Ski Club 2.0 Home
Snow Reports
FAQFAQ

Mail for help.Help!!

Log in to snowHeads to make it MUCH better! Registration's totally free, of course, and makes snowHeads easier to use and to understand, gives better searching, filtering etc. as well as access to 'members only' forums, discounts and deals that U don't even know exist as a 'guest' user. (btw. 50,000+ snowHeads already know all this, making snowHeads the biggest, most active community of snow-heads in the UK, so you'll be in good company)..... When you register, you get our free weekly(-ish) snow report by email. It's rather good and not made up by tourist offices (or people that love the tourist office and want to marry it either)... We don't share your email address with anyone and we never send out any of those cheesy 'message from our partners' emails either. Anyway, snowHeads really is MUCH better when you're logged in - not least because you get to post your own messages complaining about things that annoy you like perhaps this banner which, incidentally, disappears when you log in :-)
Username:-
 Password:
Remember me:
👁 durr, I forgot...
Or: Register
(to be a proper snow-head, all official-like!)

Filters for digital cameras

 Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
I decided to buy an add on filter ring for my Sony RX100 vii so I can utilise a circular polarising filter when taking fishing photos on water. From a quick browse it would appear that this filter will work well for on snow shots and make bluer skis and less washed out shots.

Im a camera novice but would anyone recommend getting any other filters for skiing video and still shots?

I usually use a dedicated video camera when teaching but I tend to bring my sony out on sunny days and when off piste to get "profile" pictures for clients and just do the odd bit of video. The new camera has such good high frame rate autofocus I am using the burst mode stills camera more than frame grabbing from the 4k.. If any colour filters or whatever would help get the perfect shot Im all ears..
ski holidays
 Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Shoot STILLS in RAW and process after. If your camera can do raw and jpeg make it do both as you can use jpeg for "profile" pictures and process raw in Lightroom or the like. If you shoot with a filter on that makes it very hard to change in post.
latest report
 Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
You are probably better off shooting in RAW and applying exposure corrections/ND filtering in post processing than risking vignetting or worse damaging the lens with dodgy chinese adapters.
snow report
 You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
Sony's software for RAW conversion is free https://imagingedge.sony.net/en-gb/ie-desktop.html
snow conditions
 Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
I shoot with a clear filter, just to protect the lens. As above - RAW and process in Lightroom. The enhancement can be spectacular, if a little time consuming.
snow conditions
 You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
ND filter can be worthwhile addition
latest report
 Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
The polarising filter will be a useful add-on for winter scenery under bright mountain skies. I also put a clear UV filter on as lens protection. And have migrated to shooting everything in RAW - the files are bigger because they carry far more data and so the range of editing options is far wider than for a JPG. Most manufacturers have a capable RAW editing utility that's free, but I prefer to subscribe to Adobe to get Photoshop and Lightroom, as well as capabilities to store and tag images in their cloud.

If you are taking lots of shots with snow, it may be worth recalibrating the camera's white balance on the camera itself, using a WB card against the snow. This avoids having to recalibrate the WB of every shot you've taken on a ski trip. See this article from Nikon. You may also find it worth researching the exposure compensation +/- setting on the camera, if it has one, in terms of biasing it to under-expose very bright snow shots.
snow report
 After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
Thanks guys, I shoot stills in RAW and JPEG simultaneously but post processing gets very time consuming when doing big groups of people. If I can get a general enhancement I would prefer to add a filter

@LaForet, will have to look into white balancing tah...
ski holidays
 You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
Oleski wrote:
Sony's software for RAW conversion is free https://imagingedge.sony.net/en-gb/ie-desktop.html


cheers, I have that on my phone as an app but didn't appreciate they did a desktop version
snow conditions
 Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
I think there's an argument for polarizers with water; that's a very specific thing which you can't really do in post, because the phase information isn't there. Unless I missed something. I did try a polarizer for skiing in the film days but didn't like it - you have to be very careful where you point it and which way it's rotated. As you've got one, it should be easy enough try with and without and compare the results.

I use lens caps to protect my front elements.

ND filters are a bit more useful for video. They do have specific uses, but I would not use them for snow because you'd be forever putting them on and off,
and you'd always end up being set up wrong.

These days I use a Sony Ar7 something-or-other for snow. In camera white balance is irrelevant for raw, it just leaves a tag in the file that's all.
White balance is very much a problem for jpeg and snow, and it's a good reason to shoot raw if anyone still needs one. Not everyone notices
the colour issues, mind.

