Printable View
Right now I have a 67mm CPL filter. I have read you can get better effects (ex: colors) from a polarized filter, so thats what i bought first. I am wondering if it would be beneficial for me to get a UV filter too? Any other suggestions about filters? Thanks!!
If you can find them, take a look at an enhanced filter, an enhanced polarizer or a split focus filter.
Tegan
Hi HM,
Most pros and advanced shooters use a UV filter mainly to protect their lenses. Your CPL filter is good for occasional use, but for everyday protection (with or without wings :D) use a UV filter to protect your lenses.
Disadvantage with a UV filter is that in combination with a polarizer, it can often cause vignetting with a wide angle lens. As a result, a number of photographers are keeping a polarizer on for almost all shots rather than playing with taking a polarizer or UV filter on and off.Quote:
Originally Posted by marko
Tegan
A CPOL is definitely a good first choice. Remember that to get the maximum effect from it (The deep blues and contrasting skies for which effect it's most often used) the sun needs to be low in the sky, and as close to 90 deg to your lens axis as possible The higher in the sky and closer to the sun, the less effect it will have. They're also useful for removing reflections on water and other shiny surfaces (The sky in this image is all as a result of using a CPOL at the opitmal time: http://www.rthtg.net/john/crete/Buil...%20(Large).jpg )
UV filters are relatively pointless on DSLRs except as an added layer of protection for the lens since there is one built in, and then, as mentioned, often cause vignetting at larger apertures.
If you're going to get another filter, I would suggest a graduated neutral density (G-ND) which will allow you to reduce the dynamic range between sky and ground in landscapes and scenes like that, resulting in fewer blown clouds and more foreground detail
Remember, filters are part of your optical process. In fact, they're the first thing the light hits, so DON'T BUY CHEAP! . Cheap filters will cause flare and aberration as well as hazing in your images. Tiffen and Hoya multi-coated filters are decent. Singh-Ray, B+W and Heliopan are even better.
I agree with everything Tired Iron mentioned.:)
Tegan
Thank you so much so far everyone! Very informative :D I love this forum.. everyone is so nice!
after reading this thread and looking at the pic posted by tired iron, I got a CPOL as well, today .... It says Hoya Super Quality Cir-Polarizing on the box so it should be a decent one, i guess
Polarized filters are great but they are tinted (like sunglasses) so you will have to slow your speed by a stop or two, which can make a difference depending on the light sources available...
I use one whenever I shoot waterfowl otherwise the light reflections can really bugger up the shots eh.
Ret: That filter should do you just fine.
MikeS: Yes and no; CPOLs do reduce the light hitting your sensor (by one stop), but they aren't tinted. They're optically neutral, meaning that they block light but impart no colour caste or tone on the image.
I should add that the better quality and more expensive polarizers bock even less light.Quote:
Originally Posted by tirediron
Tegan
I hope that I m able to take a shot that comes close to the one you posted. I think that shot is just beautiful and with your permission can I use that as my laptop's wallpaper :DQuote:
Originally Posted by tirediron
btw, the CPOL that i got is Hoya Super HMC and on Hoya's website they have PRO -1D filters so whats the difference b/w them or are they the same?
S HMC
PRO-1D
Oh? All of my experience shows that good ones block almost exactly one stop; my Hoya blocks almost exactly one stop, my B+W blocks almost exactly one stop... some, like the Singh-Ray Blue/Gold warming polarizer actually block slightly more, but AFAIK, it's only the really cheap ones which will block significantly more.Quote:
Originally Posted by tegan
You're more than welcome to use that as your wallpaper. With respect to your question about the filters: The answer is packaging. The "D" and "DMC" designations that Hoya applies to some of their filters is meant to imply that these are filters specifically for digital cameras. A CPOL is a CPOL is a CPOL (Quality issues aside of course) and these filters will produce identical results under identical conditions.Quote:
Originally Posted by ret
As with lenses, price is an excellent quide to quality, at least among name-brand products. If the price is the same, you can be the characteristics are the same (Or darn close).
thanks for the wallpaper, i mean pic :pQuote:
Originally Posted by tirediron
i talked to Henrys and the rep suggest the pro-1D .... it's a little darker than the S-HMC but has the thread in the front to put on lens cap .... and it's price went down from $199 and now is the same as S-HMC's .... i swapped the S-HMC with Pro-1D
True that and it IS a problem. I hate fiddling with both the UV and polarizer...but I do all the time. Although I use a polarizer often, when I'm not using it, I don't want it on the camera (light loss -colour cast albeit small)...hence the fiddling.Quote:
Disadvantage with a UV filter is that in combination with a polarizer, it can often cause vignetting with a wide angle lens. As a result, a number of photographers are keeping a polarizer on for almost all shots rather than playing with taking a polarizer or UV filter on and off.
Tegan
Is it advisable to shoot with the CPOL always on the lens and shoot with it most of the time?
No, it's not advisable. It won't hurt other than to cost you one exposure stop, which can make the difference between getting the shot and not getting it. I would put it on when you need it and remove it when you don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by ret
I have found it useful to have on the lens most of the time. Outside it improves landscape shots and handles glare and reflections. Inside it reduces the harse glare of flash. I even used it in a dark situation in a mine to reduce flare from a light toward the other end of the shaft.Quote:
Originally Posted by ret
Tegan
i think most cpol's cost you 2 stopsQuote:
Originally Posted by tirediron
For Tired Iron and Travis, the Singh Ray circular polarizer exposure loss is 1/2 an F stop.
Tegan
Well... from looking at their website.. they only seem to have two polarizers.....
their "warming" polarizer is spec'd 1.33 fstop
http://www.singh-ray.com/polarizers.html
their "gold and blue" polarizer is spec'd 2.5 fstop
http://www.singh-ray.com/goldnblue.html
They also have a straight, regular polarizer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Travis
Tegan
This was shot with a 28-105mm and shows exactly what tegan is talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by tegan
(Ignore the fact that this image has not been fully proofed and the blue tint - i was playing)
Attachment 713
Hi guys,
I've read this thread, and despite having already purchased my filters, what are the Cokin filter classed as? That is, are they the cheap ones people are talking about here... If so, i'm hoping my resulting photos are not going to be impacted drastically!
Thanks,
Dan.
Hi all,
I am planning to buy CPL mainly to use it to shoot car races in the middle of the day (with strong african sun). I have tried to take several pictures and they always are over exposed or underexposed when I try to play around. Even if I got a good exposure it will be only part of the car. Especially when the car is white it gives me alot of problems. For this reason I am planning to buy CPL. Will that work? Earlier on the thread I think I read the sun should be horizontal to the camera. If I am not mistaken. And in my case it will almost all the time will be around 10am-1 pm that I need to shoot.Any advice?
Thanks
The horizontal thing is to avoid reflection which is something else a polarizer does. In your case you are using it to reduce contrast so forget about that.
It will work so long as you ALSO understand basic exposure. A white car against a bright sky - a dark skinned man against a very dark wall are all scenarios that will fool your camera with or without a filter. Hope that helps
Marko
Thanks Marko,
Will gray card help in this situations? Or anyother methods? I meter in the camera is totally fooled as you said. The other problem is that all cars are not white and the same metering sometimes works for different colored cars.
I am struggling to get it.
In a nutshell - any scene with a variety of tones and not too bright is normal.
In a nutshell - any scene with mainly dark of tones is abnormal - and you'll likely need to reduce exposure.
In a nutshell - any scene with a mainly light tones abnormal - and you'll likely have to increase your exposure. So when you shoot a sky that fills most of the frame - the camera meter says " hey sooo bright let me reduce exposure to make the reading normal". so everything else in the scene is underexposed. the remedy is to increase the exposure.
You should be able to SEE this (the results if they are good or bad) though in your viewfinder after you take the shot.
To practise - choose a spot under a shady tree or something with normal brightness range (Ie NOT in a bright shaft of light)
- shoot a white sheet that fills the frame - see the results
- shoot a dark sheet or something really dark that fills the frame - see the results
- shoot something with mixed tones - see the results.
THAT's how you learn exposure.
You need to forget about the tools for a sec...and understand what the camera does with basic scenes exposure wise and then more complex scenes exposure wise.
THEN - deal with the tools.
A greycard is amazing but impractical in many situations. Sure put it in a scene while you are practicing..
The magic is not in the tools - it comes from understanding how the camera will render a scene. It takes practice but getting too hung up on the 'tools' takes away from the general understanding of what is going on.
In terms of the racecars - if they are going around fast, you have no time to fiddle with exposure. So...if the lighting stays the same..(.a big cloud overhead) you can shoot manually based on a normal taken without the cars. But if the light keeps changing you're better off on aperture or shutter priority.
How 'off' are your exposures anyway?
Maybe you should start a new thread and post some results - might be easier to figure out
Hope that helps..
Marko
Thanks Marko,
I will go and practice. I will see what the outcome and start a new thread may be. If I don't improve. But Again I am very much grateful to your help.
My pleasure and just so you know...in the past example.
"- shoot a white sheet that fills the frame - see the results
- shoot a dark sheet or something really dark that fills the frame - see the results"
The results on both...if you are doing them correctly - should be GRAY.
Marko
