p.6 #1 · Diffusion Filters! (or Effect Filters in general)
fuzzykeys wrote:
Interesting! I think the software is pretty cool and useful in its own right but at least in this test, I don’t think it blooms the same way or biases the effect towards the highlights in the same way. It would be awesome to see some software vs hardware samples with s small hard light source like a lamp or streetlight. If had done a shoot with and without a filter but then retroactively decided to unify the look of the set, the software would be a great starting point IMO. I would need to use some luminosity masks on curves adjustments and Gaussian blur layers in PS to take an honest try at more accurately mimicking the highlight behavior beyond that.
Yes, I agree. It gets close to the "look" but misses the "halation" or highlight glow which is pleasant with the real filters.
There is a way to mimic this in Photoshop though.
p.6 #2 · Diffusion Filters! (or Effect Filters in general)
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thank you!
Here is what the Tiffen software can do:
Interesting. Some thoughts--the light source and immediately around it is obviously much different on the filtered version versus digital. The axial is noticeably reduced on the filtered versus the digital. I am seeing a bit higher clarity on the digital version as well. It's pretty good though. For most, probably not worth dealing with the filters--assuming you don't care about the point light source/flare type stuff, which many will, but not all.
On page 3 of this thread first post, I posted a BPM 1 with a CV 75 (your ex ) and then naked to show the response against the sun with flare/halation. Could you run virtually as well for use to see?
p.6 #3 · Diffusion Filters! (or Effect Filters in general)
Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes, I agree. It gets close to the "look" but misses the "halation" or highlight glow which is pleasant with the real filters.
There is a way to mimic this in Photoshop though.
---------------------------------------------
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Interesting. Some thoughts--the light source and immediately around it is obviously much different on the filtered version versus digital. The axial is noticeably reduced on the filtered versus the digital. I am seeing a bit higher clarity on the digital version as well. It's pretty good though. For most, probably not worth dealing with the filters--assuming you don't care about the point light source/flare type stuff, which many will, but not all.
On page 3 of this thread first post, I posted a BPM 1 with a CV 75 (your ex ) and then naked to show the response against the sun with flare/halation. Could you run virtually as well for use to see?...Show more →
The halation is my favorite part! I kinda sorta tried to emulate a non-specific diffusion filter in post one time. 0% scientific.
p.6 #4 · Diffusion Filters! (or Effect Filters in general)
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Do you mean if you are shooting a 35mm and 75mm with the same BPM that the photo will appear more affected with the 75mm?
Yes, exactly. On a recent (video) shoot, I had a 24-70/4 and a 70-200/4, both using the BPM 1/4 filter, and was shocked at how much more of the BPM's effect I saw on the 70-200. I've also gone from 12-35/2.8 on an m43 sensor to an 85/1.2 on an FF sensor with the same strength filter, and it was too over the top on the 85. On a phone lens and sensor, it's hard to see most of it except for the halation.
p.6 #6 · Diffusion Filters! (or Effect Filters in general)
I wonder if the longer focal length just magnifies the "structure" of the filter (but it's really defocused, thus very soft and blurred), thus magnifying the effect with longer FLs.
I would almost think of a longer focal length lens as "zooming"/cropping into the image that's projected through the filter. Sort of like when optical aberrations like CA, SA, ... are more visible when an image is cropped or a teleconverter is used, except this time the aberrations are the filter effect.
p.6 #8 · Diffusion Filters! (or Effect Filters in general)
photomadnz wrote:
I have the 35GM which I love. I used to have the Sigma 1.2 which had a touch better bokeh etc. If I use a simple radial selection in Camera Raw or LR and use some negative texture I get basically the same look. It doesn’t ruin the contrast or muddy the waters. Quick and easy. 😊
That's what I do, too, just with a brush. Easy and quick.
p.6 #9 · Diffusion Filters! (or Effect Filters in general)
The FE 35mm f/1.4 GM and 35/2 DG DN are great candidates for the BPM 1/4 filter. It reduces the super high contrast while softening the highlights slightly. Images are still screaming sharp but have a softer fall-out.
When shooting against the light, the filter increases veiling flare (not ghosting) which gives a natural look to images with a bit more character.
I really like it.
I’ll run a controlled test this weekend and post crops from a 35mm and 75mm with the same filter at the same distance. I have found my experience follows what Tiffen has outlined, and the affect is more pronounced on wides. Will be interesting.
Also, Fred. You should try the pearlescent out. For portraits I like it better than the BPM ‘s. I too have a 1/8 BPM parked on my 35i too similar to what you are doing. Keep the IQ and rendering, just accentute a bit.
@fuzzykeys I like that processing! Mine to share what you did?
I’ll run a controlled test this weekend and post crops from a 35mm and 75mm with the same filter at the same distance. I have found my experience follows what Tiffen has outlined, and the affect is more pronounced on wides. Will be interesting.
