# Do You Use Filters?



## smoke665 (Oct 23, 2018)

With fall color coming on the question came up about using filters. I've seen everything from using
polarizing, to using warming and cooling filters, to using digital filters in camera and post.  So what do you use and why???


----------



## tirediron (Oct 23, 2018)

I use a polarizing filter for most outdoor work; for fall foliage, I might use a warming filter, but would probably do most of the enhancement in post as that allows more flexibility for control over specific hues.


----------



## dxqcanada (Oct 23, 2018)

CPL ... can't do that with PP.


----------



## Jeff15 (Oct 23, 2018)

CPL only everything else can be done in PP................


----------



## Braineack (Oct 23, 2018)

CPL and NDs -- special use only basically.


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 23, 2018)

Jeff15 said:


> CPL only everything else can be done in PP................



What about a 10-stop ND?


----------



## zulu42 (Oct 23, 2018)

I use CPL as desired for color and glare, ND for long SS, Grad ND for landscape. I also have a few effects filters for fun and some colored filters to try with BW. I use grad ND in post also but a better exposure can be obtained with a filter IMO.


----------



## snowbear (Oct 24, 2018)

CPL and NDs (full and graduated).  For B&W film I have green, orange and yellow.


----------



## smoke665 (Oct 24, 2018)

tirediron said:


> I use a polarizing filter for most outdoor work; for fall foliage, I might use a warming filter, but would probably do most of the enhancement in post as that allows more flexibility for control over specific hues.



It seems the majority don't mention warming filters. As I understand using one improves skin tones and negates blue casts. Do you notice any difference between using one and correcting in posts on the final image?


----------



## n614cd (Oct 24, 2018)

UV filter and ND filters only.
UV to protect the lens and sensor.
ND for long exposure or wide aperature on a bright date for DOF control.

For the kind of shots I take, anything else is post process.

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk


----------



## waday (Oct 24, 2018)

CPL and ND filters


----------



## Braineack (Oct 24, 2018)

n614cd said:


> UV to protect the lens and sensor.



how is a UV filter protecting the lens and sensor?


----------



## tirediron (Oct 24, 2018)

smoke665 said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > I use a polarizing filter for most outdoor work; for fall foliage, I might use a warming filter, but would probably do most of the enhancement in post as that allows more flexibility for control over specific hues.
> ...


With the capability of software like Photoshop, I'm not sure there is much, if any difference any more.  I think it's mostly a personal  hold-over from the film days.


----------



## n614cd (Oct 24, 2018)

Braineack said:


> n614cd said:
> 
> 
> > UV to protect the lens and sensor.
> ...


Accidental scratches on the front of the lens. I have not looked recently but older CMOS  microlenses on the chip can fog due to UV due to light concentration. 

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk


----------



## ac12 (Oct 24, 2018)

digital:  UV, pola and ND.
film, B&W:  UV/skylight + standard set of red, orange, green, yellow + ND
film, reversal:  UV/skylight, pola

UV is to keep dust, salt spray, fingers, etc. off the front element.


----------



## Braineack (Oct 24, 2018)

n614cd said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > n614cd said:
> ...



The coating on modern lenses isn't going to scratch -- there's greater chances of scratching a lens, however, due to thousands of shards of your shattered UV filter.  IMHO, a lens hood does a much better job of protecting the front element.

modern sensors already have a UV/IR filter on them -- adding one in front of the lens is just a way to introduce ghost flares and lower the IQ.


----------



## n614cd (Oct 24, 2018)

Braineack said:


> The coating on modern lenses isn't going to scratch -- there's greater chances of scratching a lens, however, due to thousands of shards of your shattered UV filter.  IMHO, a lens hood does a much better job of protecting the front element.
> 
> modern sensors already have a UV/IR filter on them -- adding one in front of the lens is just a way to introduce ghost flares and lower the IQ.



My better lenses and body are from late 2013. Not sure if this qualifies as modern. 
At the time, I was told CMOS had fogging issues, and the built in UV filters are inadaquate. 
I always leave the hood on for that reason.  I have never seen a ghost flare in all the pictures I have taken with these lenses.

