Night shots

[northwest]

Do you use any filter for night shots?

Thank you

[Two23]

No. What's the point? What filter would you use? I have pretty much been taking only night shots since last October, 2-3 nights per week, and have never seen a need for any filter. If anything, they'd most likely cause problems for me.

 

 

Kent in SD

[bruce_margolis]

I don't, but I suppose there might be a time when you could use an ND filter to increase exposure for effect or perhaps a starburst filter or something.

 

I agree with Kent, generally why would you want to put on another piece of glass unless you want some special effect?

[jim_momary]

About the only filter I might use frequently would be a color correction if I were doing film and needed color 'repair', i.e. tungsten / daylight, etc. For other gimmicky times I might use a star filter, but I can usually get a more pleasing effect with a nonfiltered lens stopped down to F16 or so, letting the aperture make the starburst. Try it wide open, then try stopped down, the difference is quite charming. Jim M.

[njohnson]

GND filter can be used to hold back ambiant light to do star trails. Or to hold back moon light to expose a landscape. Standard ND filter can be used on bright moonlit nights to do longer exposures for trailing of what stars may be visible. I believe polarizer does still reduce reflections from moonlight. Other than this I see nothing more than use for special effects.

[niccoury]

a polarizer might be handy...

[arthuryeo]

You did not say whether you're using film or digital. With film, definitely, I do want to make things a tad warmer if I am shooting moonlit landscapes. Or I may want things cooler when I am shooting street lights.

[lex_jenkins]

I've used polarizers for photos over water in moonlight or in the city at night to reduce glare from glass. Orange filters with b&w photos at night. Dunno if an orange filter would help with digital or color film.

 

Long exposures are long exposures. Once the camera is on the tripod and the timer is running, unless you're paying by the minute for your tripod parking space it doesn't cost anything but time to try filters.

 

For handheld low light photography, it doesn't make sense to add filters that significantly diminish the light, other perhaps than color correction filters with color film. With dSLRs this might make sense for shooting JPEGs under artificial light that defies white balancing.

[jclaice]

I often shoot the Aurora Borealis and discovered that if I use any filters I will get Newton's rings, while capturing digitally, strange but true I did not see Newton's rings while shooting film with the same lens and filter. So my advise is for long exposures (18 seconds or greater)at night, digitally SHOOT NAKED.

A good example of Newton's Rings is posted here. http://www.photo.net/photo/4215301&size=lg

[eajames]

That's a beautiful shot, Joseph. It took me a bit to find the Newton

Rings. That's, Denali?

 

To the OP - you can use an upsidedown GND filter to hold back city lights; or an over-exposed igloo in aurora/sky shot foregrounds.

[steve_lefkovits]

I just experienced the same Newton's Rings while shooting the aurora borealis as James. It was a relatively warm (30 F) August night and the UV filter on my Canon 17-35 zoom apparently caused the rings. If I remember correctly, I noticed something on the monitor, took the filter off and the rings disappeared on subsequent frames. Or maybe I shifted positions and just got lucky. In any case, the Newton's rings were limited to three frames on one night out of three nights.

 

I can only second the importance of shooting without filters while viewing the aurora borealis. I got some great images without it, but am having a few pangs of regret that I didn't know in advance that I'd spoil some of my best frames through my ignorance.