Use of Filters and Digital Photography

A question about filters and the 10D. I expect the answer should be

obvious but I don't know it. I didn't find anything in the archives

but would gladly review it if someone could point me in the right

direction.

Here's the question: should I still be using filters on my lenses

(other than a protective lens, of course)? Can't most effects or

corrections done by way of filter now be done in PS? An exception I

can think of off the top of my head is a polarizing filter. Thanks.

I use a polarizing filter on my 10D. I find it just as useful as with my film camera.

In addition to a polorizer, I use 81 series (especially 81B) and 812 filters. I like to see the results of the filtration at the shooting location. Graded neutral densities work well on site also.

Good shooting

jacob

Trying to do color temperature corrections in Photoshop has a tendency of losing a lot of data. If you frequently shoot in all tungsten lighting I've found it much easier to just use an 80A filter rather than try to fix things in PS. Even the whitebalance settings I've heard (at least with point and shoots) will lose some data in the change. I think the same general rules apply to those that scan their negs: if I can be done more quickly in the computer with the same quality, do it there, but some things the computer cant fix. And I still can't seem to get the digital split-ND0 to look right.

I believe that any filter that would be appropriate for color film photography will work just fine with the 10D. I think there are some software plug-ins that simulate a polarizer, but I'm not sure how well it works. For example, a polarizer doesn't just make your skies nice and dark blue; it also cuts glare out of windows for example and makes water less reflective. I'm not sure how a simulation of a polarizer could do that. Other examples that should work fine with the 10D would be a warming filter (say an 81A or 81B), and a graduated neutral density filter for evening out a contrasty scene. I suppose both of these could be simulated with Photoshop - particularly the warming filter by selecting the proper color temperature - and the ND filter could perhaps be simulated with clever use of layers and blending modes. But I bet the filters themselves, when used properly, might work a wee bit better... Especially the graduated ND filter. Best wishes . . .

Why use a color correcting filter as opposed to adjusting the white balance settings?

 

In my opinion... Some filters not to use with digital are the effects filters, fog, soft, stars, as they can be recreated in photoshop and you still have the clean image. Also don't ever use colored filters for black and white mode... shoot in color and adjust the channel mixer later. That way you can always have the option of full color or recreating different color filters. The only ones I can think of that make sense are a polerizer, nd, nd grad, as stated above.

"But I bet the filters themselves, when used properly, might work a wee bit better... Especially the graduated ND filter."

 

If you have time to setup and properly use an ND Grad then you have time to make two exposures one for the highlights and one for the shadows and then blend in PS. This will give you results that are MUCH BETTER than with the use of the ND Grad.

 

As for color correcting filters, if you are using a DSLR, shooting in RAW and use CaptureOne or the AdobeRAW converter you have a great deal of control over color balance and I don't see how filters could be better. Filters are certainly more hassel.

 

For polarizers, yes their anti-reflective properties would hard to beat in PS.

outside of using polarizing filters, isn't the question really "How much time do I want

to spend in front of the computer"?<P>If you are using filters in front of the lens,

make sure you turn off auto white balance on the camera.

There are a couple of filters for the 10D/digital photography in general that are worth considering, depending on your style of photography.

 

A standard (not graduated) neutral density filter is still useful for nature photography where you wish to use a sufficiently slow shutter speed to obtain the 'cotton candy' effect of waterfalls etc.

 

I'm still not decided on the graduated ND filter vs photoshop with two exposures and playing with a gradient mask. Both work, not sure yet which is superior in practice. Still have the filter in my bag for now.

 

IR is fun if your camera works well at taking these shots (eg canon powershot G1). You hear mixed reports re: the 10D and infrared, I have seen a couple of shots that look good, other people say the CMOS is not sensitive enough.

 

Oh, and see my question on another thread re: red filters in B&W digital photography if you're interested in that sort of thing.

 

 

Cheers ,

 

Rob