# A Q? for landscape photographers about filters



## ereka (Mar 23, 2012)

I'm a beginner when it comes to landscape photography and after doing some reading thought it would be a good idea to invest in a circular polarising filter and some ND/ND grad filters. After some further research, I decided on buying into the Lee Filters system mainly to be able to use ND grads in conjunction with a circular polarising filter effectively i.e. be able to rotate the polarising filter independently of the ND grad. HOWEVER, I watched some landscape photography training videos at Kelby Training this morning and the presenter (Bill Fortney) recommended using a circular polarising filter in conjunction with an 8-stop variable Singh Ray ND filter if needed, but stated in no uncertain terms that the advent of modern post production software e.g. Lightroom 4 with its selective adjustment brushes has made ND grads more or less redundant and he doesn't use them any more - they are gathering dust somewhere. So my question is this: have I just wasted in the order of £300 buying the Lee Filters SLR starter kit and adaptor ring and would I have been better off just adding some screw-in ND filters to my screw-in circular polarising filter as needed, then using Lightroom to make any dynamic range adjustments in post processing? Are there any REAL advantages in using ND grad filters? If it's relevant, I'll be using a 5DMkIII body.


----------



## ereka (Mar 25, 2012)

Are there no landscape photogaphers here?

Going by replies on other forums as well as general reading on the topic it does seem that there are varying opinions regarding the use of ND grads. Some think they are an essential part of the serious landscape photographer's kit whereas others prefer to do everything in software or use multiple exposures. I guess I'll just have to make up my own mind on the issue.


----------



## Spooky (Mar 25, 2012)

You have certainly NOT wasted your money. The Lee system is excellent, and you should be doing as much 'in camera' as possible to capture the dynamic range of the scene. You can use PS to balance out the sky etc, but you cannot retrieve blown highlights - which the ND grad is designed for. You have got the best, most useful filters.


----------



## YellowJersey (Mar 27, 2012)

I've never been all that satisfied with digital graduated ND filters, although they have been handy in a few situations. I just picked up the Lee filters too and can't wait to give them a try. You didn't make a bad buy.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 28, 2012)

ereka said:


> Are there no landscape photogaphers here?



sorry they all changed to nikon... :'(


----------



## ereka (Mar 28, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> ereka said:
> 
> 
> > Are there no landscape photogaphers here?
> ...



Ha ha ... very droll ;D

Actually, with all the the whinging going on about 5DIII image quality I think I'm in real danger of catching a dose of buyer's remorse. What do you think would be a fair price for a second hand 5DMkIII 24-105 kit, boxed, hardly used, mint condition? Offers anyone? Oh, and three spare batteries (doubt they'd fit the other camera)! Or maybe I could return the kit for a full refund on the basis that it isn't "fit for purpose"?

There again, could it conceivably be a case of "a bad workman blames his tools"? :-\


----------



## dr croubie (Mar 28, 2012)

If you''re selling the Lee system, I'll take it 
As spooky mentioned, the best (only?) thing Grad ND filters can do is to stop blowing out the highlights in your sky. Once you've overexposed too much, no amount of post processing can recover details from pure white, it's always going to be white.
Stick on a grad ND, and you'll stop yourself from blowing out the highlights in camera.

Of course, you could always take bracketed shots, create an HDR, or otherwise merge the non-blown highlights into the other image. But then you run into problems with a) some HDRs really look crap, it takes a lot of skill to make it not look fake and crappy, and b) if you're taking bracketed shots, wind moves leaves, clouds move, etc, and stuff just doesn't line up when you merge it.
Get it right in-camera and in one shot, it's a lot easier in the long run...


----------



## Spooky (Mar 28, 2012)

Yikes, that's a bit drastic! Please give it a chance...
I can understand the disappointment after the high expectations and build up of the mark3's release, but people should also realise that even the crappiest camera can take stunning images. People want the best image quality (rightly so) but the photographer and the view in front of him is what counts and how he presents it in the final image.
You'd be throwing money away to sell it just now. I think we'll see improvements once the software is updated and people get used to the cameras handling. All the negativity is getting us down...


----------



## Spooky (Mar 28, 2012)

Agree whole heartedly dr croubie! An HDR image should look as realistic as possible.


