DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Individual Photograph Discussion >> Photoshop or Filter?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 29, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 09/13/2004 06:47:35 AM · #1
I remember a thread by Imagineer some time ago that went into how people assume and presume certain effects were done in photoshop.

Table a motion

The main image in question was Johns skateboard image, and he was upset that people had presumed he created the blur in photoshop when in reality he created it in camera.

I remember putting my point across that it doesn't matter either way, so long as the effect is the same.

Cue countless discussions about photographic skill versus digital art.

Anyway - my Travel Guide Image got a few comments to that effect: Where a few people remarked that I had burnt the sky in photoshop.



However no burning was done, it was all done the old fashioned way in camera by using stacked polorisers and a 0.6 graduated ND filter. easy to spot by looking at the gradation on the right.

Ironically the main miss-presumption came from Imagineer whom gets annoyed at people presuming effects are done in photoshop when they are obtained in camera. :D

This isn't an attack on John or his comment, I am using it as a good example in my argument.

"Does it really matter how an image was created, be it filters, lenses or photoshop?"

Most people can't spot the difference so it becomes pointless even if you do prefer everything to be done in-camera.

Message edited by author 2004-09-13 06:48:44.
 09/13/2004 07:01:19 AM · #2
Well said.
09/13/2004 07:27:40 AM · #3
There's a great article in Digital PhotoPro magazine this month talking about filters on dSLRs. The article actually shows examples where using a filter provides a much smoother color transition than using computer based filters.

The bigger lesson in this is don't assume. :)

Clara
 09/13/2004 08:24:50 AM · #4
Originally posted by Beagleboy:
Well said.


High Five Back! :D
09/13/2004 08:58:47 AM · #5
I use lee Filters Drop In gradient filters and I use photoshop....and both are worth their money.

I have a Gradient Blue drop in, which is a long rectangle, so I can slide it in until I reach my desired Sky/water saturation...awsome. (same with grey scale to contrast clouds ect).

the system is expensive but well worth my investment.
 09/13/2004 11:15:48 AM · #6
I use Cokin - very handy and i agree better than by doing it in photoshop (behind trees etc)

09/13/2004 11:23:57 AM · #7
Originally posted by Gil P:
I use lee Filters Drop In gradient filters and I use photoshop....and both are worth their money.

I have a Gradient Blue drop in, which is a long rectangle, so I can slide it in until I reach my desired Sky/water saturation...awsome. (same with grey scale to contrast clouds ect).

the system is expensive but well worth my investment.


Good thread. Why not just add a gradient in Photoshop if the effect is the same (or similar). Besides the fact that you have more control over the outcome, it's cheaper. So does it really matter?
 09/13/2004 11:26:50 AM · #8
Some competitions make doing it in photoshop illegal ;)
 09/13/2004 11:29:14 AM · #9
Originally posted by dsidwell:
Originally posted by Gil P:
I use lee Filters Drop In gradient filters and I use photoshop....and both are worth their money.

I have a Gradient Blue drop in, which is a long rectangle, so I can slide it in until I reach my desired Sky/water saturation...awsome. (same with grey scale to contrast clouds ect).

the system is expensive but well worth my investment.


Good thread. Why not just add a gradient in Photoshop if the effect is the same (or similar). Besides the fact that you have more control over the outcome, it's cheaper. So does it really matter?


The only way to respond to this would be to suggest you try using drop in filters, I didn't really believe in them until I got to use them.

for example: when you drop in a gradient black filter, you can improve the contrast on clouds and bump-up exposure for the rest of the image.