I had no idea adding a UV lens will lower my intelligence.... That may explain why I am thinking of getting new equipment...

Tim (last one I could not resist)


----------



## smoke665 (Oct 24, 2018)

@n614cd I also thought like you for years. When I went to digital I faithfully continued to use my UV filters. When I started noticing softness in my images, I traced it to the cheap glass I was putting on the front of my expensive lens. Haven't used them since, except that I occasionally use one to make a soft focus filter. You can smear Vaseline around on them and not worry.


----------



## n614cd (Oct 24, 2018)

smoke665 said:


> @n614cd I also thought like you for years. When I went to digital I faithfully continued to use my UV filters. When I started noticing softness in my images, I traced it to the cheap glass I was putting on the front of my expensive lens. Haven't used them since, except that I occasionally use one to make a soft focus filter. You can smear Vaseline around on them and not worry.



Interesting, I have to try that one day. Take two pics one with and one without the lens filter. 
However, I did not pick cheap lens filters, I went with Zeiss for the filters and Sigma ART series for lenses.

Tim


----------



## mrca (Oct 24, 2018)

I have 2 clear filters that are shattered on my desk.   Cost $140 but was able to remove them and shoot. Front element repair at Nikon, what about $300 each and I would be without my lenses?  And no scratches from the broken filter glass on the front element.  I carry a circular polarizer and for landscape, it removes the glare from foliage making it's color more saturated.   I use an 8 stop ND with my strobes outside to knock down intensity of a background then power up on the subject.  It enables me to shoot at 1.4 and 1/20 sec in broad daylight, really pushing the limits to shoot wide open in full sun yet blur moving water in the bg.  When shooting MF film, may use a nd grad.


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 24, 2018)

mrca said:


> I have 2 clear filters that are shattered on my desk.   Cost $140 but was able to remove them and shoot. Front element repair at Nikon, what about $300 each and I would be without my lenses? .........



Yet........ what PROOF do you have that your front element would have sustained damage sans a filter?


----------



## Derrel (Oct 24, 2018)

480sparky said:


> mrca said:
> 
> 
> > I have 2 clear filters that are shattered on my desk.   Cost $140 but was able to remove them and shoot. Front element repair at Nikon, what about $300 each and I would be without my lenses? .........
> ...



Look how _astoundingly tough_ the front element glass is in this Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens! Jeepers--this thing absorbs blow after blow from the hammer-face AND the claw of a small hammer--without any significant damage until wayyyyyy into this torturous abuse.

If one thinks he or she is going to "accidentally scratch" a front element, think again. Unless one uses, say, a synthetic diamond-tipped shop tool or something similar.


----------



## SquarePeg (Oct 24, 2018)

I used a CPL for most of the foliage shots I took this year.  I did a couple of side by side comparisons with/without and it was very effective at improving the images because the day I was out was very sunny at times.


----------



## smoke665 (Oct 24, 2018)

Derrel said:


> Look how _astoundingly tough_ the front element glass is in this Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens! Jeepers--this thing absorbs blow after blow from the hammer-face AND



I'm not  a Canon fan, but this video caused me some serious pucker. Holy cow I wouldn't even do that to a junk lens!!!


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 24, 2018)

Derrel said:


> Look how _astoundingly tough_ the front element glass is in this Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens! Jeepers--this thing absorbs blow after blow from the hammer-face AND the claw of a small hammer--without any significant damage until wayyyyyy into this torturous abuse.
> 
> If one thinks he or she is going to "accidentally scratch" a front element, think again. Unless one uses, say, a synthetic diamond-tipped shop tool or something similar.



And then theres:


----------



## n614cd (Oct 24, 2018)

480sparky said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Look how _astoundingly tough_ the front element glass is in this Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens! Jeepers--this thing absorbs blow after blow from the hammer-face AND the claw of a small hammer--without any significant damage until wayyyyyy into this torturous abuse.
> ...


Very interesting.... 

