/p/ - Photography » Thread #4420511

[30 / 9 / 1]

Diffusion filters

Anonymous Sun 06 Apr 2025 04:42:15 No.4420511 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>4420515 >>4420517 >>4420518 >>4420522 >>4420529 >>4420569 >>4421001 >>4424574

Was thinking of buying one for video and some street photography. Which one is your favorite? And what strength did you go for?

I'm thinking Tiffen Glimmerglass at 1/4 or 1/2 to blow out some light sources and make the footage look more filmic, without it being obvious there is a filter involved.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Apr 2025 05:21:52 No.4420515 Report

Quoted By: >>4420518 >>4420520

>>4420511
film looks nothing like this flat hazy low contrast shit. even holgas have more contrast. do not use the youtuber meme filter.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Apr 2025 05:37:53 No.4420517 Report

Quoted By: >>4420518 >>4420520

>>4420511
All effects filters rob you of a certain degree of image quality for something that can generally be added in post.
This test photo is also hot garbage, with front lighting that's too harsh, and a scene that overvalues the effect of the backlighting

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Apr 2025 05:48:37 No.4420518 Report

Quoted By: >>4420521

>>4420511
Follow your artistic vision OP don't be like these guys >>4420515 >>4420517 they mostly post in gear threads.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Apr 2025 05:51:06 No.4420520 Report

Quoted By:

>>4420515
>>4420517
Yeah that picture doesn't do it justice. Here's how the 1/2 strength looks:

https://youtu.be/3FGInKXpgO0&t=40

So barely any loss in contrast, it just slightly takes away the digital sharpness look and it diffuses the light in the background a bit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Apr 2025 05:52:29 No.4420521 Report

Quoted By:

>>4420518
Thank you

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Apr 2025 05:58:28 No.4420522 Report

Quoted By: >>4420524

>>4420511
I used diffusion filters all the time before I shot film. I prefer black pro mist to glimmer glass, but try them out and see what you like for yourself. As for what strength to use, it’s complicated. The effect changes based on your focal length. It’s weaker on telephoto lenses and stronger on wide. It also depends on how much halation/haze you want. If you just want to take the edge of of a 35mm lens I’d go with 1/4 to 1/2. If you want it to look like Casablanca go with a 2 or 3

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Apr 2025 06:02:24 No.4420524 Report

Quoted By: >>4420527

>>4420522
Thanks for the info.

I ordered a Black Mist 1/8 to start with (7artisan brand, cause it was a lot cheaper than the Tiffen). Lets see how it turns out. Unfortunately every lens I own have different filter thread sizes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Apr 2025 06:05:53 No.4420527 Report

Quoted By: >>4420536

>>4420524
You’re welcome. It’s best to buy a size that will cover all your lenses (72mm, 77mm or 82mm) and just use step up rings, which are very cheap. Youll save a lot of money and you shouldn’t worry about the lack of lens hood anyway if you’re shooting with a mist filter

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Apr 2025 06:08:20 No.4420529 Report

Quoted By:

>>4420511
just put vaseline on a UV filter
wala

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Apr 2025 06:26:59 No.4420536 Report

Quoted By: >>4420541 >>4420543

>>4420527
Oh, I wasn't aware of step up rings. That sounds like a great solution. I had a look at Tiffen's rings. But it can only be used from one size to one size? For example, a 52-67mm step up ring can only be used to fit a 67mm filter on a 52mm lens? Or can it also be used on a 55, 58, 62 etc?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Apr 2025 06:44:54 No.4420541 Report

Quoted By:

>>4420536
I've bought rings from amazon and ebay that skip through many steps. I currently step up 43 and 52 to 67mm with a single ring each.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Apr 2025 06:46:34 No.4420543 Report

Quoted By:

>>4420536
Yes they are only one size, so you will need to buy multiple, say you buy 77mm diffusion filters. You will need a 58mm to 77mm and a 62mm to 77mm and so on, but the step rings are a fraction of the cost of a whole filter.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Apr 2025 08:05:52 No.4420552 Report

Quoted By: >>4420750

I've been thinking of getting a diffusion filter lately too after shooting without any filters since I got my first camera 15 years ago.
I think going for the weakest filter strength is the best way to go, unless you're going for a very specific look.
Even Glimmerglass 1 looks waaaay too flat and hazy for my taste, but the 1/4 and 1/8 are much more manageable and can be used as an always on.
It's all subjective, but I really hate that totally washed out look with no contrast and blown out glowy highlights a lot of people seem to shoot music videos with. But a very slight filter can add some character to an otherwise plain image.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSCF0717 (1)4000px.jpg, 2MiB, 4000x2667

Anonymous Sun 06 Apr 2025 12:18:30 No.4420569 Report

Quoted By: >>4420607

>>4420511
I found it depends a lot on the lens you put the filter on, some are naturally quite hazy already, and the results get really ugly

I don't recommend getting a filter above 1/8 strength if you want things to remain below obvious, above that its vaseline smear territory.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Apr 2025 15:44:59 No.4420607 Report

Quoted By:

>>4420569
>I don't recommend getting a filter above 1/8 strength if you want things to remain below obvious, above that its vaseline smear territory.
You mean 1/8 Black Mist? Apparently 1/8 Black Pro Mist is equivalent to Glimmerglass 2

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Apr 2025 16:11:03 No.4420611 Report

Quoted By:

Don't fall into a filter = film meme, that's YouTubers clickbait for hipsters that wank themselves off to emulating film and buying x100v's

I purchased some nisi black mist 1/8 recently because I wanted some more haze on lights for street photography and softer portraits. But honestly the effect seems minimal and barely noticeable at 85mm , on my zoom lens at 28mm I don't see much difference either unless you're pointing directly at a light.

