Are you still using ND/CP filters, or replicating them in post?
Mar 9, 2018 06:22:50 #
Rab-Eye wrote:
The subject line is the question. I would also be interested in hearing why you have chosen your particular method.
Thanks!
Thanks!
I prefer the real thing, but post processing can help.
Mar 9, 2018 07:36:13 #
Mac wrote:
I don't think you can replicate a CP filter in post.
I'm sure you cannot; even a raw file completely lacks polarization detail.
That being said, I never much liked the CP effect of unrealistically saturated skies and I find post-processing usually gets me closer to what I really wanted than CP would have. Topaz Adjust and the Topaz Studio are my go-to tools for this kind of adjustment. The one effect from CP that I don't know how to get from PP is to cut out reflections - say from a window. If that is the effect I want then I better plan on it when shooting and hope I can find the CP filter for the lens I want to use.
Mar 9, 2018 07:47:05 #
Mar 9, 2018 07:49:38 #
Mar 9, 2018 08:18:29 #
pecohen wrote:
I'm sure you cannot; even a raw file completely la... (show quote)
Reflections is the main reason for CP for me.
Sunlight off the water can ruin or accentuate an otherwise great pic....CP can be a solution.
Mar 9, 2018 08:38:29 #
Mar 9, 2018 08:39:13 #
sbschippers
Loc: Baltimore MD
No can do. I don't think you understand filters. See many reasons above.
Mar 9, 2018 08:55:37 #
rballron
Loc: Upstate NY, USA
Use my 10 stop ND filter for daytime moving water as you cannot get the effects in post. My 2 stop CD filter is used less often, but it is much easier to use it than blending multiple images in post and more realistic than HDR in post.
Mar 9, 2018 09:53:42 #
wdross wrote:
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.
I would agree if you meant graduated neutral density.
Mar 9, 2018 10:45:51 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
Rab-Eye wrote:
Yes, I should have been more specific. I was thinking graduated ND. Thank you, everyone.
My Graduated ND filters have been gathering dust for a couple years... ever since I learned to do the same thing MUCH BETTER in post-processing.
Why do I keep them? Well, I may need them if and when I shoot some film again.
Circular Polarizers, especially, are still very useful. ND filters are more specialized, but both C-Pol and ND cannot be replicated to much extent in software. For most of those filters' purposes, actual filters are still needed and virtual ones won't do!
Mar 9, 2018 11:08:12 #
sbschippers wrote:
No can do. I don't think you understand filters. See many reasons above.
I completely understand filters. I do not completely understand processing software.
Mar 9, 2018 11:11:00 #
rgrenaderphoto wrote:
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?
What about you Rab, what do you use?
I’ve been using my same filters from the film era. I’m still learning Lightroom, but I know it has a graduated ND effect, which is what prompted my question
Mar 9, 2018 11:29:09 #
Sony has an app for their mirrorless cameras called Digital Filter. However, it requires you to make those in camera for each image. My preference is use the physical filters on my lenses instead of trying to replicate it in post.
Mar 9, 2018 12:00:57 #
Approximation is the word in question.
Graduated ND filters are an easy, simple way to use, but most of the time impossible to substitute with PP approximation - especially when used in different grade combination on different parts of the same image.
(By the way, I am sure, that we can find some people who would claim, that they can eat soup - approximating - by licking the chop sticks?)
Circular polarizer has several other purposes, not just removing reflexions or cloud enhancement.
However, if you feel you can get by without any filter, don't take them and stay happy?
These filters are only useful tools and are not that heavy to justify leaving them home.
Graduated ND filters are an easy, simple way to use, but most of the time impossible to substitute with PP approximation - especially when used in different grade combination on different parts of the same image.
(By the way, I am sure, that we can find some people who would claim, that they can eat soup - approximating - by licking the chop sticks?)
Circular polarizer has several other purposes, not just removing reflexions or cloud enhancement.
However, if you feel you can get by without any filter, don't take them and stay happy?
These filters are only useful tools and are not that heavy to justify leaving them home.
Mar 9, 2018 12:12:33 #
Rab-Eye wrote:
The subject line is the question. I would also be interested in hearing why you have chosen your particular method.
Thanks!
Thanks!
I use the grad ND and CP filters.
Some situations [like wide dynamic range] are just not very easy to capture perfectly in one shot [I know I cannot!]. Also, if photographing a subject where some element is moving, HDR won't work very well [think of clouds or birds in flight!]. If you have very bright light [sunrise, sunset] coupled with dark portions [foreground] and attempt to get the image in one shot without using added tools [filters], you risk two things: [1] blown out highlights which cannot be fully recovered. [2] shadows that will swallow details [if gone to black] and/or be very noisy when brightened.
We buy better cameras and lenses to get better pictures. Using all the appropriate tools to accomplish the final image is just an extension of using the camera and lens. PP can help, but will not always have the same results.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.