Sky light filter and neutral density filter

My photography class is teaching about these filters but do you ever use them?

I found this:

If you shoot a lot of color instead of B&W, a skylight will give you the same lens protection as a UV, but will warm up color film a little bit.

I prefer not to tone the pictures on regular bases because on software you can do it anyways. But I use UV filter on my DSLR all the time because it protects the lens from scratches. It's much cheaper to buy new filter than whole new lens or even camera.

Then I think the neutral density filter is for making the view darker without adding any tone of color: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_density_filter
This can be useful if and when one needs to have longer shutter speeds. But usually one does not need such thing because same can be achieved by selecting low ISO sensitivity value (ISO 100 or less if possible on camera).

Richard uses ND filters a lot in his slow shutter pictures, including the one you picked in the top 5 monthly theme photos. He has a range of ND filters with varying degree of darkness. This is my all time favourite of his long exposure photo. And yes, an ND filter is now a part of my photography wish-list, especially after learning blurring from diffraction can occur in high F-numbers.

Originally posted by serola:

But I use UV filter on my DSLR all the time because it protects the lens from scratches. It's much cheaper to buy new filter than whole new lens or even camera.

Yes. The first thing I did after receiving my new camera before even taking the lens cap off was to go buy protective filters (one for each lens in the double zoom lens kit).

Originally posted by mimi_s_mum:

Richard uses ND filters a lot in his slow shutter pictures, including the one you picked in the top 5 monthly theme photos. He has a range of ND filters with varying degree of darkness. This is my all time favourite of his long exposure photo.

I am most pleased that you like this photograph so much, Mimi's Mum.

Neutral density filters enable you to do a lot with a photograph that is impossible with a fast shutter speed. For example, suppose you want to photograph a popular landscape or sight that always has a lot of tourists around or on it. With a tripod and a very dark neutral density filter (ND 3.0 for example), you can easily set up an exposure of ten or more seconds even during bright daylight. Anyone or anything that moves during this time is going to disappear into the faintest of ghostly traces, usually completely invisible, but the unmoving object you want to photograph will be clear and free of these 'obstructions'.

It's a very neat trick.

When I get the chance, I'll put up an example that I took in summer 2010.



Here's an example of a five second exposure on a much used beach. This is slow enough to blur but not totally eliminate the walkers and their dog. There are three walkers and one (maybe two) dog - but the movement of the figures has suggested more. With a longer exposure, I could eliminate even the ghosts of these walkers.

Originally posted by musickna:

I am most pleased that you like this photograph so much, Mimi's Mum.

I even try to emulate it at least by a fraction. The attempt itself wasn't very successful, but was useful in appreciating how ND filters could become a powerful tool.

Originally posted by musickna:

an example that I took in summer 2010.

That is also amazing.

Originally posted by mimi_s_mum:

I even try to emulate it at least by a fraction.

You're doing great! You are well on your way.

Thank you, Richard

Here's a useful video tutorial on how to shoot long exposure during daylight using a ND filter:

http://www.digital-photography-school.com/how-to-take-long-exposure-shots-in-daylight

Thanks for the tutorial link, Richard. That was very informative. Small things like focusing before putting the filter on, removing the neck strap and covering the viewfinder, I would not think about until I saw the video.

Originally posted by mimi_s_mum:

covering the viewfinder

On Olympus E series cameras you may get false light measurements even when your eye should cover the viewfinder. Once very bright sun light came from such an angel from my corner of the eye. I lost the cap that game with camera But when using "live screen" I have learned to cover the viewfinder with my big thumb. And of course with longer exposures I use something else to cover the viewfinder.

I never tryed to play with ND filters, but they are a must in slow shutter speeds during daylight, as we can see in Richard's shots so beautifully done.

A skylight filter usually is good for protection of the lens; a UV filter it is great to compensate the blueish haze we get in the moutains, or by the sea.

Of course the permanent use of this kind of filters brings one ongoing discussion to the table: should we put anything between our lens and the image we are shooting ? Purists say no.

On my side, if I had a truck load of money to spend on photo gear, I would say no, too. Unfortunately, as I don't have the blessed truck load of money to spend, I say yes! Lenses are waaaay expensive to let them scratch!!!!

BTW, did any of you ever used a polarizer ?

Originally posted by ojsnascimento:

BTW, did any of you ever used a polarizer ?

Yes, frequently. It's very useful to brighten a blue sky and dim reflections.

Even good filters are too expensive for me, and therefore I have only UV filter to protect the lens from scratches. But will invest on polarizer ASAP I have few of them for my old 49mm lenses and they are absolute must have.

Originally posted by ojsnascimento:

Purists say no.

Purists say no to coated lenses... Or to lenses in general... Pee hole, sorry, pinhole cameras are the only real cameras And shooting directly on paper and using reversal development is the only acceptable media

Maybe when I win the lottery I might become somewhat purist, I think I saw one or two Leicas and Hasselblads with my name on it...
I need to buy a new good polarizer, my old one doesn't work with my dslr. It must be because it's circular, or linear, or ...

Originally posted by ojsnascimento:

It must be because it's circular, or linear, or ...

Probably because it's linear. Only circular polarizers work well with dSLRs.

About filter expense - good ones (B+W or Heliopan) are really expensive compared to the alternatives. But it is worth it. Cheap filters will soften images, introduce flare and mess with the quality of light going into your lens. However if you look after them, good filters will last a long time. I'm still using B+W filters that I bought five years ago.

Got one http://my.opera.com/mimi_s_mum/albums/showpic.dml?album=9159942&picture=155559192

Originally posted by samoht1:

as pp can do the same... mostly.

What's pp? Whatever it is can it do this without ND filter?
Click to see full scale

Originally posted by samoht1:

Read here:http://gimpguru.org/tutorials/ndfilter/

And can that kind of digital morphing trick actually produce one like Richard's masterpiece?

Originally posted by mimi_s_mum:

... can it do this without ND filter?
Click to see full scale

Originally posted by mimi_s_mum:

And can that kind of digital morphing trick actually produce one like Richard's masterpiece?

I'm sure you could do it with imaging software, but I suspect it would take a lot of work to get a similar result!

Possibly shooting the scene with video and process the video file?