Does PP replace Filters?

I'm currently reading Bryan Peterson's Understanding Exposure. First off, this book is freakin amazing. I have always struggles with getting the proper exposure and where to meter, and this book seriously put it all together for me.

I noticed in one of the chapters he talked a little about a magenta filter. Is this an effect that can be achieved in PP?

Does that make those kind of filters usesless?

I'm always afraid that I'm missing out on great photographs by not using a filter. Am I wrong in this? Is it a matter of preference?

Thanks for your time in reading and answering!

Two situations I can think of where a filter is still useful:

- polarization; you cannot mimic this in post. You can darken skies but removing reflections from water or other shiny surfaces is nearly impossible.

- neutral density; with camera makers going to higher ISOs with every model, we're getting shafted on the low end. The new Nikons do not support ISO 50 meaning going to longer shutter speeds or wider apertures is more difficult. Neutral density blocks a certain amount of incoming light which cannot be done in post.

I personally don't use graduated ND filters though some do. I think it merging in post is a better solution there with careful masking instead of one line across the frame.

TheHoff wrote in post #5982197
Two situations I can think of where a filter is still useful:

- polarization; you cannot mimic this in post. You can darken skies but removing reflections from water or other shiny surfaces is nearly impossible.

- neutral density; with camera makers going to higher ISOs with every model, we're getting shafted on the low end. The new Nikons do not support ISO 50 meaning going to longer shutter speeds or wider apertures is more difficult. Neutral density blocks a certain amount of incoming light which cannot be done in post.

I personally don't use graduated ND filters though some do. I think it merging in post is a better solution there with careful masking instead of one line across the frame.

Agree on all points though I find when bracketing and merging with shots containing high contrast (hills with sun going down, for example) I always get a bleed of brightness along the line of contrast in every exposure. When this happens, I tend to use a grad filter to get rid of this but still bracket and merge.

Thanks you guys! It appears I should invest in a polarization filter. I do notice that I get that glare off shiny objects in my photos.

hckyguy14 wrote in post #5982646
It appears I should invest in a polarization filter. I do notice that I get that glare off shiny objects in my photos.

Be aware that a polarizing filter will not reduce glare off of metallic objects. The reflections from metal are depolarized.

TheHoff wrote in post #5982197
Two situations I can think of where a filter is still useful:

- polarization; you cannot mimic this in post. You can darken skies but removing reflections from water or other shiny surfaces is nearly impossible.

- neutral density; with camera makers going to higher ISOs with every model, we're getting shafted on the low end. The new Nikons do not support ISO 50 meaning going to longer shutter speeds or wider apertures is more difficult. Neutral density blocks a certain amount of incoming light which cannot be done in post.

I personally don't use graduated ND filters though some do. I think it merging in post is a better solution there with careful masking instead of one line across the frame.

To add to that include filters for colour correcting.. The OP mentioned a magent filter.. During my film days I used to use a magenta filter for colour correcting fluorescent lighting..

Yeah you might be right. I thought of that as I was typing my first post. I was thinking of a situation where you gel the flash and use a filter on the lens but I couldn't come up with a reason why you'd have to put a filter on the lens when you could do that in post and sync to it all files. Sure you should still gel the flash, but is there still a reason for the filter?

TheHoff wrote in post #5982893
Yeah you might be right. I thought of that as I was typing my first post. I was thinking of a situation where you gel the flash and use a filter on the lens but I couldn't come up with a reason why you'd have to put a filter on the lens when you could do that in post and sync to it all files. Sure you should still gel the flash, but is there still a reason for the filter?

The only reason I can think of is when shooting in B/W when a yellow, orange or red filter will darken the sky to bring out the clouds..

Using a filter for colour correcting because of light source temperatures isn't done with digital normally.. White balance adjustment is usually used in this case..

You can use a magenta filter in the darkroom (on the enlarger) aswell. Helps makes the developing image more contrasty.

conkeroo wrote in post #5982977
You can use a magenta filter in the darkroom (on the enlarger) aswell. Helps makes the developing image more contrasty.

Yep,,,an old trick when using a colourhead enlarger and multigrade paper.. The more magenta dialed in the higher the contrast..