View Poll Results: You don't like soft filters (the real thing, PS filter or otherwise) because....

Voters
26. You may not vote on this poll
  • Why spoil the sharpness of my $3000 lens?

    12 46.15%
  • They're cliche and overused

    9 34.62%
  • It makes my photos too soft

    2 7.69%
  • Others

    3 11.54%
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: You don't like soft filters because....

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default You don't like soft filters because....

    You don't like soft filters (the real thing, PS filter or otherwise) because....

  2. #2

    Default

    why use soft filters when u got a choice of either sharp or soft when u shoot sharp?

    for film, can ask lab to soft for u mah
    for digital, can use PS

  3. #3

    Default

    soften effect got its impact , but it solely depand on your subject or when u want to delude your viewer.

  4. #4

    Default

    Originally posted by ninelives
    soften effect got its impact , but it solely depand on your subject or when u want to delude your viewer.
    sorry, i dont get u

  5. #5

    Default

    Originally posted by ninelives
    soften effect got its impact , but it solely depand on your subject or when u want to delude your viewer.
    It all boils down to customer's prefrences. Likely that they would want something that is soft.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Everything's fine, used in moderation.

    And I don't like soft filters cause I have a soft lens!


  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Behind a lens
    Posts
    2,312

    Default

    How abt there are cheaper alternative?

    Like using stocking and vasceline?

  8. #8

    Default

    Cheaper? err...just breathe hard on your lens.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Zimbabwe
    Posts
    1,056

    Default

    Soft filter looks ok on females, but make males look too feminine in my opinion, hahah! Also I prefer sharp and clear images, warts and all.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Behind a lens
    Posts
    2,312

    Default

    Originally posted by Shadus
    Cheaper? err...just breathe hard on your lens.
    Breathe hard on UV filter on work in cooler country i think...

    In S'pore, the moment you breathe on it... it's gone in 1-2 sec..

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    The results of this poll seem to run contrary to what I see in CS portraits leh. Come on guys, be honest!

    Regards
    CK

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    113

    Default

    QUOTE]Originally posted by binbeto
    How abt there are cheaper alternative?

    Like using stocking and vasceline?
    [/QUOTE]

    Results can be unpredictable....can get away on digital but not on negative or transparencies unless you are ready to waste polariods.

    I use the Hassie Softar 1 & Nikon SF 1, the effects cannot be duplicated by PS , close but far from the same.

    Soft Filters like lenses has different end results when light passes thru it....and yes usually more flattering for female potraits among other situations. Warm filters like 81A also one of a kind when use correctly and for appropriate situations.

    So cannot tick on anyone of your poll options.

    Use it when the situation calls for it according to what you visualise to create your picture.

    Koishe
    Last edited by Koishe; 6th November 2002 at 02:02 PM.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Originally posted by Koishe
    I use the Hassie Softar 1 & Nikon SF 1, the effects cannot be duplicated by PS , close but far from the same.
    True. But that suggests that you can't get as good or even better results with Photoshop.

    I like my Softars and my Soft 1s as much as the next person, and I own them both. I would say they are both easily emulatable by Photoshop. Not "the same" in the strictest sense of that word (in fact, I'd be surprised if one Soft 1 to the next yielded "the same" results in the strictest sense of the word...), but certainly emulatable.

    As already mentioned, what Photoshop can do that both the Softar and Soft 1 cannot do is produce a perfectly sharp (in the sense of being un-soft) image. And it can also produce more blur, less blur, in between blur. Whatever that means, but you get my drift.

    Like I said, I'm a great big fan of the Softars and the Softs. Not a fan of their price (nor Photoshop for that matter), but I like all three for what they're capable of achieving.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •