# best filter for shooting portraits (babies)



## dtravels (Aug 17, 2012)

I'm looking at starting to shoot portrait shots of my new child and trying to figure out if I need a filter to help the photos come out better.

any suggestions?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 17, 2012)

A Filter? 
In the days of film, when we did not have special effects of digital post processing, we had star filters and dozens of other special effects filters.

Now, about the only image modifying filters used are gradient filters to keep from overexposing the sky, or ND filters to allow you to use a wide aperture in bright light. Polarizing filters will reduce reflections coming from water, and in any situation where the light is polarized.
UV filters, at least good ones should not affect your image.

Perhaps you can post one of your problem images along with the camera settings, and tell us what it is that you want to improve. The term better looking is very vague.


----------



## M.ST (Aug 17, 2012)

You don´t need any filter for shooting portraits. Use the picture style or your own pictures style for portraits if you want only JPG´s.

If you shoot in RAW you have many possibilities to optimize your pictures.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 17, 2012)

dtravels said:


> I'm looking at starting to shoot portrait shots of my new child and trying to figure out if I need a filter to help the photos come out better.
> 
> any suggestions?



It sounds like you need PP with software more than filter in this case. I bought these presets and I like it.

http://www.lightroompresets.com/collections/lightroom-raw-presets/products/dreamy-baby-collection


----------



## dtravels (Aug 17, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> dtravels said:
> 
> 
> > I'm looking at starting to shoot portrait shots of my new child and trying to figure out if I need a filter to help the photos come out better.
> ...



Oh nice! Those look great.

Also thinking about protection of the lens -- I'm buying a Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 soon.

Is there a high-quality, basic filter I should buy? Maybe a UV filter instead of no filter?


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 17, 2012)

dtravels said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > dtravels said:
> ...



17-55 f2.8 IS is a great lens for crop. For the filter, I have B&W XS Pro NANO MRC Clear filter on all my lenses as a protection. Your lens already have UV coated, no need another UV layer. I guess double better than nothing ;D

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/756818-REG/B_W_66_1066111_77mm_XS_Pro_NANO_Clear.html


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> For the filter, I have B&W XS Pro NANO MRC Clear filter on all my lenses as a protection. Your lens already have UV coated, no need another UV layer.



But...it doesn't hurt. For a dSLR, there is really no difference between a UV filter and a clear filter. I recommend getting whichever one is cheaper/easier to get.

For example, while the 77mm XS-Pro Nano Clear linked above is $115 from B&H, the 77mm XS-Pro Nano UV is only $90 from B&H...so, I'd save the $25 and get the UV version. Different sizes and different vendors have different pricing for clear vs. UV, so check around.

FWIW, I have B+W MRC UV filters on all my lenses (except the 40/2.8 pancake).


----------



## Jamesy (Aug 17, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> FWIW, I have B+W MRC UV filters on all my lenses (except the 40/2.8 pancake).


Does the shorty-forty not take filters?


----------



## MK5GTI (Aug 17, 2012)

i didn't use filters at all when shooting babies, but not until they can reach my lens.

77mm is a common size, buy a good one earlier, since filter goes up in price too.....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2012)

Jamesy said:


> Does the shorty-forty not take filters?



It does - has a 52mm thread (that also serves as a mount for the dedicated - and basically useless - lens hood). But I don't use a filter on it for two reasons. First, the front element is tiny, and the cost of the lens is low. Second, amd most importantly, the reason I use the 40/2.8 is for portability - it's a thin enough lens that when mounted on the camera, I can slip the setup into a Lowepro Utility Bag 100 AW, and that can go inside my laptop satchel, etc. Likewise, when shooting with another lens, the 40/2.8 easily fits in a pocket. Adding a filter would make it slightly thicker, enough to limit the utility, IMO (the lens protrudes such a short distance from the body than even a 3.4mm XS-Pro filter is a significant proportion of that thickness!).


----------



## Z (Aug 17, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Jamesy said:
> 
> 
> > Does the shorty-forty not take filters?
> ...



I actually take this one step further and don't even use a lens cap on the shorty forty. It's such an inexpensive lens that any 'resale' value is meaningless, so I don't even care about the front element (within reason of course). It took a little getting used to, but I've found it strangely liberating to forego that extra .6 of a second in removing the lens cap before shooting.


----------



## Jamesy (Aug 17, 2012)

Z said:


> I've found it strangely liberating to forego that extra .6 of a second in removing the lens cap before shooting.


Like an iPhone, ready to go right outta the bag!


----------



## mdm041 (Aug 17, 2012)

I agree to just get a UV or Clear filter. I would say that if you can find a well priced one that is made of brass then I would do that. I've had one get stuck before and the brass are simple enough to get off since it is so soft. Others could cost a nice penny to have fixed.


----------

