When can PhotoShop replace good filter use?
Yes, I'm from a vacation back east with family during my surgery recovery. Doing much better with a new outlook on life after beating kidney cancer. Thanks for your support and emails. It helped more than you know.
OK. Here we go again.
I'm a photographer, mostly conventional. My brother is a computer wiz. After I used a few filters while doing some shooting, nothing fancy, he stated: "Why bother lugging that stuff around, any filter can be recreated in PhotoShop".
I disagreed, but he did a great job of showing me my error.
Can this be? Please help! I can't allow my "younger" brother be right about a area in which I should be an expert. Ahggg! The pain of defeat!!!
Here is the questions:
Can PhotoShop duplicate EVERY conventional filter?
Should we just shoot it natural and apply filters later?
Looking forward to the comments
Robert "Dixie" Trawick
#1. "RE: When can PhotoShop replace good filter use?" | In response to Reply # 0Fri 18-Aug-00 01:51 PM
With a couple of qualifications,
For color photography, you can not only simulate any common color filter, but you can create effects that lie between available filters so you have much more control.
For black and white photography, the spectral sensitivity of the film isn't panchromatic, therefore filters can create tonal effects that are more difficult to mimic in Photoshop. Since Photoshop only gets a range of greys to work with, you can't play with the color channels the same way you can with a full color bitmap.
Many "effects" filters can be simulated with Photoshop plugins, but perhaps not all. Photoshop again will provide much more control over a given effect, compared to a filter.
Give your little brother the win on this one. I'm sure he'll appreciate the gesture and it sounds like he's a great resource for you to learn some technical tricks from.
Salt Lake City, UT
#2. "RE: When can PhotoShop replace good filter use?" | In response to Reply # 1Fri 18-Aug-00 01:56 PM
Oh, and I forgot to mention that Photoshop "filters" are the only ones that are absolutely flare free, fingerprint free, and reflection free. They also don't steal light from your exposure and they fit every lens you could ever own. Never worry about vignetting and use as many filters as you want.
Not bad, eh?
Salt Lake City, UT
#3. "RE: When can PhotoShop replace good filter use?" | In response to Reply # 0
Glad to hear you've beaten the 'Big C' and are doing well.
A couple of points on the use of Photoshop in place of normal filters:
If you push things too far - or if the original image didn't have enough dynamic range - you can start to introduce quantization effects (that objectionable banded or 'posterised' look) into your photos.
The image quality is totally dependent on the scanner and whatever form of printer is used for the final output.
If you want large, high quality images then you're going to be dealing with some seriously large files, plus you'll doubtless end up wanting to keep the original as well as the 'filtered' version (just in case you ever want to fiddle with it again - and you will, you will), so you'll need plenty of disk space and a means to back things up.
Strange opinions from a D1 owner?
Well, I like to try and get things right when I take the photo: there's something far more satisfying about having a perfect image, that you can't improve, straight out of the camera than having one you arrived at by 'Photoshopping' it.
There's also the fact that, after about four months of D1 ownership, I have 1,500 (and counting) 4Mb files to manage....
#4. "RE: When can PhotoShop replace good filter use?" | In response to Reply # 3Fri 25-Aug-00 01:28 AM
You're right about using quality scans at high resolutions for larger prints, but with a film based archive, most folks will only want to manipulate a fraction of their images in that fashion. For web use and small prints, jpeg files can be kept quite small.
As far as keeping an original and a modified version, you can do that in one Photoshop file using layers. One Photoshop file with corrective layers will usually be smaller than two separate lossless image files.
Your 1500 images should fit on 10 CD-ROM disks, along with thumbnail index files. In addition to using a CD burner, I have a DVD-RAM drive that will write 2.6 GB on each side of a removable cartridge. The drive is slow and the drivers aren't solid in my experience, so I can't recommend the technology. CD burners in contrast are quite fast, inexpensive and reliable these days.
#5. "RE: When can PhotoShop replace good filter use?" | In response to Reply # 4AlanC Basic MemberFri 25-Aug-00 02:50 PM
Sounds like your experience with DVD-RAM is just like mine... it's not a Panasonic drive by any chance, is it? And you're not trying to get it working with Windows 2000 are you?
