Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-10-2021, 10:49 AM   #31
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,787
QuoteOriginally posted by acoufap Quote
Some guys postulate you don't need GNDs because of todays great sensors. I think that Matt Kloskowsky wrote something like that. He's a guy who earns money selling photoshop books and courses.

Some others say you need GNDs if you shoot only jpeg because it's not possible to get a balanced image if dynamic range of the scenery is too high. You lose too much details in shadows and/or highlights. Post processing jpgs in many cases doesn't work good enough.

I think especially with our Pentax cameras the need for GNDs is not that high when processing raw as it was when cameras only could capture up to 9-10 EV of dynamic range.

But I like to experiment using filters in place if nothing forces me to move fast ahead. It can be a very satisfying part of the photographic process that I from time to time enjoy. Optical GNDs also may help composing your image when strong direct light closes your eye's irises.

And sometimes despite of what some gurus may postulate, GNDs in some cases are still welcome and nessessary to get the best base for digital post processing - of course where you in addition can use burning and dodging techniques and other digital tools to get your desired result.

What makes you happy is what you need. If the usage of (different) filters makes you happy as part of your photographic process to get the image you imagine than you need them.
I've gotten very poor results whenever I've tried to use a GND. Odd color cast, you have to try to line up the filter with the horizon. Just never been happy with it. Perhaps it would be better with a much more expensive filter, but I'm not about to try.

I find it far easier to switch to my bracketing preset and take a number of exposures and combine in post. Sure, that won't work if there's a lot of motion in the scene. But I've never found a lot of applications that, say, combine sports and sunset landscapes.

08-10-2021, 11:55 AM   #32
Closed Account
Michael Piziak's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 2,815
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
I make it easy for myself - I add virtually nothing in front of a lens these days.
Yes, indeed. I once read that the *less glass* that you can put between you and your subject then the better ! It was an argument against using UV filters.

Regards,

Michael

Last edited by Michael Piziak; 08-10-2021 at 12:56 PM.
08-10-2021, 10:19 PM   #33
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 22
I use all my colour-balancing and -converting filers all the time. In the right situation they greatly improve tonality to approximate what our eye-brain combo, which does not merely focus selectively, but also adjusts to brightness and colour-casts instantaneously, thinks it sees. 80A in incandescent, FL-day in fluorescent, 81A/B for haze or shade/overcast, all are just as essential for good people-pictures as they were with film, giving decent skin-tones, and also with digital avoiding nasty underexposure through the meter’s ‘seeing’ light that is not useful and exposing accordingly. The only time I do not use any is when I want, say, the strong blue shadows of a purely landscape shot made on a bright day to be recorded ‘accurately’. Nearly always I have the WB in my Pentax cams set on Daylight/Sunlight, and the result is so good that only the most minor tweaking may be needed in post, say to make white paper or paintwork look pure white.

One situation in which such filters really come into their own is mixed lighting. I have been in big church interiors where there was daylight coming through the stained glass, and some combination of artificial light on the interior stonework. Or modern interiors with fluorescent overhead and daylight coming in at the windows. I start preferably with a graycard reading. No in-post tweaks will ever give me a really good result, and that includes so-called ‘filters’ which just put a layer of colour indiscriminately over the whole image.

I wish that when I was new at digital work I’d known all this: for these shots, for instance, of the interior of that great church, King’s College Chapel, Cambridge: Priscilla Turner's Store : IWASTHERE11A (Page 1) and most of these: Priscilla Turner's Store : IWASTHERE11B (Page 1) , the stonework, which I ‘saw’ as a light beige, and everything else, showed up loud and clear with a strong orange. No amount of post work could correct that fully without shifting the colours of the so-celebrated stained glass; which incidentally varied according to whether the light was coming in from the E, W, N or S on a bright afternoon.

