Filter's/Filter System's.

[chris_rowe1]

Ok, I just had a post addressing ND Filter's specifically. But then I realized that I should look into Filter

style's first.

Right now I own A Sony A350, and UV's screw-in filter's for my lenses plus a circular polarizer. But I wanna know

what the Sony users suggest. Should I buy Screw-in filters, Drop-in filters, Clip-in, Magnetic, or Bayonet. And

which Brand insures quality results but are the cheapest?

 

Thanks once again,

Chris

[jeroen_b1]

Just my opinion, you are asking questions that could be answered with some small investigation on the web by

yourself. Lot of info is already there on photo.net or other sites.

 

Anyway, you don't need any filter at all.....

 

First, ask yourself, what is the value and quality of the lens you are using?

 

If these are regular lenses, don't bother about UV filters. Most stuff people use will end in a closet, shiny and

new with no using marks, because their interest has moved to something else. Use the stuff you have. It is

breaks, get new stuff. That's the way it works in this capitalist world.

 

If you use your brain when cleaning a lens, nothing bad will happen (I use some Vodka on an soft old badly used

towel). Maybe you get some cleaning marks after 5 years?. Nothing that will affect image quality.

 

If you have a really expensive lens (Zeiss 24-70, or Minolta/Sony G or Zeiss prime lenses), or a rare manaul

focus stellar performer, get a UV filter. Hoya is good, B&W is great (and has a price). Screw in is just fine.

 

If you want to try graduated ND filters, first get a cheap one from China. Using it is a hassle, if you still

like to use it, and the results are like you thought it will be, get a better one. I am told Tiffen is good

(article about filters on photo.net).

 

I guess you don't need ND filters with modern shutter speeds. If you have a manual film camera that is limited to

1/1000 shutter speed, you might need one for special occasions, if you really care about that kind of shots.

 

My advice: get this whole filter nonsense out of your head. If you like photography a lot, the best advice is to

invest in good glass (and maybe then get a filter).

[craig_gillette]

People will argue constantly about using a "protective" filter. Probably not needed under a lot of circumstances. If I am shooting in a windy, dirty, sandy, ocean salt spray or downwind from the thermal features in Yellowstone, I use a protective filter. They can be a problem under conditions that will add to internal reflections, bright "spot" lights at night, etc.

 

Circular polarizers are useful to reduce reflections, all the things discussed about polarizing filters. Can't be duplicated in post processing.

 

Graduated ND filters can be used effectively. Some folks suggest that any of their uses can be handled in post, with multiple exposures, etc. The more motion or movement in things like water, vehicles, etc., the more difficult it might be to deal with multiple exposures. Probably forces the use of a good tripod as well although you might be able to register/crop multiple handheld exposures....

 

ND filters are used to extend exposure times. If you want to slow times for things like the silky look on waterfalls, streams, etc., then ND filters will be necessary.

 

Selection of filters depends on what you will be doing. The wider the angle lenses that you use, the more you may run into vignetting or shadowing in corners. So stack up of filters, edges of filter brackets, etc., have to be checked out. Circular grad filters allow angling the grad but fix it across the center. Rectangular filters in brackets or even finger held over a lens allow you to adjust the position or angle of the graduation.

 

Cokin makes a variety of holders, generally a good buy. Although their filters may not be as good a deal, seem to be reports of non-neutral color casts. I happen to use HiTech,

 

"Sizing" is worth some consideration. You can use stepping rings to up or downsize from the lens ring. If you buy a circular filter or rectangular large enough to fit the widest angles and greatest lens diameter, then you may not need multiple filters of the same types. However, this may mean you can't use the installed lens hoods, etc. Also if you choose some of the larger/wider brackets and systems, the filter costs are going to be higher.

 

Really good quality coated filters can be expensive.

[jeroen_b1]

I agree about circualr polarizer filers, I guess this anti-reflection can not be done in post-processing

 

ND filters: if you are able to slow down the shutterspeed on the camera for a tripod shot (let's say, a

waterfall), you don't need ND? I don't get it. ND only blocks a few stops, right? What is the use? If you want a

long shutterspeed, you don't want much available light around. Only if your aperture goes beyond f/22

(diffraction) and you need a certain shutterspeed for a dramatic result, a ND could be handy to block the light

with some stops, right?. I also thought, if you would like to shoot a portrait with, for example f/2, with a lot

of light, with a manual camera that has 1/1000 max, you need to bock the light with ND to keep a large aperture

and the shuttspeed at 1/1000 or less. My feeling tells me ND filters are something from the past.

