| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/26/2007 06:49:50 PM · #1 |
So I just saw an Ad for the âB+W Redhancer 491 Enhancing Filter (starting at $79)â which is supposed to boost orange, red, and brown colors and I started wondering, why wouldnât you just do that in Photoshop? Pardon my ignorance, as I am not a landscape photographer, but other than a good polarizer and some ND filters (which allow for effects not easily accomplished in post processing), what are the advantages of owning an arsenal of lens filters versus working in post processing?
Some may argue you get reduced image quality with too much post processing (however, the new features in PS CS3 ACR provide some flexibility there) and I have heard some people would rather get the shot in the field and spend less time in the front of the PC adjusting images for color saturation, etc. But are there any other real advantages of filters over Photoshop? I have no preference â just looking to get educated - as quality filters are not cheap.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2007 06:57:56 PM · #2 |
Filters were the shizzle in film days. Now with digital, you are correct, we can create most "lens filter" effects as well as a zillion other effects that were never even possible with filters. There are times when a filter is still helpful, polorizer, ND, etc., however most "effects" filters are outdated and rarely used these days.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2007 07:06:54 PM · #3 |
Some filters can't be duplicated in PS, as you mentioned, a polarizer, ND, grad ND, chief among them.
Color correction gels are still important for balancing mixed light sources, but typically the CC lens filters are a thing of the past, at least with digital.
|
|
|
|
11/27/2007 08:43:17 AM · #4 |
| I think there is also some old school satisfaction of capturing the image you wanted with the camera instead of adding it after. |
|
|
|
11/27/2007 09:12:02 AM · #5 |
| The only filters I use are neutral density, polarising and UV. Everything else can be done in photoshop with much more control. |
|
|
|
11/27/2007 10:32:53 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by yospiff:
I think there is also some old school satisfaction of capturing the image you wanted with the camera instead of adding it after. |
Maybe, but, a lot of filters were simply cheesy like the "rainbow" or multi-image filters. Others were specifically designed for use with B&W film to take advantage of its low red sensitivity. (Red #25 etc.).
Another filter that is still relevant with digital is the IR filter. That effect can't easily be duplicated in PS either. |
|
|
|
11/27/2007 11:16:57 AM · #7 |
| On camera filters are ok for the rare "minimal editing" challenges that come our way, whereas PS filters and other color adjustments are not. |
|
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: 12/29/2025 03:09:25 PM EST.
