Does Filters Help in Digital Photography? Filter or no Filter?

[IceCoolBeer]

Hi.
Just wondering does filters still need in digital photography since you can adjust almost everything or anything in Photoshop.

 

[Witness]

erhm....no idea...if u talking about effects filters like cross i tink photoshop can do...but ultimately depends on ya skill...stuff like skylight or soft touch best is still attach a filter...

 

[The_Cheat]

I'd used IR filter to do this: http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=68741

I doubt that the PS filter can alter it to such an impact! Hee~!

 

[jimtong]

If you are talking about color correction.. yes PS can do it.
Some filter like ND grad filter is not not easy to do in PS or impossible.

 

[ckiang]

If you are talking about color correction.. yes PS can do it.
Some filter like ND grad filter is not not easy to do in PS or impossible.

The answer likes in Adobe PhotoShop CS. There's a new option in Image->Adjustments called "Shadow/Highlight" which lets you tweak the hell out of your images's shadows and highlights. Provided you start off with a nice clean file (preferably in 16-bit/channel), you are able to perform tasks not possible with regular ND-Grad filters. With this tool, you can now recover shadow detail without affecting the highlights, recover highlights from almost-blown areas, etc, and you don't have to do complicated contrast-masking techniques. This is the single most useful feature in PhotoShop CS.

Regards
CK

 

[yowch]

YES, I use filters as much as possible. When we post process in Photoshop etc, there is inevitable lost.

Already mentioned is correct exposure using graduated ND. You can also remove spot light glows and replace with stars in Photoshop, but I'm sure that you'll pay $10 for the star filter! Not to mention polariser.

 

[DarkForce]

Hi.
Just wondering does filters still need in digital photography since you can adjust almost everything or anything in Photoshop.

Yes, at least for the use of polarize filter. Imagine that you are going to shoot fish in a pond and there is a strong reflection on the water. If shoot without pol filter, the camera only capture mostly the reflection and there is nothing PS could do about it.

 

[vincentt_whale]

actually, what is polarizer for? I bought it, but seldom use it...

 

[jimtong]

actually, what is polarizer for? I bought it, but seldom use it...

You din know what it use for then why you bought it in the first place?

 

[DarkForce]

actually, what is polarizer for? I bought it, but seldom use it...

Well, you might want to read this http://www.tiffen.com/polarizer_pics.htm

 

[bigfatfish]

the circular polariser is to make the colors more saturated and bring out a really nice effect of clouds and sky. Eg like saturated blue sky and white clouds. Also can take away reflection of glassy surfaces....

But must use it correctly, have to adjust the filter such that its 90 degrees to the light source for optimal effect.

By the way, i didnt know that till today. And I made about 50 shots with the polariser without adjusting it for effect. i thought it worked like a simple screw in filter like the IR filter. Its silly because, i keep thinking how come the filter cannot screw in well with the adaptor threading....... now i know, the filter was screwed in well all the time , and the "looseness" is from the front part of the filter that allows the user to adjust it for effects...... dang! :bsmilie:

 

[denniskee]

although software can do almost, but the source file is still the most critical. you cant recreate what is not there.
eg. if you take a picture of a window show case without using polariser, there will be reflection of lights on the glass panel. in this case, images in the show case at these reflection spots are not capture, there is no way you can recreate what is not present in the first place.

my take in this issue is, do not treat digital photography any different as you would for nagitive and positive.

 

[CaeSiuM]

There is no doubt that DI can emulate filter effects and it can salvage badly exposed images to some extent. But, end of the day, it depends on your proficiency level with Photoshop or other equivalent imaging softwares and whether you're prepared to spend time doing post-processing.

Basically we have 3 camps here;

1) Shoot with filters and be done with it.
2) Shoot without filters and post process later.
3) Shoot with/without filters depending on the situation (Pre-visualising your expected final output helps)

Both works and can possibly achieve the same results so the choice is yours. I belong to the 3rd camp.


P.S. When using filters, do check up the filter factor of each filter. That piece of glass/plastic/gel in front of your lens DOES cut out light and how much light it cuts out, you have to check it's filter factor from the manufacturer's website. e.g. The HOYA Circular Polariser cuts out 1 2/3 to 2 stops of light so you have to compensate accordingly.

 

[yowch]

P.S. When using filters, do check up the filter factor of each filter. That piece of glass/plastic/gel in front of your lens DOES cut out light and how much light it cuts out, you have to check it's filter factor from the manufacturer's website. e.g. The HOYA Circular Polariser cuts out 1 2/3 to 2 stops of light so you have to compensate accordingly.

Note that filter factors applies only to external meters. TTL meters on most SLR and digital cams will meter correctly through the filter.

 

[HeWolf]

Just my view:

UV/Skylight - Controversial, but good as protection piece of glass.

Pol - Must have. No amount of PS can recover those affected by reflection.

ND - Must have for specific application (long exposure in bright light, esp with wide aperture).

IR - Must have for shooting IR pic.

color filters - not required as DIGIcam can set WB


The rest, I suppose can post-process with s/w. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[CaeSiuM]

Gradual ND filter with 1 to 2 stop difference is good for landscape or architectural photography as cuts down the light from the clouds/sky without cutting down light from your intended subject. Just got mine a couple of days ago.

You can PM me if you want to discuss more about it.

 

[IceCoolBeer]

Need advise. I just own a Canon A80 3 weeks ago. Got an adapter which thru my surprise it causes a shadow in flash photography. That is in another thread discussion. My intension to fix a adapter to my A80 is to buy couple of filter for my casual photography. Got a UV, sold away my Cir-Polariser, I can't see the effect on that tiny little LCD screen when using it. Or do I really need them at all? I know A80 is not a professional camera, (no money to buy yet) would be nice if you guys can lend me some of your wisdom.

 

[Pr0t0type]

Need advise. I just own a Canon A80 3 weeks ago. Got an adapter which thru my surprise it causes a shadow in flash photography. That is in another thread discussion. My intension to fix a adapter to my A80 is to buy couple of filter for my casual photography. Got a UV, sold away my Cir-Polariser, I can't see the effect on that tiny little LCD screen when using it. Or do I really need them at all? I know A80 is not a professional camera, (no money to buy yet) would be nice if you guys can lend me some of your wisdom.

The shadow is because of the adapter blocking the flash, which is unfortunately unavoidable (problem is there since A40). Circular Polarising filter does work in digital cameras. Removing reflection and making blue sky more saturated. However, it depends on the environment and timing (in terms of the shooting nice deep blue sky). You cant always see the effect. You have got to keep experimenting, its a waste that you sold it away.

Despite being in the "value for money" catagory, the A80 is a popular and very capable camera. You just got to keep shooting and get familiar with your equipments. :what: