Is there any difference between using camera filter and photoshop like software postprocessing?

Question

I can shot using filters such as UV/CPL/FLD or I can get similar effect using software filters in picassa/photoshop etc. Is there special features that can be achieved with post processing?

Asked by yura

Answer

Is there any difference? Yes. You will expose after filtration, allowing your sensor to collect the maximum amount of data. By applying a filter in post, you necessarily reduce the amount of data in your image.

Does the difference matter? Your mileage may vary. I used to take a heap of filters with me, but now I only bring a few specialized ones: circular polarizing, star, ND. I find the data loss does not impact the final image quality, so for me, bringing the extra filters is pointless. You might be an image purist, and if so, you'd want to do your filtration on the lens.

I should say, I use a UV filter mostly as plain glass to protect the lens. This debate rages on, but the difference between images shot with and without are (to my eye) negligible. A circular polarizer is much more interesting, as it actually modifies which light arrives at the sensor. Any attempt to emulate this in post processing is just that: emulation. You will always get better effects and control with the actual filter.

For major color corrections like fluorescent, you have to make the call whether letting more light in and controlling the color temperature in camera or post is better than filtering with a pretty high filter-factor piece of glass. Again, just for me, I correct on the camera and don't use the filter; I correct again in RAW conversion for the final tweaks.

I'm not sure what the question regarding special features that can be achieved with post processing means, but once you get into digital manipulation, the only limit is you imagination. So, yes, there are tons of effects that are digital only.

Answered by Steve Ross

Check more discussion of this question.

How can I visualise in monochrome via an optical viewfinder?

Question

Many years ago I had a glass filter I could look through to get an idea of what a scene might look like on black and white film. I think it was blue coloured, long gone I'm afraid.

Does anyone have suggestions for something similar I could get for my current cameras (Nikon D90, P7100) to get the same effect when looking through the optical viewfinder? Something I can hold up to my eye would be a second best.

Asked by epo

Answer

The filter you're thinking of is a Wratten #90. They used to come as gels, so you'd have to get a gel holder or just hold it and operate the camera one-handed. (Or just hold it in front of your face and don't bother with the camera.)

Both of your cameras have a mode that desaturates the image before storage, which would let you chimp it on the LCD after shooting it.

If you're trying to develop an eye for it, keep shooting in color and spend time later doing side-by-side comparisons between color and black-and-white. It's much better to have an image with more information in it that you can strip out than it is to be stuck with less than you wanted.

Answered by Blrfl

Check more discussion of this question.

What kind of photo effect is this?

Question

I've been seeing various photographers post photos with this type of effect

http://fadedandblurred.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/yangtze-2.jpg

it's a bit washed out, yet retains the crisp detail and the colors are almost pastel?

I am pretty good with photoshop, and i spent hours playing with color/levels/hues/saturation/trying to overlay colors (ala instagram), but it never comes out like this, and if it comes close it's almost by accident.

Can someone provide some insight as to how such effects are achieved? is it just a result of years of tuning ones post processing prowess?

The camera I am using is Nikon D7000.

Asked by Sonic Soul

Answer

It looks to me like it could be a bleach bypass. This effect was originally a film-processing technique, but it is often replicated digitally.

Here's one (rough) method to try in photoshop:

1. Make a duplicate layer of your photo, and set the duplicate to overlay.
2. Add a hue/saturation adjustment layer and desaturate the image (amount depends on image, so you'll have to experiment, but -60 might be a good start).
3. Add a level adjustment and play with the levels - in particular, pull the black slider to the right a little, the middle slider to the left a little.
4. Finally, you might want to add a curves adjustment and tweak the colour curves to your liking.

Answered by Nix

Check more discussion of this question.

How do Cokin and Lee filter systems compare to each other?

Question

Is there any material difference between Cokin and Lee filter systems?

I'm looking for a limited range of filters - ND, Grad ND and Polariser - for use with a Sigma 10-20 Wide angle lens on a Nikon D200, predominantly for landscapes. Which way should I jump and will my choosing (say) a Cokin filter holder rather than a Lee one limit me to using Cokin filters?

