Are 'spensive filters worth the $$ for me ?

[Jim Jones]

So Ken Rockwell never uses a polarizer when shooting into a bright light? Odd. I've found polarizers useful to reduce unwanted reflections when shooting into the source lights. Maybe the light in my part of Missouri is different than in California.

[David Karp]

John, here is an interesting article, but not about color filters: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/201...on-the-market/

[David Karp]

And this: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/201...th-uv-filters/

[Alan Gales]

John, before I got into large format I shot a Mamiya RZ67. The lenses I owned used 77mm filters so I had quite a few of those. I use step-up rings for my large format lenses to reach that filter size if necessary.

You know me from the forum so you know I'm cheap. My filters are a mix of B+W, Heliopan and Hoya HMC. I bought all mine used off Ebay when I found a good deal. The only problem is as you well know, that you have to be patient if you want the best deal.

[Alan Gales]

So Ken Rockwell never uses a polarizer when shooting into a bright light? Odd. I've found polarizers useful to reduce unwanted reflections when shooting into the source lights. Maybe the light in my part of Missouri is different than in California.

I never heard that one but I know on his digital cameras he turns up his color saturation as high as it goes. I like reading Ken's reports on cameras and lenses. He brings up points that other's miss in their reviews. I don't follow his advice on photography though. Look at his work and make your own decision on that.

I live in Missouri too and I'm a big fan of polarizers. Always have been. I've never been to California but I've used Polarizers in sunny Florida and desert Los Vegas. I can't imagine California being that different.

[Pere Casals]

So Ken Rockwell never uses a polarizer when shooting into a bright light? Odd. I've found polarizers useful to reduce unwanted reflections when shooting into the source lights. Maybe the light in my part of Missouri is different than in California.

He says:

"I carry a polarizer, but rarely use it. Polarizers were popular back when people still shot Kodak color film because they could help try to get the colors to saturate on the Kodak films. Now that most people shoot vivid Fuji Velvia the polarizer isn't needed just to get the colors to look the way they should. In fact, a polarizer can turn the sky a yucky black with modern Fuji film. Polarizers are often overkill on color landscapes with modern film."

( http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filters.htm )

[xkaes]

He says:

"I carry a polarizer, but rarely use it. Polarizers were popular back when people still shot Kodak color film because they could help try to get the colors to saturate on the Kodak films. Now that most people shoot vivid Fuji Velvia the polarizer isn't needed just to get the colors to look the way they should. In fact, a polarizer can turn the sky a yucky black with modern Fuji film. Polarizers are often overkill on color landscapes with modern film."

( http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filters.htm )

Seems like a pretty narrow view, but to each his/her own. I always carry a polarizer but don't use it very often. However, when I do it is pretty important. That might be removing/reducing glare on wet leaves, darkening a pale sky, or changing/moving the reflections on pools or creeks. It makes no difference if it is Kodak or Agfa color film. Turn the saturation/contrast up as high as you want, but you won't get rid of glare. And a PL does the same in B&W, too. Only a PL will do this.

And then there are the times I go nuts and use a two color filter-polarizer sandwich to get one color on the unpolarized areas and a different color on the polarized areas. You can only do THAT with a PL.

[mpirie]

What about putting the contrast filters behind the lens John?

Obviously not for polarisers etc.

Mike

[Pere Casals]

Seems like a pretty narrow view, but to each his/her own. I always carry a polarizer but don't use it very often. However, when I do it is pretty important. That might be removing/reducing glare on wet leaves, darkening a pale sky, or changing/moving the reflections on pools or creeks. It makes no difference if it is Kodak or Agfa color film. Turn the saturation/contrast up as high as you want, but you won't get rid of glare. And a PL does the same in B&W, too. Only a PL will do this.

And then there are the times I go nuts and use a two color filter-polarizer sandwich to get one color on the unpolarized areas and a different color on the polarized areas. You can only do THAT with a PL.

Of course... POL can be a great tool, in special if it is of the linear type, we all know that very well, Ken included, I guess. I was just pointing what Ken says, as he doesn't say he doesn't use it.


I also always carry it, but I also rarely use it. For sure for some kind of work it is used a lot, but we may agree that POL is only used in an small share of the situations.

I also agree that with typical Velvia work it is not used a lot, but this depends on photographer. Perhaps we may estimate what % of the shots are with POL, depending on photographic subjects. For portrait?, street? architecture? objects? landscape? abstract?

[Pere Casals]

What about putting the contrast filters behind the lens John?

Obviously not for polarisers etc.

Mike

Tiffen Contrast Filters do generate some flare to decrease general contrast, here you can see it:

http://www.tiffen.com/displayproduct...&itemnum=52UC3