how do you feel about filters on photos?
also, do you like this pic?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D40 Camera Software Photos 1.0.1 Maximum Lens Aperture f/5.7 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 82 mm Image-Specific Properties: Pixel Composition Unknown Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 Vertical Resolution 72 Image Created 2016:03:13 19:56:44 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/6.3 Exposure Program Not Defined ISO Speed Rating 200 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 55.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2000 Image Height 3008 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2803850
shameful self-bump
>>2803850
>>2803853
Welcome to /p/
We are a slow board, you don't need to bump your thread, especially after 9 minutes.
Also, please remember to resize your pictures according to our rules.
>how do you feel about filters on photos?
Filter are similar to different types of film. You can use both to create different moods in your pictures. Using film to do this is obviously harder, as you need to decide which one to use prior to shooting and not in your comfy chair at home, but that's just the way it is with film vs digital.
A photographer shouldn't rely on preset filters though. A filter can be used as a foundation to work on and only using presets doesn't help you to understand what you are doing to your work.
So use them with caution and retouch your pictures by hand whenever you can to improve.
>also, do you like this pic?
It's out of focus and it shows absolutely nothing
>>2803872
thanks man, appreciate the time you dispended for that answer. and yes im new
>>2803850
I shamelessly experiment with all sorts of weird filters and effects, just for my own amusement. It seems, however, that a great majority of the "photographers" I know (and likely here on /p/) would consider it somewhat blasphemous, though they edit and shop their photos the way they want to. I doubt we could have a successful thread here of filtered, effected, or otherwise "artified" photos.
I'm not particularly enthralled with the OP pic, but it would be preferable to the bland "art" found on the walls of my local hospitals and doctors offices. At least it has a nice textural quality to it. Why photo if you can't have some fun with creative editing, eh?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand
Filters are an abuse of a viewer's intellect. You impose an atmosphere through it when your picture doesn't actually achieve it by itself. It's lazy in most aplications, and I have yet to find artwork that uses it apropriately. Truth is however, it's as poor as most computer generated art. Predictable and stale.
>>2804077
a filter is just quicker PP. I don't see anything wrong with it as long as the execution doesn't portray a lack of photographic competence
>>2804090
>just quicker PP
That isn't true at all. The two are fundamentally different in several key situations.
If the subject has semi-transparent materials (water, glass, certain clothing), then Polarizer filters cannot be replicated digitally without essentially manually painting the scene yourself.
The RAW file simply doesn't differentiate between the different polarizations anywhere if you don't use a filter. They're all combined and impossible to separate.
Also can apply to reflections off metal surfaces.
Time and Movement aspects provided by use of Neutral Density filters also in some situations cannot be replicated.
You want to get a 10s shutter shot of a river for the motion, but it's a sunny day? At any aperture, you'll still have a pure white image with all the data lost and no amount of post-processing can bring that back to the correct image.
It's only if it's only mildly underexposed or overexposed that it can be fixed in post. It's not "saving time" to own a ND filter, it gives long shots that aren't physically possible without one (using a standard lens and standard DSLR)
>>2804547
Obviously (OBVIOUSLY) talking about post processing filters like VSCO or instagram. Learn to read context.
>>2803850
Coloured filters are priceless when shooting on B&W film.
>>2804672
>context
>from "what does p think about filters"
It's a 1-word subject, there is not a single piece of context that it's photoshop being discussed rather than actual photography filters.
Learn to not be a complete dumbfuck.
