[Ira]

Save your money until you think you REALLY need something.

That's why you have twenty 50mm lenses.

[RioRico]

That's why you have twenty 50mm lenses.

And more on the way!

But about half of those were collateral (financial) damage. I'd bid on a BULK LOT of stuff to get one or two goodies, and the rest are just... overflow. Ah well, if m43 or similar EVIL/MILC cams really take off, maybe those old FD's will be worth something.

Oh yeah, the overflow includes dozens and dozens of filters. Imagine that.

- - - - - - - - - - UPDATE, 1 WEEK LATER - - - - - - - - - -

The current count of 50's (50 thru 58mm) is... bifurcated. There are those with non-PK-M42-NI mounts, which I can only use for macros or target practice. Count: lucky 13. Then there are those I can fit onto PK mounts with minimal assistance. The count: one score, 20. And the hits just keep on coming! And my rough tally of filters give a count of: 69. That disregards all the UV and skylight filters that are destined to be gutted or hung as bird decoys or otherwise sacrificed. I just thought you'd like to know.

[adwb]

I have a K100 and K200. On the 100, and perhaps somewhat less with the 200, it's very very easy to blow out skies in routine photography. Even when you shoot raw, unless you use a technique such as hdr (which has issues when subject movement is involved), if you use enough exposure to hold shadow detail, you can lose the highlights. For those times, a split ND is very useful.

So, there is really no way to replicate the effects of a plain ND, split ND, or polarizer, with software. Color correction filters, particularly filters such as the slight warming filters that were popular in the film era, generally can be replicated with software.

Paul

Sorry disagree about the no way to replicate with software, photo shop has a nd grad filter you can apply at any angle just like a ND grad filter can and you can take a typical exposure for to get either the light or dark correct [best to get the light side correct and recover the dark] and copy as darker or lighter copy , combine the two , put a grouped layer in and brush out what you want to get the best of both images. it is possible and in fact once practised is quick and easily done. However i have to agree that nothing brings back totally blown highlight although recovery in ACR does a pretty good job.
Alistair

[Marc Sabatella]

Sorry disagree about the no way to replicate with software, photo shop has a nd grad filter you can apply at any angle just like a ND grad filter can and you can take a typical exposure for to get either the light or dark correct [best to get the light side correct and recover the dark] and copy as darker or lighter copy , combine the two , put a grouped layer in and brush out what you want to get the best of both images.

Yes, but then you're still dealing with the increased noise in the shadow from the extra push, or clipping in the highlights if you didn't expose to preserve them. You'd need to combine two *different* exposures to get the same effect as a filter - and hence, still not the same thing. On the other hand, I'm personally perfectly OK with simply exposing to preserve the highlights and then pushing the shadows.

[adwb]

Yes, but then you're still dealing with the increased noise in the shadow from the extra push, or clipping in the highlights if you didn't expose to preserve them. You'd need to combine two *different* exposures to get the same effect as a filter - and hence, still not the same thing. On the other hand, I'm personally perfectly OK with simply exposing to preserve the highlights and then pushing the shadows.

Mark, I'm not sure about the extra noise, You don't create noise in the shadows by effectively over recovering the shadows in the above method.If your original image was noisy, yes, you would pull them out but the most common image taken that you would consider using a ND grad is a landscape with low ISO and longish exposure due to the small aperture being used to get the best DOF. When I have used nd filters ,either full or graduated ,noise is the least of my concerns, but I suppose it depends, like all things, on the situation for each persons image.
all I was pointing out is as per the OP's question is that apart from judicious use of polariser you can get away with software manipulation instead of filters ,if you wanted to go down that route.
Alistair

[sushi warrior]

When I have used nd filters ,either full or graduated ,noise is the least of my concerns, but I suppose it depends, like all things, on the situation for each persons image.
all I was pointing out is as per the OP's question is that apart from judicious use of polariser you can get away with software manipulation instead of filters ,if you wanted to go down that route.
Alistair

There is simply no way a camera has enough dynamic range to capture both the brightest of the sky and the darkest of the shadows (or any of the shadows). You would either use a ND split filter or get a blown out sky and dark ground.