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk


----------



## Derrel (Oct 24, 2018)

The filters I use most often are my over-sized Nikon circular polarizers...they are larger in diameter than the filter thread size. I do not use these except for landscape/seascape uses...I don't shoot that much landscape stuff any more, but when I'm feeling "serious" about it, I like to have the CPL on there. I've given away most of my graduated filters. Ehhh...I guess I'm too lazy, and besides, the newer digital cameras I have offer so much wider latitude than the color slide film that I originally bought the filters for...


----------



## mrca (Oct 25, 2018)

So are you  going to pound the front element of an expensive lens  with a hammer?  If you are trying to tell me that front elements are indestructible, I have a bridge for you.  They are GLASS.  The protective filters sit about a quarter of an inch from the front element and as I watched the camera swing into the corner of a table  and break the filter, what makes you think the front element wouldn't be impacted and break either?  Is your proof some hooky video?  Or at minimum sustain a serious scratch or damage to the coating?  What does that do to the value of you lens?  Oh, there are two broken filters on my desk because the camera repair guy I had to use to get the THIRD off a lens tossed it.


----------



## Overread (Oct 25, 2018)

mrca watch the video Sparky links and watch it all the way through, it gives a great summary about the practical protective nature of the UV filter. About the only thing it misses is that with the UV filter there's an increased chance of more stratches on the front element with a UV filter as a result of a break because you're shattering glass which is highly abrasive. So a lighter bump, that wouldn't break or damage the front element, could easily break the filter and then go on to scratch up the lens front element. 

The point is the UV filter is mostly going to protect against things like water, dust, sand etc... Ergo light material and low levels of liquids (eg spray). Where those materials are abrasive (eg salt water or sand) it does indeed give you a nice safe surface that you can wipe clean without worry about scratches appearing on your lens. In that case the filter (UV/Clear glass) is giving you a real protection.
But it can't protect against impacts - it shatters far earlier than the front element would which increase damage potential, whilst also not really offering any practical protection against any impact that would otherwise damage the lens elsewhere. 


They are not useless, but they are not offering much if any real protection against any serious impacts. 






As for myself and filters I use a circular polarizer as the effect of cutting out reflections can't be mirrored in editing. I'd also use Neutral Density filters and Graduated ND filters if I had them. Whilst some of the effects those filters make can be mirrored in editing and some can be superior*, there are cases (eg blurry water) where you cannot get the effect without the filter (blurry water being a case where an ND filter cuts light entering the lens, letting you use a slower shutter speed - esp if you wanted to use a wider aperture for creative reasons and/or the ambient light is still too high even if you choose a smaller aperture)

*eg an ND Grad can be great at exposing sea and sky in a single frame with both properly exposed, which can be very pleasing to achieve. However two photos and software combining the exposure of both can be superior if you were doing the same type of photo (ergo two differently lit subjects) where the meeting line between the two is very jagged and irregular (eg a landscape with lots of tall and short terrain features at random)


----------



## smoke665 (Oct 25, 2018)

Other then ND and CPL any one else with experience using both CPL and warming/cooling filters. After surgery, I've found the light outside really bright. On the suggestion of a friend I bought some of the "As seen on TV" amber tactical glasses. They took care of the brightness, but the biggest shocker was the difference in details in the shadows, I could now see. I'm wondering if a stacked CPL and warming filter would do the same to a digital sensor.


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 25, 2018)

mrca said:


> So are you  going to pound the front element of an expensive lens  with a hammer?.............


*
Yes.  I have. * And it took a LOT of pounding before it finally succumbed.  

Yes.  This is a true story.  I probably struck the lens 400-500 times during the day.  And with a 24-oz. hammer.  It was during an event where there were thousands of photographers milling around.  Most were mostly horrified, at least until they looked at the lens and saw it was unscathed.

And no lens on the planet is going to receive that sort of torture during it's life no matter what.  But I can guarantee that the first strike I took would have shattered any filter you want to put on it.


