Lenses And Filters

The title of the thread is "Lenses & Filters" not "Lenses & Filters.....oh and any software alternatives".
Jonathan clearly stated in his first post that he was looking for advice on filters.

Seems clear enough to me!

 

Let me clarify it for you some more then. Only the narrowest advice would not include alternatives. Saying "I don't use/advise the use of filters. I prefer using alternatives," is just as much advice as saying "I prefer to use xyx filter/s."

 

I don't mind hearing even alternatives to filters. My preference would always be to do the least amount of digital manipulation possible, I sometimes find that it can be the roughest way to edit ( then again, it can be down to my early version of Photoshop Elements ).

But yes, my question was to filters and lenses. If people's preference is then to software, then likewise with that I was hoping with any suggestions on filter uses, what are the reasons behind your preferences to software? Is it because there is more flexibility? Can it acheive the same results digitally as a filter can out in the field?

I don't want this thread to become a war between methods, but merely a place where we can bring our own methods to the table, justify them, and possibly explore further the alternatives? Photography is a wonderful activity to take part in within this hobby, and there are so many of us on here that the quality, quantity, styles, techniques and compositions are far and wide varying even within the same thread ( See GBVI thread in 'What's Going On' for example ). Surely it's better to aid one another if the end result is going to become a more pleasing photograph for viewers to enjoy?

So back to the point of the thread. If you're going to advise using a certain method, then why? Is it cost, do you find that using a filter is too restrictive compared to the flexibility of photoshop? Do you find the results in photoshop to be too rough compared to using a filter? Is it just that some are more able in use of photoshop than others, and vice versa for use of filters?

 

Reasons for using software as to filters. Unless you spend a lot of money on filters they are seldom of the same quality glass as the lens you're using. Doesn't make sense to buy a top spec lens and then put a cheap filter on the front. The only filter I'd attach permanently to a lens is a UV/Daylight filter so if you wish to use an ND, grad or polariser then you will have to either put two on the front - not desirable IMO - or chop and change filters in the field - equally not a good idea IMO. No fan of ND grads as unless you position them very carefully, you end up with areas of the image darkened where you don't want. 5944 quoted the very good example of signal posts. So that's why is chose to shoot in RAW. Any changes in RAW editor are non destructive and reversible and IMO far from the roughest way to edit. Returning to ND grads, I would consider using one for video as the thought of editing hundreds of frames - even if that's possible without spending a fortune on software - would be a daunting and time consuming task.

 

Certainly some food for thought there.

I'll admit, I currently do any editting of RAW files with the Nikon D7000's built in software. Wether anybody has any opinions on this, it is restrictive but it can obtain good results without much mess. This is because my version of Elements doesn't allow RAW file editting ( or even opening them! ), that's how old it is....( came with an old computer bought back in 2005ish most likely ). For those who do use software more up to date, does the likes of Lightroom 4 allow straight from .Raw ediiting? And how consuming on computer resources is it?

And back to ND grads, I suspect from 5944's posts that it is then quite a noticeable difference rather than just a minor reduction in to glares etc..? Following Ken Rockwell's website, the suggestion is that the best use of grads is for harsh lighting. So from person's experience, are grad's those sort of filters where going for that 'Sunset Glint' shot, they can come in handy?

 

Precisely. Using software is as useful as using filters. Stuart was just looking for a cheap shot, however lets consider the matter closed and move on.

 

As a Canon man I'm afraid I have zero experience of the Nikon software. Can't comment on Lightroom either as I do not use that. Currently edit RAW in Elements 10 on my Macbook Pro - not that Elements 10 can handle 5D3 RAW files - so convert to Adobe digital negatives - .dng files - with their free DNG converter and then open them in Elements RAW converter.
Never used a grad for the sunset glint, in fact I can't see the need for one although others may disagree. The glint will be invariably be a bright area of the image and if you expose for the glint then there's little or no danger IMO of getting a washed out sky.

 

Can I also suggest that you try the adobe DNG converter for your RAW files.I have used the in camera option on my D5100 and it is no where as good as using RAW/DNG in Elements 7. Down load the converter and give it a try on your Photo Elements software.

 

I have just tried to give the DNG converter a go, and sadly, my version of photoshop is so backdated, it won't open. Certainly doesn't surprise me, and certainly shows I need to buy either the latest Elements or Lightroom package, regardless of the filters conversation.

 

You should be able to buy a cheap (er) copy of lightroom 4 now that they have just released LR5, and I hate to say it but Amazon is likely to be your best bet LIGHTROOM 4 to save you the hassle, its basically half price, and LR 4 will allow you to process RAW files no problem!

 

You can try downloading a trial version of Elements or Lightroom, though there's a chance your computer may not be new enough. Mine has Windows XP and couldn't open the trial version of Lightroom, but was ok with Elements.

 

Yes I would recommend doing that. Filters have their uses, I have few in my bag but hardly ever pull them out. If you intend to use a filter to attempt to correct potentially blown highlights then you can combat that by under-exposing and then processing with care in Lightroom. It has lots of other tools to play with and is far more easier to use the Photoshop (I have Elements 9, which has its uses but Lightroom 4 beats it hands down for accessibility).

 

I'm sure the laptop I'm now using with elements should be able to open it. The laptop is about 2 years old, the computer having been binned half a decade ago when I started my apprenticeship, but I kept the photoshop disc from that computer ( which was actually a Windows ME operating system, so that can act as a rough guide to how old my elements is! ).

As a school student then railway apprentice, I found it much easier sticking to an ancient version of elements as money was difficult to come by. But, as you grow older, you find more things to pay for in life which has still excluded me from having the chance to purchase a new version of Elements. However, with the price of Lightroom, is certainly looks like a positive way to go alongside wether I do, or do not, go for any filters.

 

I've got a seven year old laptop with Windows XP service pack 3 which runs elements 11 ok.

 

So to sum up the advice so far :

Buy two new UV filters ( which was always going to be on the cards )
Invest in a copy of Lightroom 4 ( may happen when I purchase a new tower computer )
In regards to ND Graduated and Polarizing filters, although nobody is deeming them necessary, it may be worth to experiment with at a later date?

 

That's the great thing about digital, it costs virtually nothing to experiment, unlike the old days when you could burn lots of film trying different techniques.

 

If you want LR4,you need to buy it now, if it hasn't already gone!, I wont say why BUT you will know when you get the disc..................................................

 

Not used LR but a friend of mine does. He says sharpening is on by default. Sharpening, if needed, is the last piece if editing you should do before saving the result so if it is the default setting for LR, disable it before doing any processing.

 

The default setting doesn't sharpen it by a great deal to be fair. You probably wouldn't notice it once you've uploaded it onto the Lightroom library. With Lightroom you can very easily reset all your modifications and go back to your original image depending on what type of file you use (RAW/JPEG) and when you've saved it.

You can also download it from the Adobe website which is pretty easy to do.

(PS - I don't work for Adobe, honest!).

 

Whether is it sharpens by a little or a lot, sharpening should be the final process not the first in your workflow.