Filters - "Less is more."

There was a vogue a few years ago, which seemed to coincide with a general surge in the popularity of a certain maker of square filters, for using ever more outlandish combinations of filter effects. Often we would see a landscape buried under a brooding tobacco sky, pierced only by a seven-pointed starburst sun illuminating a curious coral pink foreground. Of course it would all be in soft focus, which more often than not was a blessing in disguise. I should perhaps point out that I do not blame the Cokin company for these visual aberrations, I use their filters myself and have always found them an admirable substitute for the more expensive alternatives. I also do not blame the producers of these nightmarish images. We are all guilty, to varying degrees, of seizing the next big thing with both hands and experimenting to see just how far we can push it. I am no different and have done things myself in the realm of filtering that I am not proud of.

We can see the same thing happening at the moment with the use of Photoshop. The newsagents are stuffed with magazines, both photography and computer related titles, telling us all about how to change skies, remove objects, manipulate colour, clone this and erase that. The results can frequently be even more garish and unsuccessful than the filters of old but again, this not the fault of the software.

So what would I suggest? Maybe it's a sign that I am getting old but I am starting to appreciate a newfound purity in my images. I carry just three filters in my bag and I suggest that as a landscape photographer, you need carry no more. So what are these 'magic bullets'?

Firstly, and possibly most importantly, ladies and gentlemen, I give you.....the polarizer. If I could only carry one filter this would be it, and if you consider yourself a serious landscape photographer and you don't have one of these then shame on you. You want fluffy white clouds on deep blue backgrounds? You want to cut out those annoying reflections on water or glass? You want to boost the saturation of the colours in that fantastic foliage? You want to slow down the shutter speed to blur that waterfall? You want me to shut up and get to the point? If you are aiming for any or all of the above then the polarizer is what you need. Some would argue that on the waterfall point you should use a neutral density filter. You can get these in a variety of strengths to match the specific circumstances so if money is no object and you don't mind a bag full of filters go for it. But in practical terms the polarizer does the same job in terms of reducing light transfer without a colour cast and you only need the one. Sure a polarizer is easily the most expensive filter you will buy but it is also easily the best value for money. Quick word of caution though. Polarizers come in two types, linear and circular. If your lenses are auto focus make sure you get a circular one. If you are using manual focus kit you can get away with the cheaper linear option. I'm not going to bore you with the science of why, just trust me on this.

I said earlier that I carry three filters and that is true, but technically I only carry two. This is because I carry two neutral density graduate filters but of different strengths. One of the landscape photographer's biggest enemies is contrasting light levels. Essentially the ground is very rarely as bright as the sky. Your eyes, being marvels of biology can compensate for this in most cases, but your camera can't. So what you do is try and even the score by means of the trusty 'ND Grad'. Tinted at the top fading to clear at the bottom these filters allow you to balance the light levels in the image and provide a more even exposure. No more burned out skies or black foregrounds. Although they are tinted they do not affect the colour of the sky, hence 'neutral' density. There are three common strengths for these filters to allow for a degree of tailoring to suit the circumstances. You will often see them referred to as '0.3', '0.6' or '0.9', 0.3 being the weakest. I carry a 0.3 and a 0.6 as, if I need to, I use them together to create a 0.9. I would suggest however, that if you can, get one of each. I will be picking up a dedicated 0.9 soon. This is because you really want to be keeping the number of filters in front of your lens at any one time to a minimum. Two reasons for this. One, because the more stuff you have in front of the lens the more likely you are to suffer a reduction in image quality. Dust, scratches, flare, the possibility of all of these increases the more filters you use. Plus, even high quality glass filters are not likely to be the same standard as the lens itself. Two, the filters and their holder protrude in front of the lens so at wide angles, where most landscapers live, you dramatically increase the likely hood of 'vingetting' taking out the corners of your image if you are stacking multiple filters way out front.

I used to carry an '81B' warm up filter when I used film, to counter the effects of colour temperature, but now that I have switched to digital I have to confess that it has gone in the bin as I can control the 'warmth' of my images to a far greater degree via either adjustments to the white balance of the RAW file or within Photoshop. This is one of the few times I would choose digital manipulation over getting it right in the camera in the first place.

I should really make honourable mention of the 'UV' or 'skylight' filter I suppose, although in this context it's not really a filter at all. Many people will tell you that you should have one of these permanently screwed to the front of your lens as protection. True enough, a scratched filter is easier and cheaper to replace than a scratched lens, but given that a UV filter only cuts out a small degree of ultraviolet light, hence the name, it really does nothing more than reduce the amount and quality of light getting to the lens. I accept accidents can happen but more than 90% of the time I have one or more of the above filters attached so they provide protection enough, and as I said earlier, to my mind the less stuff in front of the lens the better.

So there you have it. If you really must have a veritable rainbow of colours and fancy effects in your images then have fun. But for me landscape photography is about capturing the natural world in as natural a way as possible. I use filters only to make up for technical deficiencies and to enhance what is already there.

In terms of filters, less truly is more.



About the author: David Stanley is a freelance photographer concentrating on landscape and travel images. He has a growing portfolio of royalty free images with istockphoto. For more articles, along with a selection of his work available as prints, please visit his website at www.davidstanleyphotography.com.

(If you are reproducing this article please ensure you include the 'About the author' footer in full on each occasion. Thanks.)