----------



## ereka (Mar 28, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> If you''re selling the Lee system, I'll take it
> As spooky mentioned, the best (only?) thing Grad ND filters can do is to stop blowing out the highlights in your sky. Once you've overexposed too much, no amount of post processing can recover details from pure white, it's always going to be white.
> Stick on a grad ND, and you'll stop yourself from blowing out the highlights in camera.
> 
> ...



Thank you for that - it's reassuring and encourages me to give it a go. Great point about stuff moving between shots too - I hadn't thought of that!


----------



## ereka (Mar 28, 2012)

Spooky said:


> Yikes, that's a bit drastic! Please give it a chance...
> I can understand the disappointment after the high expectations and build up of the mark3's release, but people should also realise that even the crappiest camera can take stunning images. People want the best image quality (rightly so) but the photographer and the view in front of him is what counts and how he presents it in the final image.
> You'd be throwing money away to sell it just now. I think we'll see improvements once the software is updated and people get used to the cameras handling. All the negativity is getting us down...



Please see my new post "a bad workman blames his tools?". I've set up a poll there and will be interested to see the spread of opinions. You're absolutely right ... the negativity is getting me down too and it's catching! I'm trying to look at it objectively, though. Hence the poll. I've already voted (hint: I'll be keeping the MkIII for now).

PS - as a counterpoint to your statement "even the crappiest camera can take stunning images" it's also a well known fact that even the best camera can take crappy images. As Ansell Adams is alleged to have said: "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it."


----------



## Spooky (Mar 28, 2012)

Absolutely!
I wonder if we didn't see the others posts, but looked at this camera in isolation, would we be happier - Ok, there are softness issues with both software and focussing, but these will be overcome. When I bought my 7D when first released, my focussing was always out, focussing on the nearest object in frame, until I selected single point plus point expansion and also micro adjusting the lens. Since then it has been faultless.
I'm also looking to buy the mark 3, have been impressed with images I have seen from the mk2, and see the mk3 as an improvement (not so much in IQ, but in many other areas). I'm mainly into landscapes and would like to regain the wide end of my lenses hence the FF. I am also happy with many of my older shots which are grainy, low resolution etc. 
Dare I say that I don't think that there are so many artists here as there are people that want the pleasure of owning a technically good camera (not that that is a bad thing). :


----------



## ereka (Mar 28, 2012)

Spooky said:


> Absolutely!
> I wonder if we didn't see the others posts, but looked at this camera in isolation, would we be happier - Ok, there are softness issues with both software and focussing, but these will be overcome. When I bought my 7D when first released, my focussing was always out, focussing on the nearest object in frame, until I selected single point plus point expansion and also micro adjusting the lens. Since then it has been faultless.
> I'm also looking to buy the mark 3, have been impressed with images I have seen from the mk2, and see the mk3 as an improvement (not so much in IQ, but in many other areas). I'm mainly into landscapes and would like to regain the wide end of my lenses hence the FF. I am also happy with many of my older shots which are grainy, low resolution etc.
> Dare I say that I don't think that there are so many artists here as there are people that want the pleasure of owning a technically good camera (not that that is a bad thing). :



I guess that's the nature of a rumors forum! Philosophically, I know I'd be better off just going out shooting with my new "toy" and not even looking in the forums, at least for now. Forums can be quite addictive and all the negativity can have something of a paralysing effect I think. The first couple of shots I took with the 5DMkIII made me say "wow" and "amazing" aloud, just looking at the preview on the back of the camera. Then I started reading reviews and forums and stopped shooting! I did transfer the images to my computer to take a closer look, but found that LR3 and CS5.5 don't yet recognise the raw files. As I'd only shot the smallest available jpegs along with RAW, they didn't really enlighten me much, although they looked OK at that size. I've now set the camera to shoot RAW to the CF card and simultaneous large fine jpegs to the SD card, but I haven't actually shot any more images yet. I think I need a kick up the backside to get me out in the real world shooting and making up my own mind. Back on topic, I guess I should really get out and try the 5DMkIII with my Lee filters - so many new toys to play with! :


----------



## sanyasi (Mar 28, 2012)

I have the Singh Ray ND filter. It's expensive, but one of the best tools in my bag. I have used it to capture speeding taxi cab blurs in daylight, water and waves for landscape, and people walking, running, and biking. It is great.