Many thanks

Danny

Asked by Danny Edmunds

Answer

I had some Cokin filters earlier, and was thinking of getting some again, mostly ND and effect filters.

The difference between the systems is first of all in the size of the filters. The Lee standard system uses 100 mm filters, while the Cokin P system uses 84 mm filters. The less common Cokin Z-PRO system uses 100 mm filters, so they should be compatible with the Lee system. I have also seen mentioned Lee filters made compatible for the Cokin P system.

From what I have read, Lee filters are higher quality (durable and even in color), but also a lot more expensive. A cokin user had problems with the neutral density filters not being really neutral, however that shouldn't be a big problem if you are using a digital camera, as you can adjust the white balance to compensate for any differences.

For a 10-20 lens you should be careful what holder you get. There are special low-profile holders for wide angle lenses that you might need so that it's not visible in the image.

Answered by Guffa

Check more discussion of this question.

Is a fluorescent filter worth using, and how and when?

Question

I bought a UV Filter that came with a Polarizing Filter and a Fluorescent Filter. While I understand the polarizing filter what is the point of a fluorescent filter? When I tried the filter under a fluorescent light it caused the photo to have a pink tint. (The filter itself is pink.)

Is this filter worth using? And when/how do you use it?

Asked by Lynda

Answer

Fluorescent filters are for "converting" fluorescent light to closer to daylight (FL-D) or tungsten (FL-W). Generally speaking, with a digital camera there's not much need for a FL-* filter since you can accomplish the same thing (and more) with your camera's white balance setting. Shooting with film you would want an FL-* or some kind of magenta filter, since you cannot modify the white balance of the film.

Answered by djangodude

Check more discussion of this question.

Are there any known issues with using filter step-up rings?

Question

My 3 lenses all have a different size thread. (77, 67 and 58mm) I am to purchase a good CP filter for the 77 and 67 thread. I don't have any filters for the 58mm thread lens but I was thinking about perhaps getting a step-up ring and use my 77mm filters on the 58mm lens.

Are there any known issues with using filter step-up rings? I am thinking maybe even getting only one good 77mm CP filter and use with with all my lenses with a pair of step-up rings.

Any thoughts?

Asked by Jakub

Answer

The only thing you have to be mindful of is with wide angle lenses. You just want to make sure that with the step up ring and filter attached that you don't see the filter edge in the field of view. Slim filters can help with that. Otherwise it's just fine. I do the same myself with 77mm filters.

Answered by nwcs

Check more discussion of this question.

Is the the screw thread of a filter regulated by some standard?

Question

Is the the screw thread of a filter regulated by some standard? I am talking about round filter. For example, is the ISO metric screw thread standard applicable?

Asked by uvts_cvs

Answer

I don't know the real answer, but in lieu of someone who does, a quick search tells me that apparently not, but that a 0.75mm thread pitch is used by "most Japanese photographic manufacturers today".

Answered by mattdm

Check more discussion of this question.

What are the benefits of a multi-coated CP filter over a regular CP filter?

Question

I would like to purchase CP filters for at least 2 of my lenses. I can go with either the lower cost regular CP filter or the HMC Multi-Coated CP filter.

THe multi-coated filter is almost double the price. Comparing the two what are the benefits of the multi-coated filter over the regular filter?

Asked by Jakub

Answer

The link you gave shows "Multicoated to minimize reflection at the filter surfaces which reduces flare and ghosting.".

The layer of coating should be very thin (thickness comparabe with light wavelength in nanometers) and have very accurate thickness (measured sometimes in the size of atoms), the technology is expensive and this makes the multi-coated optics more expensive than a simple glass.

For more information you can look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_coating for instance

Answered by Cougar

Check more discussion of this question.

How to clean a lens filter?

Question

What's the best way to clean a lens filter?

I bought a used lens that came with a filter. The lens is in great shape but the filter clearly has smudges and streaks across the front.

Am I better off buying a new filter?

Asked by nmc

Answer

What I do is get some lens cleaning fluid, put some on a lint free cloth and wipe the filter. Then I use a microfiber cloth to get any smears off. B&H has an extensive blog post showing how to clean a filter and lens with the tools you'll need.

Answered by nwcs

Check more discussion of this question.

