I think when someone gets to a certain knowledge level they understand why they can be very good.
With any luck!In the back of a Galaxy diffractor filter drawer, far, far away...
Nothing has changed as far as I know, pros and enthusiasts have them or have tried them generally.
I think when someone gets to a certain knowledge level they understand why they can be very good.
Or the exact opposite, when a certain level of knowledge tells you they are almost all pointless
Dave
And if the horizon is anything other than perfect, blending exposures makes a better image.Like when half the scene is extremely dark and the other half extremely bright and it is highly advantageous to even them out with a filter ?
Like when half the scene is extremely dark and the other half extremely bright and it is highly advantageous to even them out with a filter ?
And if the horizon is anything other than perfect, blending exposures makes a better image.
The only filters that can’t be replicated in software are a polariser and an ND (though some people disagree re some uses of an ND)
Using filters is a little like the current vintage lens thread.
Some people just bash out several exposures and sit in front the PC editing and others would rather take their time, enjoy the scenery, use filters and take one image. Again, there's no right or wrong.
In everyday photography thats not far wrong. In astrophotography & scientific photography there are many filters that are difficult or totally impossible to replicate in software. Many of these are narrow band filters.The only filters that can’t be replicated in software are a polariser and an ND (though some people disagree re some uses of an ND)
See Phil's message to save me replying other than I've yet to see a scene where a Grad will help me
Only an idiot will "bash out several exposures" and hope to do something clever in PP. Most will hopefully see and plan for their PP in the taking stage, but NOT using a 'B&W' filter means we have options that using one generally removes
Being quicker means I truly enjoy the scene in front of me, without needing to worry about where the Grad line is on the horizon, or what I'll need to dodge later to hide the fact a Grad was used, or to give myself more options in PP - which is actually quicker than fking about with filters in the taking most of the time
Dave
Like when half the scene is extremely dark and the other half extremely bright and it is highly advantageous to even them out with a filter ?
So you've never been at the coast or out & about where the sky is brighter than the foreground? That's quite unlucky.
It's not 'quicker' either way. Use a filter & take a few minutes and capture one shot that needs little editing. Take several exposures in a shorter time & then spend a while in editing blending them together.... Whatever gives you the result you want in the way you want. As long as you are happy & enjoying yourself
Ohh.... and "B&W" filter??
Ohh two.... There are plenty of 'idiots' about....
This is one of those posts that assumes that everyone is shooting 'scenery'; please remember that not all of us are anti social loners who spend our weekends trekking alone looking for the perfect landscape scene.Using filters is a little like the current vintage lens thread.
Some people just bash out several exposures and sit in front the PC editing and others would rather take their time, enjoy the scenery, use filters and take one image. Again, there's no right or wrong.
Having used the nuisance filters around Bristol for a few years I couldn't disagree more. They are never what you want to the exact half the stop and there are always features sticking out somewhere. Even more so when it comes to sunset, and even fanciest Sony doesn't quite have DR to take it all in in a single shot. So you end up bracketing or with blown bits... And how about that extra flare which only gets worse as the filter receives minute scratches, dirt marks or sea spray. What's the point paying serious money for all that pain and hassle?
This is one of those posts that assumes that everyone is shooting 'scenery'; please remember that not all of us are anti social loners who spend our weekends trekking alone looking for the perfect landscape scene.
But when we’re shooting people spending timeI don't need to remember anything. You need to learn that scenery isn't just found when alone trekking for a landscape scene. Scenes are everywhere, not just in Snowdonia.
Isn’t an option.Use a filter & take a few minutes and capture one shot that needs little editing.
Sounds like a few people are up for an argument here..........
But when we’re shooting people spending time
Isn’t an option.
Moods and expressions are transient and the light on my subject is critical. Taking in the surroundings is a waste of my time.
And I don’t shoot with a view to fix it later. It’s right because I’m concentrating on my subject not taking in the scenery or arsing about with filters.
I've taken people shots that wouldn't have been possible without the filter used.This is one of those posts that assumes that everyone is shooting 'scenery'; please remember that not all of us are anti social loners who spend our weekends trekking alone looking for the perfect landscape scene.
That's normal on here isn't it? Especially when there isn't a right or a wrong
You might want to read my first post in this threadI've taken people shots that wouldn't have been possible without the filter used.
sml P1150714bw2 by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr
The eyes were completely hidden without the filter
I didn't say you took shots with a view to fix later did I?
Some people just bash out several exposures and sit in front the PC editing and others would rather take their time,
It’s not about ‘me’ or my methods, you seem to have started with a provocative statement and now you’re struggling to stick with it rather than accept that other views may also be valid.
One thing that’ll raise my hackles is sweeping statements about a right way to do something. We’re all different people, we shoot different things with further different expectations.
I did, it didn't say anything about infra red filters! Which were used in my example.You might want to read my first post in this thread
If it could be done with an IR filter it can be done in software surely?I did, it didn't say anything about infra red filters! Which were used in my example.
So you've never been at the coast or out & about where the sky is brighter than the foreground? That's quite unlucky.
My post was intended to see if the marketing drive by certain manufacturers with use of social media and brand ambassadors had made filter use more popular. The answer for TP is clearly not
Not a chance. IR is not seen to any significant degree by the camera. You can't determine the red channel by studying the blue channel, why should IR be any different?If it could be done with an IR filter it can be done in software surely?
Not a chance. IR is not seen to any significant degree by the camera. You can't determine the red channel by studying the blue channel, why should IR be any different?
The data is swamped by visual data or not present at all.
There are programs that produce faux IR images, but these work by assuming green things are foliage & thus reflect lots of IR. Green painted metal is generally near black in IR. It might be possible to get results that look like IR but they won't be accurate & sometimes will be complete guesswork.
True IR images can also see through many dyes, potentially allowing censored documents to be read (biro can be seen through laser print can't)
This was taken with a cheap screw in 720nm filter on a standard camera, using a 50mm prime:True, but here we are really talking about sensor level colour filters. The cheap screw in thing doesn't give true IR however image degradation is spectacular. Let alone our lenses are optimised for visible light and you truly need to pick one carefully for IR work if larger than 6x4" print is expected.
as well without issues:
These ARE true IR.
The visual band is normally considered to be 400-700nm.Extreme red or very very near IR at the best case. You are not even scratching the surface towards the middle of IR band.