The perfect shot... accessories won't help.

And here's a snapshot from June, because it's a ski forum.
Next time Greg turns up he'll not be wearing a black jacket, now I explained how hard that makes all this.
White balance wise, as I inserted this I realize my browser isn't rendering the colour profile quite correctly -
that could be the OS (I cut and pasted the image from LightRoom), or imgBB, or Brave...


Most "shoot skiers and then sell the images to them" people shoot jpeg for the reasons you mention. I find it unsatisfying,
but it's quicker. On the plus side, with modern cameras it's pretty easy to get things reasonable straight out
of the machine, if you need to. And as with wedding photography, you can't make money if you have to hand-correct every image.
snow report
 snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
philwig wrote:
In camera white balance is irrelevant for raw, it just leaves a tag in the file that's all.


Technically speaking, some cameras apply WB correction to exposure metering even in RAW mode. In practice, especially with wide dynamic range sensor like SONY's, it rarely loses any data but it can happen in extremely contrasty scenes.

Quote:
as I inserted this I realize my browser isn't rendering the colour profile quite correctly


Prob because you are using AdobeRGB
snow conditions
 And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
Arguably the only filter you need for a digital camera is a polarising filter.
A polarising filter stops diffracted light (i,e glare) before it gets into the sensor.
Once you have captured a shot with glare then it can't be removed digitally (hence the importance of this filter, particularly for water) even if shooting RAW.
All other filters / photo effects can be added using digital processing (photoshop) or with a mode on your camera.

Having said that, if you were getting into landscape the the following 2x filters are nice to have:
- ND filter. Allows longers exposure so you can create effects like silky waterfalls.
- Graduated filter. Darkens the sky to you dont over expose one part of the filter.

Using filters properly takes time and effort to set up the shot.
Its not a simple case of adding a filter and getting a better photo.
Even with polarising filter you need to adjust the ring / level of polarisation depending on situation.

It sounds like the original poster wants to take better ski action shots?
Best way to do that is to learn about the x3 basic camera controls (ISO / AV / exposure time).
Using a filter will just be a distraction from this and confusing the learning process of how your camera works.
You want a fast exposure, so moving skier not blurred, while letting enough light in to see the background.
Something like ISO200, F/7, 1/1250s is good start point for shooting moving skiers on a bright mountain / bluebird day.


Last edited by And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports. on Mon 16-08-21 17:52; edited 1 time in total
snow report
 So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
Haggis_Trap wrote:

Something like ISO200, F/7, 1/1250s


RX100 vii can go 1/32000s so there is really no point stopping down like that and capturing too much stuff in background. With 1" sensor even at f2.8 there will be plenty of DoF
snow conditions
 You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Oleski wrote:
Haggis_Trap wrote:

Something like ISO200, F/7, 1/1250s


RX100 vii can go 1/32000s so there is really no point stopping down like that and capturing too much stuff in background. With 1" sensor even at f2.8 there will be plenty of DoF


Depends if you want to capture scenery (which is often key part of a ski photo) or not.

Personally I would avoided using polarising filter for ski action shots until you have mastered basics of manual control.

1) The main problem is that polariser will make scene a little darker so will mess with the settings applied (making learning tricky)
2) darker scene from polarising filter means you need to use slower shutter speed. Not optimal for action photos.
3) Polarising ring needs to adjusted for each scenario. Not ideal for point and click. Unlike landscape shots you only get one chance for action photo.
4) If using the cameras in built action sport mode the camera doesn't know you have applied a filter so won't open the shutter to compensate
snow conditions
 Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
We're probably falling in to the trap of generalising here: all of these recommendations may apply in some cases but not others. You can leave most things to post-processing, but there are exceptions where using the polariser gets you a photo that isn't otherwise possible. You can also leave adjustments/compensation 'till later but it then gets tedious to apply the same change to a mass of shots. I don't fit the polariser all the time. Sometimes I'll make an adjustment on the camera that I know will be useful in yielding better shots right away, without having to sit down for an evening retro-fitting the adjustment.

