Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | General Gear-talk | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2014 · Filters versus Post Processing

  
 
castlekeeper01
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Filters versus Post Processing


Hi! Enthusiast with limited skills here, asking for a bit of advice. Just beginning to move beyond using haze, UV, and CPL filters to NDs, GND's, and coloring filters. Can y'all shed some light on the differences between using filters to color, shade, or highlight compositions as opposed to "painting" in Photoshop or Lightroom?

I have installed both PS and LR5 on my Mac, but am reluctant to tackle the mountainous learning curve and battle my way through the maze of tools, menus and endless options. I realize ultimately I will have to invest much time - but I'd like to understand what is possible with filters first, and at least reduce post-processing time by using them when appropriate. Plus, what can filters do that pp can't. I already surmise the possibilities in pp are endless - that does not make it appealing, but perhaps necessary.

I recently purchased the following to try out:

Singh-Ray Vari-N Duo thin

Lee Foundation kit, with 1.5 stop GND hard, 1.5 GND soft, 3.0 GND hard, 3.0 GND soft, and a "sunset" #2

I shoot a 5D3 with 77mm L zooms and 72mm primes. For now it's landscapes and walkabouts. Don't do portraits, sports, or weddings.

I'm headed to Charleston in a week, so a wide variety of subjects to work with.

Thoughts?



Jun 26, 2014 at 06:37 AM
dgdg
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Filters versus Post Processing


You will have a variety of answers based on preferences. A couple filters come to mind that are difficult, if not impossible, to reproduce their effect in post processing .
1. Polarizer
2. 6-10 stop neutral density filters.

As far as gnd's, you can try to do it all in one shot with filter(s), or bracket multiple shots without them and blend in post. I speculate a survey here would show that a majority bracket and blend in post a majority of the time.
Be careful with the dreaded X aberrations with the vari density filters if used to the limits. The effect can ruin a photograph which is probably beyond the capabilities of any correction in post.

It's all a process as long as you enjoy yourself. Take things one step at a time.

David



Jun 26, 2014 at 07:57 AM
Dustin Gent
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Filters versus Post Processing


it is all preference. I haven't used filters in years, although will most likely purchase a CPL for my 14-24.

That is some serious gear you have, congrats. What lenses do you have? I think you listed the filter thread sizes on the lenses.

This shot I took this past weekend. No filters were used, just blending of different exposures and different focus points. I personally don't like dealing with filters (fingerprints, scratches, lazy, etc). as it is much easier for me to just blend images. Good luck

http://scontent-a-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/t1.0-9/10362644_744677692260948_6210599526930550850_n.jpg



Jun 26, 2014 at 02:19 PM
castlekeeper01
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Filters versus Post Processing


"What lenses do you have? I think you listed the filter thread sizes on the lenses."

I have 17-40, 17-55, 24-105, 70-200 2.8 IS II, 70-300L, 35 1.4, 85 1.2 II, 100 Macro L

Mostly use the 17-40, 24-105, and 70-300 for landscape.

So let me ask the same general question in a different way - what's the difference between using a 2-4 stop ND instead of just dropping exposure the same number of stops?



Jun 26, 2014 at 09:08 PM
PotchieR
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Filters versus Post Processing




castlekeeper01 wrote

So let me ask the same general question in a different way - what's the difference between using a 2-4 stop ND instead of just dropping exposure the same number of stops?


If you use exposure compensation, it will only under/over expose the image itself. On the other hand, if you use an ND filter, you can cut the amount of light that's reaching the sensor and still get the proper exposure.



Jun 27, 2014 at 02:02 AM
Micky Bill
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Filters versus Post Processing


Don;t be intimidated by all the tools in PS and LR, I have been doing this forever and still don;t know what some tools do (or why), right now a I am doing a lot of video, whenever I run into a question, there;s usually a few 3 minute youtube videos that explain it user terms (as opposed to engineer / guy who wrote the program terms)
Biting it off in chunks as the questions come up works better for me than trying to digest everything at once.

I use some polarizers, variable ND and grads (mainly with video)



Jun 27, 2014 at 03:48 AM
pnetz
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Filters versus Post Processing


castlekeeper01 wrote:
So let me ask the same general question in a different way - what's the difference between using a 2-4 stop ND instead of just dropping exposure the same number of stops?


