photoman
Explorer
It depends on the filter(s) you are using. If you are using a single screw on filter you can usually still use the lens hood. If you are using square, rectangle, or stacking filters you will not be able to.
Beginner DSLR recommended accessories
- Thread starter crawldit
- Start date
It depends on the filter(s) you are using. If you are using a single screw on filter you can usually still use the lens hood. If you are using square, rectangle, or stacking filters you will not be able to.
Michael Slade
Untitled
If you shoot at the right time of the day you can record plenty of detail in the sky and the foreground w/out using ND's or grads. It just takes patience. Patience is the ultimate accessory, and unfortunately you can't buy it.
photoman
Explorer
Fully aware of shooting in the golden and blue hours of light. :ylsmoke:
If you can show me an good example of a wide angle landscape taken in the South West without clouds in the sky and without using a filter or heavy post production work..... I'll call you lucky. :sombrero:
Show us several and you will prove your point.
justfred
Adventurer
http://www.amazon.com/3265-GRIP-ACTION-BALL-HEAD/dp/B00006I533
I've been a lot happier with my tripod now that I have a grip head and quick-release. The quick-release goes on the bottom of the camera, then it just snaps on to the head when you're ready to do a tripod shot. The grip head lets you reposition the camera just by grabbing and moving it. There are several similar heads, they're all more expensive than my tripod.
I've been a lot happier with my tripod now that I have a grip head and quick-release. The quick-release goes on the bottom of the camera, then it just snaps on to the head when you're ready to do a tripod shot. The grip head lets you reposition the camera just by grabbing and moving it. There are several similar heads, they're all more expensive than my tripod.
Michael Slade
Untitled
Michael Slade
Untitled
...I have more.
Last edited:
mountainpete
Spamicus Eliminatus
That qualifies as several 
Darren
Adventurer
I know I'm stating the obvious, but you didn't need a grad (if that's what you were referring to) on the last one if you're going to silhouette the foreground anyway. That one doesn't seem to reinforce any idea by posting it.
I'm not sure what your point is on any of this anyway. Arizona, or the Southwest in general, does not have skies or any other atmospheric conditions that are unique from the rest of the world that somehow necessitate different photographic gear.
My only point to the original poster was to keep it simple, as you don't need any filters for landscape use. To indicate otherwise is not sound information. I'm not sure what any of my work had to do with anything for the need to bring it up.
I'm not sure what your point is on any of this anyway. Arizona, or the Southwest in general, does not have skies or any other atmospheric conditions that are unique from the rest of the world that somehow necessitate different photographic gear.
My only point to the original poster was to keep it simple, as you don't need any filters for landscape use. To indicate otherwise is not sound information. I'm not sure what any of my work had to do with anything for the need to bring it up.
Last edited:
photoman
Explorer
The last shot was not a grad filter but an ND filter.
The Southwest -(especially the deserts) does have different atmospheric conditions than Canada, Colorado, Utah and many other areas. There are less clouds, more dust, and higher pollution levels in the areas around Phoenix. Highly photographed areas such as Sedona and the Grand Canyon are affected by what we call the desert haze. A mixture of water vapor, pollution, and dust that plays havoc for photographers. This is the norm not the exception. A clear day (no haze) in these areas or a day with clouds is the exception.
The dig on your photos was in response to your claim that filters should be used as coasters but within your work there is multiple examples where your shot could have been greatly improved if you used a grad filter during the shot.
The OP is in Glendale Arizona. He will be facing the same conditions I face. That is where my points are coming from. Same location and many of the same places he will be trying to shoot. I have shot a lot of the Southwest and with a lot of pro photographers. Every single one uses filters to help balance the light to achieve the best photo possible. To simply cast filters aside as unneccessary is not benefitting the OP either. It is something he at some point will look into.
In the end the decision is up to the OP and many of us including myself took this off topic. He wanted ideas for gear he should be looking at- that is all any of us should have provided.
Sorry for getting off topic. The best to all of you and your photography- no matter how you go about doing it.
Aaron
Lost Canadian
Expedition Leader
To the OP, the use of filters will depend solely on what YOU are trying to accomplish with your shots. Please please please don't lose sight of this and get frustrated with the filter/no filter debate.
As an example I'll explain why I used a filter or why I didn't in some of my shots.
1) Filter: Yes, Grad ND. Why: The dynamic range of this shot exceeded the camera's capabilities. Without the filter I would have had to choose between a dark forground and a properly exposed sky or a properly exposed forground and a blown out sky. I wanted both to best exemplify the scene as I saw it that morning, thus the use of the split ND.
