SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

I understand the technique in question and IMO it’s a poor substitute for using an ND filter.

rcarol

I was commenting on CHG_CANON’s post, not yours.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Yet I have knowledge of the subject. That’s how these forums work.

rcarol

Yeh, so do I.

ORpilot Loc: Prineville, Or

Yes, you have the most control this way. Personally if I am going to shoot in color and then convert, I usually us a polarizer. I have found that using color filters and shooting in color don't have as much effect as just doing it in PP. Now on the other hand. I have a Sony a7ii converted to monochrome. (similar to the Leica Monochrome). When I am shooting with it. I do use color filters. With a monochrome camera, color filters have the same effect as when using B&W film. For those that did not grow up with B&W TV and B&W film...it's a whole different world.

Sony a7ii converted to monochrome, Red filter.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

There is software out there somewhere that trys to somewhat replicate polarization. But from what I have heard, it is a failure in comparisons. I cannot even find examples to post of the software it is such a failure.

Polarization works off a specific physical property of light going into the lens and on to the sensor. That property cannot not be replicated from the data captured by the sensor using software because the image data cannot produce the polarized property of the light at the time of capture. This is why every single new lens I buy will get an expensive polarizer filter - just in case it is needed. Everything else can be pretty much be done in post processing including neutral density.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

I think it might be more dependent on what he was shooting and how much time he had to setup. But knowing how much manipulation he did just with film, I have no doubts he would have been absolutely thrilled by the digital picture age. For the times he could not setup for film, he would have had a digital camera out and taking pictures lickty split - and drooling as to how he was going to manipulate them in his computer.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

The main issue I have with this forum is that folks get into camps or cults and in many technical and aesthetic issues refuse to compromise or see others' opinions or points of view. Indeed here are many black and white "rules" like don't clean your lenses with sandpaper or shoot with your lens cap in place, however, many issues have more one than solution.

Filters and post-processing in general and filters vs. post-processing ha are usually contentious issues around here. They do get lots of clicks.

So, here is my contribution to the pot. Being a commercial photographer (day job) this i what I do for my clients.

If the job calls for black and white as a final output, I prefer to shoot in monochrome and MAY use filters in certain situations I like to pre-visual my shots in a monochrome. More 9mportanly, especially in certain products or still-life work I consider "panchromatic rendition". Y'all many have not heard that term sins the film days. It does, however, apply, in a way to digital photography. Simply stated two colors that would normally contrast with one another, in color photography, may be rendered in the same tone of gray. Eg. a red apple on a blue background can have little or no differentiation between the subject and the background. If I detect such an issue I can apply a red filter, lighten the apple, and darken the background or use a blue filter for the reverse effect. This can occur with various colors. You can see the effect rig in the viewfinder and preclude any difficult or tedious post-processing actions. This does not mean I am not going to post-process my images- just avoiding complicated masking and other lengthy procedures.

In portraiture, a green filter will emphasize the skin texture and tone like orthochromatic film used to do.

The anti-filter camp argues for loss of image quality and a propensity for flare when filters are in play. My experience is that with high-quality coated filters and the proper use of a lens shade, the are no issues.

A POLARIZER is not really a filter in the truest meaning of the word. A good one will not alter olor or gray-scale rendition. A CPL will polarize light so as to minimize or negate certain unwanted reflections and increase saturation. It can be employed to render more dramatic skyscrapers.

The post-processing myth- Post-processing is not necessarily fakery or a last-ditch efforts to save poorly crafted files. for me, it is as traditional as fine analog printing. Back in the olden days, we made the best negative we could and for those who wanted to maximize their results the CUSTOM PRINTED. That means the best negatives usually could do with a bit of dodging, burning, and perhaps a refinement in cropping. or contrast. I learned very early in the game that I did not want to reshoot every image in the darkroom- its not efficient or economical, so I always tried for consistent exposure and as much in-camera control over composition as possible. I always found that a negative that had to be overly correct in enlarging never yields the best results and still find that wit digital files. In color transparency work, there was little or no latitude, so I got used to TRYING to produce clean negatives and chromes. I am not against post-processing but I like to minimize it whenever possible.

I'm not suggesting that one should run out a buy all kinds of filters. If you already have some- try them out. If you are not a professional and do photography as an art or a hobby, photography is like a nice vacation trip, getting there is half the fun- so experiment!

As for breakfast? This morning I experimented and put ghost peppers in my omelet. Not a good plan! I thought would have the fire extinguishers for the desert!



.

Stan Fayer

Thanks EL,
That’s pretty well said it all.

User ID

You may not have noticed, and it should pain me to inform you, but back in 1984 .....

Oh never mind. Its always been just a load of ignarint superstition and myth anywho. Might as well keep on keepin on with it.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

As your being a commercial photographer, that is making his wages with photography, I would expect your use of filters to reduce the use and need for post processing. Time is money and post processing is time consuming. Manufacturers still make filters for cameras for a reason. Yes, post processing is very useful especially if one does not have or use filters. But for me right now, a polarizer is the only main filter that I will constantly be shooting with. My camera's internal filters are good to a certain degree and definitely better than nothing. And post processing the color image to B&W can be lifesaving. But I also know of the slightly better differentiation when using what color filters I have left that fit my lenses. Since I do not do enough color modification beyond what little post processing I do, filters beyond a polarizer are hard to justify cost wise (I agree with you that the polarizer is not a true filter from what are basic filter modifications of light). I suspect this is also true for most photographers that are not earning they wages just from photography.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Correct, "When I am shooting with it. I do use color filters. With a monochrome camera, color filters have the same effect as when using B&W film. For those that did not grow up with B&W TV and B&W film...it's a whole different world."

Very nice B&W, close to large format film with possibly less noise. Yes, I've shot 4x5" and 8x10" film!

Artcameraman Loc: Springfield NH

Old school, new school, no school, do some of each, digital storage is cheap and gives you something to do. Cheers.

Ed Commons

Many times I will shoot the scene with out a filter, and re shoot with a filter (or filters) and I have choices in post production

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

An exquisite composition 🖤🤍🔟🤍🖤