filter on lens vs applying filter in post-prod

[zen40x]

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]

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.

 

[zen40x]

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.

what is a ND? i assume it reduces the amount of light?

hmm i get what u mean...

 

[Dream Merchant]

Personally, which ever works best, gives the best results, is easiest and fastest to execute and costs the least.

 

[Rashkae]

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]

can post process a GND for sky.... but not the water fall blurry....

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

 

[calebk]

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]

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.

I heard there is a blur filter call motion blur in photoshop, should be able to create such effect right?

 

[catchlights]

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]

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:

can be done for sea, waterfall is quite hard

 

[night86mare]

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.

 

[shaoken]

Some filter effect can be done through PP, such as warm and cool filter.
But effects that ND filter, such as slow water movement, I don't think so.

 

[zen40x]

cool... thanks for the insight guys..

 

[waderbreak]

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.