hmmm... maybe you need a filter to get something special out of it, but i think i've gotten that effect without filters...
this is my most recent example, altho' by no means my best, and there are plenty other examples on 365 that are much better and where i don't recall ever hearing mention of using a special filter... i find key is small aperture and long exposure...
@northy Interesting! Yes, I have gotten that effect from time to time, but the filters make it more "starry" if that makes sense. Good for Christmas trees and such that you want to look extra snazzy. lol.
l have just looked at your link , l will be interested in the responses also as these look good and l wouldn't mind getting them as well- and the price is good too:)
I can't believe I'm even sharing this...dug way back through the archives for this gem. This is a shot with my star-8 filter. I played with it for a week, then got rid of it. They are tricky to adjust to get the stars, especially on something like Christmas lights that aren't so bright. At least I found that. Maybe I just had no clue how to use it. ;)
I have used the 'star' filter for some shots like you were looking for in your link. I got mine from a second had store for 5 bucks CAD. You can make one out of an old filter by lightly scraping a small grid on it. They were popular before digital when you had to do the special effects with film. So, in answer to your question, you can do this digitally and have the same look, have the look like the others posted by a small aperture, or get the filter. Really, I would not spend a lot of money on one. But, they are fun. :)
Glad I helped somewhat. :) There are tonnes of really cool filters that I snagged a couple years ago for my 35 mm but won't work with my dslr. :( Good luck! :)
All of these (and many more in my stream) were done by using a narrow aperture. The number of points of the 'stars' is determined by the number or blades the iris in your lens has -- a lens with an even number of blades will have the same number of points, a lens with an odd number of blades will have double the number of points.
A real star filter (also known as a cross screen filter) is a bit specialist these days and always tends to remind me of shots from the 80s. Not necessarily a bad thing, but worth bearing in mind. It's *very* easy to overdo things when using a star filter.
It might also be worth looking at Topaz Star Effects, which is supposed to do the same thing in software. I've not tried it personally, but it would allow you to limit the effect to certain areas of the photograph, whereas a filter is 'all or nothing'.
Bear in mind that there are various very complex aspects of lens design and blade shape which determines how 'tight' the points are, how large they get, and generally how pleasant they are, in much the same way as the quality of bokeh can vary depending on lens, even at the same settings. For example, the 16-35mm lens I use to get the 14-point starbursts has the same number of blades as Canon's 17-40mm lens, but the quality of the starbursts from the 16-35 are more aesthetically pleasing.
Here is a quick comparison between f/16 with 7-bladed aperture and three different cross screen filters (standard, VI, and VIII). I still have several of differing sizes since I do a lot of film work and enjoy messing around with the filters.
Two apologies:
I'm sorry that the focus is crap.
I'm sorry that my tree is STILL up (as a single tear of shame falls upon my keyboard).
@allegresse
Leave your eyes barely closed and look to a light source such as a car light.
You will see that the more you close your eyes, longer the light sources lines spread.
It's the same with your camera aperture. :D
The closer it gets, more starred it looks.
Of course you will need a long exposure for best effect.
But yes, there are star filters, which are no more than refraction lines marked in glass. A scratched UV filter would have some sort of same effect (though not a controllable effect).
I have heard that star filters are no longer produced.
I've done the bokeh kit thing it's a different take on the star filter...
Here's a kit, I made my own... http://photojojo.com/m/store/awesomeness/bokeh-kit
And an old photos of mine
@gabrielklee Hey, thanks for explaining the science of it, that was interesting. I'm not sure if you're talking about something different (no longer being produced), but if you look at my first post in this discussion, you'll see an amazon link I posted for star filters. I was originally asking people if they could personally vouch for that product.
@asrai Those are really cool. I love the look of the tree with lights! Which filters do you have? Are they similar to the link I posted in the original post?
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
this is my most recent example, altho' by no means my best, and there are plenty other examples on 365 that are much better and where i don't recall ever hearing mention of using a special filter... i find key is small aperture and long exposure...
Hi, here's a photo I took, just using a narrow aperture, no filter! It looks like the effect you're after:
This is more what I was talking about:
http://www.flickriver.com/groups/1638179@N20/pool/interesting/
If anyone has this product and likes it, please chime in!
http://365project.org/discuss/themes-competitions/15318/camera-settings-challenge-18
A couple shots I did for the challenge.
I've done the "shaped bokeh" as well...awhile back:
But, I still want to give the star filter a try -- slightly different than the shaped bokeh, I think. :)
A real star filter (also known as a cross screen filter) is a bit specialist these days and always tends to remind me of shots from the 80s. Not necessarily a bad thing, but worth bearing in mind. It's *very* easy to overdo things when using a star filter.
It might also be worth looking at Topaz Star Effects, which is supposed to do the same thing in software. I've not tried it personally, but it would allow you to limit the effect to certain areas of the photograph, whereas a filter is 'all or nothing'.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sharpshutter/2059276981/
Bear in mind that there are various very complex aspects of lens design and blade shape which determines how 'tight' the points are, how large they get, and generally how pleasant they are, in much the same way as the quality of bokeh can vary depending on lens, even at the same settings. For example, the 16-35mm lens I use to get the 14-point starbursts has the same number of blades as Canon's 17-40mm lens, but the quality of the starbursts from the 16-35 are more aesthetically pleasing.
Two apologies:
I'm sorry that the focus is crap.
I'm sorry that my tree is STILL up (as a single tear of shame falls upon my keyboard).
Okay:
Leave your eyes barely closed and look to a light source such as a car light.
You will see that the more you close your eyes, longer the light sources lines spread.
It's the same with your camera aperture. :D
The closer it gets, more starred it looks.
Of course you will need a long exposure for best effect.
But yes, there are star filters, which are no more than refraction lines marked in glass. A scratched UV filter would have some sort of same effect (though not a controllable effect).
I have heard that star filters are no longer produced.
http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/6605/why-do-light-sources-appear-as-stars-sometimes
Or on the wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_diffraction
(could not bring myself to read it)
Here's a kit, I made my own... http://photojojo.com/m/store/awesomeness/bokeh-kit
And an old photos of mine
Oh, and no shame about the tree. Ours is still up and completely dead. We turn it on proudly every night, lol. (We're getting rid of it tomorrow). ;)