How many of you still use filters?

Just curious.

Not asking about using them as protection against lens damage, by the way.

 

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.

 

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.

 

I've been using a 2E gel filter when photographing UV Fluorescent
rocks.

 

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.

 

I use a circular polariser every now & then, but otherwise, no.

 

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.

 

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



Eric Stevens

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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 ;-)

 

With digital, the polarizer is about it. That's the one you can't just
do in post-processing.

 

It will. It's also inconvenient enough that, although I have the filter
from the good old days, I never, ever do that.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Nit: The complement of red is cyan, not green.

Or, if not white balanced, at least not completely dominated by red.

 

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.