Landscape Filters

[StudentOfLight]

I'd like to start building on my landscape toolbox and gradient filters are something I am sorely lacking. I'm aware of the LEE filter system and Fotodiox Wonderpana Freearc but there aren't suppliers in my region, so I would probably have to import myself. Anyway, I can't really get any hands on experience with either system so I am looking for comparisons between the two systems (or are there any others I should be looking at).

Are there any unique selling points or design flaws with either filter holder system. What about the range and quality of the filters themselves.

Advanced filters are quite an expensive niche product and I don't want to jump into a particular system without knowing what's out there. Any experience and advice appreciated.

 

[Tanispyre]

Have you considered the COKIN filters? I have been using the Cokin P series since my Kodachrome days, and have never had any issues with them. I love the flexibility of the filter holders being able to move my graduated ND filters to position the gradation where I want it to get the effect I want. The P series will fit lenses up to 82mm filter diameter, however on extreme wide angle lenses you may need to check to see if the mount is obstructing the view. Cokin does make other mounts for such lenses, Z-pro or something like that.

They are also quite affordable. You can usually get set up with everything you need for around $100. In fact, Amazon is having a sale right now on a good starter kit for $50.
http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Square-Filter-Compatible-Cokin/dp/B00796I546/ref=sr_1_1?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1399299739&sr=1-1&keywords=cokin

 

[Lightmaster]

bought an hitech kit.
have nothing to complain.

LEE is notorious sold out here in germany.
i heard the LEE ND-GRAD filters are polished on the thighs of virgins .... and there is a shortage of virgins.

http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2013/02/18/best-graduated-neutral-density-filters-6-models-tested-and-rated/2/

had cokin P system before but it was to small for some lenses i bought.

for some time there was a shortage of cokin filters here too.
cokin was in financial troubles and was bought by kenko/tokina.
so i guess situation should be better now.

 

[Policar]

Don't bother. GNDs are tacky and you'll outgrow them fast. Same with polarizers.

Find good light, capture it.

 

[mackguyver]

Don't bother. GNDs are tacky and you'll outgrow them fast. Same with polarizers.

Find good light, capture it.

I agree somewhat on GNDs and rarely use them, but polarizers??? You can't replicate polarizers or ND filters in post.

 

[Lightmaster]

Don't bother. GNDs are tacky and you'll outgrow them fast. Same with polarizers.

i wonder how you do that.. bothering with comping two images in PS?
or waiting for a canon with the DR of 20 stops?

and polarizer?
how do you remove, for example, reflections in postproduction?
niks polarization or kolors neutralhazer plugins are crap compared with the real deal.

i guess some of todays best landscape photographers would be interested to know your secrets.

 

[tolusina]

Don't bother. GNDs are tacky and you'll outgrow them fast. Same with polarizers.

Find good light, capture it.

I agree somewhat on GNDs and rarely use them, but polarizers??? You can't replicate polarizers or ND filters in post.

Don't bother. GNDs are tacky and you'll outgrow them fast. Same with polarizers.

and polarizer?
how do you remove, for example, reflections in postproduction?......

Do this in post : ...........

 

[Halfrack]

Do a 4x4 or 100mm system - Hitech/Lee/Cokin - they all work the same, but there are more costs than just the holder - the attachment rings you need for each filter size are the real cost. There is no replacement for a straight up ND filter - especially for that soft water look. Grad Filters are a preference thing, soft, hard or reverse all give different effects, but are great when you want to balance out a scene. Personally I've got the Cokin P system for some lenses and the Hitech 100mm system for the bigger glass.

Foto Marketing seems to be the only dealer in South Africa, and they may not be around anymore.

 

[Policar]

Nice "landscapes."

I use polarizers all the time. Never for landscapes.

