DSLR Question

I find I get really strong results with my polarising filters.

Likewise. In fact you could argue that polarisers are the ONLY filters it makes any sense to use on digital. Hit and miss they ain’t – the laws of physics being what they are 🙂

Wouldn’t be without mine. I do like to pack a few nd grads as well when shooting landscape but can’t afford any decent ones for the system I inherited off my dad.

Dbg yes circular polarisers for digital.. Had an effect, just nit as good as I was hoping.

The effect of the filters is only muted on DSLRs by their lower dynamic range. As most seem to use post production to overcome this it doesn’t really matter. A DSLR minus software is as bad as one without a tripod or lens hood.
For me a polariser is a basic tool as I spent 20yrs shooting water sports in sunny locations. They really are an essential and for most should be the first after you buy a skylight for every lens to save the front element.

…after you buy a skylight for every lens to save the front element.

Run away! Run away!!! What about the distortions and aberrations from the bound-to-be-impure skylight and the trapped light and the reflections and the mist and light…oh shit, not the skylight filter debate!!!! I heard that the internet almost sank once because of the collective consternation from somebody asking: ‘Skylight Filter: why bother?’.

Run away! Run away!!

+1

Why would I want to shove a £30 piece of trash on the end of a £1k+ lens?

You should use good quality neutral clear filters to protect your objectifs.

For information there is a special software (for advanced users) for most Canon DSLR called Magic Lantern that can do high dynamic range with a single shot, this is called Dual ISO.

Sorry if my english is bad.

You should use good quality neutral clear filters to protect your objectifs.

If you mean lens then that’s what the lens hood it for, plus you get zero distortion from it.

I’m old school and shoot a lot in dusty, wet and salty conditions. I know what I’d rather replace, a decent quality filter rather than a lens front element. I’m not talking fingerprints, I’m talking on a beach in force five winds shooting kitesurfing or windsurfing. If you have a less threatening environment then feel to do what is appropriate. I certainly would. But it is interesting how quickly things get muddy.

If you mean lens then that’s what the lens hood it for, plus you get zero distortion from it

This. + a million.

on a beach in force five winds shooting kitesurfing or windsurfing

That’s not the same as recommending automatically buying a filter for every len you own.

What about the distortions and aberrations from the bound-to-be-impure skylight

Well it’s undetectable on my camera and lenses, so no biggie for me. Except shooting indoors with a light bulb in the shot, then I got a reflection in the shot.

You really don’t need to worry about this stuff anything like as much as the internet nerdies tell you to. A cheap filter won’t completely trash your shots. However a lens hood also protects fairly well.. But they also can hinder putting your camera in some bags so.. Meh.

Well it’s undetectable on my camera and lenses, so no biggie for me. Except shooting indoors with a light bulb in the shot, then I got a reflection in the shot.

I was being ironic!!!! I honestly thought the tone of my post was obvious. How come you didn’t oppugn the ‘sinking of the internet’?

All that aside, I have a Sony a6000 and have just bought some Zeiss glass. Now I’d don’t know but can anyone tell me the difference (i.e. what they are for) between polarising and UV filters?

http://www.zeiss.co.uk/camera-lenses/en_gb/camera_lenses/accessories.html

Thanks in advance 🙂

Polariser is an adjustable filter that reduces/removes reflections.
UV filter is a piece of clear* glass that you can put on the front of your lens to cover the glass under it. It may or may not affect the quality of the image your camera obtains. You may or may not be able to perceive the change in quality that may or may not occur.

*cue debate

The lens itself (being made of glass) with most likely filter out most of the UV-B and UV-C, so the UV filter is probably coated to absorb UV-A which normal glass is transparent to and the sensor will respond to.

Joining the pedant bandwagon, I should probably point out that the 1100D doesn’t actually have spot metering, so it’ll probably be centre-weighted or evaluative.

If you’re using AF, when you point your camera to the skies and half press the shutter you’ll re-focus on the sky as well as taking an exposure reading. Either use manual, or point it to the sky and hold down the * button to lock the exposure then recompose….

