Welcome to Photo.net: A Community of Photographers

Filters

By Philip Greenspun
George by the Charles River Basin

Contents

  1. Top
  2. Filters for Black & White Photography
  3. Filters for Color Photography
  4. Polarizing Filters
  5. Vignetting
  6. Graduated Neutral Density
  7. Soft Focus Filters
  8. Filter that fix lens defects
  9. Filter Types
  10. Which Brand?
  11. What Filters for a Beginner?
  12. What Filters do I Have?
  13. Useful Data
  14. Black and White Filters
  15. Color Filters
  16. Where to Buy
  17. More
  18. Reader's Comments

You can be a great photographer without ever owning a filter. Many of the things that were traditionally done with filters can be done better post-exposure with PhotoShop.

Filters for Black & White Photography

There are basically four filters for B&W photography: red, orange, yellow, and green. If all of the items in your photograph were different shades of gray, then putting these filters over the lens wouldn't do anything except require an exposure adjustment. However, the real world usually comes with colored objects. Colored filters affect the relative prominence of different colored objects.

Concrete example: my favorite filter is the least subtle, the red one. Except here in Boston, the sky is typically blue. Clouds are typically white. Unfortunately, on B&W film both are roughly the same intensity so you end up with a white sky. There is no contrast between clouds and sky. A red filter, however, darkens blue things more than it darkens white things. So now the sky shows up on the final print as a rich black and the clouds are still white. Most B&W landscape photos are taken with a filter of some kind.

Big Island, Hawaii

Filters for Color Photography

If you want to be a hardcore advertising photographer then you need to buy a Minolta color temperature meter and a big pile of color compensation filters. Film is designed for outdoor photography at midday. But sunlight around sunset is much redder than midday light and skylight that illuminates open shade is much bluer than midday sunlight. If you want to erase these differences, then you need to carry warming and cooling filters. Personally, I am too lazy for this. I hope that (1) the results of the unusual light will be aesthetic and interesting, (2) modern film, esp. Fuji Reala, will compensate, (3) if it was negative film then the printing lab can compensate, (4) I can always fix the color in PhotoShop.

Photo at right: my cousin Douglas at sunset, holding our second cousin Julia. I could have used a cooling filter to bring the colors back to neutral but then it wouldn't have been so warm.

Tiffen makes a highly specialized filter that they call "enhancing". Here's what they say about it:

Creates brighter, more saturated reds, rust browns and oranges on film, with minimal effect to other colors. Made of didymium glass, it is ideal where red, brown and orange subjects should be enriched. Old rustic barns, flowers, earthtone rock formations, strawberries and tomatoes are some of the many possibilities in which this filter can improve color saturation. Most popular for capturing dramatic images of autumn. Changes in foliage color are enhanced for improved fall landscapes and picture postcard scenes. For cameras with manual light metering, 1/2 to 1 stop compensation is required.

I own one but I'm usually too lazy to really play with it. Here are a few examples (sadly they are all kind of bad photos):

Chaco Canyon, New Mexico.
before 		Chaco Canyon, New Mexico.
after
Chaco Canyon, New Mexico
before 		Chaco Canyon, New Mexico
after
Chaco Canyon, New Mexico
before 		Chaco Canyon, New Mexico
after

Polarizing Filters

Polarizing filters can be used with color or black and white film to reduce reflections. This can be essential when photographing through glass or when trying to capture an image of something floating beneath the surface of a lake or pool. Glare off water and leaves tends to be white. Removing it with a polarizer thus results in more apparently saturated colors. In the old Kodachrome days, a lot of photographers kept a polarizer over the lens at all times. With modern more saturated film, notably starting with Fuji Velvia, this is an obsolete practice. Colors are plenty saturated these days to satisfy almost everyone and the 1-2 f-stop loss of light from polarizing is painful.

Polarizers come in two pieces, the front element of which rotates so that you can change the angle of polarization. Because of this extra complexity, polarizers degrade image quality more than other filters. If you have a modern SLR (built since 1980) then it probably contains a beam-splitter to send some light to metering photo diodes. A standard "linear polarizer" may cut off almost all the light going to the metering diodes, depending on its relative angle. You should buy a "circular polarizer" so that your metering system has some chance of remaining accurate.

Nikon makes some of the best polarizers because the front elements are larger than the rear. You can thus use them with 20mm and wider lenses without fear of vignetting (darkening of corners due to occlusion of the image by the polarizer ring).

Vignetting

If you stack filters or otherwise put too much stuff in front of your lens, you will eventually get vignetting. Here's an embarrassing photo of mine where I had the hood for an 80mm normal lens on a 50mm wide-angle lens. I was in Kauai on the famously photogenic Napali Coast. I had my Rollei 6008 6x6cm camera. So I should have been able to do better.

Napali Coast. Kauai. Hawaii

It was probably the wrong focal length anyway; I think the scene looks a lot better with the 250mm lens:

Napali Coast. Kauai. Hawaii

I think in the upper photo, I was trying to capture some cloud action but the photo is useless because too much of it is black.

Graduated Neutral Density

Sunset. Chaco Canyon, New Mexico

The sun is very bright; you heard it here first. Film can only handle a limited range of contrast. In a sunset photo, if you expose to capture color in the bright sky, the landscape will be black. If you expose to capture detail in the landscape, the sky will be washed out and white. You could take two pictures, 3 f-stops apart, and then combine the foreground from one with the sky from the other in PhotoShop. You could use a big flash with a warming filter over the tube to light up the foreground. Or you could stick a graduated neutral density filter over your lens. This is 2 or 3 f-stops darker on the top as on the bottom. So it equalizes the illumination of the land and sky.

The filter's transition between dark and light is usually smooth and you want to place this transition region around the horizon. The best graduated filters are square or rectangular. This lets you slide the filter up and down until the graduated region in correctly positioned for your composition. Tiffen makes some especially good glass graduated ND filters. I use them in a Cokin P holder (see below).

