To filter or not to filter

I apologize if this isn't posted in the correct category.

Many moons ago, I was into the photography world with my Minolta 600si 35mm SLR camera but tapered off due to the onset of digital. Now, I finally decided to get back into this world with my new Canon 60d and hoping to pick up the features and use available with this camera. For starters, I have a question about filters which I used often in those 35mm glory days. Due to the digital technology, is it necessary to use filters such as a circular polarizer and UV protection filter anymore or for that matter, any other photo enhancing filter? I would think with the software available to alter, fix, improve, etc. digital photos, filters are no longer needed, but, I must relearn much from this digital world.

All help appreciated. What say you?

Thank you

Circular polarizers are a must for most of us. Cant be replicated in post processing. I personally dont use a UV filter, personal preference.

I find that a ND of some type is also a must have. And being that I like to shoot sunsets and sunrises, I invested in a good set of graduated neutral density filters. However in less extreme situations, the use of a GND can be replicated in PP.

warming or color balancing type filters, if shot in RAW especially, can be replicated in PP.

I suppose your main language isn't English (you said moons not months)
But whatever, most of us here, doesn't like to use UV filter, but circular polarizer is still being used.
Filter does cause image quality degradation, regardless how expensive the filter is.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
As said, CPL and ND filters make life easier for effects which would be very difficult/nigh-on impossible to achieve in post processing.

But regarding UV filters which we all used to use in the film days, there's been a lot of argument about these which, IMHO, gets over-heated.

I use high quality protection filters (not UV) on my lenses. Others swear this is daft. But using high quality protection filters, psychologically, I feel less worried about greasy fingers, grit, sand etc. scratching the front element of my lenses...

It may be a false sense of security, but still, I've seen no loss in colour, contrast etc. which can't be tweaked in PP. And I do feel less worried...thus, I shoot more.

At the end of the day, adding something in front of the lens could degrade the image quality. And in some circumstances, this could be unacceptable.
But in most situations not enough to worry anyone except pixel peepers who compare like-for-like images a bit too much....

Regards,

Simon

KVN Photo wrote in post #12759992
I suppose your main language isn't English (you said moons not months)
But whatever, most of us here, doesn't like to use UV filter, but circular polarizer is still being used.
Filter does cause image quality degradation, regardless how expensive the filter is.

Never heard of "many moons ago"?

Welcome back to the divine madness of photography!

With digitial as with the good old film days, a filter can not increase the light going through it. Even UV filters have to do something. Since filters, especially good ones, cost money, add weight (OK just a little), and take up space (again, just a little), there should be concrete benefits for purchasing, carrying, and using them.

For outdoors work, you want a very good CPL. Personally I like the B&W Kaesemann units.

The only other filter I routinely carry is a varible neutral density (VND). That lets me knock back light levels to get smooth water at streams/rivers/waterfa​lls.

Some folks swear by graduated neutral density filters (GND). The effects of those can be largely recreated in post production by doing software filters and/or merging photos. So this type of filter is definitely up to the owner's call.

As for UV.....it can't improve a DSLR shot. Some folks use them as a prophylactic to protect the lens. Being doing SLRs since my Minolta SRT 102 in the 70s, have not scratched a lens yet. So this is another area up to the owner.

cheezz wrote in post #12760023
Never heard of "many moons ago"?

Not before, is it same with many months ago?

It's a colloquialism for "a long time ago"

Snydremark wrote in post #12760086
It's a colloquialism for "a long time ago"

Ahhh, I need to find those grammar books instead of goofing around here.

KVN Photo wrote in post #12760214
Ahhh, I need to find those grammar books instead of goofing around here.

I would loan you my grammar book, but I haven't seen it in a month of Sundays.

I'm with skygod on the extra protection point. i use a filter to protect my element, but i also use hoods on all my lenses, as well.