I am in the process of buying a Lee Filter system because I am tired of buying separate filters for each size lens. 

As for selling your brand new 5D, Mark III--Stop reading this forum. Except for a select few, nobody has extensive experience with this camera yet. Somebody was complaining about a photo of their dog not being sharp yesterday. If I read the post correctly, it was heavily cropped, shot with a long telephoto zoom at a relatively close distance, at a F5 (relatively wide open), and the dog was a large one standing at an angle. In short, you have a narrow depth of field, an animal that probably isn't perfectly still, not prime lens, and an object that is not flat against the sensor plane. The photo looked fine on the web (admittedly not the place to be looking). 

All of this complaining about the camera is ridiculous. Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc all make fine tools. I see images taken with all of them that I wish I had taken. You can spend all the money you want, it still comes down to the photographer. On top of that, people who are complaining should go see some photo exhibits at art museums. Sharpness isn't everything.

Jack Siegel


----------



## AUGS (Mar 28, 2012)

Lets start by saying, I've been using a 7D and 10-22 lens with HiTech filters for my landscapes and done 3 foot wide prints from a single image and they are really clean. That was until last week when I got my 5D3 and the 16-35. With all the paranoia around the 5D3, I checked my 7D/10-22 against the 5D3/16-35 with a test chart and they are chalk and cheese. The 5D3 just blows it away, so now I can't wait to go out and do more landscapes with the new camera - just waiting for my adapter rings to arrive.  But I digress...

I don't do any proper landscapes without my filters. As has already been said, once you've blown your highlights, they are gone. But also, if you clip your shadows, they can be very hard to recover too. By using filters (soft or hard edge Grad NDs) you can suppress the highlights while still pulling up the shadow detail. The images below are probably not the best examples and were taken with my 7D and the 10-22 at 10mm, but all I could readily find for with and without and it gives you the idea. Notice the vertical rock face detail is brought up, while some cloud detail is revealed. With the foundation set, you can then tune slightly as you need.

So I see no reason not to get out there and take some awesome landscapes with your new 5D3 and Lee filters. I look forward to seeing some shots soon!


----------



## Spooky (Mar 28, 2012)

Nice! Great examples and great to know you like the mk3. You'll need to get a dog on the beach to check for sharpness though.


----------



## Kernuak (Mar 28, 2012)

I strongly disagree that ND grads are a waste of time, in fact a few months ago, I gave a talk to our local camera club in an attempt to persuade them that there is an alternative to spending hours in Photoshop. While the grad tool in LR is pretty good, it can't recover detail that isn't there. If areas of the sky have blown out, then that detail is lost. Typically, there are up to 5 stops difference between the sky and a roughly mid-tone area in the foreground. If you have significant shadow areas, then it is even more. There is no way that LR or any other RAW editor can cope with that. I often use a 2 and a 3 stop grad filter on the sky and sometimes two 3 stop filters and I sometimes still need to recover detail in LR. Without grads, it would simply be impossible, short of using HDR or some other blending technique. Not only do I not like HDR in general (although it can be a useful tool sometimes), I also don't like spending hours trying to correct something I could have done in camera, with some thought and consideration. To me, that is what photography is all about, using your skill and technique to create an artistic image (or a basic record if that is what you want/need to achieve). While I have nothing against those who want to do alot of processing work, when you start to blur the lines of reality, to my mind you are crossing over into digital art, which is fine if that is what you want, but not for me. It's really a matter of whether you want to develop/demonstrate your skill using aperture and shutterspeeds (not to mention angles and composition) or in post processing. Some will want or enjoy developing their skills in editong and processing, while others will just want to enhance an image with basic processing workflows. It depends on which of those two groups you fall, as to whether ND grads are useful.
I haven't got any comparisons, but this image demonstrates the problem. Due to the wideangle, I couldn't add grad filters, so added a gradient in LR. The clouds don't really look right though and there is a big patch that is completely blown.



Tarbat Ness Rockpool by Kernuak, on Flickr
In terms of whether the 5D MkIII is a landscape camera, I think with current lenses, it is the better option, as I think 36 MP is pushing the limits of most currently available lenses. While I have one or two which would be ok, I don't really want to start replacing expensive lenses because they are now producing soft images on a 36 MP body, particularly when it would be certain areas of the image. If the image was softened all over, it would be less noticeable.


