I am thinking this is the best forum to ask this question.I am wanting to improve my landscape shots and take them to the next level and i think the right filters will help me to do this.
Maybe not the best Landscape line up but it will have to do for now.
I have a little bit of dispensable funds right now and i do not want to waist them, so any advice from those who have learned the hard way,trial and error, and could help me to make some good choices with regard to the filters that i choose would be appreciated..I have done my research and i know the differences between GND and ND, the type that can be held in front of the lens or screwed on, soft,hard ,variable etc.
So speak freely about what you think would work best and maybe a little bit of advice why.
Nothing wrong with your focal lengths. I've used focal lengths from 10 mm to 560 mm for landscapes.
Have a couple of grades of NDs, like a 3x and a 6x. Get a good quality circular polarizer in each size. Get the exact appropriate lenshoods for each lens. You don't need any other filters, unless you are doing very sophisticated Black & White work where the Channel Mixer is not sufficient.
Only prairie and oceans have flat horizons for GNDs and even they have a more rapid transition than the GNDs available. Once you put the GND on, then you are committed to whatever alignment of the gradient line you selected and where it falls on houses and hills and trees, etc. Also you are irrevocably committed to whatever degree of hardness you chose thinking on your feet while juggling all the other variables.
Thus I really really do not recommend GNDs.
Much better to spend the money you'd spend on a high quality set of GNDs on a good stable tripod with three sections, no center column, a strong ballhead, and carbon fiber for light weight so you'll take it.
Three exposure HDRs are so easy to make and so easy to stitch with Hugin for such excellent results.
Monito,
thanks for your input.I have the exact hoods for the 100 / 50 , the 14mm is on its way not sure if it comes with a hood.In your 2nd to last par where you said Much better to spend the money you'd spend on a high quality set of GNDs did you mean to say NDs?
-Jim
Very nice.Thanks for sharing.So the NDs just help with allowing you to get a longer exposure but they do not help you to control exposure between sky and foreground - right?
-Jim
While I agree that a quality tripod is the most important piece of equipment, I completely disagree with the comments about GND filters. I use them on almost all my photos (examples can be seen on Flickr). Some scenes do still require blending, but 9/10 times I get everything I need in a single exposure.
My perfect filter set up would be Lee .6 soft, .9 soft, .6 hard, Singh Ray 3 Reverse, Lee Big Stopper, Hitech 6 stop Pro Stop ND filter and a 105mm B+W polarizer that mounts to the front of the Lee Foundation kit holder. Obviously that's a lot to start with so I'd normally recommend 2 GND filters and a polarizer.
Given your lens set up it may be easier for you to blend. While landscapes can be shot at any focal length, most people shoot at the wide end the majority of the time. Your wide lens doesn't accept filters, so they may not be the best investment at this time.
I would recommend 77mm B&H polarizer with the necessary step-up rings so that you only need to purchase one screw on filter. I would also recommend a Lee ND grad set (.3 .6 & >9). I wouldn't recommend the holder system but would hand hold them. Finally if you have enough money left over look into getting a 10 stop ND.
I would go as far to say that the Lee Filters are among my best photography items I've ever bought. I use them more often than not.
Jim Schemel wrote:
Very nice.Thanks for sharing.So the NDs just help with allowing you to get a longer exposure but they do not help you to control exposure between sky and foreground - right?
Yes. An ND is Neutral Density. There are no graduations gradations in the tone. It is one even tone. The best way to think of it is that, with the 6 stop on, instead of shooting with ISO 100 you are shooting with 1.5 (one point five).
If your scene has lots of dynamic range, and your Raw mode won't cover it easily, then shoot exposures explicitly for sky, land, and shadows. You'll also get the benefit of having less noise in the shadows that way.
GNDs are for fast work when you are in a hurry. They are a compromise to obtain speed. They save time post-processing at the expense of a little bit of time in the field lining up the gradient line and deciding what to sacrifice. You have to decide how much hill and tree you want darkened and how much sky at the horizon between them you want left lighter. Do you bring the gradient line all the way down to cover all the sky or do you leave it up high to clear the hills and trees or do you place it somewhere in between? Because the decision in the field with the GND leaves you committed in silicon, you need to take a bit more time to line it up because it becomes a compositional element.
In that amount of time you can easily make three exposures and move on the next photograph.
By merging exposures, you have full creative control at the computer where you can take the time to do subtle variations.
I find that when making landscape photos I have to work very quickly due to changing circumstances: dramatic clouds moving in, rays of light appearing and disappearing, ships transiting in front, suns setting, moons rising, etc. I'm juggling so many variables that I don't need to spend the extra time with GNDs making compositional decisions that I might regret later.
JIm, I think that Monito has some valid points, but I also think that he is in the minority in his opinion on GND's. That being said, see if you can find a cheap set from Cokin and give them a try to start, the Lees are bigger and better but a lot more expensive. That and a good polarizer will take you far in Landscape shooting. Rick
Monito wrote:
I find that when making landscape photos I have to work very quickly due to changing circumstances: dramatic clouds moving in, rays of light appearing and disappearing, ships transiting in front, suns setting, moons rising, etc. I'm juggling so many variables that I don't need to spend the extra time with GNDs making compositional decisions that I might regret later.
Monito:
I've done very little landscape work (will change with recent acquisition of TSE24), but I agree with your descriptions of the problems with GNDs - there are many good examples on naturescapes.net where part of the mountain etc. is too dark or the sky and reflection don't look right.
I would also prefer to do three exposure shots (-/0/+) and blend. A problem arises however with images at the ocean - I want to capture the waves (not a blurry mush) and no matter what the shutter speed, the time lag between the three shots pretty well guarantees the waves from the three shots won't "fit" each other.
you didn't say how much you have to spend right now but I agree to get a larger circular polorizer (match the 67 or go up to 72 or 77) and get the step up rings. Note, this will make hoods unusable.
Next, I recommend a Singh Ray GND 3 stop hand held. I still think it's better to get it right in the camera and a GND is a well tested element in the landscape photographer's toolkit.
I would add that even though your question was about filters the best money is spent on a quality tripod. I started with a Manfrotto 3221 which was heavy but incredibly sturdy. I upgraded to carbon fiber later when I could afford it.
Having used GND filters for years without issue I have to say I completely disagree with Monito's view on these filters. I also use ND filters, usually a B&W 103, 106, or 110, and recently a Lee Big Stopper. I tend to use either Singh Ray soft 2, 3, or 4 stop and Reverse 2 or 3 stop filters. At times I also stack a GND with a ND using a Lee Holder without issue.