 

[thedman]

Don't bother. GNDs are tacky and you'll outgrow them fast. Same with polarizers.

i wonder how you do that.. bothering with comping two images in PS?
or waiting for a canon with the DR of 20 stops?

and polarizer?
how do you remove, for example, reflections in postproduction?
niks polarization or kolors neutralhazer plugins are crap compared with the real deal.

i guess some of todays best landscape photographers would be interested to know your secrets.

I agree that the polarizer is indispensable, but I can comp two images in post quicker than I can get out a grad ND and attach it.

 

[thedman]

Nice "landscapes."

I use polarizers all the time. Never for landscapes.

Takes the glare off water and foliage just like it does windows.

 

[Lightmaster]

but I can comp two images in post quicker than I can get out a grad ND and attach it.

i am a photoshop user since v1 and i doubt that. ;D

don´t get me wrong i do it myself with images from my "always with me cameras".... but good landscape images take some time and planing anyway.

when im out for landscapes i have my gear ready and using a ND-GRAD filter takes seconds.

 

[thedman]

i am a photoshop user since v1 and i doubt that. ;D

don´t get me wrong i do it myself with images from my "always with me cameras".... but good landscape images take some time and planing anyway.

when im out for landscapes i have my gear ready and using a ND-GRAD filter takes seconds.

Drawing a gradient on a layer mask takes less than a second.

 

[mackguyver]

There is no way to produce the same results as a polarizer in PS, and no way to produce the same results as an ND filter. A grad ND can be done quite easily in PS and works in nearly every situation except for those when you want to have the same exposure time or want to combine it with an ND or CPL filter. Here's a decent tutorial on how to do it in PS:
Digital Graduated Neutral Density Filter in Photoshop

I do this (with some additional masking and such as needed) and have all but quit using my ND grads.

 

[btaoka]

Here's a great link of reproducing the effect of ND Grads without needing an entire system (but you do need one ND filter). Before getting into landscapes, I wasn't (and am still not) able to spend a lot of $$$ on an entire ND grad set. I bought a $70 HOYA 6 stop circular ND filter and have used the magic cloth technique several times with pleasing results. The magic cloth technique isn't for everyone, but produces great results when done right.

http://icelandaurora.com/blog/2010/07/20/tonys-magic-cloth-technique/

 

[PicaPica]

i am a photoshop user since v1 and i doubt that. ;D

don´t get me wrong i do it myself with images from my "always with me cameras".... but good landscape images take some time and planing anyway.

when im out for landscapes i have my gear ready and using a ND-GRAD filter takes seconds.

Drawing a gradient on a layer mask takes less than a second.

S___ i accidently removed my posting.

so again:

i guess you know that it is not always that simple.
just pulling a simple gradient will not help you in many cases.

long exposures for example.
where you need a ND and a ND grad for the sky.
it´s sure not faster to do two long exposures and combine them in photoshop.

then there are moving leaves and other objects that can ruin your simple "gradient" compositing.
and voila... you will need longer for editing in photoshop then pushing a nd-grad.

of course when you have two images like those in the examples from the tutorial mackguyver posted, it works pretty well. no question. but those examples are tailor made.

and last but not least... most serious landscape photo competitions will disqualify you for doing such editings. for a good reason.
some people even like to put in a completely different sky.

that is fine for a photoshop competition but (imo) nature or landscapes should be natural not fictional.

i know... i know. you will say it´s doing the the same, just digitally.
exchanging a sky with a completely different sky or with a proper exposed sky are two different things.
but you have to draw a line.... or people will abuse it.

 

[thedman]

long exposures for example.
where you need a ND and a ND grad for the sky.
it´s sure not faster to do two long exposures and combine them in photoshop.

I don't see why not. And it's way cheaper!

then there are moving leaves and other objects that can ruin your simple "gradient" compositing. and voila... you need longer editing in photoshop then pushing a nd-grad.

This is about the only example where it may take longer. Still, I'll do the little extra mask modifying and save the hundreds.

of course when you have two images like those in the examples from the tutorial mackguyver posted, it works pretty well. no question. but those examples are tailor made.