[jeroen_b1]

filters on photo.net: http://photo.net/equipment/filters.html

 

I am thinking, after checking the ND's in the filter table: with a digital camera you can set ISO speed lower to

"block" the light! No need for a ND then. Only if you reach the lowest possible value in a certain situation.

 

With a film camera with high-speed film, in a scene with a lot of light, a ND is used to lower shutter speeds

and/or open up the aperture.

[chris_rowe1]

Well I shoot almost all nature shots. Sunsets, waterfalls, tides rolling in on the beach, unique trees, a great sky with some nice landscape in the foreground, etc... Many of the shots I take require long-exposures. I haven't asked weather or not I need filters. What I made this post for is exactly what I stated above.

 

So please don't tell me I don't need filters.

[jeroen_b1]

Well, my answer for filter style: you already have CP filters. UV has no function in digital photography. (UV light has no influence on the image), only for protection. No need (sorry...) for ND filters, only if there is so much light available and you have reached lowest ISO value on camera and a really small aperture and you still don't have a slow shutterspeed.

 

A CP filter, with no effect dialled in also blocks 1 or 2 stops.

 

Graduated ND filter: a Cokin Style holder with quality square shaped filter works best. You can adjust the horizon. Get a set of 2 or 3 different ones (2 stop, 4stop?)

 

Don't know about drop-in-clip-in-magnetic-bayonet. I have never seen this kind of filters.

[chris_rowe1]

Thanks,

 

anyone else?

[ricardovaste]

"My advice: get this whole filter nonsense out of your head. If you like photography a lot, the best advice is to invest in good glass"

 

My advise is to forget about new glass, cameras, accessories and any other equipment. They don't make or break a photo and have a very small impact on the end result to a determined, skilled photographer.

 

I use UV's on all my lenses. But that's because I use them all frequently and don't want them to lose any potential value if i have to sell them in some sort of financial crisis... I have a lot of money (for me) hid away in those lenses. Saying that, my Peleng 8/3.5 cant accept a filter on the front (obviously) and I have no trouble keeping that in good shape. I carry it with me all the time - I use a sock to cover the front element when in my bag :-)

[chris_rowe1]

haha.... sock system... Nice touch. :P Well I'm sorry but I'm not gonna get this filter stuff out of my head. I'll get some filters sometime.

[ricardovaste]

Just to be clear, the first paragraph wasn't aimed at you specifically. Just a general comment about photography

being gear orientated.<p>

 

When you get the time/money, the Cokin P is the way to go for sure. Very versitile system.<p>

 

Good luck and let us know how it turns out in the end.<p>Sadly, the sock system does have a downside :P. Dust

easily gathers on fabric, so if you don't brush off the front element each time you get it out, it can sometimes cause

a

bit of a flaring problem. <br><center><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/richardharrisnaps/2830750134/"

title="Untitled by ricardovaste, on Flickr"><img

src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3284/2830750134_35fd301aef_o.jpg" width="637" height="924"

alt="" /></a><br>A700, Peleng 8/3.5, ISO200, MLU, f/16<p></center>As you can see, in the middle of the image,

there is a bit of flare evident... like a "hazy patch". I did my best to cover up most of it. Infact, it may just be flare off

the sensor onto the rear of the elements, I'm not sure. But it definately helps to keep such lenses spotless when

shooting.<p>This was taken this evening. Using a Cokin P filter system (no, I dont work for them :P). I used a ND4

and ND8 graduated filters. It definately evened out the exposure and gave some interesting colour to the

sky.<center><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/richardharrisnaps/2831484746/" title="Untitled by ricardovaste,

on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3079/2831484746_77b37f853a_o.jpg" width="626" height="904"

alt="" /></a><br>A700, 24-85RS, ISO200, f/11, MLU</center>

[chris_rowe1]

I love that second shot. Nice foreground and background, I especially like that trail that leads away from where the shot was taken. The lighting is good. Very well done.

[chris_rowe1]

Here's a photo of that same waterfall I took yesturday. I would have liked to include the sky but since I don't have a Grad ND filter it would have been totally blown.