CD-R is definitely the best solution at the moment.
#7. "RE: When can PhotoShop replace good filter use?" | In response to Reply # 5Thu 31-Aug-00 03:02 PM
Yep, the LF-D101. I'm still holding off on installing Windows 2000 until drivers for my world are abundant and debugged. My DVD-RAM installation has problems (apparently) with Adaptec drivers for EZ CD software. I read and write from/to the drive fine, but I can't reformat them or delete empty folders on UDF formatted disks. I bought the new driver disk from SAI that's supposed to be Win2000 compatible... do you have these new drivers? The new format utility lets you use FAT 32, which seems less problematic than the UDF format. The format and new diagnostic utilities refuse to work on my main workstation (Win 98 SE) but work fine on my second computer. SAI has been as bad as Panasonic for support. Let me know if you need the latest drivers...
#6. "RE: When can PhotoShop replace good filter use?" | In response to Reply # 0
I have either an UV / skylight or a pol on my lenses. The UV shall protect the front of my lenses cause you have to clean the filter from dust more or less regularly. When the filter is scratched it is far cheaper to change it than your whole lens. Especially on good weather conditions (sunlight) it has a positive effect by absorbing the UV rays, using a skylight which gives a little bit warmer colors is a matter of your personal taste.
The polarizer is the best choice to get higher color saturation and darken the blue of the sky. I'll never miss that filter. I think it's a must-have for every serious photographer. If you want you can use a grey graduated filter to reduce the brightness e.g. of the sky in a landscape picture.
The whole rest, star filters, softening filters, etc could be replaced by photoshop filters. These filters aren't worth the money (in my opinion) cause the effect ist always the same und after a couple of pictures you'll be bored. photoshop is much cheaper for effects like that (though the software is horrible expensive, but that's another story).
Mr. Nikon from Germany
#8. "RE: When can PhotoShop replace good filter use?" | In response to Reply # 6
#9. "RE: When can PhotoShop replace good filter use?" | In response to Reply # 8Mikepoison Basic MemberTue 19-Sep-00 07:09 AM
IT's not so much loosing... look at it this way:
while you CAN do pretty much *everything* with photoshop, do you WANT to?
I am pretty much fluent in Photoshop, but I'll be damned if I let my personal shootign slip because I can modify it later. I don't WANT to modify it, I want to reach perfection with a single shot, not with a meager shot followed by a process of retouching.
Filters can also do something PS can't: they can help you determine color makeup and scene composition before shooting the real image. use a Y-filter to see what the image roughly looks like in BnW contrasts, or screw on a polariser to see what the critical angle to the sun is before you shoot.
last, there is at *least* one filter PS can't replace with ease... Neutral Density Filters =)
#10. "RE: When can PhotoShop replace good filter use?" | In response to Reply # 9Merlin Basic MemberTue 19-Sep-00 11:01 AM
I just couldn't resist jumping in - sorry!
Yes, photoshop can beat the pants off just about everything we can do in a conventional darkroom. I've pulled off miracles here from crappy negatives just by scanning them and letting PS's autolevels sort out the gamma curves, and I'm by no means brilliant at it. Dust specks? All easily fixed. So why don't we just scan everything and go to work fixing it in Photoshop?
When I started flying gliders about ten years ago, I found out that one of the club members was a senior airline captain with a German charter company and flew 737s for a living. Why, I asked him, would he want to bother with unpowered flight? He just smiled and said, "Because it's more fun. It's more difficult, but more fun. One day, Mike, you'll understand!"
I do understand. Doing a coordinated turn with a glider using just a piece of string stuck to your windscreen as a slip indicator is considerably more difficult than with any powered aircraft I've ever put my boots into. But when you get it right, and get that lifting feeling as you circle, climbing for free in a thermal, 5000 feet above the earth in almost total silence, it'll put a huge grin on your face. More smiles per mile than any other means of transport!
When I watch a black and white print come up in the developer under pale red light, the magic's still there, and it'll never go away. And when I hold a big print in my hands, I still have the feeling I've actually achieved something. Apple-P or Ctrl-P somehow just doesn't give me the same satisfaction...