Soft Focus Filters

There is a school of thought about portraiture that says old-timey photographers with crummy lenses took more flattering photos than modern photographers with their ultra-sharp ultra-high-contrast lenses. If you really want to do this right, you can get a soft-focus lens, covered briefly in my portrait photography tutorial. If you just want to fuzz up your pictures a bit, there are a variety of products that you can get to stick on the end of your lens. The cheapest is a nylon stocking, obtainable at any drugstore. The most expensive is probably a Zeiss Softar, a classic screw-in filter with little "sub-lenses". You probably can't go wrong with a Softar, though there are cheaper substitutes. Tiffen would probably tell you that their Soft/FX filter is even better than the Zeiss. I don't really buy into the soft-focus boudoire look and I own a Canon 135 soft-focus lens so I'm not really tempted to experiment.

Filter that fix lens defects

If a soft filter is one that imitates a lens defect, then a center-spot filter is one that fixes lens defects. Most super-wide lenses, especially for large format cameras, are brighter in the center of the frame and darker at the edges. If you don't want to see dark corners then you just get a filter that is dark in the center and light at the edges. I use one with my Fuji 617 camera, which uses a 5x7" view camera lens.

Wide angle lenses for 35mm cameras usually have some light falloff as well, but it is better corrected and you can often eliminate it merely by stopping down to f/8 or f/11.

Filter Types

The most common type of filter is the screw-in glass variety. These screw into the front of your lens. The only real problem with these is that they are sometimes hard to get back out. Professionals carry little plastic widgets called "filter wrenches" to remove filters whose threads have welded to the lens. Filters really ought to be bayonet-mount and they are on high grade 6x6cm cameras like Hasselblads and Rolleis. (Unfortunately these bayonet filters are about the same price as cheap lenses for 35mm SLRs.)

Kodak has sold gelatin filters for years under the "Wratten" brand name. Professionals with view cameras would typically tape these to their lenses, usually on the inside of the camera. Gel filters are cheap and apparently optically very good but they don't last very long if you handle them.

The modern equivalent of gel filters is the Cokin system and its imitators. You buy a holder and then any number of 3 or 4" square plastic filters. You can stick three or four at once in front of your lens for very strange effects. I'd rather do it all in PhotoShop, personally... Anyway, the Cokin P holder is kind of a standard and has its uses. I carry one in my bag with the Tiffen grad ND filter.

Which Brand?

Neurotics use B+W or Nikon-brand filters. Tiffen is about half the price and probably just as good (cinematographers use Tiffen on their $10,000 lenses to make their $100 million movies). Nobody seems to like Canon-brand filters.

What Filters for a Beginner?

I don't think a beginner should buy any filters, except possibly a UV filter to protect an expensive lens. Thinking about filters is a distraction when you should be thinking about light, composition, and subject. After you've burned 500 rolls of film, then it might be time to think about filters. (This doesn't apply to B&W landscape photographers, who typically will need a couple of filters very quickly.)

What Filters do I Have?

I own a huge pile of filters. Which ones do I use? The graduated neutral density for sunsets. The circular polarizers for special assignments where reflection control is demanded. Some B+W UV filters to protect my investment in Canon EOS L glass (though I probably should take them off for critical shots).

Useful Data

Here's some data courtesy of Tiffen...

(Note: Ortho and Pan refer to two types of black & white film, orthochromatic and panchromatic. Any consumer emulsion these days will be panchromatic ("responding to all colors of light"), which is why you see names like "Tri-X Pan".)

Black and White Filters
f Stop Increase f Stop Increase
Ortho Pan
Filter No. Color or
Name		 Suggested Uses Daylight Tungsten Daylight Tungsten
6 Yellow 1 For all black and white films, absorbs excess blue, outdoors, thereby darkening sky slightly, emphasizing the clouds.

1

²/3

²/3

²/3
8 Yellow 2 For all black and white films, most accurate tonal correction outdoors with panchromatic films. Produces greater contrast in clouds against blue skies, and foliage. Can be used for special effects with color film.

1 ¹/3

1

1

²/3
9 Yellow 3 Deep yellow for stronger cloud contrast.

1 ¹/3

1

1

²/3
11 Green 1 For all pan films. Ideal outdoor filter where more pleasing flesh tones are desired in portraits against the sky than can be obtained with yellow filter. Also renders beautiful black and white photos of landscapes, flowers, blossoms and natural sky appearance

-

-

2

1 ²/3
12 Yellow "Minus blue" cuts haze in aerial work, excess blue of full moon in astrophotography. Recommended as basic filter for use with Kodak Aero Ektachrome Infrared.

1 ²/3

1 ¹/3

1

²/3
13 Green 2 For male portraits in tungsten light, renders flesh tones deep, swarthy. Lightens foliage, with pan film only.

-

-

2 ¹/3

2
15 Deep Yellow For all black and white films. Renders dramatic dark skies, marine scenes; aerial photography. Contrast in copying.

2 ¹/3

1 ²/3

1 ²/3

1
16 Orange Deeper than #15. With pan film only.

-

-

1 ²/3

1 ²/3
21 Orange Absorbs blues and blue-greens. Renders blue tones darker such as marine scenes. With pan film only.

-

-

2 ¹/3

2
23A Light Red Contrast effects, darkens sky and water, architectural photography. Not recommended for flesh tones. With pan film only.

-

-

2 ²/3

1 ²/3
25 Red 1 Use with pan films to create dramatic sky effects, simulated "moonlight" scenes in midday (by slight under-exposure). Excellent copying filter for blueprints. Use with infrared film for extreme contrast in sky, turns foliage white, cuts through fog, haze and mist. Used in scientific photography.

-

-

3

2 ²/3
29 Dark Red For strong contrasts; copying blueprints.

-

-

4 ¹/3

2
47 Dark Blue Accentuates haze and fog. Used for dye transfer and contrast effects.

-

-

2 ¹/3

3
47B Dark Blue Lightens same color for detail.

2 ²/3

3

3

4
56 Light Green Darkens sky, good flesh tones. With pan film only.

-

-

2 ²/3

2 ²/3
58 Dark Green Contrast effects in microscopy, produces very light foliage.

