[kin0kin]

I was wondering what do people use mostly. I've got a CPL for my wide zoom, and I'm thinking of picking up a CPL for my telezoom. As for my macro lens, I have no idea which will be more useful, what's your call on that?

 

[Mr_Penut]

I don't use either

I have a graduated ND that I plan to use, but seeing as I only shoot industrial and people right now, I have no use for either.

I'd buy the polo if you really want one, as it is used more. I'm lucky in that all my 35mm lenses are 77mm mount, so I don't have to buy different filters. If you shoot film, consider getting coloured filters for b&w.



edit: I have both that you were talking about.

 

[kin0kin]

I think for most situation a CPL will work well, and it serves as an ND2...but I was wondering what do most ppl use for macro lens....would an ND4/8 filter be more useful since that one can use lower shutter speed for better bokeh when the sun is bright? or is CPL alredy suffice for most situation?

 

[Mr_Penut]

with a macro lens your dof is shot already, so you will be shooting at a higher fstop.

I don't shoot macro, and have no interest in shooting it, so someone else would be better to ask than me

 

[Davesrose]

With digital photography, I'm wondering why use a neutral density filter? If you want a smaller DOF then what you can expose, you can artificially create a DOF effect in Photoshop. I like to do this all the time with Aftereffects for doing DOF in animation (rendering out DOF can take much longer, so it's easier to do as post). You can use an unsharp mask if your image has clear depth buffer. If it doesn't, you can create a DOF effect by duplicating your sharp in focus layer with another layer on top of it. Blur it as much as you want the most distant point blurred. If you want it to look more like a traditional photograph, you can add some monochromatic noise. Then you can create a mask layer to paint out areas that you want sharp focus (as the "in focus" layer is underneath). You can have a gradient of depth by either painting or applying gradients on your mask layer. Just thought I'd post this tip if that's what you were thinking of using a ND filter for.

 

[kin0kin]

That'd wouldn't be photography anymore, and makes it virtually no point to buy good lenses. There are many use for the ND filter, allowing you to use lower shutter speed is just one of them.

 

[dinoadventures]

I don't know why you would need an ND for macro photography. CPL, maybe, but I don't think so.

ND's are not terribly useful for most kinds of shooting. Not unless you need, say, a shallow DOF long exposure in the daytime with a fast lens. Grad ND's however, are really useful and I've got a whole set of those.

Have you considered using a square/rectangular filter system like the Cokin P? You can adjust the position of the filter in the holder, which is useful for grad ND's and other grad filters. All you need is adapters for your lenses to use the same set of filters, and you can layer them. Though the ND filters made by Cokin aren't too neutral, you can get HiTech filters from B&H that are very useful.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kin0kin /img/forum/go_quote.gif That'd wouldn't be photography anymore, and makes it virtually no point to buy good lenses. There are many use for the ND filter, allowing you to use lower shutter speed is just one of them.

Well with today's technology, I don't see why you can't use whatever tool to achieve the same effect: filter or Photoshop, why should it matter?? Plus, you're not introducing the problems associated with filters: reducing sharpness and introducing color artifacts. This is like saying that you shouldn't use the burn or dodge tool in Photoshop because that's digital. So far, what I'm liking most about digital photography is that it's so much easier to touch up in photoshop. Instead of getting out a brush and trying to spot touch any specks that you might have gotten with enlargements....that was a real pain.

I thought the point of a good lens was more for optics, less vibration, and no vignetting

Sharpness would be the #1 trait I look for in a lens.

 

[PiccoloNamek]

My primary use for ND filters (mine are all grad filters) is to bring the dynamic range of part of a scene under control (like a sunset). Much faster and more convenient than messing around in the HDR dialogue.

Also, Photoshop can never truly simulate an accurate DOF effect, IMO.

 

[kin0kin]

I have considered using adapter, but I havent used it before so I'm not sure if it will introduce any problems.

