Quality - But In Prespective

[Snooks]

We were thinking about putting a polarizing filter onto the camera to not only protect the lens, but for the obvious benefits involving glare and also the colour enhancement.

When "luxury" funds are limited, it is very hard to justify spending $40-$50 on a PL when we can see some that look very good, on Ebay, for only $6. But commonsense tells you the quality is not there.

For our basic level of learning and taking photos, would we actually be able to see any difference in a photo taken using a cheap PL compared to the more expensive brands? Obviously we aren't entering major comps and stuff like that but we do still want to take a good image and it would really annoy me if we took a great photo that got spoilt by using a crap lens.

Are photos taken with cheap lens filters that obvious?

[nardes]

Apart from the optical qualities of the filter, I would look at the mechanical ones too.

I have experienced low cost filters that bind on the camera lens and are difficult to take off once fitted. This might be due to the low cost unit not allowing for the extra thickness added by the coating or anodising process, hence the threads may jam.

Cheers

Dennis

[ricktas]

You may only really need to 'protect' your lens in two situations I can think of. Water (sea spray) and sand (deserts or beaches). Lenses do not really need protection in other circumstances. The coating on the front element of the lens does a damn good job on its own. However, even putting a filter on for the above scenarios, only protects the from element, not the entire lens and camera. It has to be remembered that everything/anything you add to the front of a lens affects image quality (IQ). As @nardes; has stated, the cheaper the thing you add, the more likelihood of increased image degradation. What do we mean by this.. well blurriness is probably the biggest one. Low price usually means lower quality glass or plastic in the filter, and thus your photos end up not being as sharp as they could be.

A polariser is a good investment, especially if you like shooting landscapes. But it also has its limitations. Polarisers work based on angle to the sun, so if you do not set-it up properly each time, you can end up with a graduated effect from one side of your photo to the other. So if you do buy a polariser, even if it mean saving the pennies up for a couple more months, get a good quality, brand name one, not a cheappie, and then learn how to use it.

[Tannin]

putting a polarizing filter onto the camera to not only protect the lens A polarising filter is not for protecting your lens. It is for selectively reducing the light level in parts of the picture under particular circumstances. It's a specialised item and you use it for ... oh .... maybe 10% of landscape shots and pretty much zero percent of every other kind of shot. A protective filter is called "clear", "skylight", or "UV". (There are very slight differences between those three which need not concern us here. Just think of them as clear.) The sort of polarising filter that works on digital cameras is callled a "circular polarising filter" or CPL. Lots of useful info on them in this thread: http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...filter-is-best

obvious benefits involving glare and also the colour enhancement. The benefits of a CPL are real, but restricted to very specific circumstances. Remember also that you usually buy them in screw-on style, and you need one for each lens, unless you happen to have two or more lenses with the same filter diamater. (There is another way of mounting them, done by various companies, but best-known as the Cokin system. Look it up if you are interested.)

it is very hard to justify spending $40-$50 on a PL when we can see some that look very good, on Ebay, for only $6. But commonsense tells you the quality is not there. Cheap filters produce horrible results. We are not talking subtle differences only an expert eye can detect here, we are talking downright horrible. Better to escape by gnawing your own leg off than it is to own a cheap Ebay filter.

For our basic level of learning and taking photos, would we actually be able to see any difference in a photo taken using a cheap PL compared to the more expensive brands?

Yes.

Are photos taken with cheap lens filters that obvious?

Yes.

If you want to buy some glass, the thing to get is a longer lens. 24mm is fine at what it does, but something longer than that would be very, very handy.

[Snooks]

Cool. So I think we can agree that unless we are buying reasonable quality, it is not worth buying. I thought that the cheapies would be too good to be true and that in itself should (and did) ring warning bells.

I think at the moment we shall just write down a shopping list for the future and as we build up the kitty, then decide what we want, or need, because as Tannin mentioned, we can already see that a longer lens would be of great benefit.

So yep. Think we will build the kitty for a few months before looking at options.

Thanks one and all

[MattNQ]

When "luxury" funds are limited, it is very hard to justify spending $40-$50 on a PL when we can see some that look very good, on Ebay, for only $6. But commonsense tells you the quality is not there.

Unfortunately, a $50 polariser is still a cheap one and may not be great. It pays to do a bit of research. Some of the lower end better brands like Hoya and Cokin do both a premium version and a cheaper version that is nicer on the wallet. I had one of the above brand's cheaper model (can't remember which one) and got good results.
Camera House do have their own generic brand, but I wasn't overly happy with the quality for the money.
A good CPL can enhance your photos, so definitely worth getting right.

Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk

[Nick Cliff]

Lenstip.com have an interesting ongoing review of the major CPL filters that I reference occasionally.
Digital camera warehouse sometimes have sales of good brand CPL filters at very fair prices if you are patient.

cheers Nick

[Hawthy]

Filters (and their quality) used to be important before digital photography because your opportunities to manipulate a photo after taking it were very limited - especially if you shot in colour and relied on a laboratory to develop and print your photos. If a cheap filter gave your photo an unwanted colour cast you were stuck with it.

In these digital days you can do away with quite a few filters. Graduated filters can be replaced by bracketing your photos and blending them in photoshop or even just shooting in raw. There are any number of special effect filters that you can replicate using photoshop.

Neutral density filters are difficult to replace because they are reduce the amount of light coming in and allow you to shoot at a longer shutter speed to capture waterfalls, nice smooth seas, etc.

A Circular Polarising Filter is impossible to replicate in post-processing. It removes reflections and enhances the sky colour. It's relatively easy to create reflections using photoshop but I don't think that you can remove then easily or at all. Think of a CPL as polaroid sunglasses for your camera. Some polaroid sunglasses are better than others but they all do the same thing - cut down on reflections and make the sky look nice. Some sunglasses have a blue tint and some have a red or grey tint. Same with CPL's. Good ones will have a nicer cast than cheap ones but they still remove reflections and make the sky more intense.

I have bought cheap CPL's and not had a problem with them because I shoot in raw and can remove any unwanted colour cast using the Camera Raw Filter in photoshop. I am looking at my cheap CPL and a more expensive one that I bought and, other than the tint, the only real difference is that the expensive one is about 1/3rd thinner. If it's a fine day tomorrow I will take some photos and compare the results.

I do understand that if you screw a cheap filter on too tight that they could be difficult to remove because they are made of softer / poorer quality metal. They don't need to be on tight so just don't get heavy-handed.

My two cents, spend the $6 on a cheap Ebay filter and have a play around. You won't use it all the time but they are very useful for landscapes (particularly those with water) and are really useful if you have any interest in waterfalls because they cut down the amount of light just enough to get that silky water effect. Don't worry about buying a UV filter. Waste of space and money, in my opinion.

[Geoff79]

I’m glad to see Hawthy’s reply as I didn’t want to be the only one, but I’ve only ever really used cheap CPL filters too - with maybe a single exception? Can’t remember what my current wife-angle one is worth; maybe around $30? - when I need them. And as per Rick’s post, it’s kind of up to you as the user how effective it is. As I discovered after about a year of “using” one, you do definitely need to learn how to use them, because they can completely destroy a photo - $6 one, or $50 one - if you don’t use it correctly. Or be completely ineffective, if you don’t know how to use it.

Landscapes in certain light with the sun in certain positions really struggle to work at all, regardless of filter quality? Or is that just a sign of the poor ones I use?

Anyway, as mentioned, they don’t really have that much use and you definitely wouldn’t want to keep them on your camera for every photo you take. For waterfalls, imo, they are absolutely 100% essential. And likewise, landscape shots with a bit of glare and water; they also come in handy. And I do love the results they give along the coast in the middle of the day. As noted, like looking through sunglasses and getting that real tropical feel.

But yeah, again, it’s all useless until you get a good feel for them, and even then, in strong light where you can’t really accurately assess your photo on the back of the camera, they can throw up a nasty surprise or two when you load the photos onto the PC.

[Hawthy]

This might be the beginnings of a new thread...Cheapskate Accessories.

[Snooks]

This might be the beginnings of a new thread...Cheapskate Accessories.

LOL. Some very interesting comments and opinion, thank you.

[Nick Cliff]

Would it be worthwhile trying to source a good second hand CPL to see if it would suit your purposes.
Some photographers need the newer versions with the latest nano coatings for easier cleaning qualities and performance I gather,

cheers Nick

[Hawthy]

I did the experiment! Here are three shots taken today using no filter, a cheap Ebay $5 CPL filter and a $60 CPL bought from a camera store. Each was shot using Aperture mode at f/11. The processing for each was identical:

* Image >> Auto Tone
* image >> Auto Contrast
* Image >> Auto Colour
* Image >> Adjustments >> Curves >> Auto
* Create Duplicate Layer >> Filters >> Other >> High Pass >>2 pixels >> Layer Blending Overlay

(I don't usually shoot jpeg so ai wanted to keep processing as simple as possible).

In order these are: No Filter, $5 Filter and $60 Filter.