3

2 ¹/3

3

3
61 Dark Green Extreme lightening of foliage.

-

-

3 ¹/3

3 ¹/3
87 - For infrared film only, no visual transmission.

-

-

-

-
87C - For infrared film only, no visual transmission.

-

-

-

-
Neutral
Density		 All Film Types
Color or Black
and White		 For uniform reduction of light with high-speed films for still and movie cameras. No change of color value. Ideal for outdoor video.

various

various

various

various
Polarizer All Film Types
Color or Black
and White		 Eliminates surface reflections, unwanted glare or hot spots from any light source. The only filter that will darken a blue sky and increase color saturation.

2

2

2

2

Note: Circular Polarizers are used on cameras with beam-splitting metering systems.



Color Filters
Filter No. Film Type Lighting f Stop Increase Suggested Uses
CLEAR All All

-

 Optical glass lens protection with no color shift
SKY 1A Daylight Daylight

-

 Use at all times, outdoors, to reduce blue and add warmth to scene. Also in open shade.
HAZE 1 Daylight Daylight

-

 Reduce excess blue caused by haze and ultraviolet rays. Ideal for mountain, aerial and marine scenes. Transmits 29% at 400nm.
HAZE 2A Daylight Daylight

-

 Greater ultraviolet correction than Haze #1 filter and adds some warmth to the visible colors. Transmit 0% at 400nm.
UV15 Daylight Daylight

-

 Haze filter. Transmit 19% at 400nm.
UV16 Daylight Electronic flash
Daylight

-

 Reduces excessive blue in electronic flash, also may be used for haze correction. Transmits 13.5% at 400nm.
UV17 Daylight Daylight

-

 Greater haze correction, reduces blue in shade. Transmits 3% at 400nm.
80A Daylight 3200°K floods

2

 Converts daylight film for use with 3200°K lamps.
80B Daylight 3400°K floods

1 ²/3

 Converts daylight film for use with 3400°K floods.
80C Daylight Clear flash

1

 For use with clear flash and daylight color films.
81 Daylight M2 flash

¹/3

 Yellowish, warming filter.
81A Daylight
Type B		 Electronic flash
3400°K floods

¹/3

 Balances daylight films to electronic flash. Corrects Type B films for use with 3400°K lamps. Prevents excessive blue.
81B Daylight
Type B		 Electronic flash
3400°K floods

¹/3

 Warmer results than 81A.
81C Type A, B Clear flash

¹/3

 Permits the use of clear flash lamps.
81EF Type A
(3200°K)		 M2 flash

²/3

 For any 650°K drop, flash lamps with Ektachrome Type B.
812® All Color Films Match to film

¹/3

 Warm tint improves skin tones. Removes excess blue.
82 Daylight Daylight

¹/3

 For any 100° increase in Kelvin temperature for color renderings.
82A Type A
Daylight
Negative		 3200°K floods
Early AM, late PM
3400°K floods

¹/3

 With Daylight and Daylight Negative films use in early AM or late PM to reduce the excessive red of the light. When using Type A (3400°K) films under 3200°K lamps.
82B Type B 3200°K floods

²/3

 For cooler results.
82C Type A 3400°K floods

²/3

 For cooler results or when using 3200°K lamps.
85 Type A Daylight

²/3

 Converts Type A to Daylight.
85N3 Type A Daylight

1 ²/3

 85 combined with ND 0.3 converts Type A film to Daylight. Permits use of larger apertures.
85N6 Type A Daylight

2 ²/3

 85 combined with ND 0.6 converts Type A film to Daylight. Permits use of larger apertures.
85N9 Type A Daylight

3 ¹/3

 85 combined with ND 0.9 converts Type A film to Daylight. Permits use of larger apertures.
85N1.0 Type A Daylight

3 ²/3

 85 combined with ND 1.0 converts Type A film to Daylight. Permits use of larger apertures.
85POL Type A Daylight

2 ¹/3

 85 combined with Polarizer. Converts Type A film to daylight with all advantages of Polarizer.
85B Type A, B Daylight

²/3

 Converts Type B film to daylight.
85BN3 Type B Daylight

1 ²/3

 85B combined with ND 0.3 converts Type A film to Daylight. Permits use of larger apertures.
85BN6 Type B Daylight

2 ²/3

 85B combined with ND 0.6 converts Type A film to Daylight. Permits use of larger apertures.
85BN9 Type B Daylight

3 ¹/3

 85B combined with ND 0.9 converts Type A film to Daylight. Permits use of larger apertures.
85BN1.0 Type B Daylight

3 ²/3

 85B combined with ND 1.0 converts Type A film to Daylight. Permits use of larger apertures.
85BPOL Type B Daylight

2 ¹/3

 85B combined with Polarizer. Converts Type A film to daylight with all advantages of Polarizer.
85C Daylight
Tungsten		 Daylight

¹/3

 Helps prevent overexposure of blue record layer. For warmer results with daylight film. For cooler results than with 85B for Tungsten film.
CC30R Daylight Daylight

²/3

 For underwater photography, to correct color.
FL-B® Type B Fluorescent

1

 Eliminates the deep blue-green cast ordinarily resultant from shooting color films with fluorescent lights.
FL-D® Daylight Fluorescent

1

 Eliminates the deep blue-green cast ordinarily resultant from shooting color films with fluorescent lights.
Neutral
Density		 All Film Types
Color or Black
and White		 All light sources

various

 For uniform reduction of light with high-speed films for still and movie cameras. No change of color value. Ideal for outdoor video.
Polarizer All Film Types
Color or Black
and White		 All light sources

2

 Eliminates surface reflections, unwanted glare or hot spots from any light source. The only filter that will darken a blue sky and increase color saturation.

Note: Circular Polarizers are used on cameras with beam-splitting metering systems.

Where to Buy

A neighborhood or shopping mall camera shop won't carry unusual types or unusual sizes of filters. Your best bets are the full-range professional retailers listed in the photo.net recommended retailers article.

