Lenses And Filters

I agree, it's always the last thing I do but I wouldn't be put off LR by thinking that it automatically oversharpens your pictures.

 

As it can be switched off, I wouldn't be put off but I thought it worth mentioning to anyone using LR for the first time.

 

That was originally thought to be the optimum way to use sharpening in your workflow, but many now recommended sharpening to be applied in multiple stages, roughly categorized as 1) capture sharpening, 2) creative sharpening and 3) output sharpening. As ever, there are many ways to skin a cat, and only the most picky (Mr Hurst?) would likely notice any difference between supposedly optimum workflows.

As a general comment, filters can be useful in certain situations, but I use them less and less these days. If I had to have just one filter it would be an ND0.9 graduated. I've stopped putting UV or Skylight filters on my lenses, as I haven't yet scratched a lens, but I have regularly had situations where flare has been exacerbated by the filter, particularly with the high intensity headlights used on the mainline today and when shooting at night. The main time the ND Grad comes out to play is in dull conditions when the sky can be much brighter than the rest of the scene, and particularly when I know the exhaust will be against the sky. As has already been alluded to, they are also particularly useful when shooting video if you want to avoid washed out skies on typical cloudy-bright days.

Polarizers seem to be a very under-used filter for railway subjects. This is slightly surprising given the number who shoot train-in-landscape and that polarizers are one of the most used filters by landscape shooters. I suspect the main reason for this is that you lose up to two stops of light depending on the degree of polarization, which can leave you struggling for enough depth of field, or a high enough shutter speed. However, they can be worth their weight in gold in the right conditions, as they can really make a big difference to the impact of an image in slightly hazy light. In such conditions, and with the performance of most current digital cameras, it could be worth upping the ISO a tad to allow you to use one.

As to the OP, by the sounds of things, I'm not sure I'd prioritise buying filters over upgrading your software, but if you have cash for both, it's worth having a few in the bag.

 

Having just alighted on this topic and read the posts I must admit my surprise that the OP hasn't looked at the Nikon Software which comes with his Nikon Camera. It may be a sampler (valid for 60 days IIRC) but it's worth considering buying the full package for £100:00 because the prime benefit for the Nikon photographer is that the software is guaranteed BACKWARDS compatible whilst upgrades are provided free of charge once the software is registered. My initial use of Nikon software was in 2003 with a PC yet the latest version runs happily on a MAC - and still handles my 2003 images with no problem.

The benefit of software familiarity means that there is little need to buy specialist filters with the problem of changing them in tune with changes with weather but buy a "standard" filter such a UV to protect the lens and use the software to create the filtering effects. This latter point is valid with some of the bigger lenses where the UV filter for my 24-120 lens costs £75:00; I dread to think what a specialist filter such as Graduated or Polaroid would cost.

I must agree with Jonathan that whilst considering a particular course of action, it is worth seeking alternative views if only to know that a proposed course of action is the best option. I offer my suggestion in such a vein as it is a course of action that suits both my needs and pocket; Jonathan has his own needs and funds that may allow other options.

 

I did a little experiment last night, by way of showing the OP what a filter can do, in this case an ND2.

This first one is as shot using just a UV filter



This one is as shot using the ND2 filter, you can see that there is already more obvious detail.



This is the UV shot after processing.



And this is the ND2 shot after processing, you can see that there is a lot more definition/detail in the image.



Again, an un edited UV shot, again detail isn't obvious.



An un-edited ND2 shot, with more detail evident.



The UV shot after processing.



And the ND2 shot after processing.



Both sets of images were processed to more or less the same extent!

Whether or not the shots taken using the ND2 filter are 'better' than those taken with just the UV filter on the front could be considered a moot point, as I suppose it depends on what you the photographer want to achieve versus what you the viewer want to see.................................................. personally I prefer the more dramatic result achieved using the ND2 filter!

 

A fairer trial would have been shooting with and without filters at a variety of exposure settings. One or two shots look hopelessly over exposed IMO and stopping down and/or upping the shutter speed should have improved matters quite markedly.

 

Spamcan, if you red wot i rote, the "over exposed" shots are the as shot images BEFORE any processing!

And its not a trial, just something to show the OP what can be done.........................................................

 

But the trick is to get the exposure there or there abouts in the first place and not rely on post processing to rescue things, the result of which won't be as good as getting it right in the camera. Showing an overexposed image is no demonstration of a filters effect or lack off IMO.

 

Have to agree with Spamcan81 in that I can't see the value of the demonstration. If you took the UV image and stopped down by two stops (or increased the shutter speed by two stops), then you should get the same result as you get with the ND2 filter. I don't know why your camera is overexposing when the ND filter isn't present. Personally, I find little use for a constant ND filter for stills unless you're wanting a slower shutter speed to blur moving water or clouds, etc.