Also, Fred. You should try the pearlescent out. For portraits I like it better than the BPM ‘s. I too have a 1/8 BPM parked on my 35i too similar to what you are doing. Keep the IQ and rendering, just accentute a bit.
@fuzzyleys I like that processing! Mine to share what you did?...Show more →
What I've noticed is that most of the filter's effect happens when shooting against the light or if there is a light source in the frame. The main effect is an increase in "veiling flare"
Only during these conditions, I get halation for the lighting source or a veiling effect for a scene with a subject against the light. That's when the real filter is better than software since the later can't offer the same halation or veiling effect.
However, in normal conditions, the filter effect is small even with the 1/4 strength...with only a bit less contrast. (which can be bumped back in post if needed)...
So, I agree there is no harm in having a 1/8 strength always attached to these high contrast/sharp lenses. There is only benefit to the overall image, unless veiling flare in your shots is not your desired goal and you want your images as contrasty as possible.
p.6 #13 · Diffusion Filters! (or Effect Filters in general)
Fred Miranda wrote:
What I've noticed is that most of the filter's effect happens when shooting against the light or if there is a light source in the frame. The main effect is an increase in "veiling flare"
Only during these conditions, I get halation for the lighting source or a veiling effect for a scene with a subject against the light. That's when the real filter is better than software since the later can't offer the same halation or veiling effect.
However, in normal conditions, the filter effect is small even with the 1/4 strength...with only a bit less contrast. (which can be bumped back in post if needed)...
So, I agree there is no harm in having a 1/8 strength always attached to these high contrast/sharp lenses. There is only benefit to the overall image, unless veiling flare in your shots is not your desired goal and you want your images as contrasty as possible....Show more →
I need a 1/2 to start noticing a real affect when not shooting against bright lights, with the 1 BPM the affect is very pronounced on at all FL’s. but yes, my experience and reasoning lines up with yours and that has been my mode operation since getting them essentially. Have you experimented much with the 65i and d filters?
p.6 #14 · Diffusion Filters! (or Effect Filters in general)
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I need a 1/2 to start noticing a real affect when not shooting against bright lights, with the 1 BPM the affect is very pronounced on at all FL’s. but yes, my experience and reasoning lines up with yours and that has been my mode operation since getting them essentially. Have you experimented much with the 65i and d filters?
No because the 65i uses a 62mm thread and the filter is 67mm. But I would think it would benefit greatly from BPM. (Just like the 35/1.4 GM and Batis 135/2.8)
I’ll run a controlled test this weekend and post crops from a 35mm and 75mm with the same filter at the same distance. I have found my experience follows what Tiffen has outlined, and the affect is more pronounced on wides. Will be interesting.
Thanks! That sounds like fun. If you can get a light source in the frame, that might be an interesting set of tests to run too. When I shoot with a BPM, it's almost always with some sort of visible lighting in the frame, except for the 24-70 and 70-200 shoot I mentioned: then it was against the sun in the morning, but the sun was out of frame. But my lighting when I use the BPM is pretty much always backlit.
p.6 #16 · Diffusion Filters! (or Effect Filters in general)
nehemiahphoto wrote:
@fuzzykeys@ I like that processing! Mine to share what you did?
After cleanup and most of my dodging and burning in PS, I made one more dodge curves layer with an empty black layer mask. I used Lumenzia to make a selection of the extreme highlights, blurred the selection, and then painted through the selection onto the dodge layer mask with white paint to reveal the effect. This amped up the highlights a bit more but started to soften their edges a touch.
After I finished my color grade, I applied a blur to the extreme highlights as well. I made a stamped copy layer of everything, used Lumenzia again to make a selection of the extreme highlights, copied those pixels onto their own layer, applied a Guassian blur to them and then adjusted the opacity of the layer to taste. That was the last step in the edit before applying sharpening and grain.
p.6 #18 · Diffusion Filters! (or Effect Filters in general)
DaveFP wrote:
So....
Ordered the BPM 1/8 and 1/4 in 67mm for my new 35 GM from B&H.
When I took delivery neither filter box was sealed and the filters were dirty.
I really had to go over them with Pancro to get them clean.
Curious if yours were sealed and/or pristine when you got them.
I'm a Zeiss*/B+W guy; never ordered Tiffen lenses before.
My Tiffens all came dirty ha! I’m used to NiSi, B&W, Polar Pro…..really polished presentations etc. Tiffen makes some really cool effect filters that I love but that luxury-presentation and build isn’t quite there. The results are good though so I don’t mind.
p.6 #19 · Diffusion Filters! (or Effect Filters in general)
NatDeroxL7 wrote:
My Tiffens all came dirty ha! I’m used to NiSi, B&W, Polar Pro…..really polished presentations etc. Tiffen makes some really cool effect filters that I love but that luxury-presentation and build isn’t quite there. The results are good though so I don’t mind.
Ok; thanks. Mine look like they spent two weeks in the Sahara. Glad to know they are most likely new.
) and then naked to show the response against the sun with flare/halation. Could you run virtually as well for use to see?