Last edited by Priscilla Turner; 08-10-2021 at 10:47 PM.
08-11-2021, 01:50 AM - 1 Like   #34
New Member




Join Date: Jun 2021
Location: Toulouse
Photos: Albums
Posts: 16
I have polarizing sunglasses for high mountain (I did not realize they were polarizing when purchasing them).
Sometimes I see a lake with wonderful color, and if I take a picture of it, as I do not have a polarizing filter (I should) the image is not so good as what I saw through my sunglasses ;-(

08-13-2021, 06:58 AM - 2 Likes   #35
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
James also's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Victoria
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 329
QuoteOriginally posted by Michael Piziak Quote
Very good point. Is "it easy" and also is it fun - ? Personally, I take more satisfaction from the process of using the camera gear to achieve a photograph than to do so behind a computer screen. To each his own though..
couldn't agree more. For me the thrill of the chase is in the photo not the computer
08-13-2021, 08:32 AM - 1 Like   #36
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Idaho
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,360
One sure downside with any filter attempt in post, if you see a particular effect using a filter on a lens and you can capture this on film or with a sensor, there's no guarantee that you can get the same effect in post if you fail to use the filter. Maybe close, maybe not. If you have a favorite filter and choose to use it, don't be swayed by those who say "but you can do that with post-processing". They could be wrong. If you want to use a lens mounted filter, go ahead knowing what you see is what you get at the time of the exposure. On the other hand, it might be almost impossible to remove the effects of that filter (depending on the type of filter used) so if you want to play around in post-processing, take an extra shot without a filter.
08-20-2021, 03:00 AM   #37
Veteran Member
MJKoski's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,784
I would say it is true. (C)PL is all that is needed. Computational photography is the future for a while before real HDR sensors emerge.

Filters are usefull for analog stuff and old dud digital cameras with low DR. Digital B&W is an exception and can use color filters.

08-24-2021, 04:30 AM   #38
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
acoufap's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,161
QuoteOriginally posted by ThorSanchez Quote
I've gotten very poor results whenever I've tried to use a GND. Odd color cast, you have to try to line up the filter with the horizon. Just never been happy with it. Perhaps it would be better with a much more expensive filter, but I'm not about to try.

I find it far easier to switch to my bracketing preset and take a number of exposures and combine in post. Sure, that won't work if there's a lot of motion in the scene. But I've never found a lot of applications that, say, combine sports and sunset landscapes.
Yeah, there are some aspects to manage using GND and ND filters. With GNDs that are mostly used up to 0.9 color cast shouldn't be a big problem. How easy it is to align GNDs depends on type (hard, middle, soft grad), light conditions and general scenery. In addition you especially have to consider that the effect of GNDs also depends on used focal length and f-stop.

So experimentation is key to get a good understanding when using NDs and GNDs or combinations of them in different light conditions, creating images based on moving vs. static elements etc. A good understanding is the basis of the ability to previsualize what you can get with your shot based on the the tools mentioned. On top of that good supporting post processing will lead to the result you hope for.

Different techniques and tools are there to get the results we are reaching for.

Using bracketing for highlight compression to simulate GNDs, i.e. using HDR techcniques, or to simulate NDs to get long exposure "silky, smooth" water gives you similar results but not the same as using the optical filters. If process and results satisfy youruself that's IMO great.
08-24-2021, 04:45 AM   #39
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,787
QuoteOriginally posted by acoufap Quote
Yeah, there are some aspects to manage using GND and ND filters. With GNDs that are mostly used up to 0.9 color cast shouldn't be a big problem. How easy it is to align GNDs depends on type (hard, middle, soft grad), light conditions and general scenery. In addition you especially have to consider that the effect of GNDs also depends on used focal length and f-stop.

So experimentation is key to get a good understanding when using NDs and GNDs or combinations of them in different light conditions, creating images based on moving vs. static elements etc. A good understanding is the basis of the ability to previsualize what you can get with your shot based on the the tools mentioned. On top of that good supporting post processing will lead to the result you hope for.

Different techniques and tools are there to get the results we are reaching for.

Using bracketing for highlight compression to simulate GNDs, i.e. using HDR techcniques, or to simulate NDs to get long exposure "silky, smooth" water gives you similar results but not the same as using the optical filters. If process and results satisfy youruself that's IMO great.
I have no problem with ND filters, I use them on occasion. It's GNDs that I find lacking.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
beam, camera, color, filter, filters, lens, light, photography, polarization, polarizer, post, programs, thread, wavelength, waves
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Physical red filter vs digital red filter for b&w biz-engineer Photographic Technique 24 07-02-2021 04:18 AM
Does zoom lens change physical aperture during zoom ? lotech General Photography 10 11-11-2020 03:10 AM
Physical diameter of the lens zeebanker Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 35 08-17-2020 11:16 PM
Physical size of KP with the D-BG7 battery grip? Wingincamera Pentax KP 27 10-27-2019 09:29 AM
Warming filter? Or Warming Polarizer filter? skydragoness Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 3 12-31-2006 04:53 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:56 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top