Those examples are 99% of why people buy grad NDs.

and last but not least... most serious landscape photo competitions will disqualify you for doing such editings. for a good reason.

What reason? It's the exact same thing as using a grad ND.

that is fine for a photoshop competition but (imo) nature or landscapes should be natural not fictional.

Are grad NDs fictional?

 

[PicaPica]

long exposures for example.
where you need a ND and a ND grad for the sky.
it´s sure not faster to do two long exposures and combine them in photoshop.

I don't see why not. And it's way cheaper!

simple math...

two images. 8 minutes and maybe 6 minutes exposure = 14 minutes.
using a nd grad filter to do it right in camera = 8 minutes.

What reason? It's the exact same thing as using a grad ND.

i adressed that above. i knew that this question would arise so i edited my post.

And it's way cheaper
....
and save the hundreds.

well you spoke about "speed"... now you added money to the argumentation.
i only answered to your "speed" claim.

 

[thedman]

two 8 minutes exposure = 16 minutes.
using a nd grad filter to do it right in camera = 8 minutes.

2 1-minute exposures = 2 minutes
1 1-minute exposure + digging around your bag for your 3 stop hard, wiping it off with your microfiber cloth, searching for your screw-on filter ring, screwing it on, sliding in your filter and figuring out where you should align it because your horizon isn't horizontal and the thing is darkening too much foreground = 5 minutes.

i adressed that above. i knew that this question would arise so i edited my post.

What you did was set up a straw-man argument. Replacing the sky is something completely different. So is cranking the saturation to 100, but neither one is what we're talking about here. Nat Geo is fine with doing it digitally.

well you spoke about "speed"... now you added money to the argumentation.
i only anwered to your "speed" claim.

I haven't even begun yet to mention the infinite adaptability, and just briefly mentioned that horizons are never straight anyway so grad NDs are a poor, clunky tool for this task...

 

[PicaPica]

two 8 minutes exposure = 16 minutes.
using a nd grad filter to do it right in camera = 8 minutes.

2 1-minute exposures = 2 minutes
1 1-minute exposure + digging around your bag for your 3 stop hard, wiping it off with your microfiber cloth, searching for your screw-on filter ring, screwing it on, sliding in your filter and figuring out where you should align it because your horizon isn't horizontal and the thing is darkening too much foreground = 5 minutes.

well when you are unorganized then that can be the case. ;D

i edited my example because it was not 100% correct.
you would not do two 8 minute exposure.

still.. faster it would not always be my padawan.

I haven't even begun yet to mention the infinite adaptability, and just briefly mentioned that horizons are never straight anyway

never?
some are pretty straight to the eye.

so grad NDs are a poor, clunky tool for this task...

well i guess we have to disagree on this topic then.
and looking at so many well payed landscape photographer doing it the old way.... i really don´t care.

there are times when i use this PS technique myself.
simple seascapes with a straight horizon.... yep. no need to pull out the nd grad.

but saying that it is faster... is not always true.


it´s basically the same discussion as with tripods (as in making the same wrong assumptions).
some people (like the dreaded ken r. (*) ) will tell you, today, with IS and the good high iso image quality, you won´t need a tripod.

and that´s correct for some cases... but their error is that they forget the cases where a tripod is necessary. you can´t make a "per see" statement.

(*)

Many people still cling to the mystique of the tripod, even though tripods went out with film cameras.
Hang onto your tripod if you're shooting a real camera like a Hasselblad, Gandolfi, Linhof, Silvestri, Horseman, Tachihara, Gilde, Seitz, Sinar or even a Wisner, Wista or Mamiya, but toss it if you're shooting a popular digital SLR.

Tripods are no longer required, and actually often degrade sharpness, because shutter speeds have climbed and IS and VR lenses reduced the need for slower speeds.

so throw away your gitzos... handholding a 800mm is possible and will give you some nice biceps. ;D