As far as I am concerned, creating effects like DOF with photoshop is not the first in my list. Photoshop is only good for fixing flaws. Using photoshop to create effects is similar to usign EQ in audio. Call me conservative, it's just not the audiophile way of doing it. Adding a good filter makes little to virtually no difference to the IQ.

Optics are not just about quality, vibration, and what not. Bokeh is one other important thing to look for and people do pay 3 X the price to get a 1.4 over 1.8 prime for that reason. Vignetting was important for film cameras, but not a problem with digital since it can be fixed easily when taking pictures in RAW.

Photoshop is a great software, but it is not a solution, just an alternative. It's similar to those noise reduction software, why'd people pay more for a camera body that has less noise than just use a software to fix the noise as far as the noise is concerned? (besides convenience)

Edit: oh I just remembered another reason why I dont wanna go for a converter....it makes using hood impossible.

 

[AudioNoob]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well with today's technology, I don't see why you can't use whatever tool to achieve the same effect: filter or Photoshop, why should it matter?? Plus, you're not introducing the problems associated with filters: reducing sharpness and introducing color artifacts. This is like saying that you shouldn't use the burn or dodge tool in Photoshop because that's digital. So far, what I'm liking most about digital photography is that it's so much easier to touch up in photoshop. Instead of getting out a brush and trying to spot touch any specks that you might have gotten with enlargements....that was a real pain. I thought the point of a good lens was more for optics, less vibration, and no vignetting Sharpness would be the #1 trait I look for in a lens.

Well, you have a point of view but he has his too. I'm on the analog side too, I want my stuff good out of the camera and I repect the darkroom whereas I don't like photoshopped images that much although I know how to use it and do use it for other's images

And I don't know about the macro question, you already shoot your dof in the foot shooting low ISO, I never encountered a situtation where I had to step down in a macro shoot, given that you don't dream of capturing motion or have a good reason not to use high speed sync

 

[kin0kin]

Besides using lower shutter speed, there's also what PiccoloNamek, dynamics. CPL and ND is able to give more vivid colors and less blown out highlights for that reason, but with CPL having the benefits of reducing reflection. I do think that ND4/8 is probably not neccessary, so maybe I should pick up a CPL to play around with my macro lens?

 

[AudioNoob]

I'd go for the cpl since it's versatile, and I'd go for a wider one with a converter so you can use for all your lenses.

 

[Davesrose]

Well I've always been conservative with filters

I also don't use a UV filter for protection: I only have them for when I need them...when I'm taking a photo of a landscape. Keeping the lens dusted and and covered with a lens cap is good enough protection for me. I'd rather have the sharpest image I can, and be able to manipulate in Photoshop. Especially now that you can adjust ISO on the fly, you've got great versatility to begin with in achieving proper exposure with full tonal range, and desired aperture.

Anyway, I was just tossing out this idea to help determine the uses of filters....CPLs and UVs have their place....now variable ISO settings, IMO it does seem that NDs are getting more limited.

I also think that Photoshop is just an addition to the creative process: it is damn hard to add to a photo....but it's very easy to manipulate if you later find that there was something else you wanted in the composition.

as for DOF....well it's very easy to do with AfterEffects....Photoshop doesn't have one filter for it, so you have to use blur and diffusion effects. But here's an example I've just made up for doing effects in Photoshop. This is quick and dirty....don't have time to make this the best I can, and with my photographs, I would begin to approach the DOF I wanted while shooting.

 

[kin0kin]

I have a 67mm cpl, not sure if I can still use my lens hood if i slap it on my lens with 62mm thread. I'll probably wait a little before jumping on the 62mm cpl for my macro lens.

LOL Dave, the second picture looks like a badly OOF picture, that aint DOF/Bokeh

btw, have you considered how much work ought to be done if you had 2000 or more pictures that you need to "create" DOF, properly?

I'm gonna bet that you will think differently about nd/cpl when you know more about it or when you need it.