You cannot drop exposure beyond your camera base ISO and fastest shutter speed.

For example, I often shoot street with a 50/1.4 wide open which in broad daylight overexposes a lot - my camera goes to 1/4000 which usually requires at least an aperture of around 2.2 to get barely usable results.

During the day I shoot with a 3-stop filter and in the shadow simply bump ISO to still have proper exposure.

For stopped down lenses like in landscape, I think that ND filters are nowadays only necessary if you want ultra-long exposures or if moving subjects make merging multiple images difficult.

Otherwise, merging and overlaying exposures in Photoshop provides much better control over the process than simple or linearly graduated hardware filters.

@Dustin: Great edit!



Jun 27, 2014 at 04:43 AM
trenchmonkey
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Filters versus Post Processing


I think that ND filters are nowadays only necessary if you want ultra-long exposures or if moving subjects make merging multiple images difficult.

...or shooting daytime sports with fast glass. Use 'em all the time as I find myself
bumpin' against 1/8000th quite frequently...there are BG's to destroy!!



Jun 27, 2014 at 05:27 AM
leftcoastlefty
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Filters versus Post Processing


castlekeeper01 wrote:
Hi! Enthusiast with limited skills here, asking for a bit of advice. Just beginning to move beyond using haze, UV, and CPL filters to NDs, GND's, and coloring filters. Can y'all shed some light on the differences between using filters to color, shade, or highlight compositions as opposed to "painting" in Photoshop or Lightroom?


Colored filters have been completely replaced by post processing. Ditto for “star effect” filters and all the other gimmicky filters. Pretty much the only filters still used are polarizers and NDs.

I’d be surprised if you need a ND filter in Charleston. An ND filter is one of those tools that can be very useful in certain situations, but it is a specialized tool and not something that you would use “recreationally” without a specific need.

ND filters are normally used to allow for a long shutter speed—usually measured in seconds. This technique blurs waterfalls, make ocean waves look like puffy fog, and can show motion in clouds whizzing by. It can also make people blur or disappear if they are walking through your photo.

ND filters can also be used in a studio setting. Many studio lights have a certain minimum brightness that allow only f/4 or so to be used. If you want to shoot at f/2, for example, you would need a 2-stop ND filter.

By far, the most useful filter is a polarizer. I mentioned that NDs can be used with waterfalls, but a polarizer is usually all that is needed. The polarizer controls the sheen on the water as a bonus is a 2.5 stop ND filter. Polarizers also darken the sky, take the sheen off damp foliage and generally increase the saturation or "richness" of the image. I love them.



Jun 27, 2014 at 09:37 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Filters versus Post Processing


Having grown up as a black and white photographer first, I used a bunch of the old-school filters including the old color filters. However, today, with a fully digital workflow, I only use two kinds of physical filters:

Circular polarizer - The primary effects of the polarizing filters can not really be duplicated in post, at least not in any way that would make me choose to forego the CP filters. They can control reflections, alter luminosity balance within the scene in useful ways (such as highlighting clouds), somewhat compensate for effects of haze, and work as a quick and dirty neutral density filter when you want to extend exposure and/or use a larger aperture. I don't use these filters very often, but there are circumstances in which they make certain photographs possible.

Neutral density filters - I use the "solid" neutral density filters that reduce the light reaching the sensor by various amounts. My favorites reduce the light by, for example, 9 or 10 stops. These allow me to use quite long exposures in daylight so that I can allow moving objects such as water and clouds and so forth to blur. I use this sort of filter even less than I use the polarizer, but there is not way to replicate the effect in post. ND filters that reduce the light to a lesser extent are also useful.

What I do not use...

I do not use or even own graduated neutral density filters. I know that some swear by them, and that in the film era they were a virtual necessity when shooting very wide dynamic range subjects. However, my strong preference is to work from the tripod and instead use exposure blending. I make two or more photographs optimized for bright/dark areas of the scene and then blend them manually in post. (This is not HDR, by the way.) I have far more control over the result than if I had used a GND filter. I can make the difference between light and dark areas whatever I want it to be (not just the typical 2 and 3 stop increments), I can control the boundary between exposure areas in any way possible, I can follow boundaries that are any shape and even introduce a spot of one exposure anywhere in the frame, and I don't have to carry and set up the GND filters.