I'd agree that mastering the 'triangle' of ISO/f/exposure time is a basic, before going on to use other variables. But it isn't mutually exclusive with exploring how other adjustments work. What I found helpful was when I did a local evening class with a professional and got given a series of photo shoots to do, one per week, with a deadline for the next session. This made me do the work even if I'd run out of time, and produced some really useful results. So perhaps if you could get some similar guidance it might help progress your mastery of technique.
ski holidays
 Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
LaForet wrote:
.... You can leave most things to post-processing, but there are exceptions where using the polariser gets you a photo that isn't otherwise possible.


Yeah, the unique thing about a polarising filter is that it removes something (glare) which can't ever be removed by digital post processing. However : you need to adjust polarising filter ring / set up camera exposure (which takes time & practise) before it will work it's magic.
snow conditions
 Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
For those that are unaware, Polarizing filters work best when the sun is at right angles to the direction you are shooting, never when in front or directly behind you. But I guess everyone on here probably knew that. Confused
latest report
 Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
@philwig,
Quote:

as with wedding photography, you can't make money if you have to hand-correct every image.


hand correct? just to be boringly pedantic, a chum is a very successful (high end, celebrity?) wedding photographer and she spends 8-10 hours post per hour shooting ...

just sayin'
ski holidays
 You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
How long did/do I take in an “actual dark room”? Get the image close to what you want in the camera and post production can be batched. If you want to change the sky, layers, remove or add stuff then it can take ages but once one photo is done the rest should be close and not take very long.
latest report
 Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
^ post processing an essential skill for pro / keen amateur photographers.
though, IMvHO, it shouldn't be used as crutch simply because you got the basics wrong.
rather it should be a simple touch up (if at all).
snow report
 You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
Thanks guys, it sounds as though it is a resounding NO to adding filters for shooting skiers Smile

I probably should look at manual settings but the auto settings and auto focus is so good on my camera not sure I want to mess with those. I dont really have much interest in mastering all the settings and trying to get it right on the mountain. For me it would probably be best to investigate post processing the final selection of RAW images to get the best results.

ps. definitely not selling any shots Madeye-Smiley but I always try to get a few of my skiers making some mad angles around a pretend gate, or short pitch of fresh snow for a holiday momento.
snow report
 Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
skimottaret wrote:
Thanks guys, it sounds as though it is a resounding NO to adding filters for shooting skiers Smile

I probably should look at manual settings but the auto settings and auto focus is so good on my camera not sure I want to mess with those. I dont really have much interest in mastering all the settings and trying to get it right on the mountain. For me it would probably be best to investigate post processing the final selection of RAW images to get the best results.

ps. definitely not selling any shots Madeye-Smiley but I always try to get a few of my skiers making some mad angles around a pretend gate, or short pitch of fresh snow for a holiday momento.


What you want is opportunistic point and click shot of skier ?
To achieve that I would either:

1) Use the cameras in built action sports mode.
or
2) In manual mode set the camera to "shutter priority". Select a fast shutter speed (~1/1000s) and camera will automatically select ISO and aperture for light conditions.

Both the above will have same effect.

Also : burst mode is the best tool for getting action shots. Ideally 5fps or 10fps so you can select best shot from sequence.
Skiers always look best at the apex of a turn : however catching that without help of a burst mode can be pot luck.

Keep the poloarising filter for landscapes or water!
latest report
 After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
wrote:
Prob because you are using AdobeRGB
Correct. I did a screen grab (windows 10), so the sRGB conversion wasn't done. The browser "thinks" it's sRGB but it's not.

skimottaret wrote:
I probably should look at manual settings but the auto settings and auto focus is so good on my camera not sure I want to mess with those. ...
I use the auto all the time. I would start with that, and then if you capture anything you don't like work out how to tweak the auto so it does what you want.
ski holidays
 You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
There's no right or wrong

Do whatever gives you the output you and your customers are happy with.

I use a circular polariser when shooting skiing, especially in sunny conditions.
snow conditions
 Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
@skimottaret, What do you use to post process? You could probably edit one pic manually then "batch" update the rest with the same settings, which would be less time consuming and perhaps give "good enough" results, assuming most batches of pics are taken reasonably close to each other...
ski holidays
 snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
@Mike Pow, do you need to adjust the filter when shooting action shots in sunny conditions? If I can just fit and forget I would use the circular polariser..

@kitenski, I tend to use a freebie FOTOR program on the mac , mainly to do cropping but may check out the Sony editor. gave up on paying for Photoshop etc.
snow conditions
 And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
skimottaret wrote:
@Mike Pow, do you need to adjust the filter when shooting action shots in sunny conditions? If I can just fit and forget I would use the circular polariser..


