Filters in the parks

[KVH]

Here's a different thought. For those of you taking a separate camera, how many actually take screw-on filters? The most obvious that come to mind are neutral density and polarizers. There are many others for specific purposes but these two seem to be most applicable to the average shooter.

I had a whole backpack stuffed for next week's Anaheim trip but with the heatwave, I am massively downsizing because carrying all that crap in the heat is a no-win situation. Filters definitely getting left out (except maybe a single, strong ND).

Just wondering if anyone bothers with this kind of thing anymore.

 

[OKW Lover]

With the advent of digital cameras most of the adjustments can be done in the computer. One exception of course is Polarizing filters to get those nice blue skies and puffy white clouds. Sometimes you can achieve this effect by adjustments on your computer.

The second exception is the ND filter which you might use to help you control depth of field when taking pictures. Some of the more advanced computer software editors can produce a similar effect.

 

[KVH]

With the advent of digital cameras most of the adjustments can be done in the computer. One exception of course is Polarizing filters to get those nice blue skies and puffy white clouds. Sometimes you can achieve this effect by adjustments on your computer.

The second exception is the ND filter which you might use to help you control depth of field when taking pictures. Some of the more advanced computer software editors can produce a similar effect.

I get what you're saying about post process but I'm thinking of this from the perspective of the conditions of the exposure. Let's say you want a 30 second exposure in the middle of the day. There's literally no PP that will allow you to recreate that. But that's just one example. Or using a CP to take window shots w/o reflections.

You know, like back in the days of the dinosaur . . .

 

[boBQuincy]

Software is getting better but the polarizer click is still not as good as a real filter. The new Olympus OM-1 has a ND filter setting that does surprisingly well but not for a 30 second daylight photo.

If I have a certain scene or effect in mind I carry the filters, there is no other way. Fwiw a polarizer works well held up to a phone.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I would carry a polarize, but you have to think about whether it is worth putting on outside and then taking off inside. You'll repeat that routine a lot.

I wouldn't take an ND to WDW. I guess I would take a variable ND if I planned to shoot a lot of video, but other than that, I don't see the point. Yes, it will allow you to get a wider aperture shot in bright sunlight, but I find that most useful when taking super shallow DOF portrait shots where I want the background blurred out. That doesn't sound like a very likely use case at WDW.

One other fun thing to do would be to take cut-outs to use with Christmas lights. I recently laser cut some wooden ones to use with a Cokin filter holder. I don't think I'd bother taking it to WDW, but maybe. Here's a Disney themed test shot I did with one.

 

[KVH]

Not a bad effect. Have to admit, it WAS stinkin' hot in Anaheim (even in late fall) and, with the freakin' crowds, shooting was not at all fun. By the second day, it was one body, one lens and a crapton of people in my way for every shot.

But I still have plans to try this again. Going to the World in May. Gonna take a full kit and give it one more shot. Even including filters!