[rfaucher]

Recently I have been using digital filters quite often in post processing my photos especially in bright sunny day situations. I want to hear from you if you have used one before and if so, what do you think about it.

I use Silkypix Pro 7 version which comes with the digital filter features. The feature works similarly to Nik software (release earlier by Google); the one you can add to Lightroom or Photoshop as plug-in. There are two types of filters that I use, one is the gradient filter, the other is circular filter. The gradient filter works similarly to a physical filter applied in front of the lens in order to get 'blue sky' effect, provided that you have not overexposed the sky beyond recovery. The circular filter works in situation where you would normally applied with fill-flash in shadow areas. There is a subtle difference between a fill-flash effect vs the digital filter effect though as the fill-flash area covers the entire subject affected whereas the circular filter can be applied specifically only to the persons face (usually darkened because of the reflection of light).

Let me know your thoughts on this...

The only actual filters I use on my camera are variable neutral density and polarizers, since they cannot be duplicated with digital filters.

I'm not a fan of the built in filters with the K-3 and always shoot DNG. As such, there's no reason for me to use Silkypix to emulate them.

Otherwise, I really like the free NIK plugins from Google, they are fantastic. In particular, I prefer the Silver Efex plug in and now use it for 90% of B&W conversions. It does a good job of emulating color filters (red, yellow, orange, etc) we once used for B&W film. I have also added a number of custom filter presets to Lightroom. Other than B&W conversion, most of my photos are not tweaked by digital filters. My normal workflow consists of tweaking DNG's to have a well balanced histogram and then adjust saturation and micro-contrast to taste.

The Pentax Q10 is a different matter. I have lots of fun shooting with the art filters assigned to the front dial. Ultimate image quality is not the Q's domain, but damn it's fun goofing around with those filters. The tiny sensor produces interesting effects that are different that its larger sensor brethren. It's the one camera I always shoot JPG.

---

Last edited by rfaucher; 07-07-2017 at 01:31 PM. Reason: mistakes

[leekil]

I stand by my assertion that ANY processed DNG is by necessity heavily processed. Once you understand how a RAW file works under the hood, you begin to realize that ANY transformation into an image on screen requires a whole lot of processing, even to get it to the "flat" look you often are confronted with when you load it into your favorite developing program. But even from one developing program to another, there are surprisingly significant differences in how a file is handled to get to that default "natural" look, and the results vary in not-so-subtle ways.

I also stand by my statement that they are typically heavy handed. Pentax users, the vast majority of whom use LR, have been somewhat shielded from this, since until the most recent versions, there simply were no presets for Pentax cameras built into the program ,so it defaults to a flat rendering. Try using a Nikon or Canon camera with LR, and you will see the difference immediately. Similarly, if you load a DNG .PEF into ACR,which of course does have Pentax presets, you will see all the in-camera adjustments applied to the RAW, giving you a much more heavily processed look.

My question was more about what and how is the processing heavy-handed? Like too saturated, too contrasty, or what?

On possibly a bit of a tangent, there is *always* some sort of interpretation of the photograph in order to present it to the viewer. And whether you are viewing it on back-lit screen or a print, it will not be the same as the actual scene, since the viewing medium in each case is different. There is by necessity some translation of the data into colors for viewing, the same way that there is a translation from 3-D into 2-D. I think there is a philosophical question about how accurate the photograph is to the actual scene, given that you either don't see the image until you are away from the scene, or if you do, it is being viewed on some sort of display device which has its own characteristics. It's the photographer's job to interpret the photo into something you view and present, in some way, what you consider the essence of what you photographed. Is even the "natural" look accurate, or does it just appear that way to the viewer?

[jatrax]

One of the reasons I prefer Silkypix over Lightroom/Photoshop with Nik plug-in is that the digital filters are applied directly in RAW development instead of JPEG file in Lightroom

Not sure I understand what you mean here. Lightroom is a RAW workflow. Now as I understand it the NIK plugins need to be applied to an image file, which could be jpeg if you wished but normally would be TIFF. But I'm not sure of that as I don't use the NIK plugins much. My regular workflow is DNG files processed solely in Lightroom. Lightroom has all of the digital filters discussed here, no need for NIK at all.