Stays on the lens

Rotate to apply effect, rotate to negate effect.

Simple
ski holidays
 So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
Mike Pow wrote:


Stays on the lens

Rotate to apply effect, rotate to negate effect.

Simple


cheers, will give the polariser a go this winter. not many more fishing days Smile
latest report
 You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
skimottaret wrote:
I dont really have much interest in mastering all the settings and trying to get it right on the mountain


The most common problem with snow is that your camera assumes that most of the scene is mid-grey for metering purposes, and snow doesn't conform to that. Result - grey, low contrast picture.
This can be avoided by setting the exposure compensation to +1 or may be + 1 1/3 - this will immediately make a difference for most of the shots and you will only have to tweak the pathological cases in post

You will need to switch to program mode for that though, rather than auto. I think
snow report
 Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Using the histogram when metering is also very useful. You can see if you need to change exposure easily. I have that in my viewfinder all the time and can just roll a bit in or out depending on how much white or black is in frame.
This is quite a good read.

https://photographylife.com/understanding-histograms-in-photography
snow report
 Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
Lots of good comments above. To add:
-shooting in RAW can help recover (to a reasonable extent) some errors in exposure and in white balance
- ND or grad ND are useless in my view for action ski shots, unless you really know what you're doing and have a very specific concept (now I'm starting to get some ideas)
- I agree with shooting burst
- also agree with postprocessing one shot and then copying the adjustments to all other relevant shots

I haven't yet used a polarizer on skiing shots. Perhaps it's worth a try, but it's certainly possible to get good captures without one.


clarky999


Our guide


BobinCH


Sharkymark


horizon jr


me
snow report
 Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
IMO there's almost no picture that comes off worse with a polarising filter, and very many that look much better. Back in the day when I used an SLR, I used such a filter almost permanently. Nearly every photograph has some glare that consists of polarised light that it's better without. Obviously not all reflections are mitigated, only those close to the specific angle for the particular material (e.g. water, glass) at which light is polarised. It is called Brewster's Angle. https://wiki2.org/en/Brewster%27s_angle

And yes, if your camera has a fitting for it, put a UV filter on to protect the lens. I too use a lens cap to protect it, but no matter how careful you are somebody, eventually, will put a fingerprint on your camera lens, or a bird will poop on you - and if it's on the filter it's easily dealt with! Why would you not?
ski holidays
 Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Apology, going to have disagree:

James the Last wrote:
IMO there's almost no picture that comes off worse with a polarising filter, and very many that look much better. Back in the day when I used an SLR, I used such a filter almost permanently. Nearly every photograph has some glare that consists of polarised light that it's better without.


1) I have had photo ruined by polarising filters (either by the exposure being too dark or gradient in the sky at wider angles).
Polarising filters are great when properly set up in the right scenario. However they also reduce the light by roughly 2f stops.
You often need to manually compensate for this as camera doesn't know filter is fitted.
For landscape its not a big deal - adjust camera & filter then try again. For ski shots it can be a disaster.


James the Last wrote:
And yes, if your camera has a fitting for it, put a UV filter on to protect the lens. I too use a lens cap to protect it, but no matter how careful you are somebody, eventually, will put a fingerprint on your camera lens, or a bird will poop on you - and if it's on the filter it's easily dealt with! Why would you not?


2) UV filters are simply another piece of glass. So while they protect the lens (as a physical barrier) they degrade the picture quality and sharpness.
Unless you are using a film camera they are pretty pointless as a means of reducing UV.
snow report
 You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
If you're shooting at such a level that you can see the degradation on account of a UV filter, then chapeau. I'm going to keep a UV filter on my lens as a new lens is £££ and a new filter is £.

The modern camera has enough Terrapixels that image quality is higher than almost anybody will ever use - and somehow they seem to have got round the limitations of the lens (on a phone) being only the size of your little finger nail. I don't even begin to understand it.

I'd expect through-the-lens metering to compensate for the two stops?
ski holidays
 Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
James the Last wrote:
If you're shooting at such a level that you can see the degradation on account of a UV filter, then chapeau. I'm going to keep a UV filter on my lens as a new lens is £££ and a new filter is £.

