Lens Filters in a Digital Age?

I have read a few opinions that polarizing filters are the last truly useful filters for digital cameras. The argument seems to be that Photoshop etc... can do everything in post processing that filters can do to the image at the camera.


What do people think?


The ND filters, especially the 10 stop filters seem to be very popular.


Sigurd

Edited by Sigurd - 25 January 2012 at 11:30

I would agree with that. I know I don't use any filters for effect apart from ND although that could be solved with extremely low ISO capability) and circular polarizers - since you can't replicate it's effect in PP.

ricardovaste wrote: For me only polarizers and ND (not graduated) filters have a place, and even then it's very rare I use them.

almost +1 because of the "only". For me, there is also use for a UV/protector glass filter: to apply grease or other effectual stuff.

tigertimb wrote: , but it doesn't cope with moving objects and trees blowing in the wind etc.

Actually, Photomatix does a remarkable job with moving objects with just a small amount of additional work. All you have to do is tell it what is moving and unless blurred because of long exposure, the leaves are no longer moving.

Pretty much any effect can be reproduced using bracketed shots and compositing. The real question is whether you want to get the shot at the camera or perfect the shot at your computer. Both are perfectly acceptable and depend on your own taste / vision / preference.

Most of the time, I'd prefer to get it right with a filter in place, as my PP skils kinda suck. If I was better at PP, it's likely I'd be just as happy with a bracket of shots, a nice Iced Intanon from Wawee and a little time in front of my monitors.

From loosely technical perspective ...

A strong ND can blur moving objects (water most often) or completely remove tourists from a shot (coupled with a long exposure and a tripod). Compositing and selective blur masks to the rescue.

A Graduated ND can ensure you are working within a dynamic range your camera can capture. This can be done quite easily with a bracket of shots.

A polarizer can remove reflections from the composition - glass, water, skin, etc ... and can pop the saturation of colors when used correctly. These effects require compositing and depending on the amount of reflection, a little pixel diddling.

Colored filters affect the light in a way that can be mimicked quite well in PP. I think this would hold especially true if your image is properly exposed. However I also suspect the PP wouldn't be as 'perfect' as having done it with a filter at time of capture as the filter is working on the 'light' that hits the lens not the interpretation of the light as captured by the sensor and reinterpretted by the RAW converter. I highly suspect that most people couldn't tell the difference unless it was pointed out to them under high magnification.

I always have my ND and CPL in my bag, and occasionally a Grad ND. Those are still very useful to me.

I wouldn't miss my ND-grads for anything in the world. The ability to get it done in one shot is crucial, I think. Take a look at the histogram on a landscape shot with and without a proper ND-grad. Only thing that matters when I shoot is to get the best amount of RAW data and the ND-grads help a great deal with that..