Hi all,

Just got me a Cokin P series filter holder... just wanted to know what the most versatile of the filters are? was thinking a grad nd, a normal nd and probably a clr pol to start with but yeah problem 1. which grad ND is the most useful? 2. The clr pol is $$$ EXPENSIVE so that'll have to wait a while and well thirdly any others you might suggest? I'm trying to slowly build up a set so I can do more in camera and not have to worry about so much with photoshop...

An indiscreet question: why would you need filters? Aren't your pictures good enough? I think they are! And you seem to know enough Photoshop to get any result you fancy.

Everything you do to your initial capture changes it, but seldom, if ever, for the better.
Filters were great in the old days, when a yellow, orange or red filter could make or break those clouds on your black and white work, or when you needed a neutral grey because your film was too sensitive. Or when you wanted the soft-focus effect only a Dutto filter could give (Dutto's have concentric rings that give a softening effect).
Nowadays, and this is my personal opinion of course, is that only a polariser is worth having.
I may have a cokin one hanging around. If I find it, I'll pm you for your adress. 

Attached Link: filters

Actually, I think filters can be quite handy. Esp. in scenes with dark landscapes and bright skies. Graduated filters are an essential. Richard's Genre winning photo of the bridge is a good example of that. His combo of filters are the ones I would recommend. Myself, I mainly use the Circ. polarizer as it can really cut down on glare and is worth the money. I have a UV filter to protect my lense when not using that. For IR photography, a Hoya R72 is one of the most widely used and liked. ND filters can come in very handy if you want long exposures to soften waterfalls or rivers, or just get the effect of a longer exposure. Other filters like star filters and fog filters have their uses, but their effects can often be dulicated in Photoshop. And of course your HDR photography also somewhat transplants the need for graduated filters, though not completely.

Grads ND2 & ND4 to start of with.

The two used together will be equivalent of an ND8  Most times you will be able to push the graduation down enough over the lens to use it as an ND filter ( use one upside down if necessary ).  Depends on the lens of course. The P series is not suitable for wide angle lenses. 
I wouldn't invest in any others just yet see how you get on with these. 

Thanks guys that helps a lot so I guess with the Grads I get the soft ones? Oh and before I go wasting all my money is the P series gonna be the wrong one for me? shold I have the A series or something? :unsure:

Yep soft grads are the most useful.
 If you get into shooting with filters then no doubt you will want to add others but to start off these two are the most versatile.

What filters you get depends on what lens you are going to be using ?
The P series are good for standard lenses eg the kit lens,

Yes, i think too some filters are very useful ! But is the same as yours : a light soften (portraits, wedding), a neutral grey 4 and a polarising.

In BW, i use sometimes orange & green filters.

hope this help.

see ya ;o)
Oli

Thanks for all this advice guys... Yeah at the moment I've got the FE-S 17-85mm IS lense but well I'd really like to get the sigma 10-20mm one day and pretty much wanna base it on something wide angle cause that's what I'm really enjoying at the moment AND I can always use it with a longer focal lenght without any troubles but not the other way... So is the A series the one to get? cause then I can go buy me a more apropriate filter holder and some filters....  Cheers,
Kai.

Tanchelyn, I don't really know if you absolutely do not use filters with digital imaging or if you are asking a leading question to see the thoughts to come forth.  Either way, I do appreciate the provoking post from you.  

I came to this thread to reply and see the replies already have covered about all I would say. Except, for me there is something else: A personal desire to get the best "from camera" shot I can.   Years ago I used filters with film, a necessity even if I was a beginner at it. Now, I am am improved photographer and want to use filters for the very reason of getting the best from camera shot I can.  I am no purist when it comes to digital manipulation. I do it all the time to tweek an image here and there. But to tweek less is good for me, personally. To use my personal judgment and get a fine from cam shot is satisfying, indeed.  That is one reason for me to use filters, even if at this moment I do not have the ones I desire.

Richard, there is a thread started by me prior to this one addressing Lee and Cokin systems. If you get a chance, please let me know what you think of the Lee system.  I do also hope someone using the Cokin will reply. I do have one reply on that.   I am determined to get a system but am a bit perplexed as to which to go with.  Oh my.  These "needs" too often out ride the budget!

There is it for now from TomDart.   

A few years ago when I was shooting with film I used the Cokin system. The polariser practically lived on the camera, and I would say that a couple of ND grads are essential for correctly exposed skies. I know it's fairly easy now to replicate these in photoshop but, for me anyway, if I can get it right on the camera then I can spend more time taking pics and less time editing - at least in theory, lol

I've experimented with the filters using my compact, holding them in front of the lens, with mixed results. But in a few weeks time my DSLR will be here and hopefully I'll be able to try them properly.