If you want to help defray the cost of running photo.net, please buy your filters by following our hyperlink to Adorama.

More

Readers' Comments


Add a comment



Piaw Na , March 20, 1998; 02:15 A.M.

I finally tried graduated ND filters after 6 months or so of playing with an SLR. What a difference! If you're doing color landscape photography, you owe it to yourself to experiment with these. They made a big difference to my photography.

Paulo Bizarro , April 07, 1998; 06:41 A.M.

I agree that B+W and Nikon filters are among the best, but I also use Canon filters. They are equally good, IMO. I am not so sure why not many people use them, perhaps they are a bit more expensive? Anyway, I have ended up with a mix of Canon (UV and Protect), Nikon (UV), B+W (UV) and Hoya (UV and polarizer) filters. They are all very good, so you can not go wrong with any of these brands.

Kiet Vuong , May 07, 1998; 08:25 P.M.

I disagree with Phil regarding "Neurotics use B+W or Nikon-brand filters...". I only use Heliopan filters. Why you ask? Well they're doubled hard coated on both sides and mounted on brass rings. And more expensive than B+W and Nikon. But they look really cool on German lenses. YEAH!!!

Doug Braun , May 27, 1998; 05:07 A.M.

Warning! Warning! Avoid cheaper non-coated UV filters like the plague! Tiffen's standard "UV protector" filter appears to be completely un-coated. It reflects so much light that you could use it as a shaving mirror. I had one of these on my EOS 28-105 since I bought it. One day I took it off, and my pictures became noticably more contrasty. I replaced it with a Kenko multi-coated filter (not imported into the USA), and my pictures still look better. My conclusion is: The cheapest brand coated filter will outperform the most expensive non-coated filter. If you wouldn't buy a lens with uncoated elements, why would you want to buy an uncoated filter?

Mirek Langer , September 07, 1998; 12:09 P.M.

Polarising filters: I don't think it is "obsolete practise". I use it near all the time -- removing in cases when I need some more light (filter factor is about 2). In fact, it doesn't just saturate colors, but it removes light reflected AT LEAST TWICE -- like blue from clouds or too much green from forest (Maybe, skylight is intended just to do the same?).

It doesn't work for directly reflected light -- i.e. sun reflected in mirror or flash light. Also the effect highly depends on angle filter vs subject (or rather object :) It is suprising in use on rather matt or fine structured surfaces. You can also get incredibly blue sky -- it increases contrast of scene like orange or yellow filter in B&W fotography.

It is worth to try.

Marcelo P. Lima , November 04, 1998; 01:48 P.M.

Phil, you forgot to mention what I think is one of the best uses of polarizing filters--they darken the sky !! Used at about 90 degrees away from the sun (To find out where this is, point your thumb at the sun, and make your hand into a gun. Your index finger will point to the maximum polarizing area of the sky). When the sun is setting, if you look up with your camera and rotate the filter just right, you can get the sky to become so dark blue that it almost becomes black. I was fotographing a building with a 28mm lens on my Nikon the other day, looking up as the sun was setting. On Velvia, with -1/3 exp. compensation, the sky is almost black--it's a deep blue that's just beautiful.

Patrick Collins , January 31, 1999; 10:20 P.M.

I agree with the comments that recorded sky color is often improved by polarizing filters, but they do horrible things to lakes and other water by removing the reflected sky. Green and brown lakes can really look sickening when you've returned from a megabuck trip and find that your PhotoCD is filled with them...when I want a darker sky, I head for Photoshop.

Christian Deichert , February 16, 1999; 10:14 A.M.

Lakes do not have to be an "ugly green or brown" when using a polarizer. Turning the filter changes how much surface reflection you get in the image. It's a little harder to get a uniform effect with choppy water than it is on a smooth surface, but rotating your polarizer should make the blue sky deeper without turning the lake to crud.

Christian Deichert

Mike Zinkan , April 16, 1999; 07:40 P.M.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are many misconceptions about filters, types of filters and filter manufacturers that should be brought to light here:

a. B+W and Heliopan are mounted in BRASS rings. All other brands are usually aluminum (can stick and/or expand/contract in heat/cold) or worse can be made of plastic. Brass does not bind, expand in heat or contract in cold.

b. A lens is concave and covex lenses which focus light; filters are flat and some brands are flatter and flatter is better. Flatness of the plane is crucial for quality of the image. Does your brand mention flatness?

c. Parallelism of the planes to each other; if a filter manufacturer doesn't mention flatness and parallelism, they don't have good quality control, and thus, nothing to say in their advertising.

d. Some filters are not optical glass; B+W and Heliopan use German Schott optical glass in their glass filters exclusively. Hoya is also good glass.

e. Some filter media is sandwiched between two sheets of glass, not dyed-in-the-mass. That type of filter has 4 surfaces for light to have to pass through instead of 2 (and that's not counting the color media).

f. Some filters are uncoated. Most people wouldn't know the difference unless they saw an uncoated and a multi-coated side-by-side (amazing the difference in light transmission and glare reflectance)! Some brands are mistakenly(?) misadvertised and one of those is Heliopan, whose standard coating process is only one (1) hard coat per side, not "2 hard coats per side" or "double hard-coated both sides" as you might find in photo magazine ads. The truth here is: Heliopan Standard Coating process is one (1) per side and B+W Standard Coating process is one (1) per side (2 total for either brand's standard, coated filter). Heliopan Multiple Coating is 7 per side (14 total), and B+W Multiple Coating is 4 per side (8 total). Hoya has multi-coating, but see "h." (I've confirmed the Heliopan misadvertising--in writing--through the Heliopan factory in Germany and through their distributor in NY state.)

g. Wavelength blocked / light let through is not much to talk about, but there is a difference between brands, even if ever so slight.

h. Coating hardness/resistance to scratching is something else to consider--why buy a fairly expensive filter if it may not wear well? Hoya multicoatings are fairly delicate and their literature mentions this. Tiffen literature is so ambiguous, I don't go there, sorry.

