Most landscape photographers use filters.
Filters are round or square glass or resin objects that sit in front of the lens to reduce or balance the light coming into the lens to help with exposure. For example, with a scene with a really bright sky and a dark foreground, a camera’s auto exposure is going to struggle to obtain a balanced shot. By using a filter to cover the area of over exposure, you can achieve a balanced shot. There’s a much better explanation than I could compile here.
Round (Circular) filters
Round filters are more convenient as they just screw on, but you need a specific screw thread for each type of lens you have. So if you’ve only got 1-2 lenses, round filters may suit you. You might have an issue though if you want to use grads, because even if you find a round grad, it’ll be tricky to position. This might make more sense later on.
Square filters
Square filters will work with all of your lenses but need a filter holder that attaches to the lens. You will also need filter rings, and maybe step-up rings to enable you to attach the holder to each of your lenses. If you’ve got several lenses, square filters are the way to go.
Round and Square!
It’s worth noting that all the major filter suppliers offer their systems in a dual-system, usually a holder that takes a circular polariser and square filters that slide down into the holder at the front.
(note that other filter manufacturers are available)
Bracketing or HDR
Many photographers don’t like using filters and prefer to take two or more shots of the same scene (typically one for the sky, and one for the foreground) and blend them together using software in post-production. This is referred to as a bracketing, and many cameras have the option to do this for you.
With bracketing, you usually need to use a tripod to ensure the multiple shots are as aligned as possible, or there might be a scenario where you could do it handheld and typically by taking the shots in burst mode. You then add the multiple shots together using software in post-production.
Photographers who prefer bracketing argue (actually, to be fair it is fact) that this technique achieves a more natural look as using filters is a ‘destructive’ process, I.e. if you make a mistake or want to remove the effect of a filter you can’t as you’ve applied it at the time of taking the shot.
Multiple exposures of scenes with varying light is the technique known as HDR (High Dynamic Range) and most photographers don’t like this as it can lead to a somewhat false looking shot, or what many refer to as an ‘overcooked’ image.
In this article, I provide commentary on the main types of filters: UV, polariser, neutral density (ND) and graduated neutral density (GND).
There are other types of filter (e.g. Light pollution reducers for astro photography, or coloured filters for applying a specific tonal colour to an image) which are less popular due to their specific application which I’ve never used therefore have no comment or opinion.
UV (ultraviolet) filters
UV filters by their name imply a useful purpose. To reduce the amount of ultraviolet light (especially in sunny weather) to maybe reduce glare and the harshness of the light. However, I’ve rarely heard about their benefit as a general and significant improvement to your photo.
“Ooh, my image is so much better thanks to the UV filter” is not a phrase I’ve ever heard. I more hear about UV filters as a means of protecting your lens, I.e. Buy a lens, buy a UV filter, put the UV filter on the lens and leave it there for good… save your cash…
First of all, I do not plonk a UV filter on the front of any of my lenses. I did this when I first got into photography as the advice was that doing so protects the lens. Shops may well encourage you as it’s a little more money in the till for them.
A newbie to photography can easily be sold on something that will protect the front of their lens. However, you soon realise that usually you’re investing a lot of money in lenses to degrade the quality of an image by sticking a pointless and cheap (relative to the lens) filter permanently on the front of it.
Protection of your lens is better achieved by 1/ Don’t drop it!, 2/ Put the lens cap on when not shooting, and 3/ Put your camera in your bag when not using it.
There’s no bigger advert of one’s amateur status than by using UV filters. Ooh, such a snob eh?
I did once damage the front glass of a lens, though I don’t regret not using an UV filter, and many photographers would take them off when shooting anyway. That particular incident was on a beach with a huge and heavy wide angle lens and a flimsy tripod. I looked away for a few seconds to get something out of my bag and it tipped forward with the wind and hit a rock!
I damaged the front glass, warped the filter holder on the front and also caused minor damage to the side. £350 lighter and three weeks later, the lens was back in my bag like new.
As I write this, I’m conscious that I’ve just ranted about not using a filter and I’m about to explain why you would use others, so let’s have some balance.
Any glass or object you place in front of your lens, the most expensive attachment to your camera, is going to impact the image. Now we’ve openly declared that, let’s run through why other filters (not the UV ones) are worth the risk.
Polariser
I have a polariser which is a really useful filter for reducing glare and bringing out colours in sky or grassland. Think of it as the photography equivalent of your sunglasses.
Next time you’re out on a sunny day, remove your sunglasses then put them back on again, and observe the difference in the scene you’re looking at.
This is the one filter that is generally recommended everyone has in their kit bag, and that has no direct software equivalent in post-production. A polariser is also useful if you’re doing a slow water shot and you’ve got conditions that don’t need an ND filter but you just need to slow the shutter speed down a little bit.
Neutral Density (ND) filters
These filters are dark all over to simply slow down exposure time (by reducing the light reaching your camera sensor) when you can’t achieve it naturally with the ambient light. Typically, and maybe exclusively they are used with scenes where there is water and you want to show motion blur.
I’ve been pleased to see myself develop my technique here which I can now see is a popular progression amongst those learning and improving their photography.
Originally, when I first got ND filters, I was so keen to get the blurry water effect, I’d overdo it and ‘blow’ the water out so much with an over-exposed shot, there’d be no detail. An example of such a shot is shown below.
The water would be akin to mist, just a haze of white. Nowadays, it’s most satisfying when I can time my shot to achieve blur but retain the detail. An example of this is below from Ingleton waterfalls.
These filters have a partial dark area such that you slide them down in a holder over the front of the lens to cover a bright sky.
One of the tricky aspects of this is getting the filter to line up accurately with the horizon. This is what many photographers (as stated above) hate which is where a mistake here can cause problems if not a ruined shot.
Obviously the easiest scene is a coastal one where you have a scene with no or minimal objects on the horizon.
GNDs do provide challenges if you have objects in the scene, e.g, Hills or mountains. To overcome this, manufacturers helpfully provide a gentler graduation filter referred to as a soft grad. All these filters tend to come in soft, medium and hard levels.
And by the way, these filters are not cheap so most photographers will begin with a starter kit and build up their collection, or use medium grads. Of course, those who prefer multiple exposures can brag at this point that they’ve saved themselves a ton of unnecessary expenditure.
And that’s the story of filters.
Onwards and upwards.