Filters or Photoshop?

Just curious to know if many landscape and nature photographers who

use digital still use filters or rely solely on Photoshop these days

to get the same effects?

 

I had a bit of a discussion a while ago with another photographer who

was adamant that manipulating every image in Photoshop instead of

using optical filters was much better. I was arguing that the

reliance on Photoshop to do all was for me not what photography is

about. Maybe I'm too much of a purist but I'd rather put the time in

the field and capture the image I want then and there optically,

instead of trying to recreate it back at my PC.

 

Is this how professional photographers operate now?

Hi Gordon

 

I still use filters on my digital SLR otherwise how would you balance the sky and foreground

without ND grads. Some might argue that you take 2 shots, one for the sky and one for the

foreground and montage them in Photoshop. This works for some people but I still prefer to

use filters. The other filter which cannot be replicated in Photoshop is the polariser.

 

Paul

Gordon, your argument is right on. Get it right in the camera, and you'll spend a lot less time with a lot less frustration in Photoshop. The two filters I use most are the graduated ND and polarizer, and as Paul said you can't replicate those in PS....

Well at least I'm not on my own then with my stance. I'm just frustrated that ever since the digital revolution took hold, many photography publications and books seem to push that photography is more about digital manipulation in Photoshop then the actual capturing of the image with a camera.

 

I'll continue using my filters for landscape and nature photography, I was just wondering if I was outside the norm.

I've just bought a polarizer and plan to get grad ND filters next.

 

I also made the happy discovery that my Cokin filters fit my 50/f1.8, so I may use rather more filters than those two.

 

P

Enhancing color, tonal range, etc. of an image with a filter or with photoshop shouldn't be a question of being a purist or not. They are just two different tools to reach an end result. One isn't more ethical, accurate, honest, or pure than the other.

 

My approach is to do what's easiest and makes sense for me. Most of the time, I use filters in the field because it's quicker and easier, not because I'm a purist. However, a grad ND doesn't always do the job I need it to do. Unless the scene has a nice horizontal division of highlight and shadow, a grad ND simply won't work. So, at times, I'll take bracketed exposures and combine them in PS. Using both tools vs. one or the other will enable you to be as true to your vision of the scene as possible and overcome the shortcomings of film and sensors.

I agree, Laurie. Either way, the scene is being rendered in such a way that one is artificially enhancing the image. "Purist" is a relative term, here. "Traditional" might be more appropriate, and even that is subject to the times we live in.

 

I'm still using polarizers and ND grad fileters, even a warming filter from time to time. However, too I've done the dual-exposure action.

>the reliance on Photoshop to do all was for me not what photography is about<

 

Gordon, I think you answered your own question. With photography, it really IS all about you. :-)

 

>I'm just frustrated that ever since the digital revolution took hold, many photography publications and books seem to push that photography is more about digital manipulation in Photoshop then the actual capturing of the image with a camera.<

 

You don't mean you're frustrated, do you? Opinions in books and magazines aren't forcing you to forego your filters.

 

As for professional landscape and nature photographers, there are so many that it would be impossible to survey them and catalog their preferences about filters. Suffice it to say a majority of professionals probably use what they need to earn a living.

 

Although I don't make all of my income from photography, for the record I still use a polarizer. I use an ND grad very infrequently. In fact, I tend to shy away from scenes that exhibit high contrast. That way there are no filters to attach to my camera, and no post processing concerns, either. But I'm more than otherwise happy to manipulate my photographs any which way I want.<div></div>

"One isn't more ethical, accurate, honest, or pure than the other."

 

I don't think one is the more ethical. Wether you use a grad ND or 2 exposures or even just two different RAW exposures of the same image is up to you imho. Using PS is just the "more modern" and easier (for most people) tool.

 

As for other filters, "cheating is cheating", wether you tone the image warmer with a filter or in PS is the same to me.

 

I think this discussion will be obsolete in a few years, just like the question about film or digital being better.

Just cancel my quote at the beginning, i misread it...sorry Laurie.

Color filters can be duplicated in your camera, and most other filters can be duplicated in PS. Circ polarizers and ND filters cannot truly be duplicated. I always have those in my bag. However, the red, blue, etc filters are no longer used. A quick level adjustment in PS can give you the same effect as any of those filters. I don't think this is "manipulating" the image too much, I just prefer not to carry 3 different sizes of filters that can be replicated in PS.

When I went digital I retired all my filters except the polarizer and ND grads. Still, NIK Software makes plug-in filters that can more-or-less duplicate those if used carefully and with restraint. Their "polarizer" works so-so and their series of grads work pretty well. Most of their plug-ins are gimmicky and of no use to the nature photographer but I often use their ND grad when I neglected to use the real thing in the field. See http://www.niksoftware.com/colorefexpro/usa/entry.php?

I still use ND grads and a polarizer. Why spend all the time sitting indoors at a computer when it's faster to just use an ND? I often use a polarizer and haven't seen any digital effect yet that replicates it. As for using filters or PS being "ethical," that's just goofy. It's my photo, I'll do as I please.

 

 

Kent in SD

Like most of the others have said, PS is just another tool - in many ways no different than a filter. Heck, you could even argue that filters and things like the metering systems in many cameras are not what photography is all about.

 

There are pros and cons and limits to what can be done with PS. Again, like the others have said, ND and polarising filters are two examples that I still wouldn't be without. Sure, you can montage shots of contrasting sky/landscape in PS, but in many situations it IS quicker to use a filter - at least for me anyway.

 

The ethics of the whole PS versus "traditional" methods is a bit of a moot point as far as I'm concerned. PS is just another tool (albeit a powerful one) to alter the resulting image, just as filters alter the resulting image.

I bought some filters for photoshop that were really useful, time saving and creative.

 

425 Digital Pro Actions for Adobe Photoshop 7, CS & CS2

 

Heres a link to them I think:

 

http://search.ebay.co.uk/_W0QQfgtpZ1QQfrppZ25QQsassZfrank5000Q5fuk

 

Quite an extensive list and a good price too.