That's the basics but if you want more, call or write to each manufacturer/distributor and get their catalogs and really, really r-e-a-d. Don't depend on ads! Speaking of ads, you can pay a difference of $20.00 for the same filter from the same big photo house simply by not comparing their ads in different magazines/catalogs.

Oh, and yes, Tiffen filters -are- used on expensive movie cameras in multi-million dollar films, but the film is not photographic quality and the filters could be much better. They don't require a higher quality filter, nor would it show to the public if they used a better filter.

A good filter doesn't degrade an inexpensive lens, but a cheap filter -will- degrade an expensive lens!

Mike Zinkan

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timothy Breihan , May 18, 1999; 03:53 P.M.

I used to use a Tiffen 1A Skylight on everything--a general protective measure for my lenses. I am obsessive-compulsive (seriously), and am therefore extra compulsive about the cleanliness of my optics and the sharpness of my photos. One day, I shone a flashlight through one of those Tiffens and was appalled at the amount of crap either on it or in it! Little spots were reflecting light all over the place!

I have since somewhat revised my stance on the use of filters. Currently, I own one filter. It is a B+W Coated UV. (If you are curious, Schneider, the manufacturer of B+W, states in their literature that all B+W filters that are coated have only a single coating per surface. However, for an additional cost, any filter can be ordered multi-coated.) What do I have to say about it? Well, it cost me nearly 1/4 of the price of the lens I keep it on (a 200/4) and the brass ring is pure luxury. It is also spotless, and my photogrphs have improved with it. As for my other lenses, they are not uncovered. I treat them with such care (care, not prissiness), that I find the filters to be almost unnecessary. Anyway, for the cost of equiping all of them with B+Ws, I could buy a new lens or tripod!

My current thoughts toward filters is this; it is extraneous glass. That is, extraneous in the fact that it does not help focus or contribute to sharpness. What about color correction, you say? I'd rather just play with the light as it is. If anyone has a filter addiction out there, just try to shoot sometime without one. You may be pleasantly surprised.

A T , December 01, 1999; 08:22 P.M.

Mike Zinkan said it! I refer you to two comments above this one.

Helena Brusic , December 19, 1999; 07:45 P.M.

I was horrified to see the cop out "use Photoshop" - obviously it is not creative photography that is an issue here. Sure, a rank amateur can take a lousy photo, and voila you can make it look great after endless tweaking, cropping etc in Photoshop. If you are interested in ART and interested in the pure pleasure of CREATING - then experiment with different filters - try the graduating colours like "Tobacco" or "Blue" and see how you too can create a work of art. Alternatively give your bad photos to a graphic designer...

John Nelson , December 23, 1999; 12:41 A.M.

How Filters Saved my Butt during WTO Wow, I am a huge fan of simple cheap UV filters after shooting in downtown Seattle during the recent WTO riots. As a photographer for the University of Washington student newspaper, The Daily *PLUG=www.thedaily.washington.edu*, I decided to go see if I could get some good angry riot pictures downtown. I spent about 45 minutes on the front lines of the protest, where police were holding a wobbly line within rock-throwing distance of the conference. Suddenly, clouds of grey smoke erupted from the police lines and protestors began to run back towards where I was standing. I got some good pictures of people in tear gas induced agony, but it was hard to get a picture of the police up close. After a good whiff of tear gas, I decided to pull back a couple blocks and see what I could find. What I found was pure anarchy. Three Seattle police cars were stranded behind protestor lines, and a bunch of punks (NOT WTO PROTESTORS) had flattened the tires and scrawled their stupid "tags" all over them. At this point, I noticed a group of about 20 youths clad in black with their faces covered. They were walking through the shopping district of downtown tagging buildings, and building up their courage. Once one of the young anarchists broke a window and found out that there were no cops to stop them, they all started to. I was loving it, (not the damage, but the photo opportunity!) and tried to get close but not so close that I was in crow-bar range. They kept telling the few photographers there not to take pictures (hmmm...anarchists trying to stop someone from doing something? okay), but I persisted. The group made its way to a Starbucks (Starbucks=Seattle, anarchists breaking Starbucks windows. I was loving it) and proceeded to take some pictures with my Canon EOS 1N and 17-35. All of the sudden my viewfinder went black. A stupid anarchist had spray painted my lens!!! Luckily I had a filter. I quickly (and stupidly, I guess) put my 17-35 away and put on my 85 1.8. I had shot maybe 12 more pics when the anarchists arrived at a Bank America branch right next to Westlake center. I was in perfect position to get the picture of a black-clad anarchist throwing a chair through the window when my autofocus focused to infinity. I had been sprayed again, this time with red. Another filter bit the dust. At this point I decided to hang back, since I was filterless in Seattle (sorry). I followed the group from a distance as they continued their swath of mindless vandalism. They came to a Gap, and I took a picture of them breaking the window. (http://students.washington.edu/jwn/riot.JPG) Okay, that was a long-winded endorsement of filters, at least during times of riot. -John

Colin Povey , January 05, 2000; 05:19 P.M.

I want to put my two cents in on the value of a 'protective' filter on at all times.

I have had two lenses saved from permanent damage by filters. Once, I was walking through a crowded building, about to go through a doorway. Someone bumped me in the back, I stumbled forward, and my camera with my 85mm f/1.8 lens swung right into a doorknob! Shattered the filter, pieces all over the floor, but the lens was fine.

In the second case, I don't know how the filter got scratched, but it ended up with a 3/4 inch (2 cm) scratch right across the center of the filter. The scratch was so deep, I could feel it with a fingernail.

So, all my lenses wear a protective filter (normally Nikon or B&W, though I have one with a Hoya) at all times, unless I am using another filter (like a polarizer).

Lastly, about the comment that 'neurotics always use Nikon or B&W", I once read a report on the web about a fellow who borrowed a bunch of filters from a friendly camera shop, and tested them. Put his camera on a big tripod, stopped his lens down to optimal (known from previous testing) and shot pictures without a filter, and with various brands of filters. He examined the negatives with a microscope to read the test targets. His results were:

For UV or Skylight First: Nikon, B&W (tied) (small gap) Third: Heliopan (gap) Fourth: Tiffen, Hoya (multicoated) (big gap) Fifth: Hoya (standard) (big gap) Sixth: All the rest.

