Filtered Sunset

Filtered Sunset

More info about this image

Playing around with some filtering software. I have similar software on my phone and iPad. That software cost me about $8. The software for the desktop? $299. Is there any wonder left why people are flocking to devices like smartphones and tablets (specifically, the iPad)?

This software is simulating the film days when photographers would use glass filters to get effects that are now done entirely digitally. I remember seeing a professional photographer’s filter collection 30 years ago. It was staggering to think about all the money spent on filters. Makes even the $299 seem like pennies.

Does seeing this kind of treatment move you more or less? Does knowing it is a software filter make it more or less compelling an image? In film days, this would have been one of the filters that a photographer put on her camera and shot the scene. Does it make a difference to the view now, knowing that it’s digital?

I love heavily worked on images. This just seems a natural tool in the arsenal.

  • http://twitter.com/leahcwr Leah

    What is the software the you used?

    • http://blurbomat.com/wordpress blurb

      Tiffen Dfx2.

      http://tiffen.com/dfx_v2_home.html

      It looks like there’s an offer for $149 for the software, but it’s still way more expensive than the iPhone/iPad versions.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_S5PNTBYWBKCFKAJVUIQE6JPNJY Bob Peters

    I think that the general public don’t have a clue that most of the photos they see and love have been “changed” in some way – filtered, color corrected, etc. Nor do they know or appreciate that this isn’t new – the icons of photography like Ansel Adams did something of the same thing – used various techniques in taking, developing, and printing their photos to change in some way the image captured on the negative or what wound up on paper.

    I don’t know if it matters if the technical know-how is digital or mechanical, both require a depth of knowledge that requires study and practice.

    So – no, I don’t think it matters that your effects were produced digitally.

  • http://bodegabliss.wordpress.com/ Courtney

    I think it’s beautiful. I also think it’s refreshing to hear you say that you love heavily worked on images (I fondly remember a tutorial you put up a couple of years ago on adding texture to an image and I put it to use and loved it). I think there’s a snobbery out there right now where people are saying that altering their photos is a cop out and one shouldn’t be considered a good photographer if they can’t get the image they want without editing. But I disagree. I think it’s wonderful that anyone out there can now have access to the tools to create impressive photos like yours above. So yes, it moves me to see filters like this used, and I could care less how they were put there.

  • Anonymous

    As Bob mentioned above I’m not sure people appreciate how much photos were manipulated in the past as well. It’s just that it’s so much easier for everyone to have access to the technology then it was it in the past. I enjoy photos that are enhanced with digital effects (sort of like watching a movie with lots of special effects) but I must admit I still get a thrill when I get a photo that’s SOOC.

  • Anonymous

    As Bob mentioned above I’m not sure people appreciate how much photos were manipulated in the past as well. It’s just that it’s so much easier for everyone to have access to the technology then it was it in the past. I enjoy photos that are enhanced with digital effects (sort of like watching a movie with lots of special effects) but I must admit I still get a thrill when I get a photo that’s SOOC.

  • http://twitter.com/dailyvignette Toni Johnson

    I use Lightroom for my digital manipulation and find that I’ve been easing up on the vignetting while still cranking up the contrast. I do try to get the shot I want in camera, but you can’t always do that. I think one should use the tools one has at their disposal to create the photo that reflects their vision.