Photography: You don't really need filters for your lenses

[amirm]

Good video that shows how with our newer cameras and avoiding common myths, we may just get away with not using any kind of filter in front of our lenses. As with Tony, I hate screwing around, pun intended, with accessories to get a shot. I want to pull out the camera and be taking pictures instantly.

 

[DonH56]

I cannot view the video right now but have seen a number of "filter" programs over the years, some of which work better than others, but many do work well and obviate the need for some (most?) filters. I rarely use a polarizing filter but it is nice to see the effect in-camera whilst taking the shot especially over water. And my UV filters are frankly more to protect the lens than for the UV filtering they perform (which also tends to reduce light into the lens, a vexing side effect). I started using them religiously after scratching the front of a big zoom lens years ago by using a cleaning cloth that wasn't as clean as I thought. I have considered just getting clear "filters" instead.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Well neither ND nor polarising filters work particularly well with wide angle lenses for obvious reasons. His before and after pictures of the water did not show the best effect of a polarising filter IME.
Using an all over ND filter has never made much sense to me, but graduated are really useful when the contrast range of the scene exceeds that of the sensor or film, so you can get a good exposure without either burning out the sky or losing shadow detail.

This guy is not a very knowledgeable photographer and it demonstrates one of my pet peeves wrt the internet, and particularly youtube, people telling others how to do stuff that they aren't particularly good at themselves.
End rant.

 

[amirm]

And my UV filters are frankly more to protect the lens than for the UV filtering they perform (which also tends to reduce light into the lens, a vexing side effect).

In an analog to our audio discussions, he takes a 50mm lens and literally destroys the front element by poking it with sticks and such. He then takes pictures with them and shows that such a damage is not visible. He even makes a point of people not being able to tell the difference blind!

 

[amirm]

This guy is not a very knowledgeable photographer and it demonstrates one of my pet peeves wrt the internet, and particularly youtube, people telling others how to do stuff that they aren't particularly good at themselves.
End rant.

It is true that like most top photography reviewers, his skills as a photographer is very much wanting. But he does make decent points that I tend to agree with especially for beginners.

On graduated ND filters, I have been debating this for a while. Just went through a test this last week where I shot for highlight and underexposed the darker sections by 2.5 to 3 stops. Brightening those results in some noise but at web resolutions, it is totally invisible.

 

[DonH56]

Hmmm... Wish that had been the case for the one I butchered. The damage was fairly deep scratches and they were readily visible in the photographs. That was film days so no easy digital correction then. That said I have seen a lot of scratches/mars/etc. that are not seen in the final result, probably due to the focal point being so far away so that if it doesn't blur the result or have a deep enough scratch to catch and reflect light to highlight it, then it probably isn't visible.

I did not buy any ND filters for my current lens set. The only ones I have bought in the past were for exactly the situation described -- sky/land and water/land shots to get everything within the dynamic range of the sensor/film. You can usually bring up darkened regions but burned out highlights tend to be unrecoverable since the sensor "clips". At least in my limited experience. Digital sensors have come along way in terms of dynamic range and noise floor so I suspect it is not a big deal these days.

 

[Don Hills]

Some modern digital cameras can automatically bracket multiple exposures and process the results into a HDR image.

 

[amirm]

Some modern digital cameras can automatically bracket multiple exposures and process the results into a HDR image.

Many of them do but I think they all produce JPEG files. For raw, they just create metadata and in the case of Canon, you have to use their own awful program to process them.

 

[RayDunzl]

Other than the clear (protective) "filter", the choices mentioned seem to me to be "artistic" choices.

So, no, you don't "need" them.

As for damaging lenses and not seeing the defect, I would think that one function of a camera lens is to take light emitted from a point on the subject, hitting the lens at all points on its surface, then focusing all those lens points back into a single film/sensor point.

A defect at the outer face of the lens may be averaged away, in many, but not all, cases.

 

[Soniclife]

Many of them do but I think they all produce JPEG files. For raw, they just create metadata and in the case of Canon, you have to use their own awful program to process them.

Lightroom makes it quite easy to combine RAW files, I'm sure photoshop does as well, using the camera makers software for this is almost certainly horrible and best avoided. I rarely find the need to bracket, raw files are so flexible for large adjustments with surprisingly little loss.

 

[Soniclife]

As for damaging lenses and not seeing the defect, I would think that one function of a camera lens is to take light emitted from a point on the subject, hitting the lens at all points on its surface, then focusing all those lens points back into a single film/sensor point.

