A few local photographers who use too many filters.

[+Warwagon MVC]

So i've been seeing some local photographers that have their own business on facebook. Apparently by reading the comments everyone thinks they do such a great job. But what i've also noticed is, these people can't leave a single photo alone without adding some stupid fracking filter to the picture.

What are your thoughts on the picture?

here are 2 examples

the first one has its moments were out of every photo I looked at I saw a few I liked, and those were also the few that didn't have any filters added.

https://www.facebook...844584707153407

https://www.facebook...y/photos_stream

The other one

https://www.facebook...e/photos_stream

[Draconian Guppy]

Can't browse, FB is blocked, hotlink a couple here!

FYI. Most people in Fb are idiots... Instagram comments on blurry SEPIAblack&white"OMG THAT PICSHURE ROCKZ0RS MY BOXERS"

So i've been seeing some local photographers that have their own business on facebook. Apparently by reading the comments everyone thinks they do such a great job. But what i've also noticed is, these people can't leave a single photo alone without adding some stupid fracking filter to the picture. What are your thoughts on the picture? here are 2 examples the first one has its moments were out of every photo I looked at I saw a few I liked, and those were also the few that didn't have any filters added. https://www.facebook...844584707153407 https://www.facebook...y/photos_stream The other one https://www.facebook...e/photos_stream

[Kreuger]

Most people do this. Not just locals. Even "professionals" I've seen, tend to hide behind vignettes/b&w and other easy manipulations.

[neufuse Veteran]

Every girl with a DSLR camera and Lightroom thinks they are a photographer....... oh did I say that?.... :pinch:

[Draconian Guppy]

Every girl with a DSLR camera and Lightroom thinks they are a photographer....... oh did I say that?.... :pinch:

Well, I don't dislike that idea :shifty:

[neufuse Veteran]

Well, I don't dislike that idea :shifty:

:rofl: Well my facebook friends list, out of the 100 some girls I know, it seems like all them have a "photography" business on the side.... and every single one of them seems to use Adobe Lightroom and their "editing" involves putting some of the quick filters on every photo and they are done... :rolleyes:

my favorite thing is asking them oh, do you shoot in RAW? *blank stare from them then huh?*

Ah what ISO level did you take that at?.... *another blank stare* what?

[Nick H. Supervisor]

When I started getting in to photography I admit that I really went overboard on filters. However, that was mostly because I was using a film camera at the time and was still getting to grips with things, so if a photo didn't turn out the way I expected I would do the necessary tweaking in a photo editor. Since then though I've almost completely kept away from image editors. I only really use them these days for resizing and adding frames.

[neufuse Veteran]

When I started getting in to photography I admit that I really went overboard on filters. However, that was mostly because I was using a film camera at the time and was still getting to grips with things, so if a photo didn't turn out the way I expected I would do the necessary tweaking in a photo editor. Since then though I've almost completely kept away from image editors. I only really use them these days for resizing and adding frames.

back in film days, a filter screwed on your camera :rofl: digital photography / digital film editing has made this way to easy for everyone...

[Draconian Guppy]

:rofl: Well my facebook friends list, out of the 100 some girls I know, it seems like all them have a "photography" business on the side.... and every single one of them seems to use Adobe Lightroom and their "editing" involves putting some of the quick filters on every photo and they are done... :rolleyes:

my favorite thing is asking them oh, do you shoot in RAW? *blank stare from them then huh?*

Ah what ISO level did you take that at?.... *another blank stare* what?

Well I don't mind lightroom filters... But yeah, a lot of people seem to go overboard, black and white everything! Basically abuse filters...

When I started getting in to photography I admit that I really went overboard on filters. However, that was mostly because I was using a film camera at the time and was still getting to grips with things, so if a photo didn't turn out the way I expected I would do the necessary tweaking in a photo editor. Since then though I've almost completely kept away from image editors. I only really use them these days for resizing and adding frames.

I think we all go through a filter "phase"; I remember, I was so crazy for lomography filters... Then I realized how much the original colors were ruined by it...

[bdsams Veteran]

When I read the title, I thought you were talking about lens filters and I was really confused at how someone would stack too many on a lens as you typically have to ramp up the iso or drop the shutter speed to get a quality image...then I realised you were talking about lightroom.