But I also have some pink filters and some amber gradients...for those "warm" feelings. the following shot got "0" prost processing asside from croping:



Message edited by author 2004-09-13 11:32:20.
 09/13/2004 12:04:53 PM · #10
It seems that any photos that are shot digital, automatically make them "Photoshopped." SO! No REAL photographer probably has the exact shot they want out of camera. Must we forget everything that CAN be done in a darkroom? Almost all the things that are being done in PS, I would think.
Filters on camera or in PS? I would love to have a drop in filter system and many different filters for all 3 of the lenses I have now. Can't afford it. I want to build a garage/workshop/photo studio. Gotta save for that. So, PS is the way. If it is still done without anyone being able to tell the difference, except by conjecture cuz it was shot digitally..so be it.
More to come
 09/13/2004 12:04:54 PM · #11
The purist would argue that on camera filters are artificial, too; since the desired effect could not be achieved without using filters. Likewise, they object to the use of photoshop on similar grounds. I say BS. Both methods have their legitimate merits; and, ultimately, what will make the difference is one's imagination. Artists have always used "shortcuts" to achieve a vision and, at every step, the purists have objected.

Message edited by author 2004-09-13 12:05:47.
 09/13/2004 12:20:42 PM · #12
I suppose that we could go back to coating our own wet plates and developing images over mercury fumes, but is that really going to get us anything?

09/13/2004 12:21:08 PM · #13
This is an interesting thread :)

Lots of digital photographers assume an affect is achieved with software, whether it is or not. This is mainly because of two things. 1 - they don't understand how it was done in camera or with a filter or 2 - they don't understand or know about the filters that are available.

Since I prefer digital, I have been asking myself about the use of some types of filters. There are two types of filters that I don't think can be duplicated with software... the polarizer and the neutral density filters. Most of the others can be recreated in software.

My question to myself is: why should I use a certain filter when I know I can create the effect in photoshop? There are arguments for and against filters with digital cameras, but I may be leaning towards the no filters / use photoshop arguments. One filter that I have definitely stopped using on my camera is the soft focus (Tiffen Warm/Soft FX 2) filter. I like the finer level of control I can get by using photoshop to create this effect. I also like the fact that I can have the photo both ways with one shot by not using the filter.

When it comes to the issue of 'commenting' on an effect, I try to stay away from if unless I KNOW how it was done. After all, the technique is not as important to me as how it affected the final result. I would rather comment on how I like or dislike the result rather than guess at how it was achieved. It would be a guess at best where digital photography is concerned. In some cases, you can tell that an effect was done with software and you can't in others.


09/13/2004 12:36:34 PM · #14
I totally agree with Setz on the Polarizer and ND's. Any others, people can think of? Besides my Haze filters to protect the lenses, the above is all I have.
RAW files equal whatever color, warm or cool I prefer.
I can effectively achieve split ND with RAW by changing exposure on the file and combining them.
Soft filter as John says...much better control in PS.
Starlight? can do but I haven't had the need for yet.
Ummmmm
 09/13/2004 12:39:27 PM · #15
Thought I'd toss my hat into the ring:

This weekend, I went out and bought a circular polarizer for my camera because I could never get enough blue into the sky when I took shots. If there's not enough of a colour (in this case blue) when you take the shot, then there's nothing for PS to work with. Using the filter, I get the effect before it hits the sensor, which has helped.

But while I'm here, does anyone have any tried-and-true PS methods to simulate polarizers? I was at it for months, and never quite got it right.
09/13/2004 12:43:51 PM · #16
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
When it comes to the issue of 'commenting' on an effect, I try to stay away from if unless I KNOW how it was done. After all, the technique is not as important to me as how it affected the final result. I would rather comment on how I like or dislike the result rather than guess at how it was achieved. It would be a guess at best where digital photography is concerned. In some cases, you can tell that an effect was done with software and you can't in others.


That is my point - I feel most people who are anti photoshop on this site, actually can't tell if an effect is done via camera, filters or photoshop so judging a photo by how it was supposedly processed is futile.

I recommend anyone to look through a Cokin book or similar - you can all kinds of awful funky effects that would scream 'photoshop digital art' on DPC.
09/13/2004 12:48:54 PM · #17
Originally posted by jonpink:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
When it comes to the issue of 'commenting' on an effect, I try to stay away from if unless I KNOW how it was done. After all, the technique is not as important to me as how it affected the final result. I would rather comment on how I like or dislike the result rather than guess at how it was achieved. It would be a guess at best where digital photography is concerned. In some cases, you can tell that an effect was done with software and you can't in others.