2) Filter: No. Why: The reflection provided a line from top right to bottom left, which I used as part of the composition, if I had polarized the shot the reflection would have been eliminated, along with the line, and we'd be looking at a shot of a leaf in a mud bottom puddle.
3) Filter: No. Why: This is facing north with light coming from the west. The northern sky is typically the darkest part of the sky, and had I polarized the shot the sky would have been closer to black and would have looked unnatural. My intent was colour so a black sky was not something I wanted in this shot. Had my intentions been B&W I may have polarized the shot which would have killed the reflection on the water, blackened the sky and added additional focus to the little boat. Again this decision not to polarize was a creative decision.
4) Filter: Yes. Polarizer. Why: I wanted to knock down the glare on the water and allow the lilly pads to create a leading line into the scene, without it the pads blended too much into the glare of the water.
5) Filter: Yes. Solid ND. Why: To slow the exposure time which allowed me to create this shot. My intent was to create an image with contrast, both in terms of subject (static vs motion) and in terms of tone (B&W).
I think you get the idea. So when you ask what should I get, that really is up to you as your choice to use filters or not will be determined by your vision and creativity, and not necessarily by any sort of rule or rules.
As an example I'll explain why I used a filter or why I didn't in some of my shots.
1) Filter: Yes, Grad ND. Why: The dynamic range of this shot exceeded the camera's capabilities. Without the filter I would have had to choose between a dark forground and a properly exposed sky or a properly exposed forground and a blown out sky. I wanted both to best exemplify the scene as I saw it that morning, thus the use of the split ND.
2) Filter: No. Why: The reflection provided a line from top right to bottom left, which I used as part of the composition, if I had polarized the shot the reflection would have been eliminated, along with the line, and we'd be looking at a shot of a leaf in a mud bottom puddle.
3) Filter: No. Why: This is facing north with light coming from the west. The northern sky is typically the darkest part of the sky, and had I polarized the shot the sky would have been closer to black and would have looked unnatural. My intent was colour so a black sky was not something I wanted in this shot. Had my intentions been B&W I may have polarized the shot which would have killed the reflection on the water, blackened the sky and added additional focus to the little boat. Again this decision not to polarize was a creative decision.
4) Filter: Yes. Polarizer. Why: I wanted to knock down the glare on the water and allow the lilly pads to create a leading line into the scene, without it the pads blended too much into the glare of the water.
5) Filter: Yes. Solid ND. Why: To slow the exposure time which allowed me to create this shot. My intent was to create an image with contrast, both in terms of subject (static vs motion) and in terms of tone (B&W).
I think you get the idea. So when you ask what should I get, that really is up to you as your choice to use filters or not will be determined by your vision and creativity, and not necessarily by any sort of rule or rules.
Darren
Adventurer
Aaron, you used an ND on that last shot? For what? The only thing you would've accomplished by doing that would be to gain more cloud blur, of which there doesn't seem to be any. There is no other practical use for one in that scene.
My bit regarding coasters were in relation to sunset filters, which should've been clear, as that's what you mentioned. I'm not sure why the confusion. Unless you want to add a circus to a landscape photograph, those things are hideous. No two ways about it.
Apparently you don't realize I use grads and digital blending (the latter of which makes grads not a requirement--yes, it's true). Be honest, the dig on my photos was only because I disputed your post and felt a need to retaliate somewhere else. No problem, though.
Come on, no other place gets dust in the air? And even if that were the case, I'm definitely not following why you think filters are a requirement. You then changed gears on the subject and said you need a filter to balance the light (I'm assuming you're referring to a GND, as that's the only application to fit your description). But those have nothing to do with dust or other air impurities, so I don't get the connection.
My bit regarding coasters were in relation to sunset filters, which should've been clear, as that's what you mentioned. I'm not sure why the confusion. Unless you want to add a circus to a landscape photograph, those things are hideous. No two ways about it.
Apparently you don't realize I use grads and digital blending (the latter of which makes grads not a requirement--yes, it's true). Be honest, the dig on my photos was only because I disputed your post and felt a need to retaliate somewhere else. No problem, though.
Come on, no other place gets dust in the air? And even if that were the case, I'm definitely not following why you think filters are a requirement. You then changed gears on the subject and said you need a filter to balance the light (I'm assuming you're referring to a GND, as that's the only application to fit your description). But those have nothing to do with dust or other air impurities, so I don't get the connection.
Or you could've done the same thing on the computer, making the filter an unnecessary initial purchase.
