The subject line is the question. I would also be interested in hearing why you have chosen your particular method.
Thanks!
Mac
Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.
Rab-Eye wrote:
The subject line is the question. I would also be interested in hearing why you have chosen your particular method.
Thanks!
I don't think you can replicate a CP filter in post.
Mac wrote:
I don't think you can replicate a CP filter in post.
Agreed. They seem lame compared to the real thing. At least that is my observation.
Ben, ND maybe. CP no way. There's some hack on youtube that claims to be able to replicate these, but, in all reality, nothing like the real thing.
--Bob
Rab-Eye wrote:
The subject line is the question. I would also be interested in hearing why you have chosen your particular method.
Thanks!
rmalarz wrote:
Ben, ND maybe. CP no way. There's some hack on youtube that claims to be able to replicate these, but, in all reality, nothing like the real thing.
--Bob
I don't know how you would replicate the ND filters either. They allow you to shoot wide open or do long exposures in very bright light, and I can't see how you do that in post.
John, a graduated ND can be approximated in processing. A single grade ND, probably not.
--Bob
JohnSwanda wrote:
I don't know how you would replicate the ND filters either. They allow you to shoot wide open or do long exposures in very bright light, and I can't see how you do that in post.
CP filters effects are about the only thing that cant be replicated in post....
Most other effects can be approximated in PS.
I try to get it right as possible in camera so it is real filters if need be, although I am not adverse to post processing.
Approximated is not the same as replicated. ND allows special use of a camera's attributes. Many of its abilities can not be duplicated in PP. CP can't be replicated in PP.
rmalarz wrote:
John, a graduated ND can be approximated in processing. A single grade ND, probably not.
--Bob
Yes, I should have been more specific. I was thinking graduated ND. Thank you, everyone.
I prefer the flexibility in composition that a ND Grad allows when the sky can overwhelm the foreground. I know you can do almost the same thing in Lightroom with a graduated filter and adjusting the sliders, but getting it right when taking the photograph gives me a better starting place when I go into Lightroom.
What about you Rab, what do you use?
Rab-Eye wrote:
The subject line is the question. I would also be interested in hearing why you have chosen your particular method.
Thanks!
I try to do as much as I can in-camera. Reason: Just too darn lazy, I guess!
I was always taught in my early years of photography to compose, check your ASA, shutter speed and aperture, exposure and get it right in camera.
Further adjustments to the image should also be made at the point of creation.
If the sky needs adjustments, neutral density filters, colour filters, depending on what film you are using and the wonderful circular polariser are a must.
I agree with my fellow photographers above, there is no such post-processing that can replicate a good quality CP.
wdross
Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
Rab-Eye wrote:
The subject line is the question. I would also be interested in hearing why you have chosen your particular method.
Thanks!
There is no real true way to replicate the affects of a polarizer except by using a polarizer. Neutral density can somewhat be produced in PP, but for me it is better to get as much done as possible before any PP.
Jeffcs
Loc: Myrtle Beach South Carolina
Somethings just really can’t be duplicated in post
Best to always get it right in the camera first
Than post isn’t a tool to bring a poor quality image back from the dead pile but an enhancement tool
Better to improve a great quality image
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.