That is my point - I feel most people who are anti photoshop on this site, actually can't tell if an effect is done via camera, filters or photoshop so judging a photo by how it was supposedly processed is futile.

I recommend anyone to look through a Cokin book or similar - you can all kinds of awful funky effects that would scream 'photoshop digital art' on DPC.


I thought it was funny when we did the soft-focus challenge that my entry did so well, using a conventional photographic trick that was effectively free.



BTW, I did a couple of shots without the filter, not very good.
 09/13/2004 01:03:43 PM · #18
Originally posted by space amoeba:


But while I'm here, does anyone have any tried-and-true PS methods to simulate polarizers? I was at it for months, and never quite got it right.


A polarizer can't really be duplicated in photoshop. The polarizing filter helps redirect light into the lens. light that is entering the lens at an angle gets 'straigtened out' to some degree and sent through the lens in a line perpendicular to the film plane / sensor. They work just like sunglasses. They reduce the high contrast nature of a brightly lit scene in sunny conditions. Some side effects of the filter are increased color saturation and reflection reduction.

In photoshop, you can adjust contrast but not in the same way as the polarizer does it. You lose color saturation when u reduce contrast in software.
09/13/2004 01:31:05 PM · #19
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
This is an interesting thread :)

... There are two types of filters that I don't think can be duplicated with software... the polarizer and the neutral density filters. Most of the others can be recreated in software. ...


To those who belive in this, please check it: //www.schneideroptics.com/software/b+w_software_filters
B+W make a software filter set that is presumed to do Polariser effects.
 09/13/2004 01:32:07 PM · #20
Can't a gradient in PS closely mimic a graduated ND filter?
 09/13/2004 01:53:31 PM · #21
When I saw Jonpink's photo in the challenge, the same thoughts came to my mind... I LOVE that photo so much, and guessed (before reading the info) that it was done with a graduated ND filter. Good guess I suppose.

Regardless, what i thought about were things like "what would people think about this photo who use photoshop or who do not?" I think it's okay to make an image appear the way you want it to appear, whether PS or filters. I really like when people can make their photos look as if they used some nice filters on their images, in camera. More power to them! I am not that good yet with PS, though I know it pretty well. I also always wanted an ND filter, but can't afford a good one. So, another question is "can you do this with photoshop"? I would imagine so. If so, it should be just as widely accepted as the original done with a filter! I mean, it's all for the best look of the photo, right?! :)
 09/13/2004 02:24:11 PM · #22
It has nothing to do with being able to tell or not...it's just that some of us use certain tools, and others use different tools...

I use every tool that is offered to me.
 09/13/2004 02:32:35 PM · #23
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Can't a gradient in PS closely mimic a graduated ND filter?


Possibly, but it cannot affect the exposure in the camera. If the scene is bright, I have my lens stopped all the way down, I am at the lowest ISO for my camera, but the resulting shutter speed is not giving me adequate motion blur, nothing that can be done in SW later will help.

Simply increasing the exposure time will result in overexposure, and no SW will bring back detail.
 09/13/2004 03:38:02 PM · #24
Dan I looked at your profile.

Do you have 2 different colored eyes?
09/13/2004 04:04:58 PM · #25
I have really wanted several camera filters for some time. I'll soon be getting an orange or red filter for nice dark skies (for b/w). I also want a few gradation filters where it is darker on top than on the bottom for bright days when I want a darker sky and the foreground lighter. This is a big problem with lots of my photos when the sky is bright. If I expose for the ground, the sky is blown out. If I expose for the sky, the ground is too dark. If I straddle the middle, the sky is light and the ground is dark--and I can kind of fix it in photoshop, but then I get lots of noise and often strange colors.

So there ARE some things, I feel, that require filters on-camera. The polarizer is another good example.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/12/2025 07:34:46 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/12/2025 07:34:46 PM EDT.