He also tested Polarizing filters. Results: First: Nikon Second: B&W (optically as good, but not as neutral gray as the Nikon) (gap) Heliopan (BIG GAP) Hoya (gap) Tiffen (BIG GAP) All the rest

Keep in mind that polarizing filters contain two pieces of glass, plus a piece of plastic. Glass cannot be made polarized, so polar filters are made by laminating a piece of polarized plastic betweeen two thin pieces of glass. This is why polar filters are expensive, and why cheap one are really bad (six surfaces that can cause a problem, instead of two for a normal filter).

Colin

Dann Fong , February 24, 2000; 04:35 A.M.

Most of my filters being B+W, I recently notice a newly purchased 72mm skylight has an aluminum mount instead of a brass one. Since my discovery, I've checked B+W's web site and failed to find any evident that an aluminum one was made. The packaging of this aluminum filter is the new B+W clip case whereas the older one had a box, and it no longer had "Made in Germany" written on the outside. I've since confirmed that B+W indeed make an aluminum filter and it cost less than the brass version. The only noticible difference on the box was the letters "ALU" written on the stick -on.

Scott Mann , May 30, 2000; 10:49 P.M.

I have used several brands of enhancing filters. I have found that Tiffen enhancing filters leave a strong and often undesirable color cast. On the other hand, Singh-Ray filters (www.singh-ray.com/) render a much more "natural" (read here "believable") color when used judiciously. The color intensifier is the filter to start with. If you want to spring for really big bucks buy the color intensifier/polarizer combination. The results can be spectacular.

Probably most useful at the Sing-Ray website is a discussion of the use of graduated neutral density filters. For my purposes, these are often the difference between a great landscape photograph and a mediocre one. As anyone who has attempted to use these filters can attest they are tricky to use. Until reading the article by Galen Rowell my use was "hit and miss" at best.

Image Attachment: JLS.jpg

Rich Demanowski , August 08, 2000; 02:05 P.M.

PhotoWhat? I took up photography as a hobby to get me away from the computer ...

Yes, programs like PhotoShop and the GIMP are very useful for touching up digital images, but I'd much rather invest in some filters and learn how to use them ... see what effects they have on my photos to produce interesting and/or unexpected effects ... and then see if I can fix my mistakes in PhotoShop ... ;p

I think both sets of tools have an important place in modern photography.

Remco den Boer , June 05, 2001; 05:33 P.M.

I've got B+W UV MC filters on my (expensive) 35mm glass for protection, that I take of whe I use a polariser. The grad. ND I use in the Cokin P holder. I've taken some great landscape slides, but when the light is more overcast, or in shades, I find that a lot of the slides have an blue/purple tone; very unatractive. What (color correction) filter should I use for that? Skylight, other UV, polariser, warm or color enhancement? What about different grades in UV and skylight? Suggestions greatly appreciated!

Zap Trax , July 06, 2001; 02:25 P.M.

A few comments on this old thread.

First, I love Photoshop but it's far better to get it right on the original film than to struggle for hours to fix it later. And some things just can't be fixed in Photoshop--like a sunset where you lose all the shadow detail because you exposed for the sky didn't use a grad ND filter. Or you exposed for the ground and lost all the detail and color in the sky.

Second, I believe in protection and the virutes of safe-imagemaking. I took an overnight train to Edinburgh, Scotland and then caught a cab to the car rental agency. I thought the camera strap was around my neck but it wasn't. As I got out of the cab my EOS-3 tumbled to the cobblestone street. Ouch!!! The aluminum filter ring was mangled and crushed but the lens was fine. I went to a nearby Jessops and got a new filer right away. Which came in handy a little later as I slogged through the local Lochs.

Not to mention all the times I have to clean dust, dirt, sweat, salty sea spray, and fine sand from the UV filter. What kind of marks would there be on the front element of my lens if I didn't have that $20 piece of filter glass in front of my $500 lens?

Andrew Robert Feasey , July 22, 2001; 03:38 A.M.

COKIN!! wat happened to them??

Here in Dubai we ain't got too much in the way of really good cam shops. But they only sell Cokin in Sharjah.

I've got some for my A-1, that was bought way back then in HK or the UK or somewhere, and i reckoin they're great. even though i am a beginner, i find then ace. u can do all sorts of funky stuff with them.

thm screw in ones i reckon are useless, coz u gotta have different sizes for different lens or buy sum adapters (if there r sum) where as the Cokin is much easier. NE way, cya guyz

Lee Shively , July 29, 2001; 08:43 P.M.

I've made this comment elsewhere but I'll repeat it here. I bought into Cokin filters when they were first introduced, first the "A" series and then a few "P" series filters. I used them only occasionally with my old Nikon F's, F2's, F3's and FM cameras. Mostly I used the grey grads and the diffusing filters with lenses from 24mm to 85mm. When I bought into the Canon EOS system a couple of years ago, I bought several Cokin filters to use with black and white film and a couple of other types such as warming and grey grads. The Canon lenses did not use the 52mm screw in filters I had used with my Nikons so I decided to save a few bucks and use Cokin "P" filters until I could afford glass filters. I used them only a few times on my 20-35mm zoom. One afternoon, I was doing some closeups with my fairly new Canon 400mm f5.6 L lens with a 1.4X extender. I popped on a Cokin 81A equivalent filter to warm up the shadows and watched as the entire scene went out of focus! Just to experiment, I tried all my Cokin filters--old ones and the newer ones--and I noted all of them caused the image to lose sharpness on everything from 100mm up. At 100mm, the loss of quality was hardly noticed but by 560mm the image could not be focused. I never took a single photograph to test because the loss of sharpness was so evident in the viewfinder there seemed no point in wasting film.

I have put away the Cokin filters. I feel they could still be used with wide angle lenses under certain circumstances. Surely the diffusion filters, fog filters, etc. would be useable. But for normal-use optical quality filters, I have replaced everything with Tiffen glass filters and Singh-Ray ND graduates. I have not found Cokin filters to be up to my photographic standards.

