# Tiffen DFX V3 anyone?



## awinphoto (Jan 4, 2012)

Hey guys... not that i'm looking for any guinna pigs or anything, but I stumbled across this software package and was wondering if anyone has used it, especially in it's latest version, 3? From what I gather, it has just about any filter you could every wish to have in your bag, can stack filters, without worrying about stops less light like you would with the filters on camera, you can dial in the opacity of the filters, customize the effect of each filter, etc... Sounds like an incredible package (and prevent me getting any more gray hair worrying if I have my polarizer with me on a shoot or gradiant or whatever... ) Plus I wouldn't have to worry about spending $150 on a top of the line filter that wouldn't degrade my image...

But drawbacks... How are the final outputs? Does it add noise where noise wouldn't be there otherwise? How are the quality of files? Does it have any inherent softening or such (other than the use of diffusion filters in the software package or such)... Before i get too excited or ahead of myself I just wanted to check with you guys if any of you guys have played with this or similar software (stand-alone or plug-in) and what results you had. YES i expect to be able to print full resolution if not bigger with the resulted images so if there's any degradation of image file, It would be apparent.


----------



## Maui5150 (Jan 4, 2012)

I have not done much "printing" yet, but have been using the V2 of DFX for a while. Definitely does a nice job and provides a huge range of options... Some times too much. Also nice where it has a bunch of canned presets and some of the ones have a huge amount of variability/configurability.

I probably use this package more than any other filter/plugin set


----------



## awinphoto (Jan 4, 2012)

Maui5150 said:


> I have not done much "printing" yet, but have been using the V2 of DFX for a while. Definitely does a nice job and provides a huge range of options... Some times too much. Also nice where it has a bunch of canned presets and some of the ones have a huge amount of variability/configurability.
> 
> I probably use this package more than any other filter/plugin set



Thanks for your reply... are the files clean or look over processed? Does it increase noise or do the file appear natural? In your opinion, do the filters do as good of a job as the real filters on camera?


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Jan 4, 2012)

I never used the program myself but I do use Photoshop extensively and while some things can be emulated nicely in software, you have to keep in mind that the computer is modifying existing data and cannot create things that weren't there in the original photo. So even if it manages to darken that overexposed sky, it won't reveal details that an optical filter could have picked like details in the clouds for example. For that, for example, I will resort to HDR if I couldn't capture the exposure as I wanted and I thought that a correction in post will be to straining on the image. Obviously, the more you push the correction, the lower the IQ will get.
Secondly, a filter like a polarizer cannot be fully emulated since it functions on optical principles. A software package will never be able to eliminate water reflections to reveal the fishies below while an optical filter most certainly can.
The bottom line is that regardless of software, I will probably always carry optical filters in my bag as any amount of correction beyond a couple of stops will most of the time degrade the IQ too much for my taste.


----------



## awinphoto (Jan 4, 2012)

David, thanks for your input... your thoughts are practically mirrored to how I would have felt as late as a year or so ago... I then ran into topaz adjust (faux 1 shot hdr) and the IQ and detail that filter pumped out and how clean the files can be with the built in noise filter opened my eyes to what software can now do. Nik software has a similar software to this and while I dont expect it's polarizer to preform miracles and show fishes swimming in the creek, it would be nice when in post, when I see a shot and in the back of my mind i'm thinking "man I wish I had a polarizing filter for this shot" or "I wish i brough my warming filter" etc... you know... that part in your post where you would like that little more oomph to turn your good photo into a great photo... Now if these filter plug in's are half-assing it or kills the IQ or softens or whatever, then I will pass... but if it's an ok alternative and doesn't kill my photos... maybe... I guess i'm torn on this one...


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Jan 4, 2012)

Oh, I agree that a lot can be done in post and probably there isn't a single image in my portfolio that didn't get some kind treatment. Be it in Lightroom or in Photoshop. All that I'm saying is that for some things I still prefer the optical approach. Especially where gradient NDs and polarizers are concerned. The former especially for high contrast landscapes and the latter for unappealing reflections mostly.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 5, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> David, thanks for your input... your thoughts are practically mirrored to how I would have felt as late as a year or so ago... I then ran into topaz adjust (faux 1 shot hdr) and the IQ and detail that filter pumped out and how clean the files can be with the built in noise filter opened my eyes to what software can now do. Nik software has a similar software to this and while I dont expect it's polarizer to preform miracles and show fishes swimming in the creek, it would be nice when in post, when I see a shot and in the back of my mind i'm thinking "man I wish I had a polarizing filter for this shot" or "I wish i brough my warming filter" etc... you know... that part in your post where you would like that little more oomph to turn your good photo into a great photo... Now if these filter plug in's are half-assing it or kills the IQ or softens or whatever, then I will pass... but if it's an ok alternative and doesn't kill my photos... maybe... I guess i'm torn on this one...



+1 on the whole topaz suite, have you used the re-mask tool? its awesome and makes masking complex things incredibly easy


----------



## awinphoto (Jan 5, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > David, thanks for your input... your thoughts are practically mirrored to how I would have felt as late as a year or so ago... I then ran into topaz adjust (faux 1 shot hdr) and the IQ and detail that filter pumped out and how clean the files can be with the built in noise filter opened my eyes to what software can now do. Nik software has a similar software to this and while I dont expect it's polarizer to preform miracles and show fishes swimming in the creek, it would be nice when in post, when I see a shot and in the back of my mind i'm thinking "man I wish I had a polarizing filter for this shot" or "I wish i brough my warming filter" etc... you know... that part in your post where you would like that little more oomph to turn your good photo into a great photo... Now if these filter plug in's are half-assing it or kills the IQ or softens or whatever, then I will pass... but if it's an ok alternative and doesn't kill my photos... maybe... I guess i'm torn on this one...
> ...



My topaz suite includes adjust, clean and detail... I tried the re-mask and while it does a great job with people, it doesnt do so hot on product photography, which is my bread and butter and pays my bills... I need them to refine it a bit to give crisper edges before I can pull the trigger on that one... It gets me in the ball park but the ammount of tweeking needed to refine I might as well use the pen tool and clip out my product shots manually.


----------