What is the purpose of graduated color filters?

Question

I think I understand Graduated Neutral Density Filters, however, what are the purpose and how do you use Graduated Color Filters? (IE Red, Yellow, Blue, etc)

And

Are they worth it?

Asked by Lynda

Answer

I've got a graduated (orange) "sunset" filter I bought on impulse and used once. In the right circumstance it can enhance a sunset, but to be honest, nothing you can't do in post processing.

If doing B&W photography, a graduated red filter could be used to darken the sky and make the clouds more dramatic (using the red half of the filter for the sky, as it will darken blues). The advantage here is you can affect the sky and clouds, but not have an impact on the foreground.

I would say they are largely a novelty item. They'd have their use in specific circumstances - so if you have tons of gear and $$ an happy to carry them around until they're needed, sure. Otherwise not the most useful item in the bag.

Answered by MikeW

Check more discussion of this question.

Graduated Color Filters

Question

I think I understand Graduated Neutral Density Filters, however, what are the purpose and how do you use Graduated Color Filters? (IE Red, Yellow, Blue, etc)

And

Are they worth it?

Asked by Lynda

Answer

I've got a graduated (orange) "sunset" filter I bought on impulse and used once. In the right circumstance it can enhance a sunset, but to be honest, nothing you can't do in post processing.

If doing B&W photography, a graduated red filter could be used to darken the sky and make the clouds more dramatic (using the red half of the filter for the sky, as it will darken blues). The advantage here is you can affect the sky and clouds, but not have an impact on the foreground.

I would say they are largely a novelty item. They'd have their use in specific circumstances - so if you have tons of gear and $$ an happy to carry them around until they're needed, sure. Otherwise not the most useful item in the bag.

Answered by MikeW

Check more discussion of this question.

How can I avoid a strange lens flare at bright lights when using UV filter?

Question

I have a Panasonic Lumix GF1 with the kit 20mm f/1.7 lens. I put a UV filter on it (this one: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00004ZCJE/ref=oss_product), simply as protection for the glass. I'm doing lots of theatrical shooting (bright lights, etc.) and I'm getting lots of lens flare in my shots. Here's an example: http://www.flickr.com/photos/schof/5006914162/

If I remove the filter, the flare goes away. Since I'm just using the filter to keep the lens glass clean and protected, is there another type of filter I should be using (or another brand of UV filter) to avoid this lens flare?

Asked by Schof

Answer

Thats actually a UV filter not an ND filter, very different filters :) Anyway, lower quality filters flare more, if you want to continue to use a UV filter consider a multi-coated filter. It seems other people who bought that same filter had similar complaints, see the 1st review:

"However, I had to return this item since they DON'T contain any anti-glare/reflective coating on them"

Se a similar post here re: UV filters:

Where to buy cheap UV filters online?

My advice though would be to just not use a filter, shooting directly at light sources like that is going to cause enough problems as is with flaring.

Answered by Shizam

Check more discussion of this question.

Will a variable neutral density filter produce similar results to a fixed neutral density filter?

Question

I've decided to look at experimenting with neutral density filters and I found this variable neutral density filter on Amazon here in the UK.

It's a lot cheaper than buying a set of filters of different densities, so I was wondering if it would produce similar results to a fixed filter when set appropriately? I realise I have the added complication of setting the filter to the desired density, but as this would be my first foray into this area I don't want to spend a lot of money if I'm not going to use it a lot or get serious with the effect.

Asked by ChrisF

Answer

I have just trialled a variable ND filter and have written a review about it

Yes, it will produce similar results. It's very handy in photographing things like waterfalls, as you can dial in whatever effect you need.

The drawback is that it acts like a polarising filters, so if you have large expanses of sky, the sky will not be uniform - the polarising effect is such that parts of the sky will be darker than others. With a fixed ND filter, you should get uniform darkening across the image.

Also with some of the less expensive variable ND filters, you can get color casts or dark bands in the image. I didn't experience much of that under most operating conditions - you will tend to see those at very wide angles (i.e. under 18mm DX) and at maximum density. You can also get color casts with some brands of fixed ND filters, especially when stacked with other ND filters, or with polarising filters.