----------



## mrca (Oct 25, 2018)

In the video above he admits it isn't scientific.  Really?   The fact that one lens withstood abuse without breaking is a stretch to extrapolate to all lenses  from this limited sample.  Also, with the first strike, are you saying glass didn't scratch, chip or spall?  I wonder how many people who read this post went out and took a hammer to their most expensive lens because they believed this.   Next I'll watch  a video of people walking over hot coals.  Hey, they don't burn your feet.  You ask for proof that   the impact to my filters would have broken the front element.  A test with a single lens is not proof it would not.  Damage to the front element  detracts from the value of my lens and could degrade my image quality. I also shoot around sand and salt water and spray.  The filter isnt only for impact damage.   Was the lens tested to see if impact to a filter breaking absorbed impact and allowed the lens to function while an impact to the front element transmitted the full  shock to the lens and resulted in internal damage or rendering the lens unusable.   Or do we only speculate about things that support this bs.   And as for more damage resulting from broken glass hitting the front element, I can speak for 3 filters not having done that.  Sure, it could happen.  But I'm not going to stop wearing safety glasses when flying objects could cause them to strike me in the eye.    If one of the three filters breaking prevented damage to my front elements,  I am still ahead of the game.  I use Nikon clear and see no degradation of the image and have never had any flare issues, they are coated filters.  With all the professional use my lenses get, they   all look pristine with one of a couple dozen having some scratches to the hood from banging into things.   I also keep a hood on as added protection but the last breakage took place with a hood on.    Keeping a filter on them is part of the care they get.   If someone thinks they are unnecessary, go for it.   But those scratches on used lenses you see for sale came from something and probably not from a breaking filter... or a hammer.


----------



## Braineack (Oct 25, 2018)

safety glasses are made of plastic that doesnt shatter.

UV filters are made of hardened glass that shatters when you look at it funny... it's not going to do much to absorb impact.

what we want are filters that DON'T shatter on impact to actually protect the front element.


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 25, 2018)

mrca said:


> ........You ask for proof that   the impact to my filters would have broken the front element.  *A test with a single lens is not proof it would not*.  .............



And that is exactly the point you're missing.

In order to make a valid claim that the filter 'saved' your lens, you would have to subject the lens to the exact same incidence.  Lacking that, 'filters save lenses' claims are statistically meaningless.


----------



## mrca (Oct 25, 2018)

I looked at the first video lens.  That front element is only about an inch and a half across.   I have few lenses with such a small front element. The one on my 70-200 2.8 is nearly twice as wide.   That is the lens that has encountered the fractured 77 mm filters as did the 24-70 with a wide front element as well.   I doubt a piece of glass twice as wide is as resistant to a blow as one half it's size.  I find it hard to believe the glass of a front element has a higher hardness than steel or stone and cannot be scratched.   In one of the posts someone says the coating on a modern lens isn't going to scratch but there is a better chance of scratching a lens due to the filter glass shards.  Exactly how does the lens get scratched without the coating being scratched or etched?   I also shoot outside of the studio where blowing sand, dust, moisture, flying alcoholic beverages  or rain are a common hazard.    Are lens coating impervious to those agents?  Also the blows in the video seem to be directed to the center, the thickest part of the lens and at ninety degrees to the lens.  What happens if the metal   corner of a table comes in at an angle closer to the edge of the lens.  That gets past some hoods, I watched it happen.    Sorry, I just don't buy it. Perhaps someone can explain how a piece of glass won't be scratched by metal.  I know some folks think their gear is a jewel, but glass doesn't have the hardness of diamond or steel.


----------



## Overread (Oct 25, 2018)

mrca the point isn't that metal won't scratch your lens, but that if your lens smashes into the side of a metal table corner, the filter in front of the lens will 100% shatter and that will mean that not only will the table corner continue on to hit your lens anyway, but that you've also then sent a load of additional shattered glass from the filter right back all over your front element. So you've not actually saved it from that kind of impact, its still damaged and still likely would want to be repaired ideally (you might not actually notice image quality loss, you have to seriously mess up a front element to notice in most typical shooting - Lens Rentals did a neat test on this Front Element Scratches


So against major impacts your filter isn't saving your lens and might only add to the damage caused. The video also shows that impact damage to the lens can be enough to break internals before the front element. Though that kind of impact is way beyond a filter.

A thin filter sheet of glass is not bulletproof glass; its not toughened glass nor is it safety glass. It's not made to save your lens in the least. It's made to filter out UV rays and as a bonus will shield your front element from light damage. Heck the Canon supertelephoto L lenses (300mm and longer) don't even have front filter threads on them, instead the filter slides into a slot on the mid rear of the lens (which holds a clear glass filter if you don't have any filter fitted). Those are the top brand top end with the biggest front elements. If UV filters were active serious protection you can bet those lenses would have them (in fact some did have fairly clear glass or simplistic/easy to replace front elements)


----------



## mrca (Oct 25, 2018)

In my cases, the filter remained intact and no pieces came out til I removed it from the lens.  So that premise is just part of a lot of speculation.   My impacts have come from leaning over and the lens swinging into something.   I have a 400mm 2.8 that accepts the clear or polarizing filter near the back of the lens   And the front element is huge.  I don't expect the filter to be bullet proof, but in my case, neither the object nor any glass got back to the front element and went no further than the filter.    Since there was enough force to shatter the filter, it is logical that that is enough force to scratch the front element even if it doesn't break it.    I shoot a 46 mp camera, and don't want a scratch on the front element to degrade my image or reduce the value of my lens.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 25, 2018)

mrca said:


> In my cases, the filter remained intact and no pieces came out til I removed it from the lens.  So that premise is just part of a lot of speculation.   My impacts have come from leaning over and the lens swinging into something.   I have a 400mm 2.8 that accepts the clear or polarizing filter near the back of the lens   And the front element is huge.  I don't expect the filter to be bullet proof, but in my case, neither the object nor any glass got back to the front element and went no further than the filter.    Since there was enough force to shatter the filter, it is logical that that is enough force to scratch the front element even if it doesn't break it.    I shoot a 46 mp camera, and don't want a scratch on the front element to degrade my image or reduce the value of my lens.



A front element scratch does almost nothing to the quality of the image; it's the _REAR_ element where minor imperfections have horrible consequences. I had an 08-200 f/2.8 one-ring Nikkor that I bought second hand for $300 about 17 years ago...it had a dime-sized, white, (frosty-colored white) impact crater on the front element...one word...."motocross"....it also had five or six rock chips that looked like BB-shot impacts (again, "motocross"). This was a professional sports shooter's old lens, and it was THRASHED....and you know what? The front element's impact crater, literally the size of a 10-cent coin, made no visible impact on the images shot under normal circumstances.

Again...check the Lensrentals.com's article...a scratch on the front of a lens? The light rays hitting the FRONT of a lens are coming in in a somewhat random pattern...making front element defects almost a non-issue....but once the light is aligned (collimated?) and is exiting the lens and headed toward the film plane, defects on the rear element play a HUGE part in image problems....a slight smudge of finger oils on the rear element creates a major softness issue...a POSTAGE stamp half licked and stuck on the front element of a lens does almost nothing.


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 25, 2018)

mrca said:


> .............   I also shoot outside of the studio where blowing sand, dust, moisture, flying alcoholic beverages  or rain are a common hazard. ....



Wow.  Sand..... dust..... moisture.... flying booze.  Those certainly will shatter any front lens element.



mrca said:


> .............  Also the blows in the video seem to be directed to the center, the thickest part of the lens and at ninety degrees to the lens.  What happens if the metal   corner of a table comes in at an angle closer to the edge of the lens.  That gets past some hoods, I watched it happen.    Sorry, I just don't buy it.......



Yet you use the exact same argument to claim filters protect lenses.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 25, 2018)

Based on that video, I've learned that my filters are wayyyyyyyyyyy more fragile than I thought, therefore I'm going to start putting lenses in front of them as protection for the filters!


----------



## smoke665 (Oct 25, 2018)

Just based on the dome shape of the lens versus the flat glass of the filter, it would automatically be stronger. However I see nothing wrong with using a UV filter if it makes you feel better. I still use them when I want to add an effect that involves smearing stuff on or pasting a cutout over the lens for a shaped Bokeh.


