending you consider a <strong ><em >Circular</em></strong> Polarizing Filter (seems that these are the ones now commonly sold – but best to be sure).</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Three difficult Filter <strong ><em >results</em></strong> to emulate in Post Production are : ND, C. Polarizing and Graduated ND.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Dedicated B&W images from digital media: I have found using a Filter on the light at the point of exposure rather than using only Post Production allows better, more (easier) B&W gradations of the greyscale in the final B&W print. I like a deep orange rather than red.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Using an ND Filter is sometimes suggested to allow working the Av open (large aperture), <strong ><em >in conjunction with Flash Fill</em></strong> – understand that the ND is cutting the effect of the Flash, too – mentioned because this is often not understood – there are many threads on this particular subject.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >With any filter outdoors & sunny, “Protection Filter” especially, when left on as a matter of course, you can exacerbate the effects of <em><strong>Veiling Flare</strong></em> – look it up, there are many threads on it - also the effects of Veiling Flare can be exacerbated using Large Apertures and with the Wider FL lenses, and often Zoom lenses more so than Primes – therein lays another conundrum regarding lens choices: when shooting outdoor sunny weddings . . . another strike for the useful application of Prime Lenses – using the mid range of a standard zoom – and the Lens hood suited for it. :) </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p>Ok William, I'll bite... how does the ND filter cut the effect of the flash (I Googled it and didn't come back with anything)? We frequently use ND filters on bright days just so my flash doesn't have to work as hard (or even so that it offers at least some fill). Assuming, proper exposure at f/16, 1/250th, ISO 100 without a filter, I could then use a 3-stop ND filter to bring me to f/5.6. Since flash is a function of given distance and aperture (and ISO), how is filter cutting the flash? </p>

<p>I do agree that using any filter increases the chances of any type of flare. But we do use ND or CPLs on bright days. If it's not too bright a day, the CPL because controlling the reflection has it's benefits! The CPL will act as about a 1.5 stop ND filter. If the day is really bright, then it's a 3-stop ND filter. For a cloudy, grey day, I know some like to use a sunlight filter to warm things up... but I haven't used one.</p>

<p>John--think of it as this--the ND filter cuts <strong>all</strong> light entering the lens and hitting the sensor (because it sits in front of the lens) so the light from the flash is also cut, same as the ambient light. If your exposure is as you describe above, your flash would be set to produce f16 light for 'full' or correct flash exposure, even though your actual aperture with the ND filter on is f5.6. So your flash does have to work as hard. William needs no help explaining this, but I thought it might help to describe how <strong>I</strong> think of it to avoid confusing myself (I don't need more of that)!</p>

<p>Also, if you are using your flash as fill, it is all proportional. For instance, a one stop less flash fill with your above settings would mean you need to get f11 light from the flash. It still does not allow the flash to work less hard than it would have to without the filter in place.</p>

<p>Well I feeling pretty dense right now because I still don't get it? Using my example, w/o a filter we need f/16 for proper exposure with or without flash. At f/16 and 10' my flash fires at "X" power. Now I put a 3-stop ND filter on the lens. Yes, it prevents all light from entering the lens- most importantly, the abundance of ambient light. 3-stops takes me to f/5.6- a wider aperture. My flash doesn't need to fire as much power @ f/5.6 at 10' (no matter the reason) as it does at f/16 and 10'? Or to look at it another way, if I am at f/16 and 10' I need "X" amount of flash power. If I am at f/5.6 and 10' I need less power, correct? Let's look at this another way (thinking out loud here).... I put an orange on stool in bright daylight, split lighting, f/16. To get "proper" fill let's say I need a full power flash (1/1 fired manually). Now I use a ND filter to bring the aperture down to f/5.6. This will cut all light entering the lens but I want to bring down the amount of ambient to something more manageable for my flash. You and William are telling me I still need the same 1/1 power? To my minds eye, I need 3-stops less (1/4). If I use the same 1/1 I have the amount of flash I needed @ f/16- but I'm not there anymore?</p>

<p>I would not discount the use of a UV filter in certain conditions and times of day (depending on the sensitivity range of your digital cameras sensor). If you are consistently getting a blue cast to the wedding dress shadows this can sometimes help. That or a slight warming UV filter which also helps with skin tones on certain cameras.</p>

<p>Contrary to popular opinion, a Neutral Density graduated filter is still a very useful tool for outdoor weddings even with digital capture. While you can restore a hot sky in Photoshop, it can look pretty nasty. The ND Grad such as those used in a LEE shade that hold 6" sliding filter so you can place the grad where you want it.</p>

<p>There are a number of digital cameras that actually produce a nicer color when used with an IR filter. The blacks are much truer, especially synthetic fabrics (in direct sunlight) so common in the production of Tuxedos. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>John, yes, you use the flash as if there were no filter in place (with the filter in place). Why should the 3 stop cut apply to the ambient light but not the flash? Yes, at f5.6, your flash can output less power for correct flash exposure, but not when there is a 3 stop barrier in it's way to the sensor. For your example--you <strong>are</strong> still there.</p>

