Need Help Getting Started with Filters

[Peruna]

In my brief three year photography life I've only used a circular polarizer, however I'm spending this summer in the Rockies and from my research of mountain landscape photography it sounds like graduated neutral density filters are a must to control the tonal ranges.

My lens sizes are 52mm, 62mm, 67mm and 77mm. Is it possible to buy a single holder that will fit all those lenses? And any suggestions on the filter brand I should buy as well as the brand of the holder and the size?

[JoeBannon]

Isn't there a filter called a Hollywood Filter?

[HFMarshburnJR]

Andrew - The simple answer to your question is yes. There are a couple of systems, but the one you will see a lot of folks using is made by Cokin. I use the P Series, which is suitable for , I believe, up to 82MM lenses. You buy one filter holder and then you buy different adapter rings for each of the diameters you mentioned above. The adapter rings are only about $10 if I remember correctly, so it is a very cost effective way to work with filters. You are also not limited to buying Cokin filters for this system. I actually use Lee ND grad filters (I have a 2 stop and a 3 stop) and a Singh Ray LB Warming CP in the Cokin filter holder. Have a good time shooting in the Rockies.

HFM

[DJ.]

Originally Posted by JoeBannon

Isn't there a filter called a Hollywood Filter?

You might be thinking of the Tiffen FX series of filters. Diffusion, Highlight, Flare, Softening, and etc.

[Peruna]

Originally Posted by HFMarshburnJR

Andrew - The simple answer to your question is yes. There are a couple of systems, but the one you will see a lot of folks using is made by Cokin. I use the P Series, which is suitable for , I believe, up to 82MM lenses. You buy one filter holder and then you buy different adapter rings for each of the diameters you mentioned above. The adapter rings are only about $10 if I remember correctly, so it is a very cost effective way to work with filters. You are also not limited to buying Cokin filters for this system. I actually use Lee ND grad filters (I have a 2 stop and a 3 stop) and a Singh Ray LB Warming CP in the Cokin filter holder. Have a good time shooting in the Rockies.

HFM

Thanks for the info. I'm looking on B&H for filters and they come in various sizes (3x3, 4x4, 6x6, & 14x18). What should I be looking for? I assume 4x4?

[mjfalk]

I also recommend Cokin Filters. Lee makes some great filters also, but they can be expensive. I also suggest reading [U] The Photographer's Guide to Filters [U] by Lee Frost; he gives some great tips and examples.

[Wes]

Cokin would work. You only need to buy different sized adapter rings for each of your filter sizes. The same system (filter holder) should work on all of them.

[JoeBannon]

Originally Posted by DJ.

You might be thinking of the Tiffen FX series of filters. Diffusion, Highlight, Flare, Softening, and etc.

A guy over at Arlington Camera said "hollywood".

[DJ.]

Originally Posted by JoeBannon

A guy over at Arlington Camera said "hollywood".

That is Tiffen Hollywood/FX® Star Filters


http://www.tiffen.com/filters.htm

[HFMarshburnJR]

Originally Posted by Peruna

Thanks for the info. I'm looking on B&H for filters and they come in various sizes (3x3, 4x4, 6x6, & 14x18). What should I be looking for? I assume 4x4?

Andrew - You want to look for the filters that fit in the holder that you buy. That is specified in the description. For what it is worth, my lee filters for the Cokin P series are 84mm x 120mm (or approx. 3-1/4" x 4-3/4" for those of you playing the home game ). This size filter is a little longer than my 77mm glass requires, but it gives me additional latitude in placement of the transition point on my ND Grad filters. I like this added flexibility. And the comment about the cost of the Lee filters made by the other poster was valid - that was my choice. I only called out the filter choices to illustrate that if you buy appropriately, you can mix and match based on your preferences down the road. Good luck.

HFM

[theophilus]

It's my understanding that the Cokin 4x4 size is limiting on the grad filters because you can't shift the horizon very far. When I looked into this a year ago 6x6 Lee system was the most common recommendation.

I've shot in the Rockies extensively and never needed anything other than a polarizer. I don't think the tonal ranges are any greater than anywhere else. Also, be prepared for possible thunderstorms every afternoon, makes for some great photo opportunities. What area of the Rockies will you be in?

If you try to shoot in the middle of the day on a clear day that light will be extremely harsh and no amount of filtering will help get the contrast you want in a good photo.

[Peruna]

I'll be in Missoula, which is three hours away from Glacier and five hours from Yellowstone. But at the moment I'm concerned about my stop over in Grand Tetons on the way up. I'm reading John Shaw's Nature Photography Field Guide, which was published pre-digital, and he suggests 2 stop graduated neutral density filters in order to keep foreground interests light enough while not washing out the sky among the peaks. You think a polarizer would be adequate?

[jeffkohn]

Originally Posted by Peruna

In my brief three year photography life I've only used a circular polarizer, however I'm spending this summer in the Rockies and from my research of mountain landscape photography it sounds like graduated neutral density filters are a must to control the tonal ranges.

There's nothing about mountain photography that makes grad-ND filters more necessary than any other type of landscape work. The purpose of a grad-ND is usually to darken the sky, so that you can expose the foreground properly without having a washed out sky. If anything, mountains make grad-ND's somewhat problematic, because depending on the composition you may end up darkening the top half of the mountain peak along with the sky.

Grad-ND's are a necessary tool for film photography, but there are other options for digital. If you shoot from a tripod, you can bracket exposures, and then back at the computer combine them either into an HDR or just stacking layers in Photoshop. Sometimes depending on the dynamic range of the scene, you may not even have to bracket exposures; just shoot RAW, and convert the RAW file once for the ground and once for the sky, and then combine them. There can be a bit of a learning curve to this approach, but ultimately it's more flexible and can produce better results than the filter.

[HFMarshburnJR]

Contrary to Tommy's advice, which may very well be valid for what he was shooting, once again the answer is really "it depends". There are those who will tell you that the gradient filter effect can be applied in PP later. My approach is to try and get the exposure I am looking for in the camera. If you plan on shooting through shadows toward a very bright or highly reflective backdrop (e.g. wildlife grazing in a shaded portion of a mountain meadow), then te ND grad can be used to lessen the effect of the bright background on the camera's metering and allow you to use a slower shutter speed to capture the detail in the shaded area. No circular polarizer out there will do this for you. Those who say you "don't need it" are right...but this tool can be used to help you get the picture you want when you need it. I only own three filters...and tose are the only ones that you are asking about. It is a nominal investment that will pay for itself down the road. IMHO.

Enjoy.

HFM

[Peruna]

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

There's nothing about mountain photography that makes grad-ND filters more necessary than any other type of landscape work. The purpose of a grad-ND is usually to darken the sky, so that you can expose the foreground properly without having a washed out sky. If anything, mountains make grad-ND's somewhat problematic, because depending on the composition you may end up darkening the top half of the mountain peak along with the sky.

Grad-ND's are a necessary tool for film photography, but there are other options for digital. If you shoot from a tripod, you can bracket exposures, and then back at the computer combine them either into an HDR or just stacking layers in Photoshop. Sometimes depending on the dynamic range of the scene, you may not even have to bracket exposures; just shoot RAW, and convert the RAW file once for the ground and once for the sky, and then combine them. There can be a bit of a learning curve to this approach, but ultimately it's more flexible and can produce better results than the filter.

Thanks for the alternative ideas. And I enjoyed your pbase library. Over how many days did you shoot those Grand Teton photos? Amazing work.