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs (Oct 26, 2018)

Since buying my new lenses I’ve not bought any filters. I did previously own a CP, and a couple ND filters which I may buy again. I also had an orange filter that I used to take pictures of my reef tank. 


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## Derrel (Oct 26, 2018)

When one shoots directly toward bright light sources, or light sources in front of a dark field [classic example:  birthday cake candles in front of a darkened room as the background], even a high-quality B+W 010 filter can give ghost spots; I know, since I used a $110 B+W filter in a candle-lighted scenario with my wife and young son, and it _RUINED_ an entire sequence of irreplaceable photos.

I used Nikon L37c filters for over 20 years, then switched to B+W filters....and then several hundred dollars later in 77mm filters, I realized...these filter are not doing $Hi+ for me....just NOT doing _anything_ of real value. All of the two-plus decades of anal-retentive filter use...went right out the window. I stopped using "protective filters"...and the sun came up the following day, and has for 18 years since.

There are  _ONLY_  two times during which I will use a "protective" filter.The first time is during the spring time, when deciduous and coniferous trees frill the air with millions of minute sap particles. That environmental condition lasts only a short while. The second time is when I am at the Oregon coast, right down on beach level, and there's a lot of sea-spray coming in. The filter is easy to wipe clean--provided you use a filter that cleans well. Some older filters, like the Hoya HMC (Hoya Multi Coated) were VERY difficult to clear. I used to joke that Hoya HMC meant "Hoya Messy Coating", because almost all cleaning the filter did was to smear things around and around and around. Does a smeary,dirty filter help or hinder?

NEW filters of high grade, some of them I should say, have been coated with new-era coatings that resist water and other droplets, and clan much more-easily than old-tech filters.


Again...many people are sold on the idea of filters. Whatever. I used to be one of them. Now that I no longer bother with them, I rest easier. I don't worry about imagined boogeymen _scratching my front elemen_t ,and am happier and less-stressed now that I'm out there, filter-less.


----------



## DaveAllen (Oct 30, 2018)

I use CPLs and Grad NDs when necessary, but that's about it.  I agree with the folks that no UV filter is needed for protection and has more downsides than upsides IMO...


----------



## petrochemist (Oct 30, 2018)

I sometimes use a CPL, or a denisity filter (most of my stronger ones are far from neutral!)
More common than either are a whole host of infra red filters 720nm, 650nm, 590nm, BG3, UG11 & U340 are probably the most common.
Very occasionally a starburst or diffraction or multi-image or softening filter... More for the fun of playing with them than for the result.

I've even found UV filters useful - take the glass out of them & glue the thread on a projector lenses to mount it on my helicoid or simply use them to hold a bokeh mask in place.


----------



## JBPhotog (Oct 30, 2018)

Effects filters, rarely in my commercial work.

Clear "protective" filters, yes and no. I think of them like seat belts, if all I want to do is back my car out of the garage onto the driveway I don't buckle up, like in the studio no filter. But when shooting in environmental conditions that could cause an issue I use them, just like buckling up around other ahem, "drivers".


----------



## ac12 (Oct 30, 2018)

smoke665 said:


> Other then ND and CPL any one else with experience using both CPL and warming/cooling filters. After surgery, I've found the light outside really bright. On the suggestion of a friend I bought some of the "As seen on TV" amber tactical glasses. They took care of the brightness, but the biggest shocker was the difference in details in the shadows, I could now see. I'm wondering if a stacked CPL and warming filter would do the same to a digital sensor.



Was seeing more details in the shadows really a case of the lens color, or was your eye after surgery more light sensitive, so it could see better in the shade?

The eye is different than the sensor.
As I understand the eye sees more contrast with a yellow base.  The black on yellow street signs are more readable to my eye, than the black on white signs.  So a yellow tint lens will increase the contrast of the scene.

