Today
when I was seeing an profile of a photographer, and read the lenses he
uses, it felt he never used computerised filters. But he did in most of
the pictures.
Difference
between using a lens filter instead of filtering the bare image in
Photoshop or other software based imaging program is truly economical
and creative. They both omit or overstate a specific spectrum of the
light range and I can add contrast, sharpen, soften, add warmth,
coolness...everything in my computer. All top named photographers,
whether they buy it or not, have someone with computer background to
amplify their images.
As
long as every tone, hues and details we care about has been captured by
the film, one can then use Photoshop to change the proportion among the
tones and colors for the final rendered image.
I’
would say that filters that change things by less than one or two stop
are better done in Photoshop but if it’s more than that you have to use
the optical filter to give Photoshop a good start.
As
for my economical constraints I’m presently working with computerised
filters. But on long terms I recommend lense filters which I’m gonna
shift soon.
For more information about filters follow the source link:
(source:photo.com)
(Internet pics edited with Photoshop)
