[shuttertalk]

I'm sure DSLR users and owners of cameras that accept filters (e.g. Fuji S5000) must be asking themselves - are creative filters worth it?

With my film SLR, creative filters were important - because you had no control over the image once you pressed the shutter button (well unless you processed your photos yourself). You basically had to set up the shot up front.

With the advent of digital though, you can reproduce most effects via Photoshop, given the time and effort. Furthermore, most cameras have digital filters built in already, which essentially achieve the same outcome... and you can even see how the shots will turn out even before you shoot.

Of course, UV filters are essential for lens protection. But polarisers, warming filters, ND filters - are they a thing of the past?

[Mr_Gadget]

Ramboy's pretty much into filters, I've seen some of his photos...

Ramboy post a shot up!

[ramboy]

Hehe, i like to experiment with filters rather than manipulate it on the computer. will post up some photos as soon as i get it from my archives

[shuttertalk]

Cool, what setup do you have, ramboy?

[Rufus]

Well, ND filters are still necessary in order to control shutter speed / aperture. For example: You want to blur a flowing river in bright daylight. You want a fair DOF, and choose f16. Your shutter speed is then (for example), 500th.... Much too fast. Stop down further? You may still only get 100th of a second. Still too fast. Answer?? An ND filter.

Photoshop?? :x Pah! Waste of money. Give me PSP and the Gimp, plus Capture one!!

All IMHO.

Ho hum.........

Rufus UK

[adam]

Well, ND filters are still necessary in order to control shutter speed / aperture. For example: You want to blur a flowing river in bright daylight. You want a fair DOF, and choose f16. Your shutter speed is then (for example), 500th.... Much too fast. Stop down further? You may still only get 100th of a second. Still too fast. Answer?? An ND filter.

Photoshop?? :x Pah! Waste of money. Give me PSP and the Gimp, plus Capture one!!

All IMHO.

Ho hum.........

Rufus UK

I'd agree with Rufus regarding ND filters, why wait until after to fix it up, when you can change it right then. I think that would be especially true for film shooters who do not develop and process their own pictures, so they wont have much control over the picture in that stage. Whereas digital shooters, are able to fix up things after (post processing is like developing the film). If filters are required to make the shot possible, then it's the only way otherwise you would have no shot in the first place to play with.

For me though, if I can do it in photoshop, I would.

[Rufus]

Got to point out here though, that the flowing water pics cannot be faked.

IZ no possiblo

[shuttertalk]

Got to point out here though, that the flowing water pics cannot be faked.

Hahah, maybe using the smudge tool in photoshop?

[adam]

Got to point out here though, that the flowing water pics cannot be faked.

Hahah, maybe using the smudge tool in photoshop?

Then I could create the world's most beautiful waterfalls in my own bathroom

Personally, I don't do much post-processing on my images, though I really should.
I like the feeling that "this is directly from the camera", that I've captured it exactly how it is, but then, sometimes, it doesn't come out exactly as you see with your eye (which is most of the time, since you're using your camera to create illusions).

I would choose an appropriate filter over doing something later using photoshop, though photoshop may be able to recreate the effect. Actually, the only filters I have got is a HoyaR72 (for infrared) and a UV filter - which I'm using as a piece of glass to 'protect' the front of the lens if someone tries to poke it with a knife.

Another point of this, I would think, is that if I were to add some effects, I would take the picture then play with it later in photoshop, since I'd have more time to play and experiment with it than to play with the filters.

[Rufus]

Adam:

I'm sorry but I dont think I understand you..... Maybe we're talking of different things here. The water effect I'm refering to, is the one where flowing water is shot with a very slow shutter. It results in a smooth fluid coat of water and a mist-like effect where spray occurs. I'm sure you know the effect I mean. There is no way, (that I am aware of), to mimic this effect, especially since it requires a location. Therefore, bathrooms and PS dont work.
Maybe I've misunderstood you though..... Please clarify.


R.

[adam]

Adam:

I'm sorry but I dont think I understand you..... Maybe we're talking of different things here. The water effect I'm refering to, is the one where flowing water is shot with a very slow shutter. It results in a smooth fluid coat of water and a mist-like effect where spray occurs. I'm sure you know the effect I mean. There is no way, (that I am aware of), to mimic this effect, especially since it requires a location. Therefore, bathrooms and PS dont work.
Maybe I've misunderstood you though..... Please clarify.


R.

Hi Rufus
I was refering to shuttertalk's smudge tool suggestion to give flowing water, then thought that I might be able to make the water in my bathroom flow like a waterfall

I think I understand the effect you are talking about, where the water is very white, smooth, fluffyish?

*goes into bathroom with camera*

[Rufus]

Hello Adam!

You are a most prolific contributor. Maybe the most!

[adam]

okay, so i went into the bathroom and laundary with the camera, put it on program mode and let the water run, this water was running fast, so it already looked white to the eye.




after doing that I think I understand what you mean, to put ND filters on, so can have a slower shutterspeed so that the water comes out all creamy?

[shuttertalk]

Heheh I never knew household appliances could look so good