Nick Carver Photography Blog

Photography Tips, Tutorials, & Videos


Photography Classes Orange County: Camera Filters


Photography Classes Orange County: Camera FiltersThe next session of my Filters for Outdoor Photography class is on Saturday, February 8th at 10:00am. This Orange County photography class meets just one Saturday at 10:00am-12:30pm. From UV filters, to polarizers, to split ND filters, to white balance, this class will teach you how to use all the most important camera filters for outdoor photography. I consider camera filters my most important tools for creating great landscape photos and they are an integral part to almost every type of outdoor photography. I've structured this class to not only teach you how to use these filters, but also to help you sift through the countless options at the local camera store so that you'll know exactly what to buy and what to not waste your money on.

Don't be fooled by the marketing of software companies - camera filters are just as useful in digital photography as they've ever been! Find out what filters Photoshop can never replace and which filters are most important to keep in your bag. Learn how to avoid blown-out skies in your landscapes with split NDs, how to get richer colors with a polarizer, how to mimic a warming filter with your white balance, what the real advantages to RAW files are, and more!

With a small class size of only 12 students max, you'll get personalized attention and you'll never be left behind. Plus, my photography classes Orange County are highly rated amongst previous students. Please browse through my Yelp reviews or read the testimonials on my website here to see what previous enrollees had to say.

Here's what a previous student had to say about my classes:

"I have taken a course at our community college and a few on line courses and have not found any to be as informative and easy to understand as Nick's instruction."

- Sheri P.

Don't wait until this class fills up! Reserve your seat today for just $39! More details about this course including enrollment information can be found here.

Gear Review: Best UV Filter

Best UV FilterAs I covered in a previous blog post, UV filters are a great investment to protect the front of your lens. I use them on all of my Canon DSLR lenses. But like I said in the previous post, if you get a good quality UV filter, it will protect the front of your lens without affecting the image one bit. If you get a bad one, it might degrade image quality or create more lens flare.

There’s the key. You need a good one. After all, your lens has high-quality glass with high-quality coatings, better get the same in your UV filter. It’s going to be on your lens 24/7, so this is no place to skimp on quality.

So what’s the best UV filter?

Well, it’s like I tell my students: “You get what you pay for. If you spend $10 on a UV filter, it’ll be crap. If you spend $50+, you can bet it’s good.” And by the way, filters get more expensive for bigger filter thread sizes. The best UV filter in a 58mm filter thread size should run you about $32.00. In a 77mm filter thread size, the same high-quality UV will run you $72.00.

But I’ll make it simple and just tell you my personal recommendation: I use B&W brand UV filters and I love them. Very high-quality stuff. They don’t degrade image quality one bit and their MRC (Multi-Resistant Coating) line of UV filters features some pretty important optical coatings...several of them...and they’re resistant. These coatings help to reduce reflections on the filter, which equates to more light transmission to the lens, and helps keep dust and fingerprints off the filter.

These coatings do make a big difference. It’s what separates the cheap-o stuff from the serious glass. Make sure your UV filters have the MRC coating (or equivalent).

For instance I use this B&W 77mm UV Haze MRC filter from B&H on my Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L lens, my Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS lens, and my Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L lens. Keeps ‘em safe and I don’t have to worry at all about sacrificing image quality.

Best UV FilterNon-coated cheap UV on the left, B+W UV Haze MRC on the right
Notice how much dimmer the reflection is in the multi-coated B+W filter
(The green tinge is just a side effect of the coating, it won't turn your pictures green)

It can hurt a little bit spending over 50 bucks on a filter that won’t improve your photos at all, but resist the temptation to get the cheap Sunpak UV filters at your local Best Buy. You’re better off having nothing on your lens if that’s the case. Get the B&W UV Haze MRC filters. And to make it easy for you, here are links to all the most common filter sizes at B&H in New York (that’s where I buy all of my gear):

Make your expensive DSLR lenses last a long time. Invest in one of these filters for each one of your lenses and replace old filters if they get scratched.


Common Misconceptions: You Don’t Need Filters for Digital Photography

The Misconception:
Photoshop (and other image editing programs) have replaced traditional filters. I can do everything in Photoshop that photographers used to do with filters.

