Photography with the Pro

[Garritynet]

Gradient filters are easy to apply in post. You can get them exactly the way the scene requires. Some parts of footage may not need them at all so they can be selectively applied.

I have a friend who is such a photoshop expert she's almost more of an illustrator than a photographer so I understand that some people can totally get anything done in post but personally I find filters invaluable. When the lighting is imperfect for the scene and your clouds are a ten when you want them at an eight a NDG will change the light coming into the lens and just make for a very natural look that's difficult to nail with post processing for most people. I mean I can save a poorly exposed photo in light room if I have to but if I'm spending longer than 30 seconds on a simple landscape it's probably just not a good shot. I'm sure you are a much better editor than I am but for a lot of people getting it right so you don't have to waste your time in post is half the fun.

 

[SteveCA]

First off, the sweet spot for the pro is F4.0 not 5.6 or 8. This has been widely established by a number of users including myself. 8 is really soft and 5.6 is not much better. secondly, if you shoot landscapes that include moving water, you will need some serious ND filters like 128, 256 and even 1000.

 

[parkgt]

I. I mean I can save a poorly exposed photo in light room if I have to but if I'm spending longer than 30 seconds on a simple landscape it's probably just not a good shot. I'm sure you are a much better editor than I am but for a lot of people getting it right so you don't have to waste your time in post is half the fun.

For photos with a relatively fixed horizon I agree that filters are very easy and useful. For other filming where you don't have a middle frame fixed horizon not so much.

 

[Garritynet]

First off, the sweet spot for the pro is F4.0 not 5.6 or 8. This has been widely established by a number of users including myself. 8 is really soft and 5.6 is not much better. secondly, if you shoot landscapes that include moving water, you will need some serious ND filters like 128, 256 and even 1000.

I think people are saying 11 and up are where diffraction start to become an issue because that's generally true with normal cameras but this camera is tiny and even 5.6 is pretty small. They call it a 1" sensor but really it's the same size sensor that used to come in those cameras kids would carry back before everyone had cellphones so the focal length, which determines aperture, is super small. Conventional wisdom is 11 and up is where diffraction becomes the limiting factor for sharpness but this isn't a conventional camera.

 

[Garritynet]

For photos with a relatively fixed horizon I agree that filters are very easy and useful. For other filming where you don't have a middle frame fixed horizon not so much.

I'm new to the aerial photography game so I'll conced the point on that. They probably make less sense on a drone. I can see how flying back and forth to make small adjustments on the filter would be tedious and you'd probably lose your light in the process.

If you have ever read articles or blogs about famous or award winning pictures they've taken you'll notice that landscape guys often they'll say something like "I've been photographing this pier for 15 years..." and also that they showed up that day three hours before sunrise. Those guys have a small suitcase of filters but street photographers rarely use them. Anyway it's just a matter of style. If you're going out with the intention of taking one specific photo and you don't mind burning through your batteries and time for THE SHOT then filters are probably a given but if you're up in the air like a street photographer, out trying to see what you can find, then filters are an impediment to your flow.