Should I get the Lee Filters "Landscape Set"?

[rammy]

I'm in two minds as to whether I should get the Landscape Set from Lee Filters. It includes the following: 1 x real blue (for the sky) 1 x sepia2 for foreground and 1 x straw3 for foreground.

The reason I ask is is not because of cost, more that is it of any value seeing as we can now add photo filters to images in PS. Is using the filters at the time of taking a digital image any different to PP in this specific case?

Should I get the Landscape Set and why do you think so?

I'm off to Italy soon (a months time) and have HARD and SOFT ND Grads, will a Landscape Set be of any benefit?

Thanks.

[R Hardman]

For me I'd rather spend the time taking the picture then editing the picture.

p.s. How good are your PS skills?

[jacobsen1]

I wouldn't bother with any of the colored filters.
It's easier to get them perfect in the camera.
The only filters worth while these days are NDs, GNDs, and CPs IMHO. Only because they have effects that change what the sensor sees to make an image that otherwise wouldn't be possible. Color filter in the field versus a colored filter in PS will look the same, but you can't fake a slow shutter, save a blown sky (without doing a HDR) or eliminate reflections w/o those filters.

Ben

[rammy]

For me I'd rather spend the time taking the picture then editing the picture.

p.s. How good are your PS skills?

This is certainly one of the best reasons to get coloured filters. I think warm up filters are among the most popular. My PS skills are good enough but saving time at the PC versus adjustment time at taking the shot is what I think is interesting. Too much fiddling at the camera end could mean you miss the shot or the light.

Color filter in the field versus a colored filter in PS will look the same...

Now that PS has made RAW conversion and image manipulation easier I guess you have to ask yourself why buy coloured filters. Is the Photo Filter in PS just as good as taking the shot if a resin filter? They may look the same but what kind of damage happens to the pixels in the image when a photo filter is applied? I guess the only change is hue and saturation?

[jacobsen1]

Now that PS has made RAW conversion and image manipulation easier I guess you have to ask yourself why buy coloured filters. Is the Photo Filter in PS just as good as taking the shot if a resin filter? They may look the same but what kind of damage happens to the pixels in the image when a photo filter is applied? I guess the only change is hue and saturation?

Say what now?

So I take it you don't PP at all then?
It's the same thing as doing a color correction.
There is no damage done to the image, and the only "loss" is if you use a "lossy" compression and don't save it as a copy.

Ben

[rammy]

Say what now?

So I take it you don't PP at all then?
Ben


Haha, maybe my wording was a little inappropriate :oops: I've been using PS since version 5 and have CS2 now. I do a lot of PP'ing ;)

What I personally mean by damage is something that changes your original pixels and you cannot go back to the previous original state. This is what I mean by damage. Yes, you can now apply adjustment layers that do not affect, or "damage" the underlying pixels (I'll stop using that word now) but what I am interested in is how much of a change does it do?

Is it just a hue and/or saturation change to each of the pixels. It certainly won't add or subtract any pixels, but what if a range of pixels are already near the gamut threshold, what will a digital photo filter do to them, shift them or move to the next logical colour temperature. I hope "temperature" is the right word here :-)

So compare that affect of gamut and pixel colour change to actually using a filter at time of taking the shot. Would the results be the same.

Maybe I am measurebating :D too much.