[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kin0kin /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

Alright, fine.....don't ever touch Photoshop

That Photoshoped photo was just an example of extreme DOF of only having part of the canon in focus. Obviously I wouldn't ordinarily do that much in Photoshop. But my point is it's still much quicker to tweak things in Photoshop rather then having to do them in the darkroom. On some photos, I would have to spend a long time redeveloping them trying to get the right contrast and if there was an area that needed burned. Now it's just a few seconds of curves and using the burn brush.

I never once questioned CPL either

Just that a good ND is just supposed to knock down the amount of light: something that can now be done with ISO. All I'm saying is pick the filter when you really need it.

 

[Dimitris]

I only use UV filters. Besides shooting waves with an ND filter in order to get an effect of motion/fog over the sea I dont see why you would want to spend money on another filter. You can do everything else on your computer with full control of the effect.

 

[Davesrose]

Well I can see UV and polarizing filters: CPLs have a very different function and can cut out reflection. What seems to make DSLRs more versatile is more exposure range.....bumping up ISO on digital won't comprimise detail the way it did if you pushed film. NDs helped you cut down light in bright situations if you had slower film.

 

[Mr_Penut]

I shoot with filters, however I also make sure to get the right dof in camera

 

[Arainach]

Polarizers and Neutral Density filters are totally different tools for totally different tasks.

For general use, you'll use a polarizer a LOT more. ND filters are only useful if you have a REALLY good tripod and want to take very long exposures.

 

[lan]

I don't really use CPL of ND filters since my subject matter doesn't usually require it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kin0kin /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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?

Lower shutter speeds is better bokeh? I can see a wider open aperature/less depth of field leading to a smoother background. I think CPL maybe more useful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif With digital photography, I'm wondering why use a neutral density filter?

Yes you could do it in photoshop but you might as well be as close as possible. Also some people are not good in photoshop. It has a high learning curve and is costly. It's cheaper to get a filter and takes less time. I believe a person should actually learn/practice more actually photography technique instead of developing/processing earlier on.

If you wanted to shoot <f/2.8 in broad daylight and are already at ISO 100 and you're body can't do faster than 1/4000 then you might need ND filter. I can do 1/16,000 so I don't really need ND in this case.

Another use would be to attempt motion blur in daytime.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

Agreed. The gradiated filter is specific to more nature landscapes though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kin0kin /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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?

I don't think ND affects colors and blown highlights. If you actually get blowhighlights, maybe your metering was off and you should use EV to step it down a notch. CP would be good for reflective surfaces (mirror, chrome, water, windows, etc.). I think CP is the way to go if you want to experiment. Just make sure the front of your lens doesn't rotate

I also usually go nude. I only use UV filter for protection if it's a hostile situation. sand, rainprying hands, etc. other wise the lens hood is enough for me.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr_Penut /img/forum/go_quote.gif I shoot with filters, however I also make sure to get the right dof in camera

Well I normally go nude lens, but I certainly try to get the best DOF in my shot too....it's just that I'm not affraid to tweak or emphasize it in Photoshop. Especially if it's going to be a nice print that you want to frame: you're going to be spending more time tweaking the photo. The main difference with Photoshop over analogue techniques is that Photoshop just gives you more freedom.

I also do graphics and animation for a living.....so Photoshop is very familiar to me. It is faster and easier to have a good photo to work from, but there are so many more tweaks that you can do with Photoshop then darkroom techniques.

 

[Hermitt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think CP is the way to go if you want to experiment. Just make sure the front of your lens doesn't rotate

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the assumption that a Circular Polarizer 'was' for autofocus/rotating lenses as the polarization is not linear.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you wanted to shoot <f/2.8 in broad daylight and are already at ISO 100 and you're body can't do faster than 1/4000 then you might need ND filter. I can do 1/16,000 so I don't really need ND in this case.

This has been been one of my points on why NDs aren't as necessary with digital cameras that have variable ISO. I would assume that the quality of a higher ISO digital (don't know about the really noisy ones...but still) would be better then if you had tried pushing the ISO of film that's rated a different ISO. Isn't that right Ian?

 

[kin0kin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Lower shutter speeds is better bokeh? I can see a wider open aperature/less depth of field leading to a smoother background. I think CPL maybe more useful.

