camera filters

[Bill Douglas]

My photography is pretty good, but certainly not excellent.

I put a lot of thought into the composition of photos, and the image clarity is good. But they don't have that dramatic look, that standing out look, that great photos have.

I think I could raise my game a little by using filters.

I'm interested in doing good interior, real estate type pics, plus exciting landscapes. But don't know which filters to experiment with. My camera is a DSLR Sony a290

What are you guys using and for what?

[gchappel]

Unless you have a complete aversion to the computer- photoshop can easily replicate almost any filter. You may have to stack a couple of images- but much easier and faster in the field than a filter.
Polarizing filters are about the only one you cannot match later. It can darken skies and take the shine off of water, leaves, etc. But be careful- it can look artificial, and also give a weird gradient in the sky.
Save your money- get better at photoshop.
Gary

[wdfifteen]

I don’t think on-camera filters are what you need. The Photoshop Camrea Raw filter works wonders ar bringing out color and detail in a photograph.

[wdfifteen]

Raw Image



Jpeg image as processed in camera.



Raw image processed in Photoshop "Camera Raw" filter.

Nikon D610
Nikkor 70-100 4.5-5.6 lens

[LWJ]

^^^it may be me but the final pic above looks over-sharpened and synthetic. It hurts my eyes.

For landscape, maybe HDR? Which can also look weird.

For interior, what about golden light? The only thing I can think of that might give you some "pop."

[T77911S]

not a photo guy by any means (thought I might learn something) but I agree about the last pic. too much

first pic looks best. contrast on tower lost on second one.

I may be wrong and probably am, but it looks like it was an over cast day, not much sunshine.

would like to see that as a black and white

[GH85Carrera]

Camera RAW is the real answer. Don't use the "stock" import, adjust it to fit your tastes.

Back in the olden days of photography when film was the only way, I was a professional photographer. I would work with some of our customers and using a Sinar-P 4x5 and 90 MM lens we could see most of a room. The tilt and shift would eliminated the distortions and we might spend 4 hours on one shot. We shot at night to avoid daylight, and spent hours replacing bulbs, filtering some areas with sheets of tinted Mylar. In the end, we had a series 4x5 transparencys that were accepted into Architectural Digest. It was a full night of work.

Now with digital, walk up click, go home and do it all in Photoshop and get a better result. It is just amazing. With the full dynamic range beyond what film could do, and the ability to tweak everything. Photography is mostly done with a good computer and a fancy monitor now.

Most important have fun. Find some tutorials on how to use Photoshop, the full version not the cheap version. The filters are now all applied after the fact.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by LWJ

^^^it may be me but the final pic above looks over-sharpened and synthetic. It hurts my eyes.

You can adjust the filters in photoshop it to whatever you want, from just like the first image to even sharper than the last. It's not like a filter on the camera where you get what you get.

[vash]

There isn’t a filter that screens out bad composition.

Or gives awesome DOF.

[wdfifteen]

I agree the last image is too sharp, especially the foreground. This time I applied a little less sharpness and contrast to the top half and none to the foreground.



Here is black and white.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by T77911S

I may be wrong and probably am, but it looks like it was an over cast day, not much sunshine.

It was early in the morning, broken clouds with a red sun rising. I was trying to catch the light from the rising sun on the clouds and on the silo and contrast them with the unlit trees and field.

[T77911S]

there is something about the sky
it looks like "art" as in painted. make me think of this paint by numbers my wire has that her grandmother did.
not trying to be insulting by any means.
seems like some photographers can make their shots look vivid and colorful. I can not. like you, was thinking there is a filter I am missing.


this one looks better IMO.

little more contrast on the BW.

[Cajundaddy]

I agree with others. These days it's all about catching the right light, good composition, and processing in post. If you get a good shot in raw you can do wonders in post. Lots of good quickie tutorials in Youtube these days. For interior RE shots you need good wide angle lenses and fill lighting.