Why This is Wrong:
Whether you're talking about a digital sensor or a piece of emulsion, photography is all about recording light. The whole purpose of traditional filters is to alter the light on its way to the sensor or film so as to achieve an effect. Using Photoshop to mimic a filter is simply "pushing pixels." It's altering ones and zeros. It's trying to change the light after the fact.

Let's take graduated neutral density filters for instance. There are the real deal and there are imitations built into software like Lightroom. The way true graduated ND filters work is by darkening the light coming from the sky as it makes its way to the sensor. The way the "graduated ND filter" in Lightroom works is by darkening blown out pixels to make the sky appear darker. So with the real McCoy, the bright light is tamed down so that the sensor can actually record the sky in all its detail and color. With the cheap imitation, a blown out sky with no detail at all is artificially darkened without ever recovering much more detail.

Check out this side-by-side example. The image on the left was taken with no filters and the image received almost no post-production work. The image on the right is my attempt to digitally mimic a graduated ND filter on the exact same file. I used the dodge and burn tool in Photoshop along with gradients, layers and curves. It took about 10 minutes to do all that work to just one image.

Graduated ND ImitationYou'll see that the sky is a bit darker and there is a little bit more detail, but it's really no replacement for the real deal, as illustrated below. In the next comparison, take a look at how much better the image is when I utilized a simple traditional graduated ND filter. The image on the left is the same one as above - no filters with heavy post-processing. The image on the right is the picture taken correctly with proper filters with almost no post-processing work. Time spent on the computer for the image on the left: about 10 minutes. Time spent on the computer for the image on the right: about 10 seconds.

Digital Grad ND vs Read Grad NDLook at can actually see detail in the sky! With a simple $40 filter and zero time spent in Photoshop, I went from a blown out sky with no detail to a beautiful sky with lots of detail.

No filters vs a Grad ND

So you can see that my Photoshop imitation of a grad ND doesn't even hold a candle to the real grad ND. It doesn't recover detail in the sky, it doesn't capture the color in the clouds and it doesn't preserve the quality of the original file. More work with worse results. I don't know about you, but I like to worker smarter, not harder.

Here's another variation on this picture that, again, utilizes true grad ND filters and received almost no post-processing.

Using Graduated ND Filters

Same goes for circular polarizers. Those filters cut through reflections on everything from water to windows to foliage. There is no replacement for that in the computer!

The Truth:
Filters are just as important today as they were with film!  There's no replacement for altering the light on its way to the sensor. And no matter how much money you spend on Photoshop and all its plugins, no piece of software can travel back in time to the moment you clicked the shutter and alter the light before it hits the sensor. Especially when it comes to blown out pixels, Photoshop just can't work miracles. If pixels are blown out, there is literally no detail to be recovered. And if you're thinking, "But Nick, what about HDR." Well...don't get me started.

My Thoughts and Rants:
I don't know where this idea started that just because everything's digital now, we don't need traditional filters anymore. I have a sneaking suspicion that it's all rooted in marketing from image-editing software companies. They want you to buy software, so they market their products as a replacement for filters. Just like diet pills trying to convince you it's a replacement for proper nutrition and exercise.

But regardless of where it came from, this mentality drives me nuts! To me, it's like using software to correct a horrible, pitchy musician who really has no business singing in the first place. Instead, let's ditch the software and just get someone who can actually sing. Is that really such a novel idea these days? What would the world be like if we never used Auto-Tune or Photoshop ever again? All the horrible musicians and photographers would drift out of sight like dregs at the bottom of a dirty bucket of water. Then all the actual talent would float to the top. Oh, also all of our supermodels and celebrities would suddenly look flawed and human. God forbid!

Bottom line is this: using software to mimic proper use of filters out in the field is the work of incompetent photographers. They can operate software, but they can't operate a camera. But don't fret if you fall into this category. We were all incompetent photographers at one point. But don't turn to software to fix your images - just become a better photographer through study and practice! Then you can save the $600 you would have spent on Photoshop for something really valuable, like filters and a tripod...or your mortgage.