Filters with digital camera same effect as on film camera?

[ike k]

Maybe a stupid question but I really don't know about this, am planning to buy some ND

filters and polarizer. Do you think the end result would be the same? say if I use provia

100 or I use digi Slr with ISO 100. Thanks and appreciate all infos!.

 

iKe

[godfrey]

ND filters and Polarizers are just as useful on digital cameras as they are on film cameras

and work the same way.

 

No digital camera produces results that are exactly the same as a film image. Your results

with a digital are better or worse than your results with film depends upon how well you

understand exposure and processing of digital images as well as you do with film. They

can be better and they can be worse.

 

Godfrey

[ted_marcus1]

A polarizer is the only genuinely useful filter for a digital camera (or for film destined for scanning). Color adjustments are easily made electronically in the camera (with white balance adjustments) or in post-processing, but there's no digital substitute for a polarizer. Split neutral density filters can help with contrasty lighting just as they would with film, but shooting a scene twice (or more) with different exposures and combining them digitally would do the same thing.

[mfeetham]

Actually, I hear from more and more landscape photographers (some of them on PN) who feel that the double exposure method just doesn't bring the same results as a ND filter.

 

Of course, that could just be a question of high film skill vs low PS skill.

[joseph_wisniewski]

I'm finding, more and more, that your classic color balancing filters are necessary, especially the 80A. Digital white balancing doesn't take into consideration spectral tilts, and the extreme colors (reds and violets) look a bit off when you try to white balance tungsten lighting on a camera that has a sensor built for daylight.

 

Then there's the whole issue of shooting under tungsten or candlelight causing highlights to blow in the red channel, and shadows to deteriorate into noise in the blue channel....

[jcuknz]

I have read the claim by somebody I recognise as a very talented operator that even the polarising filter can be duplicated in editing. But for lesser mortals like me it is easier to do with a filter.

 

I think the person who claims that ND filters are better than two exposures should be more specific and call them graduated ND filters such as made by Cokin ... really it is an operational choice ... in-camera or in-editing.

 

Depending on your gear .. ie. DSLR or non-DSLR ... with the later the ND filter is a must if you want to use slow shutter speeds ... ie less than 1/250 in bright sunlight ... and the less powerful versions are a waste of money ... x8's minimum.

[phule]

<< Of course, that could just be a question of high film skill vs low PS skill. >>

 

Take a look at the article over at LL with regards to Adobe's new "Merge to HDR" application in Phososhop CS2:

 

http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/hdr.shtml

[craig_gillette]

While there are situations that can be duplicated with post processing, others can't. To be honest, I don't know if you can always repeat the impacts of a polarizer, maybe with skies but with different reflected highlights, etc.? especially off a water surface, could you see the fishw/o the polarizer??

 

Likewise, I shoot train pictures. In a bright backlit tending sky, a split filter could be used. Obviously if the train is moving, you can't take two exposures and sandwich them. Maybe with RAW you can try to work layers and merge them.

 

If you need to cut light down to get a longer exposure - a waterfall or fountain come to mind, it's the time that you need.

[c4-contemporary-art]

I use both film and digital cameras extensively - as well as a great deal of

drum scanning of film. My humble opinion is that you absolutely CANNOT

simulate the look of film with a CCD or a CMOS chip. I'm sorry - but there are

worlds of difference. Digital cameras are basically - in soul and in

technology - video cameras. I'm sorry - but it's true. A given film in a given

camera under various circumstances has a characteristic curve QUITE

different from digital cameras. Digital cameras (in the best of all worlds)

have a very linear curve (lack thereof) and are therefore really great under

some circumstances - tonal/chromatic separation, etc... but only under 3-4

stops of BR. They can record more - but they start looking very video-ish

very quickly. It has to do with highlight saturation. Now - I'm not saying that

one is inferior - it's just a very different look. The Fuji S3 attempts to

replicate this by using a different rate sensor for the highlights - and then

digitally 'companding' the result (much like DBX or dolby on 70s audio

recording systems) - thus simulating a crude curve - but not really. It starts

looking a bit more like it though. I DO prefer the digital look for some things

however. Mostly studio stuff. REALLY crisp! For outdoor or uncontrolled

situations - I really like the latitude and look of film. Under these

circumastances - digital looks weird to me.

 

As for simulating a polarizer - well, absolutely not. I'm not trying to rain on

anyone's parade at ALL - but you simply cannot estimate the phase of

polarization of a light ray which produces a given pixel. Yes, you can

increase the saturation of colors uniformly - or selectively in photoshop or

what-have-you... but scattered (unpolarized) light sources which would be

greatly cleaned up with a polarizer cannot really be dealt with in a 2D

computer image. Again - it's just a different thing. Good luck with your

experiments though!