The modern camera has enough Terrapixels that image quality is higher than almost anybody will ever use - and somehow they seem to have got round the limitations of the lens (on a phone) being only the size of your little finger nail. I don't even begin to understand it.

I'd expect through-the-lens metering to compensate for the two stops?


1) the UV filter not adding anything except a physical barrier. fine for lens protection but not much else unless shooting film. better to just replace lens cap before camera goes away.
2) lens metering may compensate for the 2 stops from polariser. However to do that it will give you slower shutter speed / higher iso / wider apperture.

Rather than leave filters on all time it's better to learn where they are required & most effective. If nothing else reducing variables will help you learn how camera manual control works.
snow conditions
 You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
Haggis_Trap wrote:
James the Last wrote:
If you're shooting at such a level that you can see the degradation on account of a UV filter, then chapeau. I'm going to keep a UV filter on my lens as a new lens is £££ and a new filter is £.

The modern camera has enough Terrapixels that image quality is higher than almost anybody will ever use - and somehow they seem to have got round the limitations of the lens (on a phone) being only the size of your little finger nail. I don't even begin to understand it.

I'd expect through-the-lens metering to compensate for the two stops?


1) the UV filter not adding anything except a physical barrier. fine for lens protection but not much else unless shooting film. better to just replace lens cap before camera goes away.
2) lens metering may compensate for the 2 stops from polariser. However to do that it will give you slower shutter speed / higher iso / wider apperture.

Rather than leave filters on all time it's better to learn where they are required & most effective. If nothing else reducing variables will help you learn how camera manual control works.


A fast enough shutter speed isn't a problem on bright, sunny days in the alpine which is when the polariser is most effective
ski holidays
 Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
^ Perhaps true. Though what happens when you shoot on a non-sunny day? Or move from bright area of mountain into shade / trees. Or perhaps move perpendicular to sun? At best you need to adjust both polarising filter and camera setting. At worst it might mess up your photo.

For sure ... You can leave polarising filter on all the time and perhaps get ok results. However I guarantee it's not how pro's would work or recommend. It will also limit your ability to really learn how camera works and when a filter is actually required.
latest report
 After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
Quote:

Rather than leave filters on all time it's better to learn where they are required & most effective. If nothing else reducing variables will help you learn how camera manual control works.

@Haggis_Trap, It depends on usage. If you are constantly using it and in unpredictable scenarios then I would definitely be keeping a protective covering on.

If shooting where you set each shot up, then fine, don't use protection, but if on a dynamic shoot, eg sports, and you may be moving around quickly, or switching cameras, then use a protective filter. We even keep the hood fitted at all times to give further protection.
snow report
 You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
Haggis_Trap wrote:
^ Perhaps true. Though what happens when you shoot on a non-sunny day? Or move from bright area of mountain into shade / trees. Or perhaps move perpendicular to sun? At best you need to adjust both polarising filter and camera setting. At worst it might mess up your photo.

For sure ... You can leave polarising filter on all the time and perhaps get ok results. However I guarantee it's not how pro's would work or recommend. It will also limit your ability to really learn how camera works and when a filter actually required.


A circular polariser allows you to engage and disengage the polarising effect very easily. So if you move from sunny to shade it's not a problem. You just rotate the filter.

Putting a polariser on and off in the field can be a pain, especially if it's windy and spindrift is flying everywhere.

Shooting straight into the sun can cause unwanted flare but with quality lenses the effect can be interesting.

That's telling me.

I think my body of work in all snow and weather conditions holds up.
ski holidays
 Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Frosty the Snowman wrote:
Quote:

Rather than leave filters on all time it's better to learn where they are required & most effective. If nothing else reducing variables will help you learn how camera manual control works.

@Haggis_Trap, It depends on usage. If you are constantly using it and in unpredictable scenarios then I would definitely be keeping a protective covering on.

If shooting where you set each shot up, then fine, don't use protection, but if on a dynamic shoot, eg sports, and you may be moving around quickly, or switching cameras, then use a protective filter. We even keep the hood fitted at all times to give further protection.


^ fair point : UV filter valid for physical protection. Though it doesn't add anything to photo.

Though these days for action photos I tend to use a Lumix compact. While I love SLR it's not optimal for skiing. Unless your a pro a camera which can fit in breast pocket much better option! Means you will actually whip it out to grab a snap of your mate skiing / biking past.
ski holidays



Terms and conditions  Privacy Policy