Professional Web Applications Themes

Real filters vs. computers for B&W photos - Photography

I've used "real" filters in the past for taking photos (landscapes mainly) on B&W film. My film cameras are now things of the past and I shoot entirely digitally. I still intend to take B&W landscapes, and would like to get peoples opinions about the relative merits of using "real" filters on the front of the lens as opposed to converting the digital image to a monochrome and applying computerised colour filters. Since my main camera (a Canon 10D) does not have the facility to capture images as monochrome, I will be still be taking the original as a colour ...

  1. #1

    Default Real filters vs. computers for B&W photos

    I've used "real" filters in the past for taking photos (landscapes
    mainly) on B&W film. My film cameras are now things of the past and I
    shoot entirely digitally. I still intend to take B&W landscapes, and
    would like to get peoples opinions about the relative merits of using
    "real" filters on the front of the lens as opposed to converting the
    digital image to a monochrome and applying computerised colour
    filters.

    Since my main camera (a Canon 10D) does not have the facility to
    capture images as monochrome, I will be still be taking the original
    as a colour photo. (Besides, my understanding is that the mono mode
    that some digital cameras have is relatively poor since it doesn't use
    every pixel on the CCD or CMOS.)

    So... From people's experience, which works better (a subjective
    interpretation, I know!) taking the colour photo with a red or orange
    filter in front of the lens, then converting the photo to a
    monochrome/duotone, or taking a non-filtered colour photo and then
    adjusting the photo in Photoshop? (If the latter, I'd adjust the RGB
    channels - is there a better way?)

    Cheers,
    Al

    Al Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Real filters vs. computers for B&W photos

    Al Treacher <com> wrote in
    news:com:
     

    I do not use real filters (except for IR-filters). I think
    it works very well to simulate real filters, i.e. yellow
    or green filters in software. But I don't think that you
    can simulate a deep red or blue filter. To get very dark
    skies you shall use a deep red filter (or IR-filter).
    I have not tested to use red filters with my Canon G2,
    but with my previous camera (Sony S70) it did not work
    at all. The automatic exposure went just out the window
    and overexposed the red, correctly exposed the green and
    underexposed the blue. So ... that was useless.


    Roland
    Roland Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Real filters vs. computers for B&W photos

    Other than polarizing filters, you can reproduce most other filters in
    software. How well depends on the software and your skill with it.

    There are some exceptions, but in general it works well.

    --
    Joseph E. Meehan

    26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math


    "Al Treacher" <com> wrote in message
    news:com... 


    Joseph Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Real filters vs. computers for B&W photos

    Speaking of a library of filters, I am currently evaluating a software
    package called "Picture Window Pro," which has just that -- a library
    of filters! I'm still evaluating how to actually use them, but they
    are there! I shot 100% b&w for many years before moving to digital,
    and I think you should be able to emulate almost any effect (IR
    excluded) with digital & RBG channel manip. that you can do with b&w.
    After all, color film is panchromatic, and each one has a
    sensitivity/response to different wavelengths. Adjust the RBG curves
    in you favorite image software, and you should be able to get where
    you want to be.

    That's theory on my part, tho. I just got my digital camera a few
    weeks ago, and I'm still learning a bit. Esp. on the desktop
    software.

    Picture Window Pro allows 16 bit/ch manipulation for all of it's
    functions, and it runs remarkably fast. Available at
    http://www.dl-c.com for .LT. $100. I don't work for them, I'm just
    impressed with my trial copy, so I thought I'd pass it along.

    James Carpenter
    Just west of Guthrie, KY.
    James Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Real filters vs. computers for B&W photos

    "Joseph Meehan" <com> writes:
     
     

    You can only *aproximate* the effects of on camera filters, and in
    many cases, you can't even do that. No way `hosay... And this is
    not including effects like having your blue channel way down in the
    noise if you shoot under dimmed tungsten.

    Once the light hits the CCD, you have 3 numbers that replace an
    infinite number of values. Your software has NOTHING to distinguish
    the hues of the 3 primaries. You can only vary the magnitude, you can
    do nothing about the cut-off wavelength. That is fixed by the filters
    on your CCD.

    If you insist in believing that any software can replace filters, then
    explain why they spend a huge sum of $$ putting the RGB arrays on the
    CCD and don't just `do it in software'!

    --
    Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
    +61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
    West Australia 6076
    comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
    Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
    EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
    Paul Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Real filters vs. computers for B&W photos


    "Joseph Meehan" <com> wrote in message
    news:UoYRa.1064$columbus.rr.com... 

    Does that include a haze (UV) filter?
     
    >
    >[/ref]


    Marvin Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Real filters vs. computers for B&W photos



    --
    Joseph E. Meehan

    26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math


    "Marvin Margoshes" <net> wrote in message
    news:supernews.com... [/ref]
    in 
    >
    > Does that include a haze (UV) filter?[/ref]

    Yes.
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..

    The word "exception" includes it. (;-)
     
    > >
    > >[/ref]
    >
    >[/ref]


    Joseph Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Real filters vs. computers for B&W photos

     

    wow - talk about a logical leap off a cliff! The reason for there og
    ccd values is trivial (to most) - one needs 3 independent observations to
    provide a basis set to expand the color space. well, technically they don't
    need to be independent, only non collinear - but that's another story.

    rma


    ralford Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Real filters vs. computers for B&W photos

    In message <synonet.com>,
    Paul Repacholi <synonet.com> wrote:
     

    The Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC seems to run their incandescent
    lights either on some dimmer, or at a reduced voltage. There is almost
    no blue at all. There really isn't enough light to be using filters,
    either, without a tripod.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <komm> 
    JPS@no.komm Guest

Similar Threads

  1. A real challenge for real PHP programmers
    By Brian in forum PHP Development
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 13th, 10:43 AM
  2. filters
    By Gretchen Steinbecker in forum Adobe Photoshop 7, CS, CS2 & CS3
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: September 10th, 09:58 PM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 15th, 07:56 AM
  4. filters cmd
    By Michal in forum Microsoft Access
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 13th, 11:34 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139