| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/12/2005 01:36:21 PM · #26 |
| Circular polarizer, Leon. They'll work with anything. |
|
|
|
04/12/2005 01:40:52 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by nards656:
Circular polarizer, Leon. They'll work with anything. |
thanks
|
|
|
|
04/12/2005 04:48:17 PM · #28 |
Mike
I am far from being an "equipment freak" and try to keep photography purchases to the basics. All the filters I own now are for use with my 35mm cameras and were purchased over 30 years ago. The brand of filters I own are Hoya, Promaster Spectrum 7, and Toshiba .
To be honest it is the UV filter that I use most often as it is always on my lens that is on my camera.
Barry |
|
|
|
04/12/2005 05:50:34 PM · #29 |
| Speaking of filters, I'm looking to buy a circular polarizer for my 17-40 lens. Does anybody have any suggestions where to go for good prices? Thanks! |
|
|
|
04/12/2005 06:09:46 PM · #30 |
I had a similar question regarding filters recently. When I bought my new Nikon D70, I bought 2 UV filters at the same time. A HOYA (High Quality) UV for the kit lens, and a SUNPAK (PicturesPlus) UV for the Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 ED lens. This was a common practice 20+ years ago when I had an SLR film camera. After asking a few questions here, I decided to return them and just get a lens hood to protect the lens a little better. At the camera store, which has a pretty good local reputation, the salesman told me that there was a in-depth filter study done a while back by "Shutterbug" magazine. He said the study showed there was virtually no discernable difference between pictures taken using a lens with a $300.00 UV filter, a lens with a $20.00 UV filter, or the lens by itself. Anyway, I ended up keeping the filters, and buying a $35.00 Hood for the 80-200 lens. Over the weekend I was outside shooting abandoned buildings and had to take quite a few shots facing towards the sun. I didn't have the filters on the lenses, but did use the hoods. I've noticed on my pictures that the sky is a lot grayer that it was last week with the filters in place. It could have been the sky, but it was a beautiful day out. Quality wise, I didn't notice a difference with sharpness.
Has anyone seen the "Shutterbug" filter review? Is "Shutterbug" a respectable magazine? Does the review have any merit?
I think I will keep the filters on my lenses for the time being for a couple of reasons.
1. I am habitually clumsy. I am always tripping over things or bumping into walls, chairs, people, etc.. (I don't think carrying around a camera with a long lens is going to improve that!)
2. I may be able to swing buying another 20-30 dollar filter, but I will have a much harder time convincing my wife that I need to replace a $900.00 lens because I bumped into something and scratched it.
3. I'm not anywhere near being a "professional photographer". I take pictures primarily for my own enjoyment. If someone can spot that I used a $30.00 filter from looking at my pictures, every single planet must have been in alignment when I took it, because usually there are so many other areas to criticize! I will thank them for the compliment and when I have enough of them to call myself "professional", I will look into improving the quality of my equipment.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
04/12/2005 07:57:01 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by 2Shay:
the salesman told me that there was a in-depth filter study done a while back by "Shutterbug" magazine. He said the study showed there was virtually no discernable difference between pictures taken using a lens with a $300.00 UV filter, a lens with a $20.00 UV filter, or the lens by itself.
Has anyone seen the "Shutterbug" filter review? Is "Shutterbug" a respectable magazine? Does the review have any merit?
|
Shutterbug is respectable to the point that any photo mag could be. That is to say that the magazine articles are written by both staff and freelance writers. These writers are people and people generally speaking have oppinions.
I know there is a difference between what filter you choose because I have in the past had images ruined by using un-coated filters.
Under ideal conditions you probably could not tell the difference between images taken with multi-coated, non-coated or no filter at all. We rarely shoot under ideal conditions.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2005 08:29:54 PM · #32 |
Check this out:
//www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/polarizers.shtml
|
|
|
|
04/12/2005 08:37:39 PM · #33 |
|
|
|
04/12/2005 08:45:33 PM · #34 |
I just ordered a B+H polarizer a few minutes ago.
I have an old Tiffen 77mm polarizer that I have had for about 12 years now, but it has rub wear on the surface. I'm not sure how this will affect image quality. I'm sure it will have some effect even if it is only minute.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2005 09:15:04 PM · #35 |
Well, I got my 16-35 and have been shooting for a while now. The nice thing is that it came with a Hoya UV(O) filter on it which makes me feel safe while I make my final filter decision...
That 77mm is a real monster so I'm glad to have it protected for now.
The Hoya UV(0) is a cheapy, right?
|
|
|
|
04/12/2005 09:36:02 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Well, I got my 16-35 and have been shooting for a while now. The nice thing is that it came with a Hoya UV(O) filter on it which makes me feel safe while I make my final filter decision...
That 77mm is a real monster so I'm glad to have it protected for now.
The Hoya UV(0) is a cheapy, right? |
I think the Hoya 77mm U/V(0) is a multi-coated filter. If it has HMC on the ring anywhere it most definatly is.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2005 09:46:16 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Well, I got my 16-35 and have been shooting for a while now. The nice thing is that it came with a Hoya UV(O) filter on it which makes me feel safe while I make my final filter decision...
That 77mm is a real monster so I'm glad to have it protected for now.