No-Filter.jpg

-Filter.jpg

-Filter.jpg


Work commitments meant that I had to take these in the middle of the day so the polarising effect is not as great as it might have been when the sun was at a more side on angle rather than quite high. I mainly wanted to see if either filter threw a noticeable cast on the photo.

Arguably, the more expensive filter looks a bit nicer and is more effective as a polariser but for just $5 the Ebay filter works out ok. I looked at them zoomed in to 100% and 200% and can't see any nasty artefacts. Happy to post these if people want to see them. I think that both filters put some purple fringing in the trees. If you shot in raw you should be able to remove that.

My thoughts, if you are an amateur and on a tight budget the cheap CPL could be the way to go.

[Hawthy]

Actually, the order is no filter, expensive filter, cheap filter. Sorry.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ameerat42]

...I had to take these in the middle of the day so the polarising effect is not as great as it might have been when the sun was at a more side on angle rather than quite high...

In fact, Hawthy, it was about the best time to take the shots because your sky is about 90° from the position of the sun, the zone of maximum sky
polarisation. Have a look here. Something else must have been going on.

[Hawthy]

Well, it could also be the elevated shooting position. Ideally, I should have been on Lanikai Beach on Oahu, late afternoon, cocktail in hand. Sometimes life just deals what it deals.

[Snooks]

Well, it could also be the elevated shooting position. Ideally, I should have been on Lanikai Beach on Oahu, late afternoon, cocktail in hand. Sometimes life just deals what it deals.

Hi Hawthy,

Somehow I missed this post. (I think I forgot to subscribe).

Well I could see a bit of difference in the colors but not any real difference in the quality, as far as I can tell. Though I do think that it is like a pair of Polaroid Sunnies, in that you will get what you pay for. I certainly would not buy a $4 pair in a BP Petrol Station but I wont be paying $500 for the latest Oakleys.

I appreciate the time you spent in taking the photos and although you can't see much difference in those ones, the photos at beaches, or ones that I have seen of cars, people fishing in a stream or kids playing in a paddling pool..... they all seem to benefit immensely by using a CPL.

So it appears that circumstances and environment will certainly denote how important the CPL will be and how much effect it can have on the finished product.

Cheers Mate

[Tannin]

A $60 filter is a cheap one. Good ones are around three times that price.

(There is a really interesting set of tests of them somewhere on the Lens Rentals blog. Worth hunting up. Some expensive ones are a bit ordinary, some mid-price ones are excellent. It's a minefield out there!)

[ameerat42]

OK, time to re-gress... - to the word "Perspective" in your title.
I haven't used a polarising filter since film days. Phew! The main
reason has been - I haven't felt the need for one, and even then
it was sparing.

Now if you think that's heresy, what about this...?

I bet there are a lot of people like that.

Exegesis has been based on the following fundamental questions:
Is there a preponderance of pesky reflections that could be minimised?
Is there such a thing as universal "glare"?
Are the daily colours in life so dull as to need "enhancing"?
Does a polariser provide a saving fix for all photos?
Was Rome built in a day? (Woops!)

Don't forget the basic science:
Not all light is polarised, so the main use of a polariser to analyse
the light will be lost. It will only act as a density filter, likely unwanted
at the time. For instance, a polariser will not do much for bright reflected
bright sunlight on choppy water. It does help for other reflected
light off smoother water, cutting down on the polarised reflections to show
beneath the surface.

Anyway, good luck in your quest, and where it has been said to try for a cheaper
one first - sometimes it's useful to give vent to urges at the time - I agree.

[Snooks]

A $60 filter is a cheap one. Good ones are around three times that price.

OMG. I just looked at the prices in some major online Camera Shops and some went up to HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of dollars.

Don't forget the basic science:
Not all light is polarised, so the main use of a polariser to analyse
the light will be lost. It will only act as a density filter, likely unwanted
at the time. For instance, a polariser will not do much for bright reflected
bright sunlight on choppy water. It does help for other reflected
light off smoother water, cutting down on the polarised reflections to show
beneath the surface.

Anyway, good luck in your quest, and where it has been said to try for a cheaper
one first - sometimes it's useful to give vent to urges at the time - I agree.

Perhaps I had better ensure that what I am looking for, is something that the filter can actually provide. I just like looking into the water, seeing the darker blue skys and the greener grass. I like seeing into the car rather than the windscreen reflection shining back......... Says the man who has yet to take a photo of anything but a flower (RAFLMAO)

Was Rome built in a day? (Woops!)

It should be noted that I was not the Supervisor on that project