----------



## ereka (Mar 28, 2012)

AUGS said:


> So I see no reason not to get out there and take some awesome landscapes with your new 5D3 and Lee filters. I look forward to seeing some shots soon!



Now, there's a challenge!


----------



## ereka (Mar 28, 2012)

Spooky said:


> You'll need to get a dog on the beach to check for sharpness though.



I just love your droll sense of humour, Spooky! ;D


----------



## Spooky (Mar 28, 2012)

Another good example, not too far from my stomping grounds on the Black Isle!
Excuse my ignorance but I've never understood why higher MP would cause softness in the image unless you were to zoom in and crop the image etc, i.e. highlight any deficiencies in lens / technique? At the same reproduction size from the full frame, wouldn't the sharpness remain constant, or if anything, improve?


----------



## ereka (Mar 28, 2012)

Thank you everyone, for the encouragement - I'm glad I haven't wasted my money 

I have to admit that I fall into the camp that doesn't really enjoy spending hours and hours post processing images - in fact, I find it a bit of a drudge, so anything that will help me achieve great images with minimal post processing is a boon!


----------



## Cali_PH (Mar 28, 2012)

I haven't played much with 'digital' ND grad effects, but I agree with those that say once you blow the highlights, you can't recover them. If you're at that point, you're going to have to merge images or mess with HDR. I think your investment is a good one for landscape.

One of the most popular HDR software programs is Photomatix. There is a demo version for you to download and experiment with. Also, know that it has a 'ghost removal' tool, so you can highlight areas of movement; it's limited as I recall, I think it chooses one of the 3 moving images for you. I haven't investigated it much though. 

I agree, it takes a bit of effort to make HDR's natural-looking, but it can be done. 

FYI, I have the Singh-Ray Vari-ND. It can cause vignetting at the wide side of some WA lenses, especially the wide of of my 10-22 EF-S, my most-used lens. Also, I've found I get blotchy spots when I crank up the filter to around 8 stops, and from googling, that seems universal. So if you get one, just know you probably will actually have around 7 usable stops, +/- I still like it, much easier than carrying around several different ND filters and screwing them on/off. They do make a thin ring mount version; I don't think it has threads so you can put a standard lens cap or any more filters in front of it.

You may also run into vigentting with Lees Filter holders/Cokin holders with wide angle lenses, although there are wide-angle versions of both (some take a hack-saw to the Cokin holder).

You mentioned using Vari-ND and circular polarizers. Well, I was shooting a waterfall with the Vari-ND, and noticed a bit of a rainbow showing up. I slapped on a Singh-Ray circular polarizer. While I was adjusting, I accidentally turned the Vari-ND to its max and got an interesting effect. This is with no adjustment beyond resizing for upload.  ;D


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 28, 2012)

As what was said earlier... once you blow out your highlights no amount of recovery/filters will bring back the detail. Also with my findings, digital filters are getting good, but are probably best when used universally such as warming filters/cooling filter, etc... ND filters not only affect highlights, but they affect the overall exposure and can in some instances effect the balance of highlights and shadows, see the beach shot on #1... sky light, foreground dark... with filter sky dark, foreground lighter. Digital Filters can probably simulate the darkening of the skys and can be used in ways regular filters cant, but there's no way other than recreating the overall scene to simulate the new resulting effect of the change of exposure and balance there of. Lastly, with any additional heavy alterations of digital files, you run the risk of adding noise and other artifacts in your scene... So it's good to use in oh crap moments when you get an inspiration in post production, I wouldn't get too hog wild with digital filters if you can help it.


----------



## AUGS (Mar 29, 2012)

Spooky said:


> Nice! Great examples and great to know you like the mk3. You'll need to get a dog on the beach to check for sharpness though.


I agree they need some foreground interest. Problem is I'm having trouble finding a dog big enough to challenge f11 DoF! 



ereka said:


> Now, there's a challenge!


Not really a challenge, I just don't like seeing expensive paper-weights, when it is a great camera.