The Hoya UV(0) is a cheapy, right? |
I think the Hoya 77mm U/V(0) is a multi-coated filter. If it has HMC on the ring anywhere it most definatly is. |
I looked it up and it looks like Hoya UV(0) come in Standard, HMC, Ultra and S-HMC...mine must just be a standard as it doesn't say anything else on it.
link
|
|
|
|
04/13/2005 10:15:30 AM · #38 |
Ok i jus bought a 3 piece filter set +1, +3, +5 macro are these any good i rarely hear anything about them on here thanks
Leon
|
|
|
|
04/13/2005 10:16:06 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by LEONJR:
Ok i jus bought a 3 piece filter set +1, +3, +5 macro are these any good i rarely hear anything about them on here thanks
Leon |
Make, model?
|
|
|
|
04/13/2005 10:36:30 AM · #40 |
EBAY LINK Heres the link to them thanks
Leon
|
|
|
|
04/13/2005 11:41:34 AM · #41 |
I FOUND THIS on the internet. is it true? if so does anybody know how to do this i looked for tutorials couldnt find any.
This issue of purchasing and using a polarizing filter can many times be accomplished in the digital darkroom (e.g. Photoshop). In most instances in which a pro photographer would use a polarizing filter in a non-digital setup, I can replicate the effect quite reliably and nicely in Photoshop using curves and layers. The trick is to bracket your shots to get a range of exposures while still ensuring that you're getting good detail in the shadows. Ideally I'll work with an underexposed image and then duplicate its layer in Photoshop, setting the top layer to "screen" mode. Then by using curves and layer masks I can manipulate my images to achieve the same effect as a polarizing filter or a gradiated neutral density filter for enhancing the sky.
It's all a matter of intent. If you don't mind spending the time working with your images in Photoshop, you've got a wealth of opportunities at hand without the expense of additional equipment. Save your money for a warming filter instead.
thanks
|
|
|
|
04/13/2005 12:18:17 PM · #42 |
Just my own personal pref...
I think it would be ridiculous to try to replace a polarizer and even a graduated ND with PS processing. Why? Because the amount of time at the computer seems excessive when compared with $100 worth of filters. Using bracketed shots might be acceptable with a really steady tripod shot, but forget it for anything handheld or action oriented. (Bracketing takes time and things happen between the bracketed exposures, thus rendering one with misaligned or inconsistent images).
I personally despise having to spend more than about 3 minutes post-processing a shot. Anything that is going to slow me down is going to be regarded as a pain in the pootwah.
Just my personal prefs - not a rule or a law or an imposition. Please do not interpret the opinions of this photographer as an official position of DPC or Challenging Technologies, Inc............. |
|
|
|
04/13/2005 12:51:28 PM · #43 |
makes since but i'll stick to the low end filters. . . . . . i have always been told that if the picture is perfect from the beginning there isnt a need to post process after ward
|
|
|
|
04/13/2005 01:05:11 PM · #44 |
Some things a filter can do would be very hard to reproduce in photoshop - using a polarizing filter to eliminate glass or water reflections would be a good example.
Warming/cooling type filter effects, on the other hand, are pretty easy to do - even if you are not using "raw" files.
|
|
|
|
04/13/2005 02:34:13 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by LEONJR:
makes since but i'll stick to the low end filters. . . . . . i have always been told that if the picture is perfect from the beginning there isnt a need to post process after ward |
Au contrare... it is ALWAYS necessary to develop film, and there are ALWAYS some type of adjustments made - even at Walmart, and even if they are wrong.
Post processing is incredibly important in getting a good photo, I just don't like for it to be extensive. |
|
|
|
04/13/2005 04:52:43 PM · #46 |
here is an example what the polarizer can do, it not only reduces reflection but saturates the colors as well.
a polarizer is a must have, the UV filter is something that should only be used under specially harsh weather conditions to protect the lens from sandstorms or saltwaterspray. |
|
|
|
04/13/2005 04:57:27 PM · #47 |
I recently read an article on polarizers in a photo magazine.
They mentioned that there are some polarizers that are designed to enhance beyond what the standard polarizer lens normally would do. (I think adds more saturation, etc. ...might have been referred to as an "enhancing polarizer".) Can any one give me more details on these? models? where to buy?
thanks! |
|
|
|
04/13/2005 05:04:30 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by DanSig:
here is an example what the polarizer can do, it not only reduces reflection but saturates the colors as well. |
What would be nice to see is side-by-side pics of a subject with and without a circular polarizer.
Anyone got such a set of pictures?
|
|
|
|
04/13/2005 05:57:42 PM · #49 |
| Just wanted to thank everyone for the info, just ordered the B&W polarizer and step up filter. |
|
|
|
04/13/2005 08:28:56 PM · #50 |
Well, just got back from testing out my new 16-35...it came with a Hoya cheapy UV filter so I thought I'd test all my shots with and without the filter as well.
I took photos at 16mm and 35mm at f/2.8, f/11 and f/22...all at ISO 100 and WB sunny.
I noticed some small differences between the filter and non filter shots at most of these settings but there was a HUGE difference in the 16mm f/2.8 shots.
100% crops:
With cheap filter:
Without cheap filter:
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/15/2025 12:35:26 AM EDT.
