Leigh, I hope we're not starting this again. Just because someone uses a computer doesn't mean they're doing graphics vs photography. It's just the printing mechanism. Get over it. My question was a serious one....Originally Posted by Leigh
I agree completely.
Filters are of no use to those who do computer graphics.
But they're very useful to photographers.
Whether or not a particular shooter chooses to use them is an artistic decision.
- Leigh
Lenny
EigerStudios
Museum Quality Drum Scanning and Printing
Are you referring about the filter's effect primarily on reddish rock? Thanks...
I am - as well as the effect on some reddish wood. For some rocks and woods it has the effect of increasing the contrast. Obviously blue darkens red, but in the context of the other tones in some rocks and some wood it tends to increase overall contrast. But it's not a panacea - it's worthy of some experimentation before committing. You might end up flattening rather than increasing contrast if you don't judge it right; though flattening might be what you're looking for of course. A real problem with using dark blue is that it's almost impossible to see through - or at least my eyes find it so. But to film it's another 3 stopper, like red. I can see and judge much better the effect through a red than a blue.
Why the heck would you want to spend the time masking the flower off and trying to get it to look right when a filter weighs nothing and fits in a pocket?
My website Flickr
"There is little or no ‘reality’ in the blacks, grays and whites of either the informational or expressive black-and-white image" -Ansel Adams
You don't always have to mask something off in order to use Photoshop filters. I sometimes use the Photoshop filters without masking anything off. And I use them because they're almost infinitely adjustable. I can have a dark red filter, a darker red, a light red, a lighter red, almost any strength of almost any color, warming, or neutral density filter I want. I also can experiment without being stuck with what I have on the negative. Yellow filter didn't give the look I want? Let's try an orange. Orange too light? Let's try a darker orange. And of course it's very nice to be able to mask if I want to and apply the filter effects to only part of the image. Red filter darkened the sky nicely but look how it's turned the green foliage black. O.K., let's just mask the foliage and apply the red filter only to the sky.Why the heck would you want to spend the time masking the flower off and trying to get it to look right when a filter weighs nothing and fits in a pocket?
There are other reasons (e.g. I save some space and weight in the backpack) but those are the main ones.
The OP asked about the filters that people carried and found essential. I told him what I carried. I didn't say what I did was better than what anyone else did or that others should do what I do. If you or anyone else prefer to use filters on camera that's fine.
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
Very good example. I don't shoot this kind of thing, but if I did, I grant you, this is a good justification for using a filter....Why the heck would you want to spend the time masking the flower off and trying to get it to look right when a filter weighs nothing and fits in a pocket?
My general way of shooting, as I think out loud here, is to see something in the light of an area, and want to reproduce it. I may have to add a little contrast to bring it out, but not much... I wouldn't normally see a red rose on top of a green leaf and want to separate it... the only thing I might try is to enhance what I am seeing - against the nature of the film's spectral sensitivity - and I don't think there's a magic bullet for that.
Great example, tho'. Thanks.
Lenny
EigerStudios
Museum Quality Drum Scanning and Printing
Those adjustments in Photoshop are assuming you shot the original in color?
Not a problem. Everyone has there own way of shooting. I am not one to worry about weight. So, for me, I would rather bring the red filter to try and get that 'monolith' sky look than do it in CS5.
My website Flickr
"There is little or no ‘reality’ in the blacks, grays and whites of either the informational or expressive black-and-white image" -Ansel Adams
Yes, using a filter adjustment layer (red, green, blue, etc.) assumes that the original was in color and was converted. If I started with b&w film I'd do the same thing but in a different way (e.g. by using a curves adjustment layer on the area to be adjusted).
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
If you shoot in color and are running it through Photoshop anyway, why bother using film? Use a digicam and save yourself the trouble and degradation of conversion.
Because I enjoy using a large format camera, because I like the qualities of film, and because that's what I'm used to using. However, I do use a digital camera, more and more these days though it's not a "digicam."
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks