3 ms·

Nah. Getting a high bit per pixel raw image with minimum distortions maximizes your creative freedom to produce final prints or digital images. There are import

Nah. Getting a high bit per pixel raw image with minimum distortions maximizes your creative freedom to produce final prints or digital images. There are important caveats - cheaper gear you are comfortable paying for is probably still pretty good, maybe you want one click effects with no need to edit on PC or phone,analogue art for arts sake. Also some effects like polarized filters can't be replicated with post processing. But otherwise it's trivial to create dozens of automated workflows that replicate effects of older lenses and films, whereas you would be hard pressed to carry all of these with you.

dannyw 4y ago
Disagree. Light is analog, your RAW files are probably 12 bit max. A physical Black Pro Mist filter is always going to diffuse light better than an ADC'd emulation working on quantized data. It's noticeable if you look.
- zrav 4y ago
  No. Light is quantized (photons), as is analog film (emulsion crystals remain clear or turn dark, never in between). Virtually all modern DSLRs and DSLMs have 14 bit sensors, which results in quantization noise below the noise level of the rest of the system.
- cat_plus_plus 4y ago
  Analog is not everything and any filters with distortions reduce the options in regards to what can be done with these 12 bits later. Unless we are talking of overcoming limitations of the sensor, like polarized filter or darkening filter to photograph the sun. Of course, if you got a filter that does exactly what you want and you are going to use it a lot, there is nothing wrong with that and you may get more precise effects than post processing. But the post is about lenses, which are bulky and more expensive than filters. To me it makes more sense to invest in 3 clean lenses (travel, telephoto and compact zoom) than ones with built in distortions that I may not want for every photo. If someone is sufficiently wealthy, athletic and dedicated to carry a suitcase for 10 lenses everywhere, hats off to them I guess. Even filters are like $80?

dannyw 4y ago

Disagree. Light is analog, your RAW files are probably 12 bit max. A physical Black Pro Mist filter is always going to diffuse light better than an ADC'd emulation working on quantized data. It's noticeable if you look.

zrav 4y ago
No. Light is quantized (photons), as is analog film (emulsion crystals remain clear or turn dark, never in between). Virtually all modern DSLRs and DSLMs have 14 bit sensors, which results in quantization noise below the noise level of the rest of the system.
cat_plus_plus 4y ago
Analog is not everything and any filters with distortions reduce the options in regards to what can be done with these 12 bits later. Unless we are talking of overcoming limitations of the sensor, like polarized filter or darkening filter to photograph the sun. Of course, if you got a filter that does exactly what you want and you are going to use it a lot, there is nothing wrong with that and you may get more precise effects than post processing. But the post is about lenses, which are bulky and more expensive than filters. To me it makes more sense to invest in 3 clean lenses (travel, telephoto and compact zoom) than ones with built in distortions that I may not want for every photo. If someone is sufficiently wealthy, athletic and dedicated to carry a suitcase for 10 lenses everywhere, hats off to them I guess. Even filters are like $80?