I do not use and no longer own any color correction filters. I shoot raw and have far more powerful abilities to apply color filtering in digital post. I have almost infinite control of the color and amount of filtering. I can apply it selectively to any area of the frame. I can even apply different color effects to different portions of the frame.

Dan



Jun 27, 2014 at 09:56 AM
pwk1
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Filters versus Post Processing


gdanmitchell wrote:
I do not use or even own graduated neutral density filters. I know that some swear by them, and that in the film era they were a virtual necessity when shooting very wide dynamic range subjects. However, my strong preference is to work from the tripod and instead use exposure blending. I make two or more photographs optimized for bright/dark areas of the scene and then blend them manually in post. (This is not HDR, by the way.) I have far more control over the result than if I had used a GND filter. I can make the difference between
...Show more

Interesting, thanks for posting this. I've been looking into buying filters recently and I was wondering what real benefits graduated filters have over simply taking multiple exposures and blending them, aside from the potential benefit of time saved not having to do it in post.



Jun 27, 2014 at 01:11 PM
castlekeeper01
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Filters versus Post Processing


Lesson #1 - filters are mostly passé, killed off by the digital painting software.

Lesson #2 - ask Dan before buying any more gear.

Thank you all!



Jun 27, 2014 at 02:34 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Filters versus Post Processing


Let me qualify my earlier post just a bit. I wrote about my perspective and my practice. There is nothing "wrong" with going old school and using GNDs and color filters and all the rest.

I'm thinking of an acquaintance who is a very well known photographer of landscapes and other subjects, a published photographer who was an assistant to some pretty well known photographer from California whose initials were AA.

My acquaintance, no surprisingly, is a very, very fine black and white photographer. Although he understands a number of digital processes (including some really cool ones such as making large contact prints from "negatives" printed on inkjet printers) he works in film. Black and white film. Printed in the traditional darkroom.

And he continues to produce very, very beautiful work. He has refined his working process and his knowledge and intuition to such a keen edge that there is little or no reason for him to adopt a more "modern" process — the process he uses now produces powerful and beautiful work.

I would not work the way he does, but he wouldn't work the way I do either!

Dan



Jun 27, 2014 at 02:54 PM
Nyc.nick
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Filters versus Post Processing


Nik Color Efex has a pretty nifty polarizing filter you can apply in PP. Does a fairly good job reducing reflections and highlights, if you forgot to bring your CPL (which I always seem to do).


Jun 27, 2014 at 03:17 PM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Filters versus Post Processing


Mostly I use a polarizer as needed or a UV filter in hazardous situations. I have not used a color correcting or color conversion filter since the transparency era. I use straight ND filters for moving water sometimes as well.

EBH



Jun 27, 2014 at 08:53 PM
castlekeeper01
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Filters versus Post Processing


Hmmm. Good thoughts, all. While I have the Lee kit (already up for sale), I will experiment. Early expected targets are a relatively boring beach the family loves, sunrises.

Other perspectives on the use of filters are still welcome.



Jun 28, 2014 at 07:15 AM
Rajan Parrikar
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Filters versus Post Processing


castlekeeper01 wrote:
Hmmm. Good thoughts, all. While I have the Lee kit (already up for sale), I will experiment. Early expected targets are a relatively boring beach the family loves, sunrises.

Other perspectives on the use of filters are still welcome.


I use the full suite of the excellent Singh-Ray ND and GND filters in the field. There is something about capturing the scene in a single exposure that appeals to me and this is my preferred approach. However, if the situation is not amenable to GND filters (for reasons well known that I need not repeat here), I do not hesitate to bracket multiple exposures for blending later on in Photoshop.



Jun 28, 2014 at 12:36 PM
PotchieR
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Filters versus Post Processing


I almost bought a Lee filter kit but decided not to. I now mainly use a CPL or if I'm taking water shots and I want to freeze the motion then I use an ND filter. So far I've always been able to get the same effect of a GND filter in Lightroom so I'm holding off the purchase for those.

castlekeeper01 wrote:
Hmmm. Good thoughts, all. While I have the Lee kit (already up for sale), I will experiment. Early expected targets are a relatively boring beach the family loves, sunrises.

Other perspectives on the use of filters are still welcome.




Jun 28, 2014 at 01:53 PM





FM Forums | General Gear-talk | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.