[BruceBanner]

I PP all my pics, all the ones that I care about, that have potential and eventually uploaded. 99.9% of the time there is a definite and significant improvement in the shot, whether it be a small straighten, crop or messing around with the major four, Exposure, Shadows, Contrast and Highlights, something somewhere is improved. Often before I export I do the side by side comparison in LR to see just how much of an improvement I have made, and how far I have moved away from the original. Sometimes it is quite a small drift away, sometimes very large, but always I prefer my edits compared to what I actually took on the day.

The only thing I agree with the film buffs on is composition. When you don't have an endless supply of shots/funds, you tend to be a little more careful when deciding upon how to take a shot. But film is still edited, especially if then digitized for the internet (scanning etc).

[Skodadriver]

I am unfortunately a SOOC JPEG shooter and then use Picasa to " improve" images. By improve I mean try and fix the faults on the image to a degree. i.e. improve contrast, crop and sometimes render in B&W with the odd use of other options in Picasa. I tell myself it is because I do not have the imagination, knowledge and computer power to PP in a package like LR. I have a free (with a magazine) DxO processing package that I sometimes used with my Canon JPEGS but always used the automatic processing anyway.
Does this mean I do not consider digitally PPing images worthwhile?
Absolutely not!
I have seen some amazing images on the forum, the editors have produced images that are so much better than I might imagine I could produce, both with their equipment and the PP they have applied.
The "Hogwarts Express", winner of a Pentax competition earlier was magical to me and to presumably enough people that decided to vote for it.
I suspect PP is an art just as much as is taking amazing images in the first place.
I await the day when Pentax has improved their JPEG engine to the degree that I can feel even better about my images.....though obviously I will only have provided the smallest of contributions in taking it.
In the meantime, thank you for letting me enjoy yours, post processed or not.

[BruceBanner]

If people are in doubt I think they should check the 'Post Processing Challenge' threads that exist here, definite proof of taking a raw pic and salvaging it for a more passable entry. We all make mistakes on the shoot day, stuff up on the ol' histogram or are short on time, PP can turn a meh into something quite pleasing indeed.

[Oakland Rob]

I get that some people are kinda like those who gave their film rolls to the drug store and got back some nice prints. That's like accepting the image from Pentax engineers and how they think it oughta look. Which can be great; after all, most all of use could get some great slides that never needed much of anything (well, except maybe some pushing at developing or the like).

But others of us are more like aspiring Ansel Adamses—getting the negative (now the raw) was just step one; getting the finished print, something you wanna show, requires just as much control, attention and time (if not more). And some of those filters are everything from dodging and burning to compositing. None of this is new; digital just makes it easier.

It gets a bit more complex as you do RAW because you are trying to optimze the RAW, not the JPEG the camera generates when it creates that RAW file. I'm with dcshooter in that I find the Pentax jpegs overdone, but I'm biased, cuz I wanna start with a more neutral view. Even with DNG raw the embedded JPEGs are fixed a bit, and some of those previews look better. But looking at them in the camera you can't tell what you've got; not as bad as with film (a complete mystery), but a proper ETTR exposure may look like crap. I just had a bunch of shots where I stopped down for DOF purposes and the DNG/previews in camera looked black...but were still perfectly good images (and yeah, if I'd had a ND I would have used it, but sometimes you don't).

Bottom line, some of us shoot images where we are always gonna use filter and PP. WB is another good example; I use a target and don't bother until I get home to adjust that. I'd rather have the control I get with desktop software than the camera's interface and computer to do it.

And if you wanna get really in the weeds about how a RAW is always kinda cooked to give you certain types of previews, see these links:

Adobe's Silent Exposure Compensation
Forcing a Raw Converter to Render Tones Accurately | RawDigger
Deriving Hidden Baseline Exposure Compensation Applied by a Raw Converter | RawDigger

I used the advice there to find the hidden exp compensation in my K-3ii DNGs, but ultimately it wasn't worth messing with that precisely except as an educational exercise. And BTW, try Fast Raw Viewer if you do RAW, it's great. And the tutorials on the web side are really interesting.