A much more interesting demonstration would've been to show the use of an ND Graduated filter that could enable you to darken the sky as you show, but without also darkening the roof of the house.

 

I could have done a lot of things, But I DIDN'T!!!! and isn't 1/2000th a fast enough shutter speed? If you two know best - then show me your efforts......................................................................then I can be critical or complimentary about yours!

At least I was daft/brave enough to stick my head over the parapet

Lighten up guys, it was just done as a bit of fun! and as an eg for the OP

As for the ND Grad......................................................................I don't own one, yet!"

 

A quick google search will turn up numerous examples of ND, ND Grad and Polarizer's in use, and likely far better than I can provide.

The reason I replied to your example is that I actually think it is quite misleading without including the exposure information for each shot. All an ND filter does is to reduce the amount of light entering the lens. If you're using the camera on Shutter Priority mode set at 1/2000 and the camera selects an aperture of f5.6 then when you add the ND2 filter it should then give an exposure of 1/2000 f4 and the captured image should be essentially the same except for a slight reduction in depth of field due to the change from f5.6 to f4, i.e. the camera automatically adjusts for the reduction in light and both captured images appear to be the same brightness. [I believe that an ND2 filter reduces the light by one stop (not two as I originally thought in my previous reply) and ND4 / 8 reduce by 2 and 3 stops, respectively. My filters are by Lee and their convention is 0.3 / 0.6 / 0.9 ND for a 1 / 2 / 3 stop reduction.]

To achieve a result like you showed would require something along the lines of the camera being in manual mode taking both images at 1/2000 f5.6 and then the image with the ND2 filter would appear a stop darker.

As I said, the main uses for ND filters are to reduce the depth of field to allow for selective focusing, or to reduce the shutter speed to enable more motion blur. If I'm shooting a waterfall in sunlight, I might be exposing at 1/60 f16 @ ISO100, which is too high shutter speed to give a nice silky flow to the water. If I add a 3 stop ND filter my exposure becomes 1/8 f16 @ ISO100 and I can get a nice blurred waterfall. Another example suggested above was for video, where you want to shoot with a shutter speed of 1/50 and on a sunny day you'll typically be at 1/50 f16 @ISO100 and a 3 stop ND filter would get that down to 1/50 f5.6 @ISO100, which is much closer to where most lenses perform optimally.

 

Mr. Druid, my post was not meant to be critical but simply pointing out that if a fair test is to be carried out with and without filters then the exposure needs to be there or there abouts in all examples so the OP can make a judgement. Is 1/2000th fast enough? How long is a piece of string? All depends on aperture, ISO and how bright it is. As for showing you one of my own, I don't use ND filters so couldn't provide an example if I wanted to I'm afraid. However I can dig out an example or two of shooting into the sun when I fire up my other computer.

 

I know, along with everybody else the images a google search will throw up!

So if you can't or won't put up a n example for others to view, and you use filters that are circa £200 each! Then I politely suggest that you pipe down on the subject...................

WHY????????????????????????????

All I'm interested in is the end result - I don't care about exposure info, all I care about is achieving the result I want!

Yawn............................................................................

We know the primary use for ND filters................................................................................... However, I choose to use them differently, for a more dramatic effect - and why not? I live in an urban landscape, not a rural idyll with babbling brooks and waterfalls everywhere and lots of greenery,so I'm not interested in motion blur, especially not in clouds, I 'm more interested in the definition in the sky!

If you really want to save bashing the keyboard, then READ THIS........................

 

Fair enough., Spamcan!

What I did was in no way meant to be a test, just a bit of fun showing what the use of an ND filter can bring to the party, and my original intention was not to shoot more or less directly at the sun but to shoot the sun behind the clouds, sadly that didn't really happen!

As for camera settings, I could have set the damn thing to auto and just let it get on with it, or turned the dial to one of the inbuilt presets...................................... As I asked for an example of something you'd shot with an ND, as you don't own one then don't bother!

 

Take a deep breath and a chill pill my friend. This is supposed to be a discussion advising the OP of the uses etc.of filters and their alternatives so it's bound to get a bit serious and technical somewhere down the line.

 

Oh, I'm chilled alright me old china!

Flat out like a Lizard drinking!...............................................................................

 

That's cool.

 

I expect that anyone who has any clue about photography will be clear on why the exposure information is important. Meanwhile, you can continue to use your filter "for a more dramatic effect", when you could actually achieve the same result simply by altering your exposure, with the added bonus that you'd also achieve better image quality.

 

You really have missed the point!

All I was doing was showing the OP what an ND filter can bring to the party, regardless of camera settings!

I only did it as a bit of fun, nothing else, so if you can't read things properly or see beyond the end of your nose, that's not my problem!.................................................................

 

Fair enough. I'm sure the OP will also see it as a bit of fun and with the additional links and information provided will realise what an ND filter actually brings to the party.