[Nick H. Supervisor]

back in film days, a filter screwed on your camera :rofl: digital photography / digital film editing has made this way to easy for everyone...

Interesting that you mention that, I was planning on asking something related to that: At which point are filters cheating? I did indeed try physical filters on my camera in the past and I would still class them as acceptable today. So why do I find a difference between a physical filter and digital effects in an image editor?

I think the answer to my question is that there isn't a real difference between the two. Some minor editing in an image editor isn't always a bad thing. The problem is that it's now so easy to do that people feel the need to slap as many effects on to their images as they can.

[HawkMan]

So i've been seeing some local photographers that have their own business on facebook. Apparently by reading the comments everyone thinks they do such a great job. But what i've also noticed is, these people can't leave a single photo alone without adding some stupid fracking filter to the picture.

What are your thoughts on the picture?

here are 2 examples

the first one has its moments were out of every photo I looked at I saw a few I liked, and those were also the few that didn't have any filters added.

https://www.facebook...844584707153407

https://www.facebook...y/photos_stream

The other one

https://www.facebook...e/photos_stream

First we need to define what you "think" are filters.

do you consider black and white, sepia toning, two toning and such filters ?

because most of what you're seeing here is developing.

[threetonesun]

IMO, unless used for a very specific purpose or technique, filters (and tilt shift) shouldn't be used.

I find the bigger issue with digital photography is that it's too easy to adjust white balance / exposure / color in post, and there's a lot of photographers that are good (but not great) who run some post processing and end up with all of these people thinking they're wizards. I know this very well after trying to hire a wedding photographer. :laugh:

[HawkMan]

Interesting that you mention that, I was planning on asking something related to that: At which point are filters cheating? I did indeed try physical filters on my camera in the past and I would still class them as acceptable today. So why do I find a difference between a physical filter and digital effects in an image editor?

I think the answer to my question is that there isn't a real difference between the two. Some minor editing in an image editor isn't always a bad thing. The problem is that it's now so easy to do that people feel the need to slap as many effects on to their images as they can.

We still need to differentiate between filters/filter effects and development choices as well. While you could consider i a filter to change a photo to B/W or sepia or cyan tone, it's not really, and it makes no sense to shoot in this on the camera today unlike film. And even if you did choose to shoot in B/W on your DSLR, it actually shoots a regular color RAW file, and saves it with a tag that says it's B/W and white development settings it's saved on which may or may not get loaded when you load it in your editing suite.

[Hum]

I wanted to see some actual photographs. :/

[Draconian Guppy]

First we need to define what you "think" are filters. do you consider black and white, sepia toning, two toning and such filters ? because most of what you're seeing here is developing.

Half true, this was developing with film... Heck even lightroom and photoshop calls them filters.

I wanted to see some actual photographs. :/

+1 someone hot link images here...

[neufuse Veteran]

Interesting that you mention that, I was planning on asking something related to that: At which point are filters cheating? I did indeed try physical filters on my camera in the past and I would still class them as acceptable today. So why do I find a difference between a physical filter and digital effects in an image editor?

I think the answer to my question is that there isn't a real difference between the two. Some minor editing in an image editor isn't always a bad thing. The problem is that it's now so easy to do that people feel the need to slap as many effects on to their images as they can.

well there is one difference, digital filters can wreak havoc on an image's histogram... a gel filter or other type of screw on filter (polarization, etc) can do stuff digital ones can't... especially when you get into polarization and Neutral Density filters.... digital can't correct what those ones can... but digital can alter colors and contrast in ways physical filters cant

First we need to define what you "think" are filters.

do you consider black and white, sepia toning, two toning and such filters ?

because most of what you're seeing here is developing.

problem is, most people now days think of that (what use to be developing processes for contrast, etc, and photo editing / touchups) as filters now, thank you adobe for calling them filters

[Draconian Guppy]

, most people now days think of that (what use to be developing processes for contrast, etc, and photo editing / touchups) as filters now, thank you adobe for calling them filters

+1

[neufuse Veteran]

Anyways the thing that bothers me most about the pictures you posted (if bothers me at all) is that most of the subjects arent even centered. So if they frame the pictures they'll have two tiny poeple on the right side, with over half the picture being basically white space.

in art school, you are usually taught centering a subject is a bad thing and lacks creativity....