Answered by MikeW

Check more discussion of this question.

Do rented lenses usually come with cheap filters attached?

Question

I got the Pentax smc DA★ 200mm f/2.8 ED (IF) SDM from an online camera gear rental company as part of the Photography Stack Exchange Lending Library experiment. (Thanks, Stack Exchange!) This is a relatively fancy lens; one of Pentax's most expensive, and it's got heavy-duty build and features, including weather sealing. I wasn't surprised to see that the rental company sent it with a UV filter (which the insert says is "mostly for protection"), but I was disappointed to see that it's the cheapest Tiffen protection filter, which is generally not well-regarded.

Now, I realize that it's my responsibility to protect the lens, but part of my reason for renting is to see what the lens can do, and having it impaired by a cheap filter is not really what I wanted. So, I've taken it off and am going to be ultra-careful. Since I'm beyond phase where I had a high risk of a two-year-old suddenly flinging sand at me at the playground, I usually don't use a protective filter on my own lenses, even the pricier ones, and nothing horrible has happened to me yet. And this one comes with a really hefty and solid lens hood which makes me feel pretty safe in the field.

If the filter were a super-multicoated B+W or Hoya — or maybe even a fancier Tiffen filter — I'd be inclined to leave it on (at least outside of some technical tests). Or if I had a high-quality 77mm ⌀ UV filter of my own, maybe I'd swap that in — but I don't.

I'm going to ask the company about this, but I wonder if it's standard practice, and what people who rent lenses usually do. The company didn't even send a protective storage case for the filter; it seems pretty clear that they expect it to be left in place.

Do most camera lens rental companies send their lenses with protective filters? What kind of filters do they use if so? And what do people who do this a lot do about it?

Asked by mattdm

Answer

I've rented two from LensRentals.com, a 15-85 and 100-400L, and neither came with a UV filter. Personally, I wouldn't expect a rented lens to come with a filter since a purchased lens doesn't come with one; like any other lens you get into your possession, the damage-quality tradeoff is up to you to make.

LensRentals.com's FAQ explains why, and comes down on the side of image quality (without penalizing the renter):

Because we believe filters degrade image quality to a slight degree, we do not put UV filters on the lenses unless you specifically order them. Because that is our choice we do not consider the renter responsible for minor hairline scratches to the front element.

Answered by drewbenn

Check more discussion of this question.

What considerations are there when buying a polarising filter?

Question

I have an Olympus EPL1 with two lenses: the micro 4/3rds 14-42mm and the 4/3rds 40-150mm. At the beach today, I could see the sea creatures in the rock pools but couldn't take a picture of them. The reason I could see them was because I was wearing polarised sunglasses. Sticking the sunglasses in front of the lens didn't work. A passing professor of physics told me that it was because my sunglasses are prescription glasses!

So I'm considering getting a polarising filter, but have absolutely no idea what to get or what to look for (I've never even used filters before, let alone thought about buying one). Reading around on the internet, I see that there are two types: circular and linear. How do I decide which to get?

I've also read that I probably shouldn't bother with a filter for the 14-42mm because the front of the lens rotates when it focusses. (This isn't true of the 40-150mm, I just checked.) As a first foray into the realm of filters, would I be really hampering myself by only getting a filter for the 40-150mm lens?

What's a reasonable price to pay for a filter? Given that I'm only dipping a toe in this particular water, I don't want to pay a great deal for something that might turn out to be not as useful as I thought, but I do want to give it a fair go. Looking on a certain website, named for a South American river, I see a circular polariser filter of the right size for my lens (\phi 58) with a RRP of 70UKP but on sale for 14UKP. Don't touch with a bargepole? Or reasonable for the experiment?

My most likely use would be shots through water, and scenery shots with the sun low on the horizon (happens a lot in Norway).

Asked by Andrew Stacey

Answer

A circular polarizer is what you want. Those are the ones that are broadly compatible with modern autofocus and metering tools built-in to cameras.

As for quality, if you're just trying out the effect, sure, go for the cheap one. But watch out for the usual problems with cheap filters: they are probably more prone to flare and ghosting than more expensive filters, they might degrade image quality to an unacceptable degree, and they might be less efficient at letting light through (so you'll need more exposure).

