What's your favourite type of filter, /p/?
I don't have any filters at the moment, but I'm interested in trying out a polarizing filter for sky backdrops and clearing up water, and maybe a graduated neutral density filter for girl in wheat field style pictures.
Please keep brand comparisons to a minimum. I think it's more interesting to talk about what a filter type enables you to do with a picture rather than which brand produces the best filter that will do that.

Photography noob here.
How do astrophotography filters fare in cities? I know, astrophoto in cities is stupid, but they filter some light sources, so do I have at least SOME interesting results, or do I have to go /out/ to get usable results?

>>4421527 (OP)
CPL.
I'll take a small cut in total light in order to clean up reflections and haze in practically any situation. Noise is preferable to smeary, hazy shit.
Pick one size that will fit a reasonably large filter thread (I chose 67mm), and buy filters in that size only for the most part. Use step-up rings in your smaller lenses; it will save you money and fucking around in the long run.
GNDs are very effective for landscapes or anything that involves an intense light source that would make exposing for white and black difficult or impossible. Very underused filter that many photogs here in /p/ could do with.
>>4421528
Light pollution filters *are* effective, but don't jerk your cock off thinking they'll solve all your astro issues. You will suffer a small yet maybe percievable image quality loss unless you're buying high-end filters.
They genuinely cut down on the shitty haze you get from artificial lighting, but nothing will beat actually getting into a low light-pollution area.

ALSO, there's this thing called Newton's Rings that will plague your long-exposure photography (so, you know, astro shots) when you use any filter that isn't 100% parallel to your objective lens element (the one closest to your filter threads). I went down a rabbit hole figuring out what the fuck was causing these weird patterns in my photos from one outing, only to realise I had a UV filter on.

>>4421527 (OP)
Graduated ND for color, graduated half-red for B/W. The latter works wonders for them clouds.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeEPSONCamera ModelPerfection V800Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.6Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution296 dpiVertical Resolution296 dpiImage Created2023:07:12 18:35:29Image Width23499Image Height29648

>>4421529
>I'll take a small cut in total light in order to clean up reflections and haze in practically any situation. Noise is preferable to smeary, hazy shit.
I'm looking into them more now and they do sound pretty good for a lot of circumstances. Sky and water was the first thing I saw but I'm getting that they're good for a lot more than that.
>Pick one size that will fit a reasonably large filter thread (I chose 67mm), and buy filters in that size only for the most part. Use step-up rings in your smaller lenses; it will save you money and fucking around in the long run.
I just have the one 55mm thread lens, so I'll probably just get a filter in that size, but for someone with more lenses, great advice.

>>4421529
Noooo GNDs are dated because i can heckin underexpose
*brings foreground up to iso 800 levels*
muh iso invariance
*ignores shadow improvement/read noise curves*
stop pixel peeping its not mushy you’re just noticing things that are wrong to notice. i bought my $2000 camera for instagram only. view on your phone gearfag hylic!

>>4421597
i thought you were supposed to over-expose and then reel in the highlights

>>4421610
Expose negative film enough to get tones for shadows. Overexposed negative is fiddly to print in darkroom and scans poorly so do not overdo it.
Expose slide film and straight from digital camera jpg correctly.
Digital raw intended for editing, expose for highlights you do not want to clip.

>>4421527 (OP)
Glimmerglass is the goat.

>>4422102
>Diffusion filter
What kind of stuff do you use it for? It looks like it smooths out skin imperfections and so makes people look prettier.

>>4422147
diffusion filters are good for editorial portraits for the reasons you said. the more extreme ones also add glow that vaguely resembles film, which will be a huge hit if you're working with normie clients.

I used to have a Cokin graduated ND filter. I used it with my film SLR and DSLR but it didn't do shit. Sold it soon

>>4422159
I don't get why you wouldn't just crank the haze slider and not fuck your raws permanently

>>4421527 (OP)
CP. Never go without it. If I don't need an ND filter than it CP by default

>>4422195
Nice. I've ordered an entry level one to try out, and suspect I might go the same way.
>>4422174
I was wondering this too. Does a diffusion filter add anything that can't be attained in post?

>>4422195
>>4422198
Mods are asleep! POST CP!

