Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Nature & Landscapes Talk 
Thread started 07 Oct 2014 (Tuesday) 14:37
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Filters or Software?

 
Alveric
Goldmember
Avatar
4,598 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Likes: 1056
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Canada
     
Oct 16, 2014 12:55 |  #16
bannedPermanent ban

JustinPoe wrote in post #17214402 (external link)
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.


'The success of the second-rate is deplorable in itself; but it is more deplorable in that it very often obscures the genuine masterpiece. If the crowd runs after the false, it must neglect the true.' —Arthur Machen
Why 'The Histogram' Sux (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
canadiantowman
Member
37 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Toronto,Ontario,Canada
     
Oct 16, 2014 17:51 |  #17

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




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 546
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Oct 16, 2014 17:58 |  #18

canadiantowman wrote in post #17216912 (external link)
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")!!!:)!!!


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Numenorean
Cream of the Crop
5,013 posts
Likes: 28
Joined Feb 2011
     
Oct 16, 2014 18:01 |  #19

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.


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
5Dmaniac
Goldmember
Avatar
1,303 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
     
Oct 16, 2014 18:22 |  #20

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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Perfectly ­ Frank
I'm too sexy for my lens
5,144 posts
Gallery: 95 photos
Likes: 2832
Joined Oct 2010
     
Oct 16, 2014 18:38 |  #21

JustinPoe wrote in post #17214402 (external link)
(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.


When you see my camera gear you'll think I'm a pro.
When you see my photos you'll know that I'm not.

My best aviation photos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Numenorean
Cream of the Crop
5,013 posts
Likes: 28
Joined Feb 2011
     
Oct 16, 2014 18:43 |  #22

Perfectly Frank wrote in post #17216981 (external link)
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.


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 546
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Oct 16, 2014 19:32 |  #23

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!!!)!!!


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JustinPoe
Senior Member
707 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Feb 2008
     
Oct 16, 2014 21:26 as a reply to  @ Numenorean's post |  #24

Alveric wrote in post #17216455 (external link)
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 (external link)
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.


500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dankin
Senior Member
548 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 2188
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Nashville, Tn
     
Oct 16, 2014 21:42 |  #25

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.


EOS R, 6d, 16-35 F4 IS, RF 24-105, 70-200 F4 IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Snydremark
my very own Lightrules moment
19,066 posts
Gallery: 57 photos
Likes: 3379
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
     
Oct 16, 2014 21:55 as a reply to  @ dankin's post |  #26

canadiantowman wrote in post #17216912 (external link)
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>


- Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife (external link) (7D MkII/5D IV, Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS MkII, Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS I/II)
"The easiest way to improve your photos is to adjust the loose nut between the shutter release and the ground."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,867 posts
Gallery: 98 photos
Likes: 1126
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Denver, CO
     
Oct 16, 2014 23:13 as a reply to  @ Snydremark's post |  #27

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.


Edward Jenner
5DIV, M6, GX1 II, Sig15mm FE, 16-35 F4,TS-E 17, TS-E 24, 35 f2 IS, M11-22, M18-150 ,24-105, T45 1.8VC, 70-200 f4 IS, 70-200 2.8 vII, Sig 85 1.4, 100L, 135L, 400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Somebloke
Senior Member
Avatar
633 posts
Likes: 45
Joined Sep 2013
     
Oct 16, 2014 23:27 |  #28

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




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
StayFrosty
Senior Member
Avatar
407 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Aug 2012
Location: UK
     
Oct 17, 2014 01:17 |  #29

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.


flickr (external link) Vimeo (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
madhatter04
Goldmember
1,930 posts
Likes: 51
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Southern California
     
Oct 17, 2014 10:41 |  #30

StayFrosty wrote in post #17217526 (external link)
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?


Designer // Art Director // Photographer
www.alexanderfitch.com (external link) | AlexFitchPhoto on Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

9,313 views & 10 likes for this thread
Filters or Software?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Nature & Landscapes Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is henry65
837 guests, 242 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.