filter on lens vs applying filter in post-prod


Status
Not open for further replies.

zen40x

New Member
Jun 21, 2009
18
0
0
singapore
pzportal.net
#1
I have always been wondering... what are the difference in using an actual filter and using post-production to recreate the effects of the filters?
 

calebk

Senior Member
Jul 25, 2006
10,594
0
0
Clementi
#2
I have always been wondering... what are the difference in using an actual filter and using post-production to recreate the effects of the filters?
If you can post-produce a filter to blur a waterfall like a ND can do to make your exposure time longer, then I salute you.
 

Dream Merchant

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 11, 2007
9,659
6
38
#4
Personally, which ever works best, gives the best results, is easiest and fastest to execute and costs the least.
 

Rashkae

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
19,105
12
0
#5
Good luck reproducing a CP filter effect.

Post-processed filter effects can make something look *close* to the actual filter, but nothing beats using the actual filter.
 

Minerva

New Member
May 7, 2009
211
0
0
32
Singapore
#6
can post process a GND for sky.... but not the water fall blurry....

also... CPL cannot be done in PP.... ima right?
 

calebk

Senior Member
Jul 25, 2006
10,594
0
0
Clementi
#7
can post process a GND for sky.... but not the water fall blurry....

also... CPL cannot be done in PP.... ima right?
Pretty much. There is also a limit to producing a GND in post for the sky. You will not get the same kind of dynamic range by burning in the sky in post as actually putting a filter over the sky portion at the point of shooting.
 

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#9
Pretty much. There is also a limit to producing a GND in post for the sky. You will not get the same kind of dynamic range by burning in the sky in post as actually putting a filter over the sky portion at the point of shooting.
think can add a lot of layer mask, mask here mask there, don't need to burn here burn there to get the results....





:bsmilie:
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#11
I have always been wondering... what are the difference in using an actual filter and using post-production to recreate the effects of the filters?
for actual filter leh, if you use PROPERLY

you can achieve stuff like long exposure effect, cpl effect , these cannot be recreated in photoshop.

other than that, for grad nd, if your details never get blown out like they do in picture without, then you can do something with the details, otherwise they are LOST, LOST and LOST, and no photoshop god can bring them back

anyways, go and read up about filters.
 

Feb 2, 2009
165
0
16
#14
many will say getting it right the first time will be better compared to having to physically manipulate and do PP (depending on the scale of the photograph, which can be quite extensive). Yes, you can do post processing, but there's no doubt it'll take longer, although two significant benefits include:
1) color manipulation, which is much easier done in photoshop/lightroom
2) flexibility in choosing whether you want to apply a digital filter.

However, you can't get certain shots only a real filter can with ease,
1) polarization (as mentioned earlier)
2) blurry/silkiness effect of moving water etc

You can even do HDR with the actual filters on, for added effect too.

so, imo, only polarizers, nd and gnd filters are physically worth it. the rest just pp.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom