Is it better to take a regular photo and add filters/touch u

>>2933544
Anyone have a guestimation on what lens was used in this shot?

>>2933556
85mm or sum shet

>>2933556

id say a canon 100mm.

>>2933544
the most common kind of filter kit has just two filters: a circular polarizer and a neutral density (ND) filter.

These are the filters that do things which cannot simply be done in post.

Polarizer is great for removing reflections (water surface, windshields, windows) and other lighting effects.
RAW data has no absolutely no information about the polarity of light, only the intensity, so it's impossible to replicate what a polarizer filter does.

ND filters seem less dramatic, but what they do is control motion (longer exposures)
Trying to imitate it digitally would be a mess and a lot of work.
During the day, even the smallest aperture and lowest ISO will not be enough to get a long timer shot to not simply clip into the white (permanently losing all the information so it's impossible to recover)
To have moving water/fire/clouds blend together with a long shutter time, more light has to be blocked out physically with a filter.

And shooting in color is best. Leaving the color information out simply loses information. Less info = less control.
If you have a red block, a green block and a blue block and you trashed the info, it's far less convenient to try and make 1 block brighter or darker than the others.
The color file you can use a tool to mouse over one of the blocks (blue block for example) and drag your mouse down, lightroom then makes blue objects darker. Or drag up, the blue objects are lighter. Instant ability to influence which objects get more attention and visibility.
People who set their camera remove all their control (deleting color info) before they even get to the computer are idiots.

File: .jpg (576KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

576KB, 1000x750px

>>2933714
>People who set gray scale before they even get to the computer are idiots.

Where you are correct about poralizers and nds, you could be wrong on losing information for gray scale modes.
For at least Canon and Sony cameras the style settings (where b/w also is a style setting) do just affect jpg files and the raw file's included preview.

Last time in artificial light, distaste for said artificial colors prevented me from shooting. So I switched to b/w allowing myself to be guided just from light and reflections but no color.
In pp I still went for the b/w version, but at least I had some shots.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi

>>2933952
the pic on the left looks a lot better imo, the b&w is boring

>>2933954
In color, the lines are too defined, where in b/w they're completely lost, right?
Beside each other I am also of your opinion, however, not in full-screen mode on a black background.

The colors are already slightly altered and only applied partially on top of the b/w version.
I'll hit both for another retouch. Thanks!

>>2933544
with digital CPL, ND, ND grad, before
with film do as much as possible before, however sometimes colour negs can look good printed in a B&W darkroom if you want a big chunky grain structure.

>>2933556
random 70-300 or 55-250 schite

>>2933544
What sort of effects would be used in lightroom to get this?

>>2934310
desaturate a touch and fuck up the black point in the curves

>>2933556
Everyone is guessing so long - I would have thought 50mm given how high up the trees you can see but idk

>>2934689
This or even less focal length since bokeh circles aren't large either.