Hi and welcome to POTN,

A UV protection filter is not really needed, might even have some negative effects on your images if it's not a good one. Your camera already has UV filter built in actually. So all a UV does is "protect" from something... but I have to wonder, just how much protection can a thin piece of glass be expected to provide?

Yes, I have "protection" filters for all my lenses... They are stored in my camera bags and only used once in a blue moon. I will install one if shooting in a sandstorm, in salt spray at the seaside with Sally and her seashells, etc.

I get a kick out of folks who say "I use a protection filter and don't see any issues with my images". Of course they won't see the loss, because they aren't shooting side by side with and without the filter and comparing the images. A really good, multi-coated filter will be next to invisible in most situations... Might only become an issue in rarer situations, more extreme lighting for example. It's the cheaper, uncoated filters that really can be a big issue. Me... I'm looking for best quality images, without any sort of compromise I can avoid. I have used lenses for decades without any sort of protection filter on them and know that a lens hood does a better job protecting, so I choose to leave the filters off my lenses unless they serve a real purpose. There are times they do serve, but most of the time it's just another layer of optics in front of the lens that might or might not be an issue.

In virtually all cases, with or without a filter, a lens hood is a good idea. It can protect your lens from bumps, as well as oblique light that can cause flare and other image quality robbing effects.

C-Pol is quite useful for many purposes, but definitely shouldn't be left on a lens full time. Get a good one... multi-coated. Hoya, B+W, Heliopan are good. There are some good Kenko and Marumi filters too, I hear. Recently saw Rodenstock, which should be good but I haven't tried them. Just be sure any filter is multi-coated (if at all possible, more on that in a moment).

If you like to use slow shutter speeds (to blur the movement of water, for example) or shoot video with your camera, you might need ND or Neutral Dentsity filters. It can be a little tougher to find these multi-coated.

Sometimes Graduated ND are handy... these are half clear and half tinted gray, often used to "hold back" the sky in a landscape shot, so that the exposure is better balanced with fore and middle ground. Look for rectangular ND Grads... Cokin, Tiffen, Singh Ray, Lee, Adorama/ProOptic are some brands. Don't get the screw in type... you have to be able to move the filter up and down to match the horizon (unless you always put the horizon in exactly the same place in your images). This type filter is usually not multi coated. Use a lens hood to protect it.

There are few other type filters needed with digital. Most color balance and correction can be done with Custom White balance in the camera, or the WB presets, or in post processing. Some portrait and special effects filters might be useful... sort of depends upon what you shoot.

Yes, this question would have been better posted in the lens or accessories forum. There is a sticky at the top of the Lens Forum, about "protection" filters.

KVN Photo wrote in post #12760044
Not before, is it same with many months ago?

kinda like "once in a blue moon".

UV - no.

When I bought my first L lens (100-400) I put a UV filter on it because I was so scared I might damage it. Within a week I took it off and it hasn't been on the lens since. I found I was having focus issues with it.

The thing is, if you drop your lens and damage it, the front element is the cheapest part to replace. It's the guts of the lens that will cost $$$ to fix, and the UV filter isn't going to protect those at all.

I'll chime in for a bit...

CPL as everyone said is useful. The two brands people go for a B+W and Hoya. For me the Hoya are just as good as the b+w and a lot less. A good place to get new filters is maxsaver.net (yes its legit, everyone ask that). As already said, multi coated is what you want.

UV filters I don't really use unless it was cheap and I can't find a clear protection filter for less.

I know a lot of people have used lenses without filters for years with no consequences and I applaud their lack of butter fingers. For me though I had 1 incident where I forgotten my bag was open and I lifted it. Luck for me the distance was just from the foot well of my car to the pavement so no damage to anything but when my 70-200 hit the ground it's lens cap did pop off. Could have been ugly as in that situation the lens hood was reversed. So if you aren't one to be alway 100% careful it could be a good idea to have protection. And also, some L lenses are only weather sealed when you pair them up with a filter.