Polarizers are great for cleaning up wet reflections but a bit fiddly.

I’ve found myself standing on Portland Bill in a storm when the UV filter did a good job of protecting my lens from a mountain of brine so they can be useful at times, but mostly I leave it off.

In fact you could argue that polarisers are the ONLY filters it makes any sense to use on digital.

What about ND filters for long exposures?

What about ND filters for long exposures?

Used loads. The comment about “are the ONLY filters” is just nonsense.

What about ND filters for long exposures?

True 🙂

Backpedalling somewhat, a very long exposure *could* be achieved without a filter, whereas removing a specific polarisation cannot.

I was being ironic!!!!

D’oh.. but you’ll forgive me for not noticing on a camera thread given the amount of bollocks they generate.. 🙂

Polariser is an adjustable filter that reduces/removes reflections.

That’s not all it does – in bright sunlight it can really increase contrast when there’s a lot of bright stuff around like rocks, water etc, and it makes the sky look way bluer and clouds cooler.

D’oh.. but you’ll forgive me for not noticing on a camera thread given the amount of bollocks they generate..

Of course I will. No worries.

That’s not all it does – in bright sunlight it can really increase contrast when there’s a lot of bright stuff around like rocks, water etc, and it makes the sky look way bluer and clouds cooler.

Is that not achieved by filtering/removing reflections?

Not exactly. Reflected and scattered light are both eliminated in the same way, so at the same time as removing reflections you cut down on a lot of the light from the sky ie the blue stuff, which is why the sky looks darker blue and you get more contrast in the sky. Which looks cool.

However I do not understand exactly how it works because a) I didn’t think the sun ‘s light was all polarized the same way anyway, and b) all the light we see objects by is reflected anyway so what the difference between that and the light being reflected from water is I don’t know. Will have to look it up after lunch 🙂

We’ve flogged filters to death 😉 so I’ll move on to tripods.

Don’t waste your money buying something ‘that’ll do’.

Paying for what you get never rings more true with tripods and I’d strongly urge you to start the budget at £100.

A cheap noodly POS is going to flap around in the slightest breeze be very frustrating. So much so that you won’t bother taking it out and thus defeating the point of buying one in the first place.

Also why would you plonk £X amount of expensive camera gear on a twig?

[/start internet willywaving with tripod pron]

This shot
https://flic.kr/p/r7zkRu

was taken in a howling gale. Camera was sat on one of these, sheltered in a gun emplacement and weighted down and yet it still rocked about

[/end willywaving]

all the light we see objects by is reflected anyway so what the difference between that and the light being reflected from water is I don’t know.

The clue is in the name of the filter.

OP – if you’re feeling uninspired then perhaps find a good club to join, I found that has helped inspire me. At my one there is a mix of practical events, competitions, talks and social. Also, I have found going on courses has helped me develop technically. I was on a macro course last week and was really impressed with some of the images I captured!

The clue is in the name of the filter

The clue as to why light reflected from shiny surfaces is different to that reflected from matt ones? Really? Missed it 🙂

I’m going to deduce that the sun’s light is polarised one way and a reflective surface reflects it all back in a consistent polarisation which is why you can filter it out.. But how come it works for scattered light too?

Re tripods, that is a lot of work for a casual snapper, and contrary to what the new golfers say it’s not mandatory. Most important thing about landscape is being in the right place at the right time, but you can’t buy that or read reviews about it so people like to waffle on about tripods instead 🙂

Important if you are serious, but don’t get bogged down in gear.

However I do not understand exactly how it works because a) I didn’t think the sun ‘s light was all polarized the same way anyway, and b) all the light we see objects by is reflected anyway so what the difference between that and the light being reflected from water is I don’t know

I suspect the reflection off water doesn’t reflect all of the light and is selective for light in a certain polarisation relative to the surface. If you got a perfect EM reflection, the a Pol filter wouldn’t do much as you’d have little cohesion on Pol angle.