Esa Kivivuori , August 07, 2001; 04:15 P.M.

I`m not a great fan of filters in general (except green, red & UVa) but I`ve found some improvements in my Provia 100 F slides after starting to use UVa filter in my Leica M6. Whenever it´s possible I use B&W MRC or Leica (actually made by B&W?) filters. I can`t see any reason why I should use a piece of less-than-perfect glass in front of otherwise superb lenses?

Ken Kistinger , December 26, 2001; 01:29 P.M.

Philip: I found it interesting that the sky on your demo pictures - using the "enhancing" filter still came out blue. I was lucky enough to talk to a distributor at my local camera store and she loaned me an enhancing filter for my trip to Maryland in late October. The reds and oranges sure did pop, but everything else had a pink shade to it. This matches the results that some of the guys at the camera shop encountered - the building across the street of white stucco started turning salmon. Does one need to use this filter with a polarizer, or is it very film sensitive? At this point in my photographic life, I would not purchase this filter.

Brent Reid , March 01, 2002; 07:26 P.M.

Filter Quality: Tiffen vs. B+W, etc.

In his comments on Tiffen vs. high-end brand filter quality near the top of this thread, Phil stated: "Neurotics use B+W or Nikon-brand filters. Tiffen is about half the price and probably just as good (cinematographers use Tiffen on their $10,000 lenses to make their $100 million movies). . . ."

The matter of filter quality may not be so simple, according to a quote from The Filter Connection's comparison of filter construction techniques and materials:

"Tiffen UVP (Uv-Protectors) are solid glass filters, with no optical coatings. All other Tiffen filters Uv-1's are laminated (2 pieces of glass, with the laminate carrying the color or effects) and no coatings. ALL Tiffen round filters are made with type of glass known as green glass, they do look clear when you look throu them, from the side of the glass, the edge, you can see the green tint. Tiffen only offers the "crystal clear glass" in their motion picture product line at a very much higher cost."

This information raises, but doesn't answer two questions:

  • Does laminated contruction using green glass adversely affect image quality?

  • Does solid "water glass" construction yield results worth twice the price per filter? (Triple, if you add multicoating).

    Like most photographers, I don't want to degrade the optical performance of high quality lenses by using mediocre filters. That's kind of like putting cheap, off-brand tires on a Porsche.

    Any definitive answers will be much appreciated.

    Brent Reid.

    • James Arns , May 29, 2002; 03:49 P.M.

    First, let me say I cannot address what the composition is of any particular manufacturer's filters. However, I can shed some light, excuse the pun :-), on some of the topics of glass and coatings. I have worked in optics for nearly 25 years and have some experience with glass and coatings.

    Green glass, mentioned above, is glass that contains some residual levels of iron compounds. These iron compounds have spectral absorption bands that result in the green appearance you see when looking through a significant volume of the glass that contains them. This green tint is measureable but is unlikely to cause any practical world impact on color rendition on film. Typical window glass in your home is of this type.

    Water white glass is, in simple terms, the same glass without the iron compounds. The glass appears completely without color and, theoretically, will not cause color casts as a result.

    Both glasses, "green" and "water white", are typically produced as "float glass", so named because in the final stages of the glass manufacture the molten glass is allowed to float on a liquid to cool. This process gives the glass a relatively smooth surface (the one next to the liquid) and basic parallelism with the other surface is obtained due to the glass weight and surface tension. Again, this would be the quality of the window glass used in your home. This glass, like any other, must be polished to obtain an optical quality comparable to photographic lenses.

    Photographic lenses are made using one or most likely more than one optical grade glasses. Better filters are also made from these optical glasses rather than "green" or "water white" glass. Manufacturing tolerances on the material composition of "green" or "water white" glasses are less than that of the more tightly controlled optical glasses.

    Neither glass, "green" or "water white", will be an effective UV reducing material by themselves. That's where the optical coatings come in. Coatings are of four types: reflective, anti-reflective, hard coat, and absorptive. Absorptive coatings are relatively rare as it is easier to laminate an absorptive gel between two glass plates with better optical characteristics than can be achieved with a coating. Reflective coatings are placed on the filter glass to reflect back, that is reject, certain regions of the spectrum. This can be done to reflect UV, or IR for example. Photographic filters with anti-reflection coatings are identified as "coated" or "mulitcoated" filters based on the number of layers used in the coating. "Coated" filters have single or few layers of material coated on the filter surfaces which reduces the reflectivity of the filter surface up to 1/4 of what it would be without the coating. "Multicoated" filters have surfaces coated with several layers of material resulting in a further reduction of reflectivity up to 1/10 of an uncoated surface. Both reflection and anti-reflection coatings can be hard coats meaning the outside layer of the coating is harder than the filter glass itself implying there is an improvement in scratch resistance. Is all of this important, necessary, or observable? Technically, it is measureable. But the truth is in the image. You must decide if the use of a filter or a coated filter will have a positive impact on your images.

    A note on the number of surfaces in a laminated filter: A laminated filter is one in which the filter material is bonded between two pieces of glass. The adhesives used are optical adhesives designed to closely match the glass in characteristics (mainly index of refraction) when set (hardened). As a result the six surfaces discussed above (air / first glass surface, glass / first layer adhesive surface, first layer adhesive / filter surface, filter surface / second layer adhesive surface, second layer adhesive surface / second glass surface, glass surface / air surface) are effectively reduced to the two outer surfaces. Then the filter quality is based on scatter in the glass, adhesive, and filter material, workmanship, and the surface quality of the outside glass surfaces (the same issues discussed above).