It cost like 30 dollars but is ok for what it does, I feel a little safer with the front lens element too. I'm thinking about picking up a 1/4 maybe to see how portraits would look at 85mm

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Apr 2025 03:24:33 No.4420750 Report

Quoted By:

>>4420552
>'s all subjective, but I really hate that totally washed out look with no contrast and blown out glowy highlights a lot of people seem to shoot music videos with
Yeah same here. I'm mainly going to use it for video, but will experiment with some nighttime street photography with it as well.

I think 1/8 is too weak. 1/4 is probably good.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO misty.jpg, 3MiB, 5000x2000

Anonymous Tue 08 Apr 2025 02:10:02 No.4420946 Report

Quoted By: >>4420997

I don't see the point in a fancier one, so just went with K&F
I like to use 1/4 or 1/8, depends on the focal length too
I use the same set on fuji 18 f2 + 35 f1.4 and nikon 28 f2.8 + 40 f2
Then a 43mm 1/4 for the small RF glass
picrel

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 08 Apr 2025 07:40:08 No.4420997 Report

Quoted By: >>4421001

>>4420946
Looks good, but it's still a little too strong in some of the images for my taste. I like when it's not obvious, but just a sort of "5% character enhancement"

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 08 Apr 2025 07:54:48 No.4421001 Report

Quoted By:

>>4420997
nta but I think mist filters should be either so subtle you don't actively notice it or you go in on it and compose your shots around it.

>>4420511
I also just noticed that the comparison shots are not the same, they used a slightly wider focal length with the mist filter, the black woman's head isn't as square

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC01380.jpg, 2MiB, 4000x6000

Anonymous Sun 13 Apr 2025 10:35:21 No.4422123 Report

Quoted By:

1/8 blackmist on tamron 28-75mm

MattyRach !!mEAfWsz57CK

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC06193.jpg, 2MiB, 2048x1365

MattyRach !!mEAfWsz57CK Mon 14 Apr 2025 01:26:50 No.4422266 Report

Quoted By: >>4422298

this is 1/4 pro mist at f1.2. image quality is shit but its vibe

MattyRach !!mEAfWsz57CK

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC06160.jpg, 2MiB, 1365x2048

MattyRach !!mEAfWsz57CK Mon 14 Apr 2025 01:31:04 No.4422267 Report

Quoted By: >>4422298

I love the glow so much but theres like no way to get rid of it. at least in post you could probably PP the glow.

MattyRach !!mEAfWsz57CK

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC01212.jpg, 3MiB, 2048x1365

MattyRach !!mEAfWsz57CK Mon 14 Apr 2025 01:41:55 No.4422269 Report

Quoted By: >>4422298

daytime photos get messed up tho too nothing is sharp in this image

MattyRach !!mEAfWsz57CK

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC09955.jpg, 2MiB, 2048x1365

MattyRach !!mEAfWsz57CK Mon 14 Apr 2025 01:47:13 No.4422270 Report

Quoted By: >>4422298

also you can see how the bright sky is "glowing" and it can be really distracting. it happens to day time shit as well. any highlights start too bloom and it can look bad

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 14 Apr 2025 07:29:59 No.4422298 Report

Quoted By:

>>4422266
>>4422267
>>4422269
>>4422270
I made a comment about your shots in the thread you had up.
I really like your shots and the colours, but it's too heavily filtered for me unless it was for some specific stylized shots. I like the effect too, but it's something I'd only use very sparingly.
You could opt for switching to a lower strength filter during the day.
I think it looks good in the seaside shot though. The extra haziness kinda makes it look like it's water mist from the waves flying in the air.
The temple shot is too glowing for me.

But yeah, the seaside shot looks really cool

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 14 Apr 2025 19:03:02 No.4422415 Report

Quoted By:

Go for it. Experiment, have fun, find your look. Maybe you'll like it, maybe you won't.
I have a couple different filters. I got into them when researching different films. Like McCabe & Mrs. Miller, how they would flash the film and use filters to degrade the picture like hell. Or Brian De Palma using hard light and diffusion filters. Or the John Toll talking about the way they metered for The Thin Red Line and get that beautiful looking grass.
I don't really care about photography, I just like taking pictures and watching movies.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO halation-07[1].jpg, 695KiB, 3584x1516

Anonymous Sun 04 May 2025 02:53:26 No.4424481 Report

Quoted By:

I had Glimmer glass 1 for a while, and every shot i took with it the effect was either barely noticeable or image ruining. I get want to take the "edge" off a digital photo, but you can do that without risking turning a picture into a smeary weird mess. People want that bloomy film halation look on digital cameras, but real film halation is 100x more subtle than the -100 clarity slider look these filters do in certain lighting conditions.

Outside of CineStill films, film halation is subtle and is only visible around REALLY strong light. These filters regardless of what the manufacturers say effect every part of the image, as well as reduce contrast and black levels.

Im not against using them, but its a very specific look, and there really isnt anything inherently filmic about it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 May 2025 15:18:36 No.4424574 Report

Quoted By:

>>4420511
The filter gives your camera astigmatism? Great! Now it's as bad as my eyes driving at night!

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches

Diffusion filters