>>4422202

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera Softwarepaint.net 5.0.13Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution96 dpiVertical Resolution96 dpi

I've always used a linear polarizing filter. Screw CPLs

>>4422099
You can usually overexpose negative c-41 film 1-2 stops before major issues (unless it's Harmon Phoenix or some other off brand), many people shoot portra 800 at 400 for muh pastels and muh dreamy bloom. Some films will have more of a color shift than others, ymmv

Me personally I'm #nofilter till I die

>>4422208
Your cameral lens has multiple coatings on it that are themselves a filter.
You think #nofilter makes your pictures more pure and special but you're just a retard to write them off.

Do any of you guys use magnetic filter systems? I was thinking of going for one but maybe step up rings are good enough.

>>4422211
its a meme you dip

>>4422204
What's the difference? In the effect I mean, not the mechanism.

>>4421527 (OP)
i considered an ND filter so i could shoot f/1.4 during the day but then i realized there was a whole uneaten cheese cake in the fridge and i ate that instead

>>4422280
i think you can twist it around to cancel different types of poles as you look at them

>>4422288
In trying to formulate a reply, I've realised I really have no idea how CPL filters work in comparison.

>>4422287
>cheese cake
Nice.

>>4422373
It's a linear polarizer you can turn so you filter out one of the two polarizations that light has, vertical or horizontal, the inbetween angles take a percentage of vertical and a percentage of the horizontal and twist the polarization to the filters orientation
You guys should begin by learning about light polarization first

>>4422387
I do know about light polarisation, but how does a CPL still work no matter what angle your camera is from the ground? I get that natural light is polarised by bouncing of the ground, but this doesn't seem to add up since the lens works at any angle, right?

>>4422388
Turning the whole canera is equivalent to turning the filter
If you shoot in landscape, then adjust to portrait, you have to turn the polarizer another 45° to get the same shot

>>4422390
*90°

I only use a UV filter, once I tried a red filter for film but maybe I am retarded because it looked the same to me.

>>4422390
>>4422391
That makes sense to me for the linear filter. I didn't really know what a CPL did in contrast to that, but now I've read about it.
>Quarter-wave plates in CPLs turn polarised light in to non-polarised light to function with autofocus, but linear just blocks it.

>>4422373
>you guys should learn about light polarization
no thanks im fat

>>4422399
shit this was in reply to the wrong post

>>4422393
if you're using a red filter it should be super red like as red as possible and then you should shoot when the sky is really blue and see that the sky is darker and say wow what a cool and fun thing

>>4422393
I'm pretty sure UV filter doesn't do a goddamn thing except put a lower quality piece of glass in front of your lens that can catch flares

>>4422402
older lenses needed them before UV coatings became standard but yeah now they're just glorified lenscaps (or maybe if you do something weird to your camera to make it UV sensitive idk)

A polarized lens would help remove glare/reflections in a shot like this, right? I was a little frustrated I couldn't get a shot I wanted from this pond.

>>4422430
Yeah it should do. Those reflections are already pretty minimal so I would think it would clear them away almost completely.

Is a polarising lens how travel sites always make tropical water look so clear? While I was looking for comparisons to see it's effect on water it struck me that the blue water shots look like a holiday brochure.

>>4422235
I got a k&f magnetic cpl. The magnet works great but the filter is a piece of shit that makes my pictures soft and fucks with the autofocus.
One day I'll get one of those magnetic adapters for my cheap tiffen screw on filter that does not make my pictures soft. For some reason the name brand magnetic filters are 5x the price of normal screw on.

>>4422287
Based.

I guess I should get a cpl huh

>>4422433
yes dont forget your nikon d850, 14-24, and dehaze and saturation sliders

Test

It struck me the other day how there are tonnes of vintage filters that nobody talks about that has all sorts of interesting effects. Those rainbow star filters, cross filters, tricolor filters that makes the bokeh look LGBT etc.

>>4422467
Yeah, primarily because you can recreate most of that in post now.
Secondarily, they generally always mess with your IQ and make things look softer
Tertiarily, because the vast, vast majority of people who own a camera these days are soulless hyllics that couldn't think of something creative without daddy chatGPT fucking their wife for them.

>>4422509
>calls others hylics while saying "don't use filters to achieve effects in camera, just do it in post don't you care about IQ?"

>>4422511
Huh? I gave answers for the thought process. I didn't once say you shouldn't use them. They DO impact image quality. You ARE an ESL with the reading comprehension of a Pakistani sand farmer.

