How many of you still use filters?

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Charles, Jul 15, 2009.

  1. Charles

    Charles Guest

    Just curious.

    Not asking about using them as protection against lens damage, by the way.
     
    Charles, Jul 15, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Charles

    Guest Guest

    I keep polarizing filters handy and still use them for the
    exact same reasons I used them in film days. I don't have any other
    filters. I have never bothers with "protective" filters. I would
    rather not have the extra glass that is not doing anything.
     
    Guest, Jul 15, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Charles

    John A. Guest

    I don't have any myself at the moment, but I do have a circular
    polarizer on my shopping list. Also some filter-mount macro adapters
    as a cheaper (and more easily carried around) alternative to a
    dedicated macro lens.
     
    John A., Jul 16, 2009
    #3
  4. Charles

    Charles Guest


    I've been using a 2E gel filter when photographing UV Fluorescent
    rocks.
     
    Charles, Jul 16, 2009
    #4
  5. Charles

    Me Guest

    Cokin P holder with ND and grad ND filters only.
    Grad ND is almost redundant for me, as at base ISO with good exposure
    there's enough depth of DR to lift shadows over 2 stops with minimal
    detrimental effect from noise. Lifting shadows over 2 stops (IMO) loses
    any sense of natural light, becoming more like an HDR special effect -
    not something I choose to do.
    I've even almost stopped using a CPL. With post processing these days,
    it's less problematic to darken sky / increase contrast selectively, and
    again IMO get a more natural effect. In general, I'd rather pp to
    accentuate reflections rather than use a CP to reduce them. I'd
    possibly use a CP more if I shot in the middle of the day.
     
    Me, Jul 16, 2009
    #5
  6. Charles

    Bob Larter Guest

    I use a circular polariser every now & then, but otherwise, no.
     
    Bob Larter, Jul 16, 2009
    #6
  7. The short answer is you read the camera manual :)

    You use automatic white balance, or preset the camera to tungsten
    colour temperature, or calibrate to a custom white balance from a
    white or gray card.
    You should find the adjustment to tungsten colour temperature well
    within the scope of a jpeg edit. Very easily done if there's something
    in the image that should be white or gray.
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jul 17, 2009
    #7
  8. Charles

    Eric Stevens Guest

    With NX2 when editing Nikon NEF files you will find 'White balance' in
    the Edit List under the heading 'Camera Settings'.



    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Jul 17, 2009
    #8
  9. Charles

    Bob Larter Guest

    That's to be expected, yes.
    You set the white balance of your camera to tungsten (about 2000K), or
    set a custom white balance with a shot of a white card under the problem
    lighting. Your camera manual should have the details.
    That's what I do, because I shoot a lot under mixed or changing light.
    Whether you do that, or the method I described above, is a matter of
    personal preference.
    I believe so.
    Correct, unless you've set the WB as I've described above, in which case
    your JPEGs should be fine.
     
    Bob Larter, Jul 17, 2009
    #9
  10. Charles

    Celcius Guest

    Hi Alan!
    Right you are.
    However, my Bridge CS3 which used to open JPEG's snd Tiff's doesn't anymore.
    Any idea?
    Thanks,
    Marcel
     
    Celcius, Jul 17, 2009
    #10
  11. Charles

    Celcius Guest

    Thanks Alan!
    That's the way I used to do it and suddenly, it wasn't showing me that
    possibility.
    I tried it again this afternoon and belive it or not, the choice was there.
    Go figure... Have a great week-end!
    Marcel
     
    Celcius, Jul 17, 2009
    #11
  12. Charles

    Lotto Guest

    Never have used filters. Didn't really use film so that may be the reason.
    The only one I may try would be a polarizer for bright water shots.
    But I think I never will, technology is there to be used and it is good
    enough to fix 99% of the problems if you know what you are doing.
    So I'll save my cash for the printing ;-)
     
    Lotto, Jul 17, 2009
    #12
  13. Charles

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    With digital, the polarizer is about it. That's the one you can't just
    do in post-processing.
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Jul 18, 2009
    #13
  14. Charles

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    It will. It's also inconvenient enough that, although I have the filter
    from the good old days, I never, ever do that. :)
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Jul 18, 2009
    #14
  15. Charles

    Doug Jewell Guest

    Frequently.
    The main ones I use are Polarisers and ND filters. My ND4 &
    ND8 get a fair workout when I'm trying to get slower shutter
    speeds for special effect.