Michael Slade
Untitled
Let's rein this thing in a bit and go back to the OP's query: What is your recommendation for a BEGINNER with a DSLR.
Filters, grad or ND, HDR, blending, all that post-production crap that we know we can do later is all fine and dandy. But, is it for the BEGINNER?
Let's go back and re-formulate our answers based not on what we know we can do now, but if you could only purchase ONE thing for a beginning photographer, what would it be?
I would wager that I have taught more beginning photographers than most here, but I will stay out of the 'my advice is better than your advice' contest that this thread seems to have turned into.
Throw your ego's aside, do some soul searching, get back to the basics and answer the question AGAIN. I dare you to answer in a different way than you originally did.
If I were to answer the question differently than I did the first time, I would say this:
The first accessory you should buy is some gas.
Fill your tank, point your car in your favorite direction and drive. Drive for a while and then go shoot. How far do you drive? Where do you go? What do you shoot? Well, those are questions that only you can answer. When you get there shoot and shoot and shoot and shoot. Take a break. Make a sandwich. Listen to the birds (or lack thereof), take a quick nap, then shoot some more. Fill that damn card as full as you can. Then come home.
DO NOT BE TEMPTED TO POST-PROCESS IMMEDIATELY.
Give your shoot some time to simmer. Give your brain some time to forget what it was you were so emotionally attached to that you had to take a picture of it. Forget the shot you thought you just HAD to come home and post so all your friends can say what a great photographer you are. Forget it all.
Come back the next day and see which images are still good after the thrill of the hunt has passed. Come back the next week and see which ones you still like. Do this again and again and again until you are looking back over your images years after you have taken them. Then and only then will you know what you have done that will stand the test of time.
But, it all starts with a quick trip to the gas station.
Filters, grad or ND, HDR, blending, all that post-production crap that we know we can do later is all fine and dandy. But, is it for the BEGINNER?
Let's go back and re-formulate our answers based not on what we know we can do now, but if you could only purchase ONE thing for a beginning photographer, what would it be?
I would wager that I have taught more beginning photographers than most here, but I will stay out of the 'my advice is better than your advice' contest that this thread seems to have turned into.
Throw your ego's aside, do some soul searching, get back to the basics and answer the question AGAIN. I dare you to answer in a different way than you originally did.
If I were to answer the question differently than I did the first time, I would say this:
The first accessory you should buy is some gas.
Fill your tank, point your car in your favorite direction and drive. Drive for a while and then go shoot. How far do you drive? Where do you go? What do you shoot? Well, those are questions that only you can answer. When you get there shoot and shoot and shoot and shoot. Take a break. Make a sandwich. Listen to the birds (or lack thereof), take a quick nap, then shoot some more. Fill that damn card as full as you can. Then come home.
DO NOT BE TEMPTED TO POST-PROCESS IMMEDIATELY.
Give your shoot some time to simmer. Give your brain some time to forget what it was you were so emotionally attached to that you had to take a picture of it. Forget the shot you thought you just HAD to come home and post so all your friends can say what a great photographer you are. Forget it all.
Come back the next day and see which images are still good after the thrill of the hunt has passed. Come back the next week and see which ones you still like. Do this again and again and again until you are looking back over your images years after you have taken them. Then and only then will you know what you have done that will stand the test of time.
But, it all starts with a quick trip to the gas station.
Last edited:
photoman
Explorer
Excellent Post- :bowdown:
The adventure is what it is really about. The pictures are just a reminder and in the end - it doesn't really matter if those pictures are good or not. The memory will still be there.
Lost Canadian
Expedition Leader
Two different approaches to get a similar result.
To emphasize the point I'm making to the OP, the choice is a personal one. Some like bold and spicy some like delicate and subtle. How you choose to interpret your world will dictate the equipment that you use or "need." Nothing beyond a camera is necessarily needed to create a picture but if your focus and intent is to do something specific then you may find certain tools become an asset. I do agree that spending money, willy nilly, without knowing why you want certain equipment/tools is stupid, so determine what you need first and how it applies to your vision; this will come with time and experience, and then dive in.
And if I may go one step further look at these two image makers below, both use similar equipment, but both use that equipment in very different ways. Two very different approaches to how they interpret their world.
Guy Tal is an extraordinary photographer who uses his equipment to make images that can be considered closer to literal translations of beautiful scenes, subtle and exquisite.
Michael Anderson leans the other way, with images that are clearly less literal, harsher in transitions where the heavy use of filtering can clearly be seen, but his images speak with a bold dramatic look and feel.
Neither is "right," they are just different.