Are there any noticeable differences in different brands of cpl filters? I had a hoya cpl filter which Iost somewhere and then I bought a cheaper chinese k&f cpl replacement filter. I am finding that while polarisation works when tested on something like an lit lcd display (light source) when I am outside on a sunny day I get very little effect when using the k&f filter, I rotate the filter but it hardly does anything to the picture (compared to the hoya filter).
Is this really the case or am I just imagining things?

>>4421527 (OP)
ND for long exposure or rare bit of filming, polarizer and a protection lens filter (specifically one with a high level of light transmission, not just a standard UV filter that everyone seems to use).

>>4422706
Yes. You can make a CPL with different grades and types of material, and with vastly differing intensities. The cheapshit series-K K&F I got years ago was noticably weak, but I ended up getting their $100 CPL+VND combo filter and it is much stronger.
Hoya is probably up there in terms of strength considering their price-point, but I've heard people vouch for nikon's range a couple times, so I'm inclined to say experiment.

>>4421527 (OP)
I bought some long ago, used a few times and never again. I think it's mostly from film cameras days. I could create the same effect in adobe camera raw back in 2011, and didn't really look back.

It came down to me spending additional time taking things off and putting on, when I could have just been clicking away and going with the flow.

In the right hands I can see picking the correct filter might save some work in post, but I'd rather waste my time in post than others peoples time that were kind enough to wait for me to get a shot.

I guess it depends where you want to spend the time.

>>4422828
For colour filters I agree completely, but there are some filters like CPL that can't be replicated in post. I have one of those on the front of my camera at all times and I can just adjust it to high or low intensity pretty quickly.
If I was taking the sort of shots where the exposure triangle would lead to overexposure with the lighting in place then I can see how ND would be good too. You'd lose all your detail in the overexposed parts even after bringing them back down in post.
In principle though yeah, right there with you. If you can shift work to post, you should, especially since you can more effectively automate and batch work there.

I got a Tiffen CPL now so I did a quick comparison with the K&F. The K&F would actually be fine for normal/wide but it falls apart at long focal lengths. I did not realize longer focal lengths require better filters until I got this one for bird pictures and every picture looked like shit.

>>4422906
I swear, birds have got to be the leading cause of banckruptcy among photographers. If you want to keep your gear cheap, ignore birds.
Genuinely though, interesting comparison. I assume this was done using a tripod? It looks like motion blur, but if you consistently get it every shot, that is unlikely to be the cause.

>>4422909
as much as the resident schizo hates the sensor
m43 can give you a pretty affordable birbing kit

>>4422909
Lol yeah birding is not my main focus but I've already spent more on birding gear than everything else. But the Tiffen was only $30 and is basically perfect as best I can tell.
>It looks like motion blur
That's what I thought at first too, that I had turned VR off by accident or something. But every shot with the filter is like that and with the other filter it's fine. It's also not missed focus, I tried manual focus and it never improves. I think the glass is warped or something. All those pictures were handheld at f/8, 1/1000s. I didn't turn the filters any particular way so this doesn't show whether one filter is "stronger" than the other.

>>4422916
dunno but there is possibility that magnetic filter affect focusing system in lens (especially linear one). I rather would't put anything magnetic on lens

>>4422906
Jesus fuck. That difference is insane. I'm pretty sure my K&F X-series is way better than that magnetic one you posted. I'm going to go do some quick tests tomorrow morning and check for sure, but I honestly think your filter might be fucked. I still have my shittier K-series CPL as well so I may as well test them both; I will return with results.

R72 Filters for infrared are pretty cool if you're shooting film. Not sure if there are infrared sensitive digital cameras.

>>4421527 (OP)
Tiffen VND all day every day

>>4423250
>Not sure if there are infrared sensitive digital cameras.
There was, and it could see through womens' clothes, and that was the end of it, they all have filters now.

>>4422912
i love mushy, detail-less birb

>>4423349
lmao IR isn't the same as Superman cartoon X-ray vision anon.

>>4423250
You can modify them to be so by removing inbuilt IR cut filters or by buying whatever early model Leica it was that had issues with being overly sensitive to IR due to not having said cut filter. I bought a film body off a guy who tried to sell me a Panasonic that he'd modified to have two different IR sensitive modes. I'm sure they make specialized IR digital cameras too for industrial or other uses.