Actually what i meant was with ND, you can use larger aperture (better dof control), with lower shutter speed.

anyway, here's a quote from Tom's site:


Quote:

Polarizer. A polarizing filter alters a key property of light. "Pure" light consists of light photons in a nice, standardized "wave." But whenever light bounces off of an object (the thing you're photographing!), side components are added to this wave and it is no longer quite as well formed. What a polarizer does is strip off some (many) of these side components. A practical example: you're photographing shooting down into a body of water. What you normally see (and photograph) are reflections on the surface of water, and those reflections are really formed by the side components. Put a polarizer on and adjust it correctly (see sidebar, at right), and you can often remove most, if not all, of these reflections. But the same is true of just about anything: if I'm shooting foliage, for example, I'll often use a polarizer for the same reason I do shooting water: to remove the random reflections that reduce the apparent contrast on the surface of the leaf (water). Pros: give you control over reflections; tend to increase contrast and color saturation; can be used to darken bright skies Cons: relatively expensive for a good filter that won't vignette on wider lenses; polarization effect will vary across scene with wide angle lenses; some multi-part polarizers are prone to fogging; effect can't always be maximized Neutral Density. A standard ND filter simply blocks some amount of light from getting to the lens. You can easily find ND filters in 1 stop, 2 stop, 4 stop, and even 8 stop values. A good ND filter is color neutral, meaning that it blocks all values of light equally. Singh-Ray now has a variable effect ND filter (from 1.5 to 10 stops) which keeps you from having to carry multiple ones, but it is expensive (US$350). Some uses of ND filters include: Obtaining flash sync speeds. In bright light with cameras that have slow flash sync speeds, you might not be able to use flash without an ND filter, because you can't set an aperture/shutter speed combination that falls within that allowed by the camera. For example, the Fuji S1 had an ISO of 320 and a flash sync speed of 1/90. By definition, Sunny 16 exposure would be f/16 at 1/320, so how would you manage to use fill flash outdoors? (1/320 is almost 2 stops from 1/90, so you'd need a lens that went to f/28 to get to 1/90.) Well, one answer would be to put a 2-stop ND filter on the camera, which would drop your shutter speed to a level where you could use flash. Obtaining a slow shutter speed. I like playing with slow shutter speeds and moving objects. But sometimes there's more light in the scene than I need, so I put an ND filter on. For example, it usually takes a shutter speed in the range of 1/15 to show motion on someone walking, so if I were outside with a D100 (ISO 200) in Sunny 16 conditions, by definition I'd need something near f/64! But if I put an 4stop ND filter on the front of the lens, I could achieve something near f/11 at 1/15, which is manageable. Pros: inexpensive; provide additional shutter speed/aperture selection flexibility Cons: none other than the obvious one that they let less light through to the film/CCD.

 

[AdamP88]

CPLs are indispensable for landscape photography, imo. Cut down reflection and haze, increase saturation. CPLs are always in my bag unless I'm only shooting indoors. I rarely come across any situations where I think "man, I wish I had an ND right now..." but perhaps that's just my style.

 

[kin0kin]

I'm visiting Niagara falls around May, thinking of picking up an nd filter and make good use of it at the big *** waterfall. Regardless, I picked up a 72mm and 77mm CPL, so all my lenses, other than my 50mm prime will be equipped with CPL.

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hermitt /img/forum/go_quote.gif Please correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the assumption that a Circular Polarizer 'was' for autofocus/rotating lenses as the polarization is not linear.

You are correct. Quote:

Lower shutter speeds is better bokeh?

Bokeh, no. But it's dang-near impossible to get shots with razor-sharp backgrounds and controlled motion blur (like this) without an ND filter.

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hermitt /img/forum/go_quote.gif Please correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the assumption that a Circular Polarizer 'was' for autofocus/rotating lenses as the polarization is not linear.

It still has an orientation so you must adjust it as you like while looking at the image. It's just that if the front part of your lens rotates, it becomes more cumbersome.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif This has been been one of my points on why NDs aren't as necessary with digital cameras that have variable ISO.

Certainly ISO becomes another flexible variable. I'm saying if were at the limits of the camera it would necessitate the use of ND. It would be an extreme case though.

 

[kin0kin]

Just gotta make sure that the lens doesn't rotate at all. Lucky for me, all my lenses doesn't rotate when focusing except the prime. What is unfortunate though is that the filters cost alot....