Teacher suggests warming filter

My sister-in-law got her first DSLR over Xmas, the 60D. She's eager to learn, so in addition to reading, practicing and asking me (her out of state brother-in-law) for some advice - she's taking a DSLR class. Her teacher recently suggested that she get a WARMING filter for her (EF 28-135mm) lens since her primary focus for now will be shots of people.

I keep a B+W multi-coat UV filter on each of my lenses but that is just for basic protection - I don't know anything about warming filters.

My primary question is... won't her camera override or negate some of the intended effect of a warming filter because she has her 60D set to automatic white balance? She's literally just learning the basics of exposure (i.e. the SS/Aperture/ISO triangle), so I guess I question the wisdom of introducing a warming filter when she's just starting to learn. But maybe I'm over thinking it.

Any advice to pass along would be greatly appreciated.

Patriotic1 wrote in post #16671796
My primary question is... won't her camera override or negate some of the intended effect of a warming filter because she has her 60D set to automatic white balance?

You are correct.

The teacher is ill-informed for the digital world.

SkipD wrote in post #16671813
You are correct.

The teacher is ill-informed for the digital world.

Plus One

I would just shoot raw and do the "warming" in post. No loss in quality from the additional glass in that case.

OP here: I thought this seemed strange but I originally googled the topic and found a Ken Rockwell webpage comment where he says "I still use a mild warming filter (81A) on all my digital cameras since I prefer the look I get, even with the WB adjusted warm." This made me question my understanding of how a filter works on a DSLR. But I assumed the takeaway was that he's not using AWB. Thanks

Patriotic1 wrote in post #16671902
OP here: I thought this seemed strange but I originally googled the topic and found a Ken Rockwell webpage comment where he says "I still use a mild warming filter (81A) on all my digital cameras since I prefer the look I get, even with the WB adjusted warm." This made me question my understanding of how a filter works on a DSLR.

Instead, question Ken Rockwell's understanding. Many people do.

SkipD wrote in post #16671813
You are correct.

The teacher is ill-informed for the digital world.

Just about sums it up. No filter needed.

Patriotic1 wrote in post #16671796
My sister-in-law got her first DSLR over Xmas, the 60D. She's eager to learn, so in addition to reading, practicing and asking me (her out of state brother-in-law) for some advice - she's taking a DSLR class. Her teacher recently suggested that she get a WARMING filter for her (EF 28-135mm) lens since her primary focus for now will be shots of people.

I keep a B+W multi-coat UV filter on each of my lenses but that is just for basic protection - I don't know anything about warming filters.

My primary question is... won't her camera override or negate some of the intended effect of a warming filter because she has her 60D set to automatic white balance? She's literally just learning the basics of exposure (i.e. the SS/Aperture/ISO triangle), so I guess I question the wisdom of introducing a warming filter when she's just starting to learn. But maybe I'm over thinking it.

Any advice to pass along would be greatly appreciated.

She can always use a warming filter to see what the teacher is trying to achieve. Later she can take some photos of people without the filter, and try some of the numerous NIK software and other filter plugins. What is there to lose?

RayinAlaska wrote in post #16672246
What is there to lose?

Time.

Patriotic1 wrote in post #16671902
OP here: I thought this seemed strange but I originally googled the topic and found a Ken Rockwell webpage comment where he says "I still use a mild warming filter (81A) on all my digital cameras since I prefer the look I get, even with the WB adjusted warm." This made me question my understanding of how a filter works on a DSLR. But I assumed the takeaway was that he's not using AWB. Thanks

have you looked at ken's gallery? it will explain a lot to you.

People should be more open minded as opposed to saying every person's opinion, including this teacher, is wrong. Each of have different likes/dislikes in how an image should look. It is entirely possible that some people might prefer a warmer look, who are we to say that is incorrect? I'm paraphrasing a bit, but Moose Peterson, an accomplished landscape and wildlife photographer, once stated if you can do something "up front", as opposed to post processing, then do it up front. This is one of the reasons he developed the Hoya Moose Peterson circular polarizer, which I personally prefer for landscape work.

John from PA wrote in post #16672383
People should be more open minded as opposed to saying every person's opinion, including this teacher, is wrong. Each of have different likes/dislikes in how an image should look. It is entirely possible that some people might prefer a warmer look, who are we to say that is incorrect? I'm paraphrasing a bit, but Moose Peterson, an accomplished landscape and wildlife photographer, once stated if you can do something "up front", as opposed to post processing, then do it up front. This is one of the reasons he developed the Hoya Moose Peterson circular polarizer, which I personally prefer for landscape work.

But you can change the color temperature up front too....an actual piece of glass that costs actual money and may degrade the lens performance just to do something that can be done via a press of a button (up front, not in post) seems silly.

Color gels on flash to get all one color in a scene are still of use. Color filters on lenses are totally unnecessary.

With digital, the only kinds of commonly used filters that are still quite useful (as they cannot be re-created in camera or in post) are polarizers, ND and Gradient filters.

A magenta filter for those pukish fluorescent lights would be more useful.

Just shoot in RAW. I have my camera set either to Daylight or a custom WB for my Integras, no AWB or any other settings are used. Very, very rarely I might use Fluorescent when I'm using a plus green gel on the flash head.

Has anyone here done a side by side comparison of shots with a warming filter and shots with the WB adjusted to warm? I wonder if the filter affects different hues in the scene differently in a way that globally adjusting the WB doesn't.

John from PA wrote in post #16672383
People should be more open minded as opposed to saying every person's opinion, including this teacher, is wrong. Each of have different likes/dislikes in how an image should look. It is entirely possible that some people might prefer a warmer look, who are we to say that is incorrect? I'm paraphrasing a bit, but Moose Peterson, an accomplished landscape and wildlife photographer, once stated if you can do something "up front", as opposed to post processing, then do it up front. This is one of the reasons he developed the Hoya Moose Peterson circular polarizer, which I personally prefer for landscape work.

this is from his website:

http://www.moosepeters​on.com/techtips/polari​zer.html

he specifically says that he does not use his own warming polarizer with digital cameras. it's for film. i assume for the reasons said in this thread.

his own words: "Do I use the Polarizer with Digital? YES! Can you do the same thing in Photoshop? NO! Do I use a polarizer all the time? NO! Do I use the Moose Polarizer? NO, since I’m not using the 81a filter anymore."