Filters?
- Thread starter Ben Hur
- Start date
- Messages
- 12,095
- Name
- Tom
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Most things can be replicated in photoshop. I never found a good way of creating infra-red looking images in photoshop, one of the reason I purchased (a still un-used) IR filter. It just depends on how good your photoshop skills are really. I personally enjoy using filters more as you get a instant effect that you can manipulate on the spot. I get bored of spending hours on a photo in photoshop - would much rather do it at the scene.
I suppose the practical answer would be yes ... in the right situations as the general advice is get as much work done 'in-camera' as possible ... otherwise as JL suggests you spend far too much time in front of a PC screen instead of taking pics ... 
Woodsy
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,676
- Name
- Jonathan
- Edit My Images
- No
TheRedUn
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 302
- Edit My Images
- Yes
UV also for protection, but of course that is not what is being discussed
Sorry if this is going a little off-topic and high-jacking Ben Hur's thread... but would you advocate a UV filter rather than a Skylight filter for lens protection? I think I read somewhere that a digital sensor is not as susceptible to UV as film is, so a UV is not really necessary.
Being as my last SLR was 35mm film-based (several years ago), I've only had my 400D a month or so, and was holding off buying a protection filter till I could suss out the best way to go. Ideal opportunity to ask...
- Messages
- 26,617
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Sorry if this is going a little off-topic and high-jacking Ben Hur's thread... but would you advocate a UV filter rather than a Skylight filter for lens protection? I think I read somewhere that a digital sensor is not as susceptible to UV as film is, so a UV is not really necessary.
Being as my last SLR was 35mm film-based (several years ago), I've only had my 400D a month or so, and was holding off buying a protection filter till I could suss out the best way to go. Ideal opportunity to ask...
We've discussed this so many times - I'll have to think about stickifying something.
I honestly don't know if digital sensors are more or less sensitive to UV light than film, but any decent modern lens which has a coloured lens coating, will include a coating for UV protection, so a UV filter is redundant unless you feel you really need one for lens protection. Being clear it will have no effect on your shots, but avoid really cheap filters in front of good glass as they can degrade your images.
Unlike clear UV filters, Skylight filters have a light pink coating (sometimes referred to as 'straw') so may need extra exposure to compensate, although only usually very slight.
What's the purpose of a skylight filter?
Well if you take shots on a bright sunny day with all of your scene bathed in direct sunlight, you have no need of a skylight filter at all.
On sunny but overcast days though, most of the light which illuminates everything doesn't come straight from Old Sol, it's bounced off the ground, back into space and reflected back down again off what is effectively that blue overhead ceiling - the atmosphere. It paints everything with a blue cast in much the same way a flashgun would pick up the colour of a blue ceiling.
The blue cast affects everything but it's most noticeable in light areas in your shots - skin tones are badly effected, and it's a prime cause of the dreaded blue snow in your shots.
On a bright sunny day if you shoot your subjects in the shade, you will get blue casts simply because the sun isn't lighting your scene directly, you're getting bounced sunlight off that overhead canopy.
We had some deer shots posted recently where the effect was very noticeable. The good news is it's usually very easy to correct the colour balance in post processing these days anyway.