[chris_rowe1]

Sorry... it didn't attach right... I'll try again.<div></div>

[jeroen_b1]

Rich, come on, I know you own quality glass (28/f2, 50/f.14, 200G?). I already admitted when a lens has it's

value, a UV filter is a wise decision. Don't you think it's a bit ironic to say you don't need quality glass when

you own it yourself :-) ? (I am walking on my toes here...) I think a quality lens can make a difference in the

final result, that extra "pop". Still the photographer has to do most of the work: be there outside, see the

potential in a certain situation, and is technically skilled enough to capture that split second moment. But I

don't think effect filters will help that much. Only CP and graduated ND filters do have a practical function.

There is a strong connection between gear and taking photographs, if we like it or not. We all should remember

that all the photo gear that exist are just tools, like a hammer or a screwdriver, no objects of desire. In the

end the results on paper are the only things that counts.

 

I still think that for a 18-70mm kit lens no UV filter is needed, maybe only in a sandstorm in Sahara dessert.

 

In my opinion you have to be very careful with (Cokin) effect filters A few shot's are nice, but too much of them

is a overkill real soon. Anyway, please do try it by yourself, the long and winding road of photo gear is a very

interesting and inspiring one.

[ricardovaste]

Jeroen, I'm sorry, I don't really see your point. If you read what I wrote (which was not aimed at you, sorry if it

seemed that way):

 

"My advise is to forget about new glass, cameras, accessories and any other equipment. They don't make or break a

photo and have a very small impact on the end result to a determined, skilled photographer."

 

My point is about gear in general. When I take a photo that I like, one that I'm quite happy with or works for me on

some level... do I say "ah, what a great lens"? No. I took the photo. Nor do I look at someone elses work and

say, "ah, that must be a great lens". My brother in law in a chef and a very good one too, when he cooks me

something or we go to his restaurante, I don't turn to him and say "wow, you have fantastic pans!" ;-).

 

I may have a good camera, a good flash a good lens or too - good for my purpose atleast, not for everyone.

Photography is my main hobby, everyones has hobbies and some spend considerable amounts on them ( I havent in

comparison - I 've just got lucky ). I can justify my spendings because I have a great passion for photography, it's

important for my work at college and I want to persue a carrier based in photography in the future. I don't spend

ludicrous amounts on alcohol or any other drugs (despite most people in the UK my ages doing otherwise) and I

don't have any other expensive hobbies. If my hobby was putting my finances for "living" a risk, I wouldn't be

spending such amounts of money on it. If I couldnt afford it, i would buy cheaper glass.

 

If one day, I come into a financial problem, I would have no problem selling/downgrading any of my glass, as I know it

isn't the deciding factor on my photography - only I am.

 

"A strong connection between gear and taking photographs, if we like it or not"

 

You use gear to take photo's, for sure, I didn't say otherwise.

 

My dad had some old filters for his film gear that were odd effects in the cokin set up. I've never touched them. I only

use GND filters as If I want something a little different it can be done on the PC, but I almost never try any of those

filter effects.

 

"Anyway, please do try it by yourself, the long and winding road of photo gear is a very interesting and inspiring one"

 

Sorry, you have lost me again there :-(. I must admit I am quite tired, so please excuse me. I've used quite a few

pieces of kit on the winding road, to say any of them were inspiring may be a push. Certainly, some lenses make

you look at subjects you otherwise wouldn't have, but I don't think the item itself with spur any inspiration on my

behalf.

 

At best, I hope to forget what lens or camera I'm using when I do and thankfully I often do. It's then when I start

thinking about the photography instead, rather than the equipment.

[jeroen_b1]

Rich, you lost me, I lost you too.... my comment was also not aimed at you, just something general. I am sorry if I was unclear about that.

 

I really thought I was talking about end-results, not lenses, certainly not about money, and also not about pots and pans. My brothers in law are chef's too, both d*mn good ones, Michelin star quality. I have never wondered about there pans too. I hope that counts... :-)

[ricardovaste]

"Rich, come on, I know you own quality glass (28/f2, 50/f.14, 200G?). I already admitted when a lens has it's value, a UV filter is a wise decision. Don't you think it's a bit ironic to say you don't need quality glass when you own it yourself :-) ?"

 

That isnt aimed at me?

 

Nevermind, there is obviously a clash of thoughts here.

 

"Happy shooting"