----------



## manoque (Mar 31, 2012)

Hi, i just got my 5dmk3 last Wednesday and haven't try it serious but from casual shots i took, i really have to say it is a good camera and excellent at high iso. I am from Malaysia and have a photo forum i tend to view from time to time and some of the landscape images are great and sharp. I am heading off to snap proper picture on the 5dmk3.

http://www.photomalaysia.com/forums/showthread.php?184144-5D-Mark-III-Owner-Club

Got a few nice shots there.

As for is filtes as ND good? For me, yes, since it does reduce the work needed to be done in post processing. But if everything is within the dynamic range (no over or under expose), you could effectively work without a filter... but as i mentioned, more post processing.


----------



## Kernuak (Mar 31, 2012)

Spooky said:


> Another good example, not too far from my stomping grounds on the Black Isle!
> Excuse my ignorance but I've never understood why higher MP would cause softness in the image unless you were to zoom in and crop the image etc, i.e. highlight any deficiencies in lens / technique? At the same reproduction size from the full frame, wouldn't the sharpness remain constant, or if anything, improve?


There are a number of factors. The obvious is increased diffraction, but also, higher resolution will increase detail, which will have the side effect of magnifying any lens deficiencies. I usually look at an image at 50% magnification to check whether it is sharp enough; this is a fairly close representation of how it will look in print. Obviously with a 36 MP sensor, you are looking at a larger magnification doing this and for smaller prints (I don't print larger than A3 normally) increased diffraction would matter less. For fairness, I looked at the D800 and D800E sample images at 25% and they still looked soft in the corners. It was probably emphasised more, because of the high level of detail in the centre. It also didn't help because they were taken at f/8, so there was insufficient depth of field. However, if you need to print large (which realistically is the only reason you would need 36 MP), then looking at 50% becomes more relevant again. With the 17-40, the corners already look soft on the 5D MkII, so if Canon produced a 36+ MP sensor, then that lens would be useless, as would the 24-105.


----------



## Stu_bert (Mar 31, 2012)

ND Grad Filters are just another tool in the bag for making the photograph as close as you saw it. As others have said, ND Grads are good to bring the DR within the capabilities of the camera when the scene allows you to. I have the Lee system, but there are times where I will favour a 2 shot bracketed picture - typically when the part of the scene I wish to control is too irregular in shape.

Sometimes when I have used them, I will still correct the dark banding that you can often have on the scene as a result of the Grad overlapping with other elements of the scene. I will also use a Grad in LR to either lighten or darken a scene further (Lee grads only work in stop increments, sometimes I want finer control)

Bracketing, as people have pointed out, is more difficult with moving elements in scenes, but i find most of the time I'm either blending sky or water with the land, and therefore the moving elements (grass, water, trees), are limited to only one part of the scene and not impacted by the blend.

Bear in mind also, that if you can avoid a filter, even a Lee, that you will get sharper pictures so always check before you reach into your bag. How much does it blur? Put your camera on live view, 10x zoom, and put the filter in front and then away from a scene and see. It's not massive, and it can easily be corrected in PP. But if you don't need it, don't use it 

Your Lee circ pola will also be a good investment once you need to use it across a few lenses. And of course there are things a Circ Pola can do which you can't do digitally.

Finally, the other thing I like about the Lee system which I've used on occasion is their 2 rotation filter holder which allows you to independently rotate 2 filters. So you could use one Grad for the Sky and perhaps a 2nd for some water. 

Like I said, filters - both real and digital are just tools in your bag to help create the scene you envisaged. Happy photography...

Oh ps. if you have not ordered them, get the £3 white plastic caps. I leave the adapters on all the time and therefore these are great protection...


----------



## Spooky (Mar 31, 2012)

Good post Stu_bert, agree that if you don't need to, don't use them. One other point is that the grads can only split the scene in a straight line (obviously!) and care needs to be taken, with regard to f stop, as to the hardness of the split and where it may land on details in the shot. This is where the digital blending excels.

Kernuak - Thanks for the reply. Still not sure about this. Is the diffraction caused by the sensor pixel spacing / microlens design? and if so, why would the lens have an effect? 
Also, if the higher resolution increases detail, at the _same magnification_ of output, why would this cause softness? I understand that the perceived sharpness, especially at the centre, can be observed causing other areas to appear softer. I can see that the lens quality becomes more important if you start blowing the image up to take advantage of the higher resolution, but I can't see why the image would worsen at the same output size.

Sorry that this is going off topic...


----------

