Filters or Software?

JustinPoe wrote in post #17214402
In my opinion, you have two types of landscape photographers:

1.) Those that use filters because they don't know how to use Photoshop.

2.) Those that use Photoshop.

I have never come across anybody that was skilled in Photoshop that would prefer using filters to post-processing.

(I'm assuming this topic is excluding filters that can't be replicated in post. i.e. polarizers, etc)

Well, meet your first PS-knowledgeable photographer who prefers getting shots right in the camera instead of massaging files and pixel pushing.

Your blanket, smug statement ignores the fact that there are some of us who, for health reasons, cannot afford to spend hours sitting in front of a computer. There are also others who, even though they have no back injuries/problems, prefer to spend more time doing other important things, such as family, business, &c., than Photoshop.

So it sounds like you guys are saying you can do anything with photoshop, so how do you get that milky white from a river or waterfalls without an nd filter. Can this be done in lightroom, I'm still learning so if this can be done could you point me in the right direction to learn. Thanks

canadiantowman wrote in post #17216912
So it sounds like you guys are saying you can do anything with photoshop, so how do you get that milky white from a river or waterfalls without an nd filter. Can this be done in lightroom, I'm still learning so if this can be done could you point me in the right direction to learn. Thanks

If you want the creamy flowing water effect, get an ND filter, Lee filters are highly recommended. You need a slow shutter speed, and Photoshop won't do a good job of "faking" it (although sure, it can try with software "effects")!!!!!!

Filters are 100% of the time better than doing extra work in photoshop, etc.

Fixing things in post is a bad habit to get into. I find that images are better when you get them as close to correct in camera vs. trying to correct it after the fact.

I never understand those who act as if using filters is such a chore and causes so much headache. They are super easy to use and take very little time vs. the time you would spend doing blending when it's not necessary.

Blending is an important tool and can be used when needed, but you'll have to pry my Lee filters out of my cold, dead hands.

I'm old school - grew up in the film days and still shoot the occasional 8x10 negative. I like using filters - esp. GNDs even though I am pretty good in LR and PS. Correct in-camera exposure is important to me.
There are a few situations where blending doesn't work very well and the ONLY solution are GNDs

Other than that there is no right or wrong answer.

JustinPoe wrote in post #17214402
(I'm assuming this topic is excluding filters that can't be replicated in post. i.e. polarizers, etc)

I'm curious why a circular polarizer can be replicated in post. Can anyone explain?
Thanks in advance.

Perfectly Frank wrote in post #17216981
I'm curious why a circular polarizer can be replicated in post. Can anyone explain?
Thanks in advance.

You mean why it can't?

It changes the light captured by the camera - removes reflections from water by blocking those particular rays of light. This is impossible to replicate in software because those rays of reflected light expose those areas far beyond the ability for software to remove.

Hang on, I've said that an ND is valuable, but people should experiment how in Raw processing a GND as well as a Polarizer filter can be effectively replicated in Raw processing!

If you coming from film processing don't like that or if you prefer a different workflow fine, just make that clear as a preference!!!)!!!

Alveric wrote in post #17216455
Well, meet your first PS-knowledgeable photographer who prefers getting shots right in the camera instead of massaging files and pixel pushing.

Your blanket, smug statement ignores the fact that there are some of us who, for health reasons, cannot afford to spend hours sitting in front of a computer. There are also others who, even though they have no back injuries/problems, prefer to spend more time doing other important things, such as family, business, &c., than Photoshop.

Obviously I offended you, so I apologize.

I would appreciate it if you read exactly what I wrote. I said "In my opinion..." I wasn't declaring an ultimatum or stating a fact, I was purely giving my opinion. I also followed that with "landscape photographers" which, based on your Flickr account, I don't consider you a landscape photographer, which is by no means an insult. With that being said, you don't fall into my statement.

Was it blanketed? Maybe, but not on purpose. Was it smug? No.

canadiantowman wrote in post #17216912
So it sounds like you guys are saying you can do anything with photoshop, so how do you get that milky white from a river or waterfalls without an nd filter. Can this be done in lightroom, I'm still learning so if this can be done could you point me in the right direction to learn. Thanks

This is why this topic might be a little confusing. Filters that can't be replicated in post shouldn't be included in this topic (ND, polarizers etc.)
This topic should be grads, warming filters, etc. VS photoshop.

I had a lee seven5 setup with my Fuji for a while and I found I never used the grads where I shoot the most. I think grads vs. software has a lot to do with where you are shooting. For me with the landscapes I take around Tennessee I prefer the results I get with blending exposures in PS.

canadiantowman wrote in post #17216912
So it sounds like you guys are saying you can do anything with photoshop, so how do you get that milky white from a river or waterfalls without an nd filter. Can this be done in lightroom, I'm still learning so if this can be done could you point me in the right direction to learn. Thanks

Do not confuse GNDs (GRADUATED Neutral Density) filters, where there is a clear portion and a dark portion that transition across the filter, with NDs (Neutral Density) filters where the entire filter is dark.

As some others have mentioned, NDs (as well as CPLs) cannot be readily duplicated in post; however, GNDs may be replaced by shooting multiple exposures and blending them in post, in a lot of cases.

And then, there are some of us, that can't follow that path because it really isn't as simple as everyone seems to say; I couldn't put on a Halloween costume in PS if there was a gun to my head. So that just isn't an option for me. So, the GNDs go with me everywhere. Plus, I can still use those as normal NDs by putting them lower in the holder <shrug>

To me this is kind of like the raw vs .jpeg debate.

I mean if you get it spot on in-camera, or with in-camera software, then why bother shooting raw anyway? You you really need 16bits to print? Certainly not for monitor display. Then of course you want to get it very, very close to final in the field.

If you are going through raw processing than coping and pasting settings opening up 2 images instead of one and masking parts of one with a broad brush is hardly a massive effort.

Of course most people that blend do it carefully, but if you just want a GND effect it's one brush stroke and you can still adjust the hardness of the transition, the slope and the density of the filter to some extent (at least a stop).

Personally, and this is very much JMO, if I didn't want anything to do with computers I'd shoot film. And doing landscapes, I'd shoot MF.

Plus, if you are doing landscapes, how many shots do you really have to edit? It's not like going to a sporting event and coming back with 1000's of photos. I mean I can totally see why a pro sports photog might shoot .jpeg over raw. For a dozen sunrise shots of which you might process 1-2, maybe a few more if you were really lucky? I don't see it.

How do you exposure blend moving objects like a surf coastal scene?

The usual opposite points of view being expressed in this thread shows it is really a matter of personal preference and circumstance. I very rarely use grads any more but often use polarisers or plain ND filters. Doing so annoys me though. I wish my cameras had them built in so I wouldn't have to attach a bulky, expensive, inconvenient, dirt attracting lump to the front of my camera every time I want to experiment a bit.

StayFrosty wrote in post #17217526
The usual opposite points of view being expressed in this thread shows it is really a matter of personal preference and circumstance.

Yes, yes! Plus, like every other thread of this nature, people have all sorts of fun mud-slinging to bring to the table. And, of course, the answer ends up being "personal preference."

Here's a question for everyone: do you show people your negatives (being unprocessed, straight out of camera images)? Do you just show off your finished product? As part of the finished product, do you tell people how you got there?