If you use a yellow tinted lens (amber and brown lenses have yellow), that filters the blue in the haze and shadows.
But, if you live in a smoggy city, the brown lens may/will see more of the smog, because the smog is not blue.  My eye doc warned me about this when I got my brown lens sunglasses.  Don't know how amber will do with smog.


----------



## smoke665 (Oct 30, 2018)

ac12 said:


> Was seeing more details in the shadows really a case of the lens color, or was your eye after surgery more light sensitive, so it could see better in the shade?



I think both. The cataracts (especially in my left eye) were worse then I realized. Like walking around with really dirty yellow windows. So now outside the colors are much more brilliant and the light really bright. The brown/amber/yellow lenses of the sunglasses take the edge off the light, kills the reflections, and as you say adds a little contrast. Really bright light outside takes on an slightly uncomfortable blue white, without the glasses, and with the glasses a warmer more comfortable appearance.  I think I still have some filters from way back in the day, I guess I need to experiment with them. I'm not sure they'd be right for all occasions, but they might be interesting in special use circumstances.


----------



## zulu42 (Oct 30, 2018)

@smoke665 I have actually seen a warming filter stacked with a CPL packaged together. Called Moose's Warming filter. 
Heck, if you want to try a Tiffen warming filter I'll send you one - if you use round filters. I got a stack of oddball filters pretty cheap.


----------



## zulu42 (Oct 30, 2018)

I'm so hip that I use filters for ear gauges. Usually colored filters to match my shades, orange, green, etc. but sometimes I will wear star filters if I'm feeling fancy.


----------



## smoke665 (Oct 30, 2018)

zulu42 said:


> I will wear star filters if I'm feeling fancy.



I've got some of those as well, always wondered what I could use them for now. LOL


----------



## TCampbell (Oct 31, 2018)

Like most, I use:

CPL - to polarize the light -- avoiding reflections.  This can't be fixed in Photoshop unless you're a really talented artist and fake-in the content.

ND - to reduce the light transmission without having to stop-down aperture or use a faster shutter speed.   Any given shot has an array of possible exposures you can use to capture the shot.  An ND filter "shifts" that array of exposures.  For example... I've taken outdoor shots where I (a) wanted to use fill-flash, but (b) flash-sync speed was 1/200th sec, and (c) I didn't want to use high-speed sync because that will reduce the output of the flash, but (d) I wanted a wide aperture to have background blur.  SO... I used a 3 stop ND which allowed me to keep my 1/200th sec shutter but also let me open the aperture by 3 stops.  The exposure is roughly the same... but now I have the background blur I want.  More commonly, ND filters are used to take longer exposures in order to create motion blur.

Grad NDs - commonly used to dim the sky brightness without impacting the foreground brightness.  

You can apply graduated light adjustments in Lightroom as long as your image data wasn't clipped.  If you have to pull up dark areas and your histogram starts to look like a comb... it is usually an indicator that you didn't really have enough data and are over-stretching it.  A Grad ND helps you get enough data.

Most other things that previously required  filters... can all be done in post processing to get a very similar result.  



As for UV filters... in the era of film, if film was sensitive to UV, then you'd run into the issue where different wavelengths of light bend different amounts.  Higher-energy wavelengths (such as UV) bend more than lower energy wavelengths (such as reds) and this means the light isn't focusing at the same distance.  Even though you visually had best possible focus... your images are just slightly soft as a result of that UV light.  So the easy solution is to just filter it out.  BUT... that was in the era of film.

In a digital camera, there's a UV filter in front of the sensor.  No need for extra UV filters.  They functionally do not provide any positive value.  There's a school of thought that it provides "protection" of the lens ... and another school of thought that the lens is better off on its own.

I (like so many others here) started using digital cameras with UV filters _because_ UV filters were beneficial for film and ... old habits.   But the downside is you have this shiny flat surface in front of your lens and it creates reflections and ghosting.   I find that my images look better if I don't use a filter and the glass is pretty tough and not easily damaged.    So I "own" UV filters... but I typically don't use them.


----------



## Fujidave (Nov 1, 2018)

I only use UV filters on my lens if I am shooting down at the beach, as I`d rather clean the filter instead of the lens.


----------

