Multiple filters?

[machineman9]

Is it possible to have several filters attached at once? There is the threading on the lens, which I have attached a UV filter to, but I was hoping to get another aswell... Probably to use at the same time.

Or, if not now, maybe in the future. I've seen some star filters, polarizing filters, coloured filters and image multiplier filters which all look quite cool and might work in a combination.


So how would you get several filters onto the lens at once?


Cheers

[Mictheslik]

Most UV filters also have that threading so another filter can be attached on top.....I've used a UV and polariser together a couple of times....

To be honest though, why can't you just remove the UV filter and replace it with the chosen specialist one?

.mic

[Hagar]

As Mic says you should be able to screw another filter onto the UV. I've never seen one without an adapter thread on it. I read somewhere not to use more than two filters together.

Filters can be expensive & you have to consider if they're really necessary. I was advised to use a UV filter for protecting my valuable lens. Apart from that the polarising filter is the only one I would recommend with a DSLR. You can add most other effects with your graphics editing software.

All you wanted to know about DSLR filters --> http://www.digital-slr-guide.com/digital-slr-camera-filter.html

[Mictheslik]

Just to echo what Doug says, all that you really need are UVs and polarisers....(I love my circular polariser )

UV is just to protect the front of the lens, but as soon as I've got the hood on the filter comes off (I find it does soften my images a little.....)

.mic

[Omag 2.0]

Using filters and certainly more than one, in front of your lenses causes a drop in sharpness and will let you experience flares like you've never seen before.

Especially at lowerbudget lenses. To protect the frontelement I always use the sunhood, that's more than enough.

The only type of filter I'd ever use, is a polarisingfilter in landscape photography. Don't bother with UV-filters, unless you really really want them, then go for the best ones out there ( usually the most expensive ones).

On my belgian photoforum, we are currently trying to convince a member to lose his filter on his 70-200 f4.0 L lens, because he keeps complaining about lack of sharpness.

[machineman9]

On the current filters I have it doesn't seem to have a definate  thread. Hmm, there's a small band of metal inside the top which might be threading, but I dunno... It's the sort that could be or couldn't be.


But yeah, I get that I could get rid of that UV filter, but I am thinking about if I had other filters instead. Should most come with extra threading anyway?

[Rifleman]

One note not addresses yet on filters is, that in using a filter, you'll always have to allow for a drop in lens speed as well as the possibility of losing some sharpness. On a marginal maximum aperture lens, it may make the difference between getting the depth of field you desire and losing the shot as you intended originally. Always have a tri-pod with you ! Unfortunately, that still won't allow you to "freeze" the motion if you need long shutter speeds just to get the shot.
Filters are cool, but as Doug and others have recommended, you can do most of those effects in image manipulation software....... 8-)

[61_OTU]

One note not addresses yet on filters is, that in using a filter, you'll always have to allow for a drop in lens speed as well as the possibility of losing some sharpness. On a marginal maximum aperture lens, it may make the difference between getting the depth of field you desire and losing the shot as you intended originally. Always have a tri-pod with you ! Unfortunately, that still won't allow you to "freeze" the motion if you need long shutter speeds just to get the shot.
Filters are cool, but as Doug and others have recommended, you can do most of those effects in image manipulation software....... 8-)

Of course the drop in shutter speed, on a bright day, may be exactly what you want. If you want to blur the motion of some water then using filters packed in front of the lens can be the best  way of achieving a slower shutter speed without over-exposing the whole scene, something that cannot be done in PP without burning out detail in the image highlights.

Cokin P series are what I use, not very often, but useful when the needs arises, and can be moved from lens to lens with just the cost of another adapter ring

http://www.cokin.co.uk/pages/main.htm

Steve

[Rifleman]

One note not addresses yet on filters is, that in using a filter, you'll always have to allow for a drop in lens speed as well as the possibility of losing some sharpness. On a marginal maximum aperture lens, it may make the difference between getting the depth of field you desire and losing the shot as you intended originally. Always have a tri-pod with you ! Unfortunately, that still won't allow you to "freeze" the motion if you need long shutter speeds just to get the shot.
Filters are cool, but as Doug and others have recommended, you can do most of those effects in image manipulation software....... 8-)

Of course the drop in shutter speed, on a bright day, may be exactly what you want. .................
............. something that cannot be done in PP without burning out detail in the image highlights.

Steve

I do agree that on some overly bright days, it may take a Neutral Density filter to allow some slower shutter speeds if you don't have enough aperture, but.........? first of all, what is PP ? I hope you don't mean Post Processing, as there is no film to process any more......after image capture, all

[61_OTU]

Hi Ken,

by PP I did mean post processing, but I was being lazy in that I meant processing the image in photoshop post capture.

I'm familiar with using selections in photoshop to only manipulate certain areas of the image, but unless you are able to capture the detail of the highlights in camera, then no amount of selective photoshop work later will bring them back.

Obviously you can bring in some sky from a separate image to replace lost detail, or use a tripod to take a series of separate RAW exposures and then blend them together in photoshop later, capturing your highlights with a faster shutter, and your foreground/flowing water with a longer exposure. I was just drawing attention to the fact that filters can allow you to achieve this in one step.

Without using filters or multiple exposures then your final image will either be more of a compromise, or a real photoshop hatchet job.

Here's one example:

2 seconds, f22, ISO 100 - Sky and tree detail lost in blown highlights, foreground rocks under exposed


4 seconds, f22, ISO 100 - Grad ND8 and Grad Blue filters combined reduce light from sky, reducing blown highlights, increased foreground detail.


I know which one I'd rather start work on in Photoshop

[Rifleman]

I too, do run into instances where highlight are burned out, so lately I've been underexposting and boosting up the shadow areas.....can be done fairly well, but I do agree, there are times when you just can't balance the shot........next step is to bracket 3-5 images and use what you can from each......so what you are talking about now is HDR......even better than filters.....
I don't have a high enough level of Photoshop to do that, but there are free programs which will enable you to do some of that........it only takes time to do each image ....not sure if you can do any batch processing ?

[Omag 2.0]

Underexposing can do the trick, but making an image brighter afterwards may result in lots more noise in dark areas. Trust me, I know all about it...

[Rifleman]

Kris, you're trying to do an HDR from only one shot ?  I've never heard of that....it's usually done with either 3 or 5 bracketed images to ensure you have enough tonal values in both extreme highlights and shadow areas.....please, let me know how you make out from the RAW file........ 8-)