    I have a full complement of filters for B&W from a deep red
    through to a blue. They still get used fairly frequently
    when I'm using B&W film. With digital B&W I sometimes use
    the filters, but mostly shoot colour and convert later. I
    don't think it makes a lot of difference, and using filters
    is a good way to preview before committing it to film.

    I also have and use warming and cooling filters in a couple
    of different levels, that I mainly use with colour film.

    I will sometimes use the warming/cooling filters on the
    digital too - I prefer to set my colour balance at shoot
    time than to muck around in post processing. The WB settings
    on the digital are good if you want your whites to be
    exactly white, but if I want the WB to be deliberately
    slightly off, I find it is easier to do with a filter than
    trying to set the WB.

    I also have a small collection of special effects filters
    like soft spot, etc. They don't get a lot of use, but since
    I'm better at screwing filters onto lenses, than I am at
    frigging around in photoshop, I prefer to use the filter
    rather than post processing.
     
    Doug Jewell, Jul 18, 2009
    #15
  16. In strongly coloured light the colour channel emphasised by the colour
    can either blow out badly, or if exposure is adjusted for it, restrain
    the other channels to low resolution of dynamic range. The only way
    past that problem is to use an appropriately strongly coloured
    filter. In practice the problem is nearly always red, so a green
    filter is required. A common example is people lit by a campfire at
    night and you want your image to be white balanced.
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jul 18, 2009
    #16
  17. Charles

    J. Clarke Guest

    Another related case is when you're combining different illumination
    sources--there color correction filters on the _lights_, not the _camera_,
    to bring them all to something approximating the same white balance can be
    very helpful.
     
    J. Clarke, Jul 18, 2009
    #17
  18. Charles

    Celcius Guest

    Yes.
    I had thought of shutting it down and on again, to no avail.
    All my photos were in Raw, but my wife's few photos were in JPEG. One of
    them had a problem, so I tried to rectify it as a Raw. That's when I saw
    "open in camera Raw" was missing.
    I finished up and shut the computer down for the day.
    Next morning, it was there. I should have rebooted the computer when I found
    out ;-)
    Marcel
    PS-: Sorry to all for this digression.
     
    Celcius, Jul 18, 2009
    #18
  19. Charles

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Nit: The complement of red is cyan, not green.
    Or, if not white balanced, at least not completely dominated by red.
     
    Ray Fischer, Jul 18, 2009
    #19
  20. Charles

    Doug Jewell Guest

    I must be doing something wrong then. In ACR whenever I
    change the WB from as shot (can't remember the wording, i
    haven't used it for ages), it goes wildly stupid and is near
    impossible to get respectable again. I gave up on ACR as a
    bad joke. Plus it only works with my GX10, and won't
    recognise the 450D.
    I use my ND's more now than I did with film. I do a lot of
    slow shutter stuff (waterfalls etc). With film I'd typically
    use Velvia (iso 50), PanF (iso 50) or Reala (iso 100) and
    stop down to about F16. If I had a colour correct filter or
    a filter for B&W there's another 1 to 2 stops gone, so in
    most cases that would get a slow enough shutter without
    needing NDs.

    My digitals however, the GX10 goes to 100 but generally
    needs -1 compensation to make highlights respectable (so is
    effectively ISO 200), and the 450D with highlight priority
    only goes down to ISO 200, so there's 2 stops before you
    even start. I find the ND4 (2 stops) and ND8 (3 stops) spend
    a lot of time on the digital.
     
    Doug Jewell, Jul 18, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.