[Marc Sabatella]

Mark, I'm not sure about the extra noise, You don't create noise in the shadows by effectively over recovering the shadows in the above method.

Boosting levels boosts noise, too. If there wasn't much noise there in the first place, then you can boost it and it still won't amount to much - but it *will* be more than you started with. A 1 EV push doubles noise just as surely as if you had raised the ISO in the camera. This may or may may not be significant, but I thought it worth mentioning.

all I was pointing out is as per the OP's question is that apart from judicious use of polariser you can get away with software manipulation instead of filters ,if you wanted to go down that route.

And I totally agree with that. I was just pointing out a small difference might exist, not to suggest that it's actually worth worrying about.

[tibbitts]

Sorry disagree about the no way to replicate with software, photo shop has a nd grad filter you can apply at any angle just like a ND grad filter can and you can take a typical exposure for to get either the light or dark correct [best to get the light side correct and recover the dark] and copy as darker or lighter copy , combine the two , put a grouped layer in and brush out what you want to get the best of both images. it is possible and in fact once practised is quick and easily done. However i have to agree that nothing brings back totally blown highlight although recovery in ACR does a pretty good job.
Alistair

I don't have photoshop, but I use masks to create a split-nd effect in gimp. But when I do that, with my K100/200s, I usually get objectionable noise in the darker areas. I have to start with overall underexposure to avoid blown highlights.

The advantage of doing highlight/shadow adjustments in software is that you're not strictly limited to a particular filter shape - like a split running horizontally or vertically across a physical filter. The disadvantage is that a dark area that you pull up just doesn't look the same as one that was better exposed to start with. Maybe better software or better sensors will eliminate the problem in the future.

Paul

[RioRico]

Photo manipulation in software, whether applying filtration or taking more drastic steps, is often fun and productive. I shoop much of what I shoot. But filtration can't restore light and details that never reached or left the sensor. That's why I use IR-pass and grad.ND filters. Color-block optical filters (Yellow, Orange, Red, Green, Blue, etc) used in the right light, do interesting things, with immediate feedback on a dSLR. Nothing slows-down time like ND100 filtration, nor kills glare and reflections like a polatizer. And some optical effects can be mimed but not replicated in PP. That's why I sometimes use cruddy old lenses for a real "glowing halo" image -- much better than smearing vaseline on a skylight filter.

So I'll return to a basic filter set: Start with a polarizer. With two polarizers, at least one of them a CPL, you have an adjustable ND filter. Next, a skylight (*not* UV) filter, if you *need* lens protection from blowing sand or ash or dust, spewing blood or mud or beer, etc. Next, a graduated neutral-density (GND), for those over-contrasty scenarios. Next, some plain ND filters, if you want to slow time or otherwise limit light. (Which reminds me, I still must get my cheap piece of welder's glass cut into circles for ND666 filtration, needed for 10-hour daytime exposures.)

Those are all as-you-need-them items. Polarizers are ever-useful unless you don't shoot skies, water, reflections, etc. If you're going to a harsh environment, get a skylight filter. If you're going to shoot dark landscapes etc with bright skies, get a GND. If you want to smooth-out flowing water or make moving objects disappear, or just shoot with a wide aperture and slow shutter in bright light, get ND filters.

I'd continue this rant with IR-pass and color-block (spectrum-slicing) filters, but enough is enough for now. Enough for beginners, anyway. More later.

[adwb]

probaly not the right place to post this [Mark please move if you want] but here are two images with and with out a cpl. I have ,not for the first time, the feeling it's better with out.
Alistair
btw filtered in the name is due to running noise ninja to clean up any noise by inadvertently using a high iso.