Fog Filters

[Kanikula]

Are they any good???

 

[Big Mike]

Never heard of a fog filter :scratch:

 

[Torus34]

Do you by any chance mean a haze filter?

 

[Digital Matt]

Do you mean a diffusing filter, or a soft filter, or are you thinking of perhaps a UV or polarizer?

 

[Kanikula]

Stumbled upon one on ebay says fog filter, more than likely the same as haze. Looks as though it adds mist to a picture.

 

[Big Mike]

Stumbled upon one on ebay says fog filter, more than likely the same as haze. Looks as though it adds mist to a picture.

Personally, I don't like filters that add special effects like that. It's just so much easier to do that with Photoshop...and the effect it infinitely variable. If you use a filter...you either use it or you don't...and those are your only two options. You can't just give it a little more...or a little less. Do you know what I mean?

If you are shooting on film...and you don't do any digital editing...then these special filters can be useful...but not for us digital junkies.

 

[Digital Matt]

If you are shooting on film...and you don't do any digital editing...then these special filters can be useful...but not for us digital junkies.

I'd still want to do it in the darkroom rather than ruin a good negative with an effect I can't undo.

 

[rmh159]

I know Cokin makes fog filters for about 20 beans but yeah I'm with the others... I think it makes more sense to do it post. For the same reasons listed above. There are only a few filters that can't be duplicated in Photoshop. I bet filter manufacturers love that. :greenpbl:

 

[russrom]

I bought a fog filter but i have NEVER used it... come to think of it the only filters I use anymore are UV and Polarizer!

 

[Groupcaptainbonzo]

Well for what it is worth (and as usual this is only my personal opinion). If you are digital take as good a picture in as high a detail as pos. If you want to add "Arty" effects then do it later in photoshop or something similar. If you still use film then scan it and "do" it in photoshop. That way you still have a crisp clear good image that you may wish to use later in some other way...
I would use a U.V. filter to protect the front element of a lens, A Polorizer to boost colour saturation and a Neutral Grad to balance contrast. But other than that I think that as natural a shot as poss is the best way to go.....
Anyone else agree / disagree... with me?

 

[rmh159]

I agree.

I know this is being discussed in another thread as well (and don't want to turn this thread into it) but even the UV filter seems if-y. Most people just use it for protection of the lens but I think if you're somewhat careful and use the lens cap / lens hood (which actually add value to the pic which I don't think a UV filter does) I don't think you should be at risk for really messing up the lens.

For me and my money... I'd only go with the filters that can't be reproduced and try to avoid being a klutz when I'm using the camera.

Anyone else agree / disagree... with me?