If you find you're using it often, then upgrade to a nice, multi-coated one from one of the brand names (Tiffen, Hoya, etc.) that's large enough to cover any other lenses you're planning on getting. A circular polarizer is one of the few things you can't fake in Photoshop, so it's still broadly useful to have around.

You would want to get one that fits the largest thread mount you have. In your case, that'd be 58mm on the 40-150 lens. Get a 37mm-58mm step-up ring to use it on your 14-42mm.

You can use it on your 14-42mm, but if the front element rotates you'll have to constantly readjust the filter, which is annoying. What I'd do in that situation is leave the filter off; then, compose, focus, switch it to manual focus so the front element won't move, put the filter on, adjust the filter and exposure, and then (finally) shoot. Again, sort of a pain, but it's certainly possible.

Answered by unexplainedBacn

Check more discussion of this question.

What type of camera setup is required to take photos of luciferase?

Question

I'm working with luciferase which has a wavelength of blue 480 nm and I want to be able to take a photo of it. The trouble is, I can see the luciferase glowing in all of its glory in front of me but no matter how hard I try, I can't take a photo of the luciferase with my DSLR (Nikon D80) using a Nikon 50 mm lens and a Nikon 35 mm lens. I've tried removing the filters (Nikon L37 and Hoya UV).

I'm curious if I'm missing a certain lens/filter or if I should be shooting using a different lighting setup. I'm already exposing for 30" at f/22 on ISO 1600. Perhaps longer?

Asked by bobthejoe

Answer

That wavelength is certainly within the spectrum you can capture with any lens, with or without filters. Digital sensors capture between 350-1000nm If it is glowing, then you'd want that to be your main light source. Any additional light you throw onto it is going to dilute the glow from your subject and make it harder to see.

What aperture are you using? Unless this is incredibly dim, I can't imagine 30" not capturing something unless you're using a very small aperture.

Are you doing this in a dark room with a dark background? What do you see in your 30" exposures?

Through trial and error, you could do a range of shutter speeds (and ISO) to try to hone in on a good exposure value. If you can see it with your eyes, you should be able to photograph it without special equipment.

Answered by MikeW

Check more discussion of this question.

Is it worth buying an expensive CPL filter over an e-bay cheap one?

Question

I have already got a circular polarizer filter (CPL) filter for my canon EF-S 18-55mm and it is working fine, although the quality goes down a bit compared to when I don't have the filter on, but its okay for the effects of a CPL.

Now I'm thinking about getting a more expensive "Hoya or such" CPL filter along with some ND filters, My question, should I get the expensive filters, are they worth that difference?

Asked by silenT_Thunder

Answer

Absolutely, the best ones are worth every penny. While I cannot say I tried every polarizer out there, I tried over a dozen and kept the 4 best ones.

My favorite by far is the Hoya HD Circular Polarizer which lets one full stop more light than every other polarizer. This is an import advantage since more light lets you shoot at lower ISOs and faster shutter-speeds.

Keep in mind that Hoya makes all grades of filters not just the best ones. Even the lowest quality one is not bad but paying more makes a difference. They have 5 quality levels and the Super Multi-Coated one is very good too but does not match the HD's transmittance.

Answered by Itai

Check more discussion of this question.

What are the must-have filters for a new photographer?

Question

What filters are good and why?

Asked by CodeToGlory

Answer

To Summarise

This is an attempt to summarise the widely-held opinions of photographers in general.
I believe this is a fair distillation of views.

• Adding any filter risks adding lens flare and reducing sharpness
• The effect of most filters can be reproduced in post processing
• The only filter which cannot be adequately reproduced in post is a polarising filter (particularly when used to remove / reduce reflections / glare).
• Neutral Density filters are sometimes necessary. For example: when the photographer wants to reduce the amount of light entering the lens to allow a wide apperture and a long exposure (for example, when photographing flowing water).
• UV Filters:
  • Many photographers feel that it is worthwhile to put a UV filter on the front of every lens, on the basis that this will protect the front lens element - from dust, scratches and catastrophic damage if the lens is dropped. In other words, it is a kind of insurance policy against lens damage. I understand that Scott Kelby takes this position.
  • Many (other) photographers believe that this practice is not worthwhile: they may feel that the reduction in image quality (actual or potential) is not justified by this "insurance policy". I have heard Scott Bourne articulate this belief.

