This could form an interesting instructional technique -- one that
might even work for me since I currently know nothing about the
subject! Some might argue that it's no longer necessary to teach
filters, but the comparison of photos taken with filters and without,
the latter corrected later with PS, for example, should be a useful
learning tool.
Sorry for butting into this discussion between experts!
Roger
Roger Eichhorn
eichhorn@xxxxxx
On 4 Mar 2006, at 15:47, Bob Talbot wrote:
are a few advantages that Photoshop offers over filtration)Off the top
of my head):
1. You can experiment with fine increments of colour without
bracketing away a whole role of film
2. You can selectively correct colour in chosen parts of the
picture
3.You don't have to spend time at the "decisive moment" taking
colour readings
4. You don't have to carry an extra bag full of filters and CT
meter
5.You can capture the ambient colour which may not always be
correct, but often lends an extra magic to the image.
6. Colour is seldom a single temperature throughout the image and
filtration is indescriminate.
Hershel
There's one question that still keeps jumping up and down in my head:
Using CC filters does not prevent you using PhotoShop later.
If you know there is a strong colour cast, it does not hurt to deal
with most of it by filters at the time of capture. PS and CC filters
are not mutually exclusive. So for your "1" you don't have to be
stupid and bracket a whole roll, you just pick which CC your
experience [hahahah, remember that word :o) ] tells you then do the
fine tuning in PS.
I agree, a CT meter is probably overkill for most
I also agree that there is mood ("5") that can be killed by over
correction, whether by CC filters or PS auto-levels. All in all, I
just think it's best to use all your options rather than force an
either-or question.
Forced to choose these days I'd go with RAW capture and PS :o)
Bob
