[tux08902]

I've been experimenting with a lot of photography styles and one thing I've noticed is that I like to use a lot of filters. I've mixed it up between actual filters and digital filter suite software like the Dfx Tiffen, which contains digital versions of Tiffen's complete collection. What do you guys recommend? Is quality different between filter and software?

[bigben91682]

Aside from UV filters, I pretty much use software for the rest. The main reason being that a physical filter on the lens takes a pictures that is filtered, no going back, rather than having an original image that you can try different effects on....and if you don't like it, just undo.

[tux08902]

That was one of my main concerns too. What software do you use?

[KungPOW]

The only time I think a real filter should be used is when shooting B/W film. Digital and a filter locks you into a certain look. You lose flexibility in post process. Same with colour film, as I expect most people scan and then post process in the computer.

But with black and white film, I do not know of anyway to simulate filter effects after the film is exposed. Maybe it can be done if you are a photoshop guru...

Its a good question. I'll be watching this thread for other opinions.

[bigben91682]

That was one of my main concerns too. What software do you use?

Mostly Lightroom, sometimes PS Elements, somtimes Picasa if I'm in a big hurry but it doesn't handle RAW very well wich is all I shoot now-a-days.

As far as Lightroom goes, I have about 50 "presets" which are essentially digital filters with different levels of alteration, some extreme some not. Depends on the picture and what the desired final effect is.

[simonkit]

If you do any landscape photography then a polariser is a "must have" - as mentioned most other filters can be replicated in software & there definitely seem to be an increasing preference to "create" them this way

simon

[tux08902]

Dfx Software - Tiffen.Com

So, then is software like this largely unnecessary? Would you be able to produce many of the effects by just editing with Photoshop or an equivalent program?

[Canada_Rockies]

Dfx Software - Tiffen.Com

So, then is software like this largely unnecessary? Would you be able to produce many of the effects by just editing with Photoshop or an equivalent program?

In addition to the polarizer, which can not be digitally reproduced because the data is camouflaged by reflections if you do not use it, the soft focus digital filters just don't seem, to me, to have the same eclat as the real thing. Of course, the soft focus lens is better yet for the latter.

[usapatriot]

Basically, I apply all filters digitally except a UV filter which I have on my lenses for protection.

Especially warming or cooling filters, they are easily applied in PS.

[tux08902]

Aright, so general consensus is software except for a couple of filters. What software do you guys use? Lightroom plus presets I'd assume.

[MJB DIGITAL]

if you know what you are doing, you can capture light (through a filter) that creates an image that you have envisioned.

it is hard for me to describe my thoughts on this, let me compare:

1)
you have a vision, you grab a graduated ND, you go and shoot.....

2)
you go and shoot, and then you go home and sit in front of the computer and try to create something.


I dont think this is a harsh critique of this.....
I would much rather use my dad's filters and use LIGHT to create a PHOTOgraphy image than to go and shoot and try to manipulate my photography into something.

still, i dont know if i come across right....

no matter which way you think about it, you are the shooter, and the way you like to do it is the BEST way.

BUT!!!.....
capture the light first. capture it as close to your vision as you can. then later on, process the [digital] negative to finish the creation of the image.

it is no different than film, only we have a little more freedom....

[Entropy]

Filters I still use:

UV - Protection
Circular Polarizer - Polarizer functionality simply cannot be replicated in postprocessing
Neutral Density - Sometimes you want a long shutter speed with wide aperture in broad daylight. No other way to do this than an ND filter.

I MIGHT consider in certain situations:
"Intensifier/enhancing" filters - These have very narrow spectral notches in between the primary colors that might be very difficult to duplicate reliably with digital postprocessing. In rare situations, it may be simply impossible to replicate in PP. For example, if taking pictures of the glass flameworking process, it might be desirable to get a picture of the main blue flame and the workpiece itself, but not the yellow flare that comes out of superheated borosilicate glass. It happens that the standard "intensifying/enhancing" didymium filters are the same material that glass flameworkers use in their glasses to knock out that yellow flare so they can see what they are working on.

[christinelandon]

I still use UV, grad ND and polarizer filters, as their effects are difficult-to-impossible to duplicate using software. In Photoshop, I use nik Software and Alien Skin photographic filters, in addition to those supplied by Adobe.

[Nesster]

I actually tested this - I used a red filter on my digital camera. The experience was only negative, I can get better results in post processing. The resulting RAW or jpeg was flat, difficult to work with etc. And yes, I hard-set the color temp on the camera before I did this.

[Mike Bokeh]

I like both for the different looks they provide, but I still favor a Tiffen Warm Soft F/X 2 or 3 filter for portraits. It just a has a look that I love.

I'm still experimenting with my Lensbaby, which has a different look from either filters or software.

Here's a thread discussing the soft-focus filters versus software with some examples from last year.:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-pentax-photography/9409-soft-focu...photoshop.html

Mike