<p>If you can't wrap your head around it, do a test, but instead of doing one involving fill light, do it for full or correct flash exposure only. Do it inside, where no or very little ambient light is present. Set up something like ISO 100, f11, 1/250th (a typical sunlight exposure). Put your flash on manual at 10 feet. You will need something around 1/1 anyway, if slightly less. Whatever the case, do a base exposure (without the filter). Then put the filter on (now shooting at f5.6), don't change the flash setting, and do another exposure. Now cut the flash power to 1/4. Do another exposure.</p>

<p>Hi Marc: Did you mean to write this, or is it a typo?<br>

<br>

<em>"There are a number of digital cameras that actually produce a nicer color when used with an </em><strong><em>IR filter.</em></strong><em> The blacks are much truer, especially synthetic fabrics (in direct sunlight) so common in the production of Tuxedos."</em><br>

<br>

Thanks,<br>

<br>

WW </p>

<p > <br>

 

 

</p>

<p>I mentioned, “Shooting Sunlight Key + Flash Fill + ND Filters”, in response to this question, because I have found this particular shooting scenario has caused much confusion, both in the classroom (the Theory) and also in the field (the Practice).</p>

<p>At Weddings I have covered with a Student, one tell-tale resultant image set from the Student, is an harsh-shadowed, Shallow DoF Portrait Set of the B&G or Individuals with Flash Fill and an ND filter, just before, or just after the Two or Three Row Deep (requiring more DoF and NO ND Filter) Formal Set, in the same lighting, with Flash Fill.</p>

<p>I didn’t mean to open an hornet’s nest, so I wasn’t looking for someone to “bite” . . . but in view of the question asked directly I shall take the example given and answer it one bit at a time:</p>

<p>***</p>

<p><strong><em>Assuming, proper exposure at f/16, 1/250th, ISO 100 without a filter</em></strong><em>. </em>OK I’ll assume that exposure, but F/16 @ 1/100s to 1/125s @ ISO100 would be closer to correct exposure for Direct-Key Sunlight, IMO.</p>

<p><strong><em>At f/16 and 10' my flash fires at "X" power</em></strong><em>.</em> Yes, I agree. Let’s assume Manual Flash, and Manual Control over the Flash Distance to the Subject – I think this is what is intended for this example / question.</p>

<p><strong>I put a 3-stop ND filter on the lens.</strong> The filter attenuates all the light entering the lens <em>which is reflected from the subject. This is what makes our IMAGE.</em> (This concept, <em>in italics, </em>is at the crux of understanding this particular issue).</p>

<p><strong><em>most importantly, the abundance of ambient light. 3-stops takes me to f/5.6- a wider aperture.</em></strong> I am worried about the use of <em>“most importantly”</em>: the ND filter attenuates all the light being REFLECTED from the SUBJECT – that REFLECTED LIGHT is the light which exposes the film (activates the sensors).</p>

<p><strong><em>My flash doesn't need to fire as much power @ f/5.6 at 10' (no matter the reason) as it does at f/16 and 10'?</em></strong><em> </em>This is an erroneous statement in this situation.</p>

<p>One needs the SAME amount of FLASH to illuminate the SHADOWS on the face, whether one has an ND filter on - or not.</p>

<p>The “x” Flash Power required, is dependent upon the EV of the SUNLIGHT, the “x” Flash Power is a Fill to that sunlight - the “x” Flash power required in this shooting scenario, is NOT <strong>directly</strong> related to the aperture being used.</p>

<p>The Aperture being used IS <strong>directly</strong> related to the ILLUMINATIONS (plural - the SUN on the KEY side and the FLASH the FILL Side) on the Subject . . . </p>

<p>and the APERTURE selected has to account for any attenuation placed in the path of that REFLECTED light, from the SUBJECT to the Film (sensor) - e.g. a FILTER</p>

<p><em>I suggest we think about the amount of FLASH required to ILLUMINATE the SUBJECT – and not that the flash is directly stimulating the film or sensor.</em></p>

<p><em></em><br>

<em></em><br>

<em></em><br>

<strong><em>Or to look at it another way, if I am at f/16 and 10' I need "X" amount of flash power. If I am at f/5.6 and 10' I need less power, correct?</em></strong> See above.</p>

<p><strong><em>Let's look at this another way (thinking out loud here).... I put an orange on stool in bright daylight, split lighting, f/16. To get "proper" fill let's say I need a full power flash (1/1 fired manually). Now I use a ND filter to bring the aperture down to f/5.6. This will cut all light entering the lens but I want to bring down the amount of ambient to something more manageable for my flash. You and William are telling me I still need the same 1/1 power?</em></strong></p>

<p>Yes. That is what I am stating and for the reasons above</p>

<p><strong><em>To my minds eye, I need 3-stops less (1/4)</em></strong>. No. I disagree.<br>

And also I believe that 3 stops is actually 1/8, not 1/4.</p>

<p><strong><em>If I use the same 1/1 I have the amount of flash I needed @ f/16- but I'm not there anymore?</em></strong><strong> </strong>It doesn’t matter what your aperture you “are at” - the subject still requires “x” flash power to kill those harsh shadows.</p>

