Creative filters/lenses - are they worth it?

Erika Tanith

Erika Tanith

Suspended / Banned
Messages
21
Name
Erika Tanith
Edit My Images
No
I don't know if I'm hitting a rut, looking to change up my game, or what, but I recently came across K&F Concept lenses, and I was wondering what your thoughts are on "creative" filters and lenses? The centerfield split diopter filter looked like it might be interesting, also the 1/4 white mist diffusion.

I'm primarily a wedding photographer, so I guess I'm wondering if other photographers have found creative filters and lenses really add something to their clients' collections, or do they end up being gimmicky and consigned to the kit bag after two or three uses?

Thanks in advance,
Erika
www.erikatanithphotography.co.uk

Newcastle Wedding Photographer | North East Weddings

Elegant. Stylish. Timeless. Luxury wedding photography across Newcastle, the North East & beyond.
www.erikatanithphotography.co.uk www.erikatanithphotography.co.uk
 
If you were asking this back in the late 80's the answer may have been "Give it a go".

Nowadays you'd be able to do most of what crappy Cokin filters used to do with software.

But why would you want to? Especially for weddings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
I think some creative filters can be interesting, I use a black mist diffusion filter, star filter, and “motion” filters (basically just warpy) from time to time. It’s true a lot of it can be done in post, but sometimes the old fashioned way looks better and feels more organic - especially if you are going for retro look.

I don’t use them on all my shots by any means and sometimes I take a photo with and without the filter but I don’t mind them, and even the budget options can get interesting effects.
 
Last edited:
If this type of filter is applied at the taking stage, you're stuck with the results but if you do them in PP, you still have a "clean" original to try again.
 
Creative filters/techniques/etc are fine IF they are part of the creative process; i.e. they are a means to an intentional result. But that's not usually what happens. Instead they end up being like editing presets... where you just throw effects into the mix hoping for something good. And IMO, that seldom works well/better.
 
Nod said:
If this type of filter is applied at the taking stage, you're stuck with the results but if you do them in PP, you still have a "clean" original to try again.
Click to expand...

I’ve heard a few people say this, but I would offer another view:

Every time you press the shutter, a creative decision is baked in that can’t be undone in post. Sometimes you might want it without the filter and sometimes not - I take generally take a couple of shots with and without for important shots but sometimes, it’s something you have to live with - and that’s ok. It is part of a creative process and i always encouragie people who want to experiment- it’s what makes truly interesting work.
 
Last edited:
When it's work for other people, it's not play-time, so shoot straight and play in PP. By all mean play with filters etc. if you're shooting for yourself but work is work.
 
Nod said:
When it's work for other people, it's not play-time, so shoot straight and play in PP. By all mean play with filters etc. if you're shooting for yourself but work is work.
Click to expand...

I don’t know if I could just do the same thing all the time, over and over again, that doesn’t move you forward creatively. I think every creative person has got to where they are by a process of experimentation, and refinement. I accept that in many ways wedding photos aren’t really the most interesting but I certainly don’t see any problems experimenting with a few frames and seeing how the land - and being honest with the client. I certainly wouldn’t advocate shooting a whole wedding with a funky filter on, but I can definitely see where you could apply them in certain situations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top