[gchappel]

Filters, photoshop, plugins, lenses, cameras. These are all tools. Nothing more.
Like anything else, tools can be used well. They can also be used poorly.
Photoshop can certainly be taken too far- as in the above case.
Lens filters can also be used poorly.
Me, I am a pretty good photographer. Been shooting for over 40 years. Won juried competitions, show in galleries, published in international art books. Rarely use filters. 10stop neutral density filter lets me get long shutter speeds if needed in sunlight. Rarely a circular polarizing filter is needed. Otherwise my filters sit unused.
If you are trying to get a great look for your images shoot in raw format. Then learn to use the tools. Read,study. I believe it is a learnable skill.
It can be a wonderful life long journey.
Gary

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by T77911S

there is something about the sky
it looks like "art" as in painted. make me think of this paint by numbers my wire has that her grandmother did.

It did look like a painted sky that morning, that is one reason I took the photo. One purpose for a photo is to try to capture what you see with your naked eye (or what we think we see). So in this case, if it looks like a painted sky, that's good.


There are lots of reasons to take a photo. Most of mine were used in offset printing, they had to be sharp and contrasty to make up for the muddying effect of the printing process and I generally err in that direction. In general, photos that intended to be viewed in a reflective medium (prints, magazines, etc) need to be more sharp and have more contrast than images viewed in a projecting medium (computer screens) that add their own sharpness and contrast. The processes of getting the color to your eyes are completely different.

[Eric Coffey]

Originally Posted by gchappel

Unless you have a complete aversion to the computer- photoshop can easily replicate almost any filter. You may have to stack a couple of images- but much easier and faster in the field than a filter.
Polarizing filters are about the only one you cannot match later. It can darken skies and take the shine off of water, leaves, etc. But be careful- it can look artificial, and also give a weird gradient in the sky.
Save your money- get better at photoshop.
Gary

+1

A circular polarizer is pretty much the only (hardware) filter I'd bother with.
The only other exception would be a quality UV filter. Though, I ran those primarily for the benefit of protecting the optics, and less for the UV (haze) reduction.

One caveat with a polarizer is that they can be hard (and sometimes impossible) to "tune" with digital cams that only have LCD screens, and not an actual (optical) viewfinder.
Also, keep in mind they can/will act as an ND filter in most cases as well.

As above, almost anything can be remedied in post, but it is nice to minimize your PS workload by getting good shots to begin with.

[Eric Coffey]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

I agree the last image is too sharp, especially the foreground. This time I applied a little less sharpness and contrast to the top half and none to the foreground.

A bit exaggerated for effect, but here's another example to show that PS is an indispensable tool. In this case, bringing up the shadow detail, increasing contrast, and removing color cast took less time that it would to dig through your filter pouch, find the right filter(s), and install/remove on a lens.

[Steve Carlton]

Originally Posted by Bill Douglas

My photography is pretty good, but certainly not excellent.

I put a lot of thought into the composition of photos, and the image clarity is good. But they don't have that dramatic look, that standing out look, that great photos have.

I think I could raise my game a little by using filters.

I'm interested in doing good interior, real estate type pics, plus exciting landscapes. But don't know which filters to experiment with. My camera is a DSLR Sony a290

What are you guys using and for what?

How are you processing your images? The lens will have a lot to do with it. I'm paging ckcarr, who does phenomenal landscape photography who hangs out here.

If you could post some examples, especially links to original images, that would help a lot.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by Eric Coffey

A circular polarizer is pretty much the only (hardware) filter I'd bother with.
The only other exception would be a quality UV filter. Though, I ran those primarily for the benefit of protecting the optics, and less for the UV (haze) reduction.

+1 on the polarizer, especially if you are shooting metallic surfaces. The polarizing effect is one thing you can't add in post.
Another caveat is that the polarizer can add vignetting, so shoot big and crop it down in post.

[wdfifteen]

But if you post on a message board, the vignetting virtually disappears!
It's very obvious on all four corners in previews on my laptop screen.