    Finally, the question of brass verses other materials used in the rings surrounding the filter material is really a question of ruggedness and ease of use. Brass is prefered by many because it is a harder material than aluminum and, gulp, plastic so it will hold up to repeated use. Brass also has a lower coefficient of thermal expansion than aluminum. This means brass doesn't expand or contract as much as aluminum as the temperature changes. This means a brass filter will expand and contract with temperature at the same rate as the brass coupling exteriors of nearly all lenses made by the top cameral manufacturers until recently when plastics are becoming more common. Even with plastic lens fronts, brass filters will be less of a problem thermally than aluminum housed ones. Also brass is less likely to be damaged by cross threading than aluminum or plastic mounted filters.

    I hope this helps in understanding the various aspects of filters, why there are so many variations, and quality levels of filters, and different types.

    Peter Merlin , August 21, 2002; 10:59 A.M.

    It's more high-end filters. Nearly unknown or not so popular, but better or minimal equal quality to B+W, Heliopan or Nikon is Pentax SMC.

    Save money not on filters!!! General result is given with weakest optical element! Choose what you want from (alphabetical) B+W, Heliopan, Nikon, Pentax.

    Louis Webb , October 19, 2002; 08:14 A.M.

    I would suggest that all serious 'landscapers need a quality square system,so that neutral density graduated filters(plus other filters such as warm-up's) can be used.If you can get away with their pro 85 system on your widest angle lens without vignettting,I recommend the Hi-tech system.Their 85 series filters are much cheaper than the 100 series/Lee filters.I avoided Cokin/similar quality after reading comments on this site and others.If you buy Cokin adapters and caps to attach to each lens you own(for some reason,Hi-tech don't sell caps for their 85 series adapters,here in the Uk at least,a strange anomaly in this otherwise excellent range),then the filter-holder can be used quickly and convieniently.If you take reasonable care with these,they will give sterling service-I've had mine about two years and I havn't got a scratch on one of them yet(yes I have used them;I've even dropped them accidently on a couple of occasions!)

    robert barzilla , November 02, 2002; 12:12 A.M.

    Why would you spend $1000 or more on a lens and then put a $20 piece of plastic (yeah some of them are glass, but not crappy UV filters) in front of it to protect it? You bought the $1500 lens for the incredibly sharp photos it allows you to take, right? Putting an extra element on the end of it defeats its purpose by negatively affecting the photo. The lens protector is called a lens cap---use it.

    James Davison , January 05, 2003; 04:05 P.M.

    No amount of Photoshopping is going to give back a tonal range that isn't there in the first place. Increasing the saturation to get a blue sky is going to do other undesireable things to your image. The idea behind a filter is to get as wide a range of tonality as possible for what you're wishing to achieve. The addage 'garbage in garbage out' holds true in photography too. A filter up front is always going to beat dealing with it after the fact.

    Stephen Ellaway , January 16, 2003; 08:08 P.M.

    I have often wondered why so many photography manuals explain the tonal effects of colored filters on B&W emusions (prints) in such protracted and complexed ways: Basically the simple way to perceive the final effects of coloured gels. is: Each filter lightens it's own color and darkens all others.

    The slight variable on this is secondary primary colored filters (magenta, yellow, cyan) which lighten it's TWO component colors and darken what is left. eg: yellow (red plus green) will become lighter and Blue (what's left) will be rendered darker. Phew...I thought it was simple before I started!

    Charles Lipton , June 30, 2003; 08:11 P.M.

    I would like to add my 2 cents...

    I was in Hawaii/Maui last month..It was hot and humid..I had a Hoya HMC UV filter on my 70-200MM 4L lens... I added a Hoya polarizer to it...they stuck together. It took me forever to get them apart..

    I have a B+W UV on my 28-70mm L lens. I never had the same problem even adding a Hoya polarizer. Point is...the B+W filters, made with a brass ring, don't bind up with any other filter...To me, that's worth the extra expenses..let alone to glass quality used in B+W filters... JMO... Chuck

    John Kim , March 25, 2004; 02:28 P.M.

    Regarding the comment about the polarizing filter showing brown muck of a lake:

    I once went to Lake Tahoe and drove around the lake with my girlfriend. I kept commenting to her about how beautiful the lake is, that you can see the color separation go from lifefull green in the shallow end to deep gorgeous blue in the deep end. It was one of the most beautiful sights I've seen in my life.

    Then we stopped at a viewpoint to take some pictures with my Canon S230. I took off my sunglasses at one point, and the colors disappeared! I then realized that it was my polarized sunglasses that was showing me the colors, and my girlfriend never saw what I saw until I lent her my glasses. And since you can't put any filters on the S230(my first digicam, Sony P30 or something had threads for filters, and I had a polarizing filter for it to get the blue sky) I wasn't able to capture the colors of the lake with it.

    Now, I don't know how well it'll turn out when I bring my 35mm this summer with a polarizing filter, but just wanted to point out not all lakes look like muddy slops.

    Talbert McMullin , August 27, 2005; 05:17 P.M.

    You said, "Neurotics use B+W or Nikon-brand filters...". I'll admit that's true, but dammit, I'm one happy camper with my B+Ws!

    Iain Skudder , November 18, 2005; 09:46 A.M.

    I am a novice to photography and have just bought a circular polarizer. On the poackageing it says the filter factor is 2 stops. Do I set my exposure compensation up by 2 stops permanently or vary the setting according to the lighting conditions?

    John Eisinger , January 06, 2006; 02:31 P.M.

    I had the misfortune of dropping my 70-200 f2.8 from about three feet. The front of the lens landed on a rock with a sickening <crack>. The glass in the B+W UV filter cracked in three places, radiating from the impact. In addition, the lens cap got a little messed up. The $1300 lens? No damage. Let's just say that I was pretty happy to buy a new filter.

    Felix Müller , January 30, 2006; 03:52 P.M.

    I use filters a lot. A polarizer to enhance the contrast and colour saturation when the weather is bright and sunny. If it's wet the same filter cancels reflections from wet surfaces. Mostly when the sky is overcast (and that's pretty often so when I shoot pictures) I use a KR 9 (85C) filter that corrects the colour fault. Filters separate my pictures from all the other photographers who don't filter. And they can save a lot of postprocessing work.

    Alex Massengale , January 11, 2007; 12:36 P.M.

    A very useful overview. Thank you.


    Add a comment