How many of you still use filters?

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

  1. Charles

    ColinD Guest

    Actually, a bluish filter is called for. Fires, candles, etc. are true
    black-body radiators, the same as tungsten bulbs. 80A and 80B filters
    are specifically made to correct tungsten 3200K and 3400K respectively,
    and they are quite blue. In the case of firelight (your example) the
    color temperature can range from about 800K to 1500K. An 80A filter on
    firelight would probably give sufficient correction, retaining some of
    the reddish look for atmosphere in the image.

    A full correction for fire/daylight would require a shift of about 650
    mireds. An 80A filter provides a shift of 130 mireds at 1-2/3rds of a
    stop exposure penalty. Stacked 80A filters would provide 260 mired
    shift at about a 3-stop penalty, not very practicable.

    A website dealing with mireds is
    http://www.aeimages.com/learn/color-correction.html
     
    ColinD, Jul 19, 2009
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Charles

    Chris H Guest

    In message <[email protected]
    Likewise. Anything else can be done in Photoshop

    However I also use them for protection. Brought home to me yesterday.
    Shooting on the coast. Had to clean glasses and filter as the salt in
    the air does coat the glass after an hour or two.

    Also sand and dust. So if you are in a coastal or urban environment
    filters are good for protection. In fact anywhere outside a studio.

    Good filters don't cause any distortion in practical terms.
     
    Chris H, Jul 19, 2009
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Charles

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    If the subject is lit by a campfire, why in the world would you want to
    adjust the color back out?

    Seems like that would both defeat the purpose and look unnatural.
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Jul 19, 2009
    #23
  4. Charles

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    I think it's safe to say that, yes, you are doing something very, very wrong.
    Any recent version will.
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Jul 19, 2009
    #24
  5. Charles

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Not quite. Light that is stongly colored can so dominate the camera's
    sensor that either it is overblown or other colors are lost in the
    shadows. In such cases a filter is the best approach.
     
    Ray Fischer, Jul 19, 2009
    #25
  6. It would look very unnatural if you didn't make roughly the same kind
    of white balance adjustment as your eyes naturally do, probably as has
    already been pointed out somewhere in between about 1/4 to 1/2 of the
    actual difference in colour temperature.
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jul 19, 2009
    #26
  7. Charles

    John A. Guest

    Speaking of things Photoshop can't (really) do, has anyone used an
    infrared filter with a DSLR? Will they work with a stock body or do
    you really have to have the coatings or what have you removed from
    your sensor?
     
    John A., Jul 21, 2009
    #27
  8. Charles

    Juarez Guest

    Yes, I put haze filters on all my lenses for protection. I want to buy a
    filter for IR photography too but the bastards want over $60.00 CAD for it
    and I am not paying that much for a piece of glass with a metal ring. I
    expect polarizing filters are still useful too but I don't own one for DSLR,
    just film SLR.
     
    Juarez, Jul 21, 2009
    #28
  9. Charles

    Juarez Guest


    They aren't doing nothing if they are protecting the lens. Haze filter cuts
    down on haze in the sky too and does not affect exposure.
     
    Juarez, Jul 21, 2009
    #29
  10. Charles

    Juarez Guest

    Could use a light yellow filter on Nikons, to get rid of the
    persistent overly-blue cast.


    Doesn't your Nikon have filters built in? My Olympus does. Yellow filter
    will make everything yellow and not just correct the sky. Maybe a graduated
    sky filter would work for you in some situations. Solid colored filters are
    mostly for B&W photography.
     
    Juarez, Jul 21, 2009
    #30
  11. Charles

    Celcius Guest

    Jean,
    Your example is forceful, but has nothing to do with using a filter or not.
    As a matter of fact, I wear glasses all the time to see better and they also
    protect my eyes.
    The question should rather be put this way: what's the price one pays in
    terms of final photo quality if you place a *good* UV filter in front of
    your lens? One f-stop? Lack of clarity?
    With the cameras we now have (high resolution, higher ISO capacity), I
    suggest the difference would be imperceptible. In Canon cameras, models such
    as 20D, 30D, 40D, 50D, 5D, 5D MarkII, 1D mark II, III, etc. can very easily
    get around this filter thing. And the same goes for good Nikon models.
    Cheers,
    Marcel
     
    Celcius, Jul 24, 2009
    #31
  12. Charles

    Guest Guest

    I have be involved in photography a very long time (about 50
    years) including about 20 years of professional work. In that time I
    have yet to had a lens damaged that a filter could have prevented. I
    have had several lenses damaged, but repair is generally easy and
    cheap. A little flat black ink can effectively eliminate even
    terrible looking scratches or chips.

    In the end it is the result not the tool that counts. I would
    be easy to point out how many of my photographs could be better. I
    have few that I could not improve on, but not once has it ever been
    the result of lens damage.

    I have seen and on occasion experienced lens flair caused by a
    filter. Generally it was due to the inability to provide proper lens
    shading and the resulting flair.

    While there are times even I have used a filter to protect a
    lens (like blowing sand or rain) but these are rare. I would have to
    suggest that overall there is more reduction in quality from using
    "filters" to protect a lens, than any reduction in quality resulting
    from damage caused by the lack of a "protective" filter.

    Part of my professional life was in photo retail In the old
    days, it was (and I expect still is) a fact that often the add on
    items at the time of a sale totaled more profit than the camera. I am
    lucky that I never worked where such push selling was required or even
    the norm, but I certainly have seen and experienced it. The fear
    stories told to sell skylight filters were the worst kind of selling.
    It is like the extended car warranties, that are nothing more than a
    grossly overpriced insurance policy.
     
    Guest, Jul 25, 2009
    #32
    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.