>>4423355
>lmao IR isn't the same as Superman cartoon X-ray vision anon.
at least google it before mouthing off.

>>4423250
Yeah they're definitely around and it's even better with mirrorless because you can see the infrared through the viewfinder. I got a dslr because I didn't want to spend $1k on a gimmick camera.
>>4423349
This was never real. I think one of those clickbaity "news" stations did a story and people memed it like it was true, but it only "worked" if the clothes were basically transparent to begin with. If you were around back then you'd remember the pearl clutchers were also panicking about people using the curves tool to emphasize pokies or bring out the outline of areolas in already transparent clothes.

On that note I will say tits look pretty cool in IR, the nipples basically disappear but you can see the veins through the skin and everything kind of glows. I'm surprised it's not a common porn technique, I get substantial satisfaction out of the pictures I've taken. No I won't post any.
>>4423381
>muh aislop is facts
nah fuck off

>>4422912
everything from the colors to the fine detail looks much, much, much worse than micro four thirds can achieve

did you shoot this at max ISO, run it through AI, and then open the DNG in some incompetent program like darktable or gimp and call it good?

>>4423388
>>muh aislop is facts
>nah fuck off
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sony-recalled-camcorders/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1998/08/15/undressed-in-a-flash-camera-may-take-revealing-portraits/540d587e-c68a-42b4-af73-1b4df6954d35/
If you don't like AI you could always have searched this information yourself. There's no point in digging your heels in. You made a simple mistake due to an understandable gap in knowledge, that's all.
The facts above match what the AI surmised, so in this case, it was correct.

>>4423397
Have you tried reading your own goddamn link?
>The New York Times published an article on the rumor in December 1998 in which it claimed that it "had only the tiniest grain of truth: in skilled hands, during the day, under just the right conditions, with just the right (gauzy) fabrics, it might be possible to produce an image of a body beneath. The camera could not, of course, see through clothes, and there was no recall":

> In bright sunlight, with that "special" lens, the infrared camera didn't reveal anything the naked eye couldn't see.
> "It was nothing," said Steve McFradden, a B&H sales associate. "It was intended to see in the dark, not see through clothes."
It was a bunch of karens bitching about nothing. Nothing was banned and it can't "see through women's clothes" unless they're dressed like a whore already. Bubble undress was more effective.

>>4423409
>Have you tried reading your own goddamn link?
Yes, I have read the contents of those links. Be calm.
The AI answer said:
>in specific circumstances, they could make certain clothing appear partially transparent when used in bright daylight
Here's a quote from that Snopes article:
>Phil Petescia, who worked as marketing manager at Sony for Handycam in 1998, reached out to us via email and confirmed that Sony did not recall the cameras:
>>We did not recall the cameras. They could record through thin black clothing if the person was wearing white underwear (or had very light skin) under certain settings enhanced by an additional lens. I went to Macy's in Paramus and bought every black bathing suit they had and we tested it.
The circumstances alluded to by Snopes and the AI answer are bright light, sheer black top, pale skin or white underwear.
The Snopes articles covers a few different views on whether the cameras could see through clothing, you chose to focus on the one that agrees with you, but a manager at Sony tested it out and confirmed the effect. That's why the article overall confirms that part of the story as true (though the recall is false, but not claimed ITT).

>>4423409
>>4423410
And here's a modern iteration of the same effect.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/15/21259723/oneplus-8-pro-x-ray-vision-infrared-filter-see-through-plastic

>>4423410
I never said there wasn't a hullabaloo about it, I remember it. But the effect wasn't real, you couldn't see anything you couldn't already see in normal color.
How about showing me one example of this effect, with a standard color image of the same clothing. I saw the samples back when this went down. It's nothing. I don't care what sony said, they were probably hoping people would buy more camcorders for creepshotting.
Yes you can see white underwear through black clothing sometimes, it's because the clothing is thin and not some infrared magic. It's made that way on purpose for whores to show off their underwear while pretending they're not. On camera flash enhances the transparency as well. The main thing IR does is reduce the contrast of wrinkles and elastic and so on, so the cloth looks more like "skin color".

>>4423199
I return with test results. Not 100% lab-grade test results, but results nonethenless.
I'm gonna saturate the thread with five images that highlight the difference in qualtiy that a couple different filters introduce.
The day was windy and rainy so I opted for something that would sit the fuck still and prevent subject blur: A tree trunk.