A defect at the outer face of the lens may be averaged away, in many, but not all, cases.

I find the results below amazing.
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/10/front-element-scratches/
When I look at things like that I realise I don't know how lenses work.

 

[amirm]

Lightroom makes it quite easy to combine RAW files, I'm sure photoshop does as well, using the camera makers software for this is almost certainly horrible and best avoided. I rarely find the need to bracket, raw files are so flexible for large adjustments with surprisingly little loss.

I have used them. I was commenting on the in-camera processing of the HDR which in the case of JPEG, eliminates the need to sit there and do it in post processing. The problem I often have in doing that in Photoshop, etc., is remembering which shots are such a bracketed sequence. I take so many pictures that these get lost in them. My solution in the past has been to stick my thumb in front of the lens, take one picture, then the sequence, and my thumb again! Stupid that there is no simple button to push to tag a sequence of images that way.

 

[RayDunzl]

When I look at things like that I realise I don't know how lenses work.

Photons must interact with the lens as a wave, or they wouldn't refract... But are detected as a particle at the sensor...

---

Somehow that led to this:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13825-quantum-camera-snaps-objects-it-cannot-see/

 

[Soniclife]

I suppose if the in camera multi shot HDR to jpeg is good you don't need to post process them from raw, assuming white balance and a bunch of other stuff was right first time.
It's also dependant upon how much post processing you want to do, for me lightroom and raw files was a major step towards me getting what I wanted, but others hate it. There's no wrong answer.

 

[Soniclife]

Somehow that led to this:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13825-quantum-camera-snaps-objects-it-cannot-see/

I'll be impressed when they can take pictures of things that didn't happen .

 

[Wayne]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13825-quantum-camera-snaps-objects-it-cannot-see/

Really interesting..... Sort of spooky.

 

[ceedee]

Tony is actually pretty knowledgeable, but I didn't think his example pictures on the polarizing filter were very good. He looked like he was producing an infomercial when he put the polarizer on...it's not really that hard! I own two of Tony's books and usually find him to be one of the most informative.

I always wear Maui Jim sunglasses and I'm acutely aware of how much of an effect the polarization has on glare. Occasionally, I will be looking at a landscape shot that I'd like to take, and the result on camera is disappointing compared to what I can see with my glasses on. Sometimes a good glass polarizing filter can help me capture it in-camera. It may be possible to simulate in photoshop or Lightroom, but the examples Tony gave are not the kind of pictures I take. Losing two stops of light really doesn't matter to me when it's sunny outside, especially with today's full-frame sensors.

I must admit that after switching from film, I get "post-processing fatigue" from time to time. Sometimes I'd rather get the shot right and not have to spend 30 minutes trying to clone out a reflection off of some glass that I could've eliminated with a polarizing filter. Obviously it's a trade-off like anything else in photography is. I'd probably avoid any filter when shooting into a bright light source. If it's just darkening the skies, that's very easy to do in Lightroom.

I do agree with him about the other filters. UV filters were relevant in the film days but aren't today. I just purchased the Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 ED VR lens last month, and I just keep the lens hood on it. It's a beast of a lens and I don't think a thin filter over the front element is going to protect it from anything!

 

[RayDunzl]

I'll be impressed when they can take pictures of things that didn't happen

They make whole movies of things that didn't happen...

 

[ArnoldWilliams]

It looks like you are a real professional, maybe you will help me - I recently found these http://fixthephoto.com/free-lightroom-presets-for-portraits
What do you say, this will suit the beginner?

 

[amirm]

I am not a professional photographer, just a serious hobbyist.

I looked at what is there and I see no value. The best thing you can do for portraits is to start with excellent composition and technique. Post processing in software is useful but as touch up.

And on that front, these are my suggestions:

1. Background blur is important. So use lenses with low F stop and/or long telephoto.

2. Try to get a natural expression. Candid shots can be excellent when the subject doesn't even know you are taking their pictures.

3. Learn to retouch photos to remove blemishes. This is very important for women but also for men. You want to be able to remove zits, wrinkles, etc. The retouching tools have gotten very good these days so the work is automatic but tedious if there is a lot of it you need to do.

4. There are a lot of good youtube videos out there. I like the ones from KelbyOne on how to do that in Lightroom or Photoshop. They sell their training but also post a lot of free ones. Here are some examples:

Another excellent resource is the channel PHLEARN.

Amir