<p>Please see diagrammatical explanation below, I trust this explains the point at issue adequately, and from many different perspectives.</p>

<p>Often when one is presented with different answers – one just “clicks”.</p>

<p>I hope one of these, clicked with you.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>William, YES I meant IR filter ... actually UV/IR (not the deep red IR filters you are probably thinking of). It is a bit esoteric and probably not really any kind of a requirement for wedding work, but interesting none-the-less, so I threw it in.</p>

<p>ALL digital cameras have IR filters over the digital sensor, otherwise the IR contamination would produce false colors ... some have weaker IR sensor filters than others, and a UV/IR filter on the lens further eliminates IR contamination and makes for truer blacks.</p>

<p>I saw a demo of this where what appeared to be a fine image was visibly improved with the addition of an UV/IR. There are a few folks who contend that all digital cameras benefit from one. I'm not one of those folks, but do understand how it all works. </p>

<p>Of related interest is that there are people who have the IR filter removed from their digital cameras to exclusively use it to shoot B&W. The B&W Image Quality improves considerably after doing this. This became so popular that there are now companies that specialize in IR filter removal. Once a camera goes out of warranty it's an interesting option for those who also shoot B&W for weddings.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well the last diagram (and my experiment) drives the point home. So thank you for that. I just still have a hard time wrapping my head around it. I always thought of flash power in relationship to aperture & distance and now I need to rethink that.</p>

<p>I think you folks are making this way more complicated than it is.</p>

<p>Suppose it's bright outside and you want to shoot with fill flash. So your max shutterspeed is x-synch, say 1/250 s. You meter for the background and get f/11 at 100 iso. So, here's the situation. You can't shoot faster than 1/250 s, you can't drop iso lower than 100, so the only way to cut light is to stop down to f/11, right?</p>

<p>Well f/11 might be fine for group shots but not so good when you want selective focus. A 3-stop ND grad filter will let you open up to f/4 rather than f/11.</p>

<p>Now, what about flash power. The ND grad filter will eat 3 stops of light, but this is compensated for by having 3 stops more aperture. So flash power required is the same as without the filter.</p>

<p>Now it's starting to sink in. Not sure I am having a moment where it just clicks (!), but I am finally getting it to make sense to me. Stinks to be me, my head hurts after taking a ball bat to beat the information into me!</p>

<p> Polarizer for sunny days, and a quality UV or 81-A filter otherwise. Some people don't use filters, but you'd be surprised at what can be spilled, sloshed or sprayed at an event like this. Better to be cleaning a filter, than an expensive lens with multi-coating.</p>

<p>Russ</p>

<p> "<em><strong>YES I meant IR filter ... actually UV/IR (not the deep red IR filters you are probably thinking of)" </strong></em><br>

Marc: Thank you for the clarification. I WAS thinking of (deep red) IR filters. <br>

It was just a Terminology / Interpretation mix up - I understand your point now.<br>

<br>

WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

<p >Arie, I didn't mean to make things more complicated than necessary, rather, as I mentioned each of us learns differently and there are many ways to demonstrate any particular point.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Having taught this stuff for a few years, I have found that presenting the answer to each individual point raised, and differently, often is a good method – as one answer will “click”.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >No doubt your (different) explanation will “click” with some folk, too. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Asking questions is good too - especially when one is confused by a comment or answer - like I asked Marc.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW </p>

<p > </p>

 

<p>John;</p>

<p>Hate to do this to you, but there's more. Is flash affected by ND filter? The answer is sometimes yes and sometimes no. If you are using any TTL mode, then the answer is no. The flash will continue to pump out light until the determined exposure is attained as this is metered through the lens after the ND filter has attenuated the light.</p>

<p>Now on the other hand if you us the flash in M mode or use a Thyristor Auto flash, the answer is yes. The flash power is pre-determined and cannot be compensated after the fact as ther is no metering of the light having passd trough the lens. So, in this case the ND filter has the exact same effect on Flash as it does on ambient. </p>

<p>Either way the fill flash will have an impact on the subject relative to the background.</p>

<p><strong><em>"Hate to do this to you, but there's more. Is flash affected by ND filter? The answer is sometimes yes and sometimes no."</em></strong><br /><br />I disagree. There are no "sometimes".<br /><br /><strong><em>"If you are using any TTL mode, then the answer is no. The flash will continue to pump out light until the determined exposure is attained as this is metered through the lens after the ND filter has attenuated the light."</em></strong><br /><br />Yes I agree: the Flash will pump out more, than if there were no filter in place: so therefore, in this situation placing the ND filter on the lens . . . <strong><em>does have an effect on the Flash</em></strong>.<br /><br />A Practical – in the field example of the <em><strong>result</strong></em> of the effect an ND filter has on the Flash:</p>

<p>Consider TTL and an ND filter is being used and shooting distances remain static the (extra) Flash Power used often impacts on Flash Recycle Time.<br /><br />I am not arguing semantics - but the total concept.<br /><br />WW</p>