Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Photo / Video Recording => Topic started by: stevetoney on December 10, 2008, 09:00:58 AM
-
I have a feeling that this subject has been discussed often. But as a budding flower in the world of photography, I'm curious what others think on the subject of whether to use a lens filter or photoshop. (This question does not apply to polarizers...which have obvious benefits).
I've read a couple of books that say that without a doubt getting the shot correct with filters is the way to go. Obviously, that was true for film, but I'm wondering why it's true for digital photography.
To my way of thinking, additional filters means additional cost and, more importantly, additional glass surfaces to potentially degrade image sharpness.
My other thoughts are that it seems somewhat anal to say that it's better to get the shot perfect at the moment of truth. A digital image is not a photo...it's information captured at the moment of truth by the sensor...it's bits and pixels. What difference does it make if color shift in the image data is made through a filter that tones the color of a pixel at the time it's recorded by a sensor vs. doing the same afterwards. In the end, it seems to me that the result is the same.
...or maybe not...that's why I'm asking for opinions.
-
I love the flexibility Photoshop gives you but there are some functions it can't replicate. The most obvious is Polarization to cut down on reflections. The others I can think of are ND filters to allow slower shutter speeds in bright light, think of photographing waterfalls.
I also think of gradient filters to effectively compress the dynamic range of an image, I'm thinking of darkening the sky while allowing the landscape to be properly exposed. Obviously this can be replicated in Photoshop, but often you are forced to compromise on exposure in one way or another at capture and wind up loosing detail in the whites or the darks.
Otherwise, I don't see any really strong reason not to take advantage of the flexibility that Photoshop enables.
-
Garbage in garbage out.. get what you want in the field. "We'll fix it in post" is not a good mind set.
-
Garbage in garbage out.. get what you want in the field. "We'll fix it in post" is not a good mind set.
I'm not saying to fix it in post, I'm saying that capturing the image correctly in camera offers more flexibility in how you process that image later. Nothing in post cannot be undone. While what is captured at the time of exposure can never be changed. To ignore the flexibility and capabilities of the digital format would be a very limiting method of producing photographs.
You very argument of GIGO means that certain filters irrevocably alter the captured image and might not permit the image that the photographer envisioned from being produced. Do you have a B&W sensor on your digital camera or do you prefer the flexibility that altering the channel mapping and contrast values in Photoshop offer for B&W conversion? Is it cheating when Ansel Adams used specific processing methods to change the tonal range and contrast level of the film he was working with? It's no different for digital, the tools have simply become much more powerful, accessible and usable.
-
No, you may certainly do as you wish, and I have nothing against post work. In fact in one of Ansel A's last interviews he said if he were starting today ( in the 70s ) he'd be working in video. I'm sure he'd love digital photography, as I do. I was just sharing a general philosophy that I've followed during my career, and it has served me very well.
Best,
John
-
A polarizer cannot be duplicated, it is a must have for outdoor shooting.
Infrared doesn't matter on a digital camera usually, because of IR blocking filters over the CCD.
Most digital-editing filters are nearly-impossible to distinguish from actual lens filters.
I sold my chroma-enhancing, stars, NDs, softs, etc. quite a while ago, as I see no use for them.
Judging by the turntable-aficionado resurgence, stay tuned for the anti-digital photography backlash to come, however.