I originally planned on testing wide (24mm), normal (50mm), telephoto (100mm) and super-telephoto (400mm) focal lengths, but quickly realised that all but the worst filter has zero impact on anything 100mm and under.
At 100mm at a full crop zoom in-camera (so rediculously cropped) you could see the image differences, but nobody in the right mind would be cropping so severely.
So, the tests I'm going to show you are from a single lens at a single focal length of 400mm, as it stresses the quality of the filters the most, and is a focal length I shoot at regularly.

>I shot the tests with an R50 24MP APS-C Mirrorless camera, using a full-frame RF 100-400 f/5.6-8 USM lens.
This is already stressing the optical quality of the lens elements, as I'm using a high res crop sensor.

The files are resized to 65% native resolution, are OOC JPEG with Super Fine compression.
Sharpening Strength +3, Sharpening Fineness +1, Contrast +0.

To begin:
>K&F UV Series-X Filter
I am the kind of person who runs UV filters on everything by default, so this is my normal.

>>4423442
Next is my normal choice for CPL filter, and something I use very regularly. The filters are never stacked.
>K&F CPL Series-X Filter
This is about par with the UV filter I use, so I consider this a win. CPLs use two different panes of glass so I was expecting at least a 50% drop in sharpness, and instead I think the difference is about 10-20%.

>>4423446
This one is never used anymore as it was cheap and I didn't think about what that might be costing me in terms of IQ. It basically never got used, but I wanted to test the difference between this and the more expensive CPL.
>K&F CPL Series-K Filter
This is clearly garbage. Even at 50mm FL I could see the impact it was having on photos. I understand this filter was $20 AUD, but I wouldn't use this on even the widest, softest lenses.

>>4423447
>Whoops
>Series-K CPL Filter

>>4423449
Finally I took all the filters off, and shot bare-ass naked.
>No Filter
And there was a clear improvement over even the UV filter. While not immediately obvious, there is a distinctly sharper look across the entire frame. It is so crisp, that I honestly should have shot it again without any sharpening. For this super-telephoto lens, I will be ditching the UV filter from now on.

>>4423451
For shits and giggles, I remembered I had a Hoya UV filter that came with a lens I bought second-hand. I had already dismounted the tripod and packed up, so I shot this handheld at ISO 2500, at a slightly different place on the tree trunk.
>Hoya UV Filter
And it was slightly worse than the K&F Series-X UV filter. Despite having a more solid construction and being made in the USA instead of China. The difference wasn't enough to care between brands for anything less than telephoto shots.

>>4423442
I'm going to go with you being a retard until proven otherwise.
Are the filters clean?
Are you refocusing after you mount them?
Are these actually shot at sharp shutter speeds?
Are they even the filters you claim that they are, and not a meme-tier diffusion +5 dark cloud beauty pro-must "Rockwell Signature Series".
>he's using a plastic babby canon
>he's stripping the exif
>cpls do not do this >>4423449
>this example is obviously motion blurred, the streaks are following the arc the camera moved in >>4422906

>>4423460
As for my own opinions on filters, generally they're all fit for purpose, but with no particular purpose there's no justification to use one.
Nothing has as big an impact on IQ as a filter not being clean, and if a filter is clean then they should all be essentially perfect, ignoring turbo-autist 200% magnification.
Even at that level, price generally has no bearing whatsoever on image quality, actually the most important thing is to use filters from a Filter Brand (Hoya, Tiffen, B&W) that has existed longer than whatever marketing company is shitting upstream of your instagram feed.
>uv's have no place on a lense unless you know it will be in danger of getting splashed, knocked, dropped in mud, etc
>the biggest degradation they have on IQ is flare/reflection from them being poorly coated or not at all
>cpl's come in standard and high transmission (lighter coloured), the high T ones warm the image, they both polarise the same, they're essential for outdoor use in sunlight, or bodies of water
>yellow, orange or red filters are great for b&w film, I achieve equally excellent results with $2 ebay trash and hoya/zeiss quality
Again, the only time to use them is when the effect on the overall image will be beneficial. Otherwise they just reduce sharpness & contrast and add flare.