Odd, my lightroom and other such items as settings under the DEVELOP tab.And when you download some from the web such as adobe exchange they are referred to as development presets.

yet in photoshop they are all called filters... what you are looking at under the develop tab is "presets" for fast "developing" aka contrast / color correction...not real "filters" which do more

[Hum]

Good thing about the digital age is anyone can be a photographer pornographer, and there is no harm in that at all.

Fixed that. :p

[Draconian Guppy]

in art school, you are usually taught centering a subject is a bad thing and lacks creativity....

yet in photoshop they are all called filters... what you are looking at under the develop tab is "presets" for fast "developing" aka contrast / color correction...not real "filters" which do more

You've no idea how I like to break the rules of thirds :p

[HawkMan]

Half true, this was developing with film... Heck even lightroom and photoshop calls them filters.

+1 someone hot link images here...

Lightroom is basically digital "developing" of RAW files. Also while I can't get up Lr on this computer I dont' recall it calling halftoning or converting to "proper" black and White filters.

In school you're taught to think and act like others. Creativity has no part in that.

Photoshop and lightroom, and other developing tools are greatly different, and serve different purposes.

once again, if you take good pictures, people will like them. period.

Who cares about the technicalities? Only weirdos who think they're more professional.

Basically it comes down to artistic/creative choice. Some people like and prefer their pictures in Black and white or Sepia toning. that doesn't make them filter abusers, it just means that's how they like to have their pictures. sure some people overdo sepia toning and put in way to much color, but that's just down to lack of experience and training.

You've no idea how I like to break the rules of thirds :p

I'd say today, the rules of thirds themselves show a lack of creativity, Everyone knows about them, it's the first thing they're thought in amateur photography 101, and in every "your first photograph" in any camera manual. and people stick stuff in thirds for no good reason whatsoever.

yet in photoshop they are all called filters... what you are looking at under the develop tab is "presets" for fast "developing" aka contrast / color correction...not real "filters" which do more

Well he's talking about LightRoom, NOT photoshop. one is an photo editor, the other a photo developer/manager.

[TAZMINATOR]

Meh i think anyone who loves capturing views is a photographer. Where is the line that says one person is one, and the other isnt? Even if it is just a hobby.

No real need to be more technical than that.

Everyone uses filters, even "professionals", dating back decades. Even cameras have filters built into them now just to give you the default picture.

i do use filters and such in lightroom, but its only to bring the photos out. sometimes the camera doesn't catch what the actual view was. As hawkman said, this is developing.

I don't really need people telling me im a noob for doing whatever i do, many people love my photos either way.

This girl seemed to use the ugly cheap white faded edges effects though

Anyways the thing that bothers me most about the pictures you posted (if bothers me at all) is that most of the subjects arent even centered. So if they frame the pictures they'll have two tiny poeple on the right side, with over half the picture being basically white space.

Good thing about the digital age is anyone can be a photographer, and there is no harm in that at all.

It doesn't have to be centered every time... It is about creativity.

Everyone can be a photographer but not everyone can be like a professional or have a creative mind.

[KRazpopov]

I can't really remember having used filters any time. The closest I've gotten is tweaking the curves on the image in post-processing a bit.

[HawkMan]

well there is one difference, digital filters can wreak havoc on an image's histogram... a gel filter or other type of screw on filter (polarization, etc) can do stuff digital ones can't... especially when you get into polarization and Neutral Density filters.... digital can't correct what those ones can... but digital can alter colors and contrast in ways physical filters cant

Well polarization filters and ND Filters are there to correct for inefficiencies or deficiensis in the actual technique of capturing with a camera, like reflections(Especially on water), and being able to use longer shutter times in bright days.

and yes, you can't remove certain polarized light in post. and of course you can't prevent the image from having to much light in post, though you can generally adjust exposure by +/- two steps, but this doesn't really solve the problem ND's do.

I think what people most think about here is gel filters and color filters, and these can be perfectly e recreated as actual filters in post, even better since you can adjust it to a much better degree. or at all :) I wouldn't really classify Polarization and ND filters as effects filters as such.

I mean, you wouldn't use Vaseline to get a soft filter now anymore :)