I hope this is a fair and sensitive summary ;)

Answered by AJ Finch

Check more discussion of this question.

Do I need a filter for my prime lens in order to protect it from dust, splashes, etc?

Question

From here: http://photo.stackexchange.com/a/569/5205

UV Filters:
Many photographers feel that it is worthwhile to put a UV filter on the front of every lens, on the basis that this will protect the front lens element - from dust, scratches and catastrophic damage if the lens is dropped. In other words, it is a kind of insurance policy against lens damage. I understand that Scott Kelby takes this position.

Since prime lenses are not supposed to zoom can dust, water, etc still get inside it if I don't use a filter?

Asked by Anisha Kaul

Answer

The filter doesn't protect against dust getting "into" the lens, it just protects the front element. So the arguments for a filter are equally valid for zooms and primes.

Personally I don't use them, as they have a negative impact on image quality. Always keeping you lens hood on is another way to protect the front element.

Also, I recently damaged my lens (a prime), as I dropped it while changing lenses. Two elements fell out the back, and the focusing system got ruined, but the front element is intact. So the filter is no magical protection for your lens.

Answered by Pete

Check more discussion of this question.

Screw-in or square filters in the field?

Question

I currently carry a circular polarizer and a screw-in 4X ND with me in the field. I've decided it's time to upgrade my filters, because there are too many times when I really need an 8X ND (or more) and even though you can stack the polarizer, that's not a perfect option.

So I'm looking at what I should be doing in terms of carrying filters in the field. I'm currently leaning away from screw-in filters and towards the 100mm square (aka "Cokin P") filter sets for the NDs, because as you get it darker and darker, focus is an issue, and the square filters are easier to attach after you set up without affecting the rest of the setup.

The other option is the "vari-ND" style of screw in filters. I know the Singh-Rays come highly recommended, but are beyond what I want to spend right now.

So do you carry screw-ins or square? What mounting system do you use? Which brands do you use and recommend? Cokin is decent, but I'm thinking I want to use glass squares and a higher quality than the Cokin filters. Is there a vari-ND in the $100-150 range that is worth evaluating?

Asked by chuqui

Answer

I think you can only get subjective answers on this, different things will appeal to different people. I'll give you my experience.

• I have a polarising filter on my main lenses rather than a UV. If it's low light, or I otherwise don't need it, I remove it temporarily, but it always goes back on. I use the polarising filter all the time, so I don't like to fumble around for it. I don't think I could get used to using Cokin style polarising filters, as often as I use my screw in ones, because it would slow me down I think.

• for ND filters, I do use the 100mm Cokin style. I find they scratch pretty easily, and so I've bought inexpensive chinese ones (Tian Ya). Unless I'm set up to do a lot of images in one spot, I rarely bother to put on the holder - instead I usually hand hold the filter over the lens. The one Cokin style filter than I think is indespensible is the grad ND. It's just not very versatile in a screw in form - graduation is dead centre and you can't move it if your horizon is 1/3 from top or bottom for instance.

• I have considered buying an inexpensive vary-ND. I don't have high hopes that the quality will be that good. Even with Singh Rays you can get vignetting and funny color shifts at extreme densities and with wider angle lenses.

• I find the Cokin style filters are bulky, awkward to carry in my bag, and as a result (apart from occasionally pulling one out and holding it over the lens) they don't get as much use as I'd like. I tend to do a lot of walking/hiking, so I don't tend to take a tripod and take the time to set up properly, so maybe it's just me. If I try to use the Cokin holder and filters I end up fumbling and dropping them, getting finger marks all over them, scratching them. Something to think about before you buy expensive glass ones - all depends on you and how/where you work.

• I have a thin holder on my 12-24mm and I get very slight vignetting in the corners at 12mm. If you do a lot of WA shots, you may want the larger format (170mm?).

• a lot of people I know think Lee make better filters and holders, but I've not tried them out myself.

Answered by MikeW

Check more discussion of this question.