Filters for digital

[bikenerd]

I've just bought, via ebay, an adapter tube for my Canon G10 that allows me to use 58mm filters.
I was thinking of getting a skylight and polarising filter.  Are there any others I should consider getting?
I usually take landscape / architecture photos and the odd portrait.
The camera has a built in neutral density filter (3 stops).

[LEE]

A graduated neutral density is always useful (or a few of varying strength).  They allow you to compensate for different areas of brightness in an image, such as a dark foreground and a bright sky (where usually the sky would 'wash out' or the fopreground would be underexposed)

Check out Cokin filter system

[andyoxon]

On my FZ5, I have a permanent Skylight filter; also have a polarising and as with Lee, I have and can recommend a grey graduated (cokin), which I believe is essentially the same as a graduated neutral density.

[Biggsy]

I would not use a Skylight filter on digital.  If you want to warm up the colours, you can aways do so in post processing.

A UV filter or clear glass protector is more neutral if you just want it for protection.  However, any filter will slightly degrade the image; it's another two surfaces to keep clean; and a filter can break more easily than a lens, possibly damaging the lens in the process.

For square filter systems, there are cheaper alternatives to Cokin, including Kood.

[Rob S]

The only filters I use for digital are neutral density for taking shots of rivers/weirs/waterfalls and the tide lapping the shore....and polorising to get rid of reflections.

I think everything else can be achieved with far more control in PS...particularly ND grads.

[LEE]

I think everything else can be achieved with far more control in PS...particularly ND grads.

Nope.

If your sensor has over/underexposed it outside of it's dynamic range then it's gone.

You can always take a few exposures of the same scene, using different exposures, and merge the correctly exposed areas together but that's hassle (but my only option given my current camera).

Better to bring all areas into the dynamic range of your sensor with a filter and then tweak it in PS (if you have PS of course)

[Biggsy]

Graduated ND filters are even more useful on digital than film because the dynamic range is more limited.

That said, I haven't been bothered to use mine yet.  It is a fiddle.  But I should bother because a lot of my shots are ruined by over-exposed skies or under-exposed foregrounds or both, particularly when shooting towards the sun.

[bikenerd]

Thanks for the replies.
So, for an ND grad filter, is it better to get a Cokin style one, so that you can match the graduation with the horizon, or just get a circular one?

Any brands I should be looking for or avoiding?  Are the Hoya green series sufficient quality?

Thanks again.

[Biggsy]

Cokin style ND grads so you can slide them up and down.

Hoya Green should be OK, though you may be able to find better ones cheaply on eBay.

[Rob S]

I think everything else can be achieved with far more control in PS...particularly ND grads.

Nope.

If your sensor has over/underexposed it outside of it's dynamic range then it's gone.

You can always take a few exposures of the same scene, using different exposures, and merge the correctly exposed areas together but that's hassle (but my only option given my current camera).

Better to bring all areas into the dynamic range of your sensor with a filter and then tweak it in PS (if you have PS of course)

 These things can be pretty expensive and you have to buy several of them to cover all the bases...both in terms of stops and hard/soft grad....and then you are restricted to a straight line of effect.
I'd rather expose for sky, highlights,shadows and then hand blend to my hearts content knowing I have all the required ingredients for the picture...that's what digital is all about

[Biggsy]

The filters can be found quite cheaply.

Combining multiple shots requires a tripod or lots of skill with special software, and it won't always give the same result.

[andyoxon]

I think everything else can be achieved with far more control in PS...particularly ND grads.

Nope.

If your sensor has over/underexposed it outside of it's dynamic range then it's gone.

You can always take a few exposures of the same scene, using different exposures, and merge the correctly exposed areas together but that's hassle (but my only option given my current camera).

Better to bring all areas into the dynamic range of your sensor with a filter and then tweak it in PS (if you have PS of course)

 These things can be pretty expensive and you have to buy several of them to cover all the bases...both in terms of stops and hard/soft grad....and then you are restricted to a straight line of effect.
I'd rather expose for sky, highlights,shadows and then hand blend to my hearts content knowing I have all the required ingredients for the picture...that's what digital is all about

I'm in the habit of exposure bracketing +/- 1 stop to cover some bases (depending on lighting conditions).  I think I have a medium strength GG filter - though I don't use it that often, sometimes it is very useful.  I suppose generally I prefer to do minimal pp fiddling (crop/maybe levels) if I can help it.

[LEE]

My Canon has auto-bracketing.  It takes 3 shots in quick succession, 1 correctly exposed, 1 under and 1 over (by an amount set in options).  I usually leave it in that mode because digital film is free and it has helped me salvage some photos with tricky exposures (in the way we have discussed).

The small size of the lens means filters, especially graduated ones, are a tricky option.  You really can't beat them though, not for that instant "Wow factor" of a dramatic sky and correctly exposed forground in the same shot.

Just keep sliding the filter down until the Histogram tells you nothing is overexposed (unfortunately my camera does not have live histogram either).


I really must upgrade my camera.