> > Amazing! Seems that more and more "photography" is done in Photoshop these > days. Is this REALLY photography, or Photoshopography? Never mind that > what one gets from diddling in Photoshop is usually only similar to the > effects achieved by a competent photographer using a camera and appropriate > accessories.
They're both ways to achieve a desired effect. And if anything can make Photoshop look cheap, it's a set of two or three different types of filters in sizes to fit a variety of lenses. Just a polarizer and 2x/4x neutral density filters for the common 58mm plus the 77mm of my 80-200/2.8 can cost more than a full retail copy of Photoshop. That said, it's really better to deal with the issue *before* the image gets recorded (on film, in digital memory, or whatever ...), if you can. I think the *ist-D benefits from a polariser far more than most film. I certainly plan to have one before I visit Hoover Dam in a few weeks. > As for POL filters, I like the Multi-Coated B+W filters best .... Hoya > multi coated would be an acceptable second choice. Any opinions on the Pentax filters? (And, for that matter, what's a Kaesemann polaris/zer?)
