In camera art filters

[defconfunk]

I just noticed an ad on Dpreview for the new G5. It was advertising '14 creative filters' including cross-process.

Art filters are nothing new in digital cameras. They've been a staple in P&S for years, and they are pretty common on entry level DSLRs. And then of course there is instagram et al on the cell phones.

Personally, I've never found a want for them on cameras (but I do use one on my phone).

So, here's my question to the RFF faithful: are built in art filters a selling point to you in a new camera?

[Mystyler]

I've got them on my E-5.
Sometimes I use them, most of the time I don't but they're fun. Better to have them and not need them, then need them and not have them. Life is too short to PP.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Mystyler

I've got them on my E-5.
Sometimes I use them, most of the time I don't but they're fun. Better to have them and not need them, then need them and not have them. Life is too short to PP.

Need?

Cheers,

R.

[D.J.]

I don't use them much but they are fun, for friends and family members.

[FrozenInTime]

For a while, I tried running my M9 set for B&W preview,jpeg ( DNG is still full RGB ) as suggested by Thorsten Overgaard in his blog, but decided it made things more complicated rather than easier.

[rluka]

It never has been a selling point

But for the rare occassions when the filter can easily give that special effect you wanted… why not ?
Keep the post processing special effect for when you really need the high accuracy to your imagination and use the gimmick when it suffices the need.

[biomed]

I have never purchased a camera because of built in art filters. I do own a couple of cameras that have this feature, but the filters do not work with raw images. I don't have an issue with the use of built in filters. If you like them, then by all means use them! My LX5 has a large number of selectable presets.

Mike

[sepiareverb]

Seems like a good intermediate step between real photography and Instagram or Hipstamatic. Hopefully this will entice some of those poor souls who use their phones to become better consumers.

[Harry Caul]

I didn't purchase my OM-D because of the art-filters. But the stellar metering and in-camera jpeg processing (art filters included) definitely factored into my purchase. I shoot RAW+JPEG and my camera is usually set to aperture priority and monochrome. That gives me B&W on the screen/EVF as I'm used to composing that way with film... but I always have access to color with the RAWs as well. I don't use the art filters often, but when I do it is usually the grainy B&W mode (the less intense version). I rarely print and almost never print large so I only feel the need to process from RAWs on maybe 5-10% of my pictures.

I like taking photos and I sit behind a desk far too much for my day job.

[Buzz40]

Not a selling point for me. I have the Fuji X Pro which has several film simulation settings for color and b&w. Especially for the b&w, I've found the filter settings helpful if I'm out for the day just carrying one body + one lens with all the rest of the kit left at home. Also, I find the Vivid color setting a good match when I'm shooting with some older Nikkor MF lenses. So, I've found good uses for them, but they would never be a major deciding factor for me.

[peterm1]

Most of my cameras work in aperture and occasionally program mode shooting bog standard RAW files. I then decide what effects if any I want in post processing. Although I have once or twice tried in camera effects for the heck of it these photos almost always get erased as they are over done - I can usually do much better than any camera at "prettying up" my images.