• Andy

I have a polariser, grads - ND2, 123L, 125L, 664, 667, soft spot - 225 stars - 056 and 057. To be honest the only ones I've used in the last ten years(ish)  are the polariser, the ND2 and the 667. The ND2 and 667 have only been used when using B&W film. 

All the other effects I started to apply in photoshop as soon as I got my first copy (version 3 IIRC) and slowly I stopped using the filters. It was ages before I got a decent home printer, but work had a fantastic colour canon laser which ten years ago cost something like £30k.....

Now with the digital camera I pretty much only use the polariser, reading this thread I wonder if I should find the old camera bag and have a play.

Indeed, my point of view seems to be rather controversial. It was not intended as such. I thought it was the general point of view...for digital camera's. I forgot that perhaps you prefer film...

For digitals yes:
Because sensors can do more than the five stops of jpg capture: RAW gives you seven stops or more of sensitivity. 
And also because I prefer (and I thought most photographers would work like that) to take three shots with different stops, put them on layers and composite home with the gradient or mask I create myself. I thought filters would be limiting because they reduce the space to play. Except for the pola filter which cannot be imitated and the infrared I never tried.

Perhaps I have to review my opinion and give them a try. Please don't think I'm mister Knowall who wants to play the professor here. BTW: still looking for what Cokin I have hanging around.

Yes, it's true, today with digital, filters are less neccessary (but polarizing !!).

I work often with non digital... my list of filters was axed on this ! sorry shortRibs :os

Hey there Tanchelyn, I hear what you have to say and yes in many ways I agree with you that filters seem a bit restrictive compared to taking a shot into photoshop... I just wanna get a set to see what I can do and well at times it's nice to know you can do most of it with camera... my fav filters are the ND ones so it's kinda hard to do that with photoshop cause I'm out for long exposures... dont feel put down mate it's nice to know what others think and we're all here to share knowledge and opinions... So cheers for participating in this thread your input IS valued! nod

Ooooppppss, so I didn't really answer some of the question - horrible when you go at a slight tangent ok comments on what cokin filters I have

Polariser - I think everyone has agreed a must have!

ND2 and 667 - fantastic for B&W to pull emphasis into the sky - the 667 increases contrast in cloudy scenes.

125L can be useful for landscapes and skys
123L emphasis for blue sky or for sea the other way up.

So I have taken shots with these two graduations stacked up - with one upside down, and with  these stacked with polariser, you don't have a choice -the polariser has to come at the back of the stack with the version of system I have and I never noticed much difference in order os stacking the other 2.

Soft spot and stars I've never stacked with anything - the stars cannot be stacked with polariser as they fit in the same slot at the back of the stack.

These comments as noted in my previous post would apply 98% to shooting film using a zenith EM or Konica FS-1. ( Yeah I know old kit, but they both still work and work well !!!! )

Because you can rotate the polariser from none to maximum effect ( 90degrees) you can use it at none (no polarising) as a ND4.

As for the Sigma 10-20: I have one and it's a pretty difficult lens to use. On the Canon 350 that is. If you like automatic exposure, you're in trouble as it often cannot focus on anything. Luckily such a wide-angle has an incredible depth so manual focusing is made easy, because, in fact, it's difficult for the same reason the ae doesn't always work. Secondly there's flare. The petal-shaped hood doesn't always help. Third it's nearly impossible to fix a filter on it. I have a pola for it, but that's so thin that it's nearly impossible to screw it off. 
But like you, I'm really more a wide-angle man.
Pity most digital slr have a smaller sensor. The advantage is of course that the problems from the edges are less visible, but to get wide-angle, you need such extreme lenses that they normally fall into the fish-eye range. "Normally" an 18mm would be an incredible wide-angle.

My approach will be filters the same as with some variance of exposure methods: Take more than one shot.  I certainly would take one with the filter(s) and one without..except when using polarizer I generally just leave it on camera for the shoot if appropriate.  Now, my pol. will not fit my fav lenes.  Good thread.  We all benefit from the thoughts of others here.  Tom.

We may have had a thread or two on filters previously (?) but this one I am reading and find it quite intriguing.

Yes, good reading. Just remember that depending on subject matter, you may not be able to get more than one exposure. So to make it count filters can often be the way to go.

Well, it might cost us one night stay in the British Isles next year...but TomDart bit the bullet and ordered initial Lee filter stuff.   And, I did get a polarizer.    

Amazing how wants turn into needs the day after payday... : )         Tom.

Hahahaha. Good observation there Tom. ;']