>>4423460
>Clean
Yes. I'm not an animal.
>Refocusing
Yes. I'm not retarded.
>Shutter Speeds
1/125th on a tripod with IS enabled and disabled (no difference between IS use) and using a remote shutter
>Are they the filters I say they are?
Yes, what the fuck do I have to gain from lying you assblasted faggot.
>Plastic baby Canon
Irrelevant. We're discussing filters.
>Stripping exif
You're a moron. EXIF hasn't worked since the hack.
>Obvious motion blur.
Nope. Rock steady with a non-retarded shutter speed and the subject is a tree trunk.

2/10 bait

>

>>4423446
>>4423449
Interesting, very similar to mine. Confirms it's not the magnet messing with focus or anything. Clearly they are capable of making a good filter but used their shit glass for the magnetic one. It's a shame because the magnetic feature is really convenient and the name brand magnetics are expensive.
>>4423460
I am the pinetree anon and treetrunk anon (not me) has reproduced basically the same effect with a similar cheap chinese filter. It's not user error, the filters are just shit.
>cpls do not do this >>4423449
Shitty CPLs do. Probably other types of shitty filter do too but I don't have any to test.
>this example is obviously motion blurred
It's not. I know it looks like it but it's not. Why would only the shots with the chinese filter be motion blurred?

>>4423478
The "expensive" cpl was $50 AUD. Not exactly expensive by any means, but the priciest one they make that isn't some special magnetic or ultra-low reflectivity version.
I am now interested in looking for a CPL that will further minimise the effect on IQ with my 100-400mm. In complete fairness, below 100mm I'm more likely to have noise or motion blur fuck up a shot, and when I eventually go full-frame, I will be not be stressing the optical quality of the lens or filter as much.

>>4423416
The Sony test is evidence that there was an effect, and there isn't any evidence that they tried to entice people to buy cameras for creepshotting. The quote is from long after this whole event and they didn't publish the test results at the time. They also changed the design so it couldn't do that any more, so there's another point against them intentionally selling for creepshots. It was actually quite embarassing for them.
>infrared magic
It's not magic, of course. I can see you have used IR before so you probably understand this, but for anyone else reading, some clothing is more transparent to infrared light than other light, and if you're wearing clothes that reflect a lot of infrared light underneath it, you'll be able to see more than you would in the visible light spectrum. So, clothing that is acceptable in the visible spectrum (perhaps barely acceptable, as you said) might then be more revealing in the infrared spectrum.
I posted a link to the effect here, though taken with a different camera.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/15/21259723/oneplus-8-pro-x-ray-vision-infrared-filter-see-through-plastic
Here is a video I looked up with the effect shown on the Sony Handycam with NightShot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UBbjwPnW1E
In the visible spectrum it just looks like a fairly normal dress. Not particularly slutty or shear.
As far as whether it's a big deal? We agree that the answer is no. At this point, there are much more invasive and much more accurate techniques than this underwear peeking stuff if you want to make creep pictures of someone.

>>4423449
Interesting results. Thanks for sharing.
I do wish we could still see EXIF - it's a shame the site's disabled it - but this is still useful.
I will see about gathering some comparison shots with a HOYA UX II CIR-PL I bought after hearing about the uses of CPLs in this thread. It was pretty cheap, but not quite as cheap as the K&F.

>>4422793
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CNSYGDQX
I bought this and the polarisation effect when used outside seems very weak

ND filter! 6 stops ND was the sweet spot for what I needed, shooting 400 film in daylight felt like mandatory 1000 / f16 as that's the fastest shutter speed on my camera, the filter gave me flexibility, also pushing film to iso 1600 in daylight would not be possible without it and I love pushed b&w.

>>4423484
>400mm, f/8 (wide open), ISO 200, 1/250th (CPL 1/125th to account for light loss)
>Flash w/ Softbox indoors @ 1.5m
>Focus on middle of blue eyeball
>AF, 1-point
>Tripod, Remote Shutter
This test I reproduced the results from earlier, but the wind wasn't fucking my ass and I could keep the shutter speed higher thanks to flash. ISO is unfortunately at 200 since I wanted to eliminate any chance of motion blur.

>No Filters

>>4423556
>Series-K CPL
Just to reiterate what a dirt-cheap CPL is doing to image quality

>>4423558
And finally to prove I'm using the filters in question because that one anon wanted to be a faggot.