Options
Bacon's Castle...filtered vs unfiltered
Thelensspot
Registered Users Posts: 2,041 Major grins
Yesterday, I visited Bacon's Castle in Surry, Va. You can Google the history of this house which is quite lengthy as it dates back to 1665. Every now and then I experiment with filters. I realize that can generate some debate so I am posting filtered vs unfiltered together for your opinions. The house in places was dark and the ISO at one point was at 1250 (flash is not allowed). I apologize if this is a lot of pictures pertaining to the same subject.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Below...unfiltered but with a little playing with light in PS
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Below...unfiltered but with a little playing with light in PS
6.
7.
8.
"Photography is partly art and partly science. Really good photography adds discipline, sacrifice and a never ending pursuit of photographic excellence"...ziggy53
0
Comments
Filtered shots are giving ethereal look.......so they are fine. What filter is it?
Processing is different for filtered shots.....as color profile, details and brightness are all different. Are you using soft filters? Which ones?
In my view here are the winners for each pair......
#1 non filtered
#2 non filtered (maybe be matter of tasted but filtered here is too cooked)
#3 filtered (other one bit on dull side)
#4 filtered - sharpness and brightness is really driving home the vertigo effect.....but if mine I would lose the bottom bar of the railing......also wish you had not shot your own foot! ;o)
#5 filtered - nothing to see in non filtered one
#6 non filtered but wish it was less bright....windows are pushed in terms of blown out....less light be more interesting....JMO
#7 filtered - dramatic vs other one bit dull
#8 EASY...non filtered
Share what you did because it added another dimension to it and I want to learn!
Cheers!
Hey Taz! Thanks for taking the time to analyze the shots in such detail...I really appreciate that from you. Firstly, I don't think I'm the guy to teach you much! What you do with a camera is magic...seriously.
The whole filtered vs unfiltered debate was precipitated by a picture that was in the reception room at Bacon's Castle. It was a very "cooked" HDR shot of the house with much the same view of the house as my first picture above. Not a pleasant or professionally done well processed shot using good light but a hard cooked HDR. I started wondering if that is what people really wanted to see now. Is this the type of photography that is now considered well done and better liked (after-all it's the shot on display to the public) than the well done golden hour shot that is professionally processed?
So I set up these series of shots to see if the altered shots might actually look better. Of course I'm not saying that my "straight" shots are well done nor do I assume "professional" quality. I'm just comparing altered vs unaltered in regards to likes and dislikes.
"Filter" may be a misnomer here in that I am using Topaz Adjust software in PS which is a purchased plug-in found under the "Filter" tab. It essentially is a choice of various presets which create a different appearance to the shot and can be "added" over the shot out of the camera after routine adjustments or adjustments can be done post Topaz "filters" being applied. Not to presume you haven't seen them but there are multiple presets in different categories which can be applied. Some of them appeared to make my shots "pop"...others just seem to try to hide a bad shot. Take shot #5 for instance...even with trying to flare the light with PS, the straight shot just doesn't do anything for me. With the Topaz adjustment "filter" it does seem to be a more interesting perspective.
The last shot of the old well I took with the help of a very kind mother who let me pose her daughter manipulating the handle. It made the shot much more interesting and I agree that the unfiltered shot is better. The lighting was MUCH better than in the house. My opinion is that a well done SOC shot with nice post processing wins 9 out of 10 times!
So that's the reason for the post. BTW...what's the problem with my foot???
Party on Taz!
Gallery: http://cornflakeaz.smugmug.com/
Don, your opinion is highly valued by me and I appreciate your kind comments! Just wish my work could even hold a candle to yours!
Take care!
Richard, thank you!!!
as an amateur I have to say that I agree with Cornflake so that makes three. I have to say that generally natural looking photos engage me the most.
Thanks Jim. There appears to be a general consensus developing here.