Teacher suggests warming filter

^^^ meaning the teacher must be still stuck in film days

Seriously shoot raw and you can cool/warm the photo all you want....

mike_d wrote in post #16672423
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.

You might check Tiffen's website since they sell software filters.

Although you can WB the camera to produce a warm look (set the color temp manually or white balance to a blue card) if you are shooting raw it's just metadata that can be changed in post. If you're shooting video or jpg and the look is getting burned in, then you either need the filter or the manual WB.

Re polarizers and things like graduated ND filters, they do things you can't easily replicate in post.

I'm not 100% about the fact that AWB will correct the warming filter. My case in point -

I have a (Pentax) Super-Takumar 50mm 1.4 with the Thorium element that has yellowed over time. There is a slight yellow warm color rendition to the images made with it, that is not getting corrected by the AWB.

These were both shot within a minute of each other. The one on the right was shot with a CZ Biotar (which tends to have a cooler color rendition), and the left is with the Super-Tak. These are both SOOC, (converted to jpeg (neutral)) shot AWB, spot metering, +1 EV.

The Super-Tak is definitely warmer, so why wouldn't a arming filter work?

And just for fun, here they are again. First is Auto Tone corrections in LR5 to both. Second is Auto Tone and Auto WB corrections in LR5.

In my opinion, this teacher made the mistake in stating what the students should or should not do. The teacher should teach what to expect from doing so and let each photographer decide when, where, and why adding the filter may be necessary to fulfill their personal needs.

SkipD wrote in post #16671813
The teacher is ill-informed for the digital world.

Exactly. Very old school film approach. Filters work by stopping light which means less data capture. That is not a good approach Us any number of post processing tools to apply effects such as warming.

Ok, here's two more comps. Super-Takumar on left, Canon 50mm f/1.8 MkI on right. First set SOOC, second set with Auto WB applied in LR5.

KirkS518 wrote in post #16672472
I'm not 100% about the fact that AWB will correct the warming filter. My case in point -

I have a (Pentax) Super-Takumar 50mm 1.4 with the Thorium element that has yellowed over time. There is a slight yellow warm color rendition to the images made with it, that is not getting corrected by the AWB. ...

The Super-Tak is definitely warmer, so why wouldn't a arming filter work?

Not all colour casts are "warming" or "cooling", and in particular just because there's more yellow doesn't mean it's "warming". "Warming" in this context means to decrease the colour temperature. This is exactly what the 81 series filters do, albeit imperfectly because of the available dyes.

melcat wrote in post #16672511
Not all colour casts are "warming" or "cooling", and in particular just because there's more yellow doesn't mean it's "warming". "Warming" in this context means to decrease the colour temperature. This is exactly what the 81 series filters do, albeit imperfectly because of the available dyes.

I understand that, but from what I'm gathering from the posts, is that AWB will correct any color cast from a filter (warming/cooling or whatever). My point is that it won't (completely) negate what the filter is doing, if it 'corrects' it at all.

I'll search through my crap, and see if I have a warming filter (in a size that fits a lens I have), and do a quick comparison tomorrow.

But there was a time "Moose" said he took virtually every picture with the Nikon A2 (81A) or the Moose polarizer. See http://www.vividlight.​com/articles/304.htm and note the date as 2001. Now, in 2007 he says he no longer uses it. Tastes change, more importantly there are no hard fast rules to be followed.

KirkS518 wrote in post #16672522
I understand that, but from what I'm gathering from the posts, is that AWB will correct any color cast from a filter (warming/cooling or whatever). My point is that it won't (completely) negate what the filter is doing, if it 'corrects' it at all.

I'll search through my crap, and see if I have a warming filter (in a size that fits a lens I have), and do a quick comparison tomorrow.

I somewhat see AWB compensating the warming component, but I have used both types of CPL out west where skies are still blue and the warmng effect is pleasing to my eye. I am also at higher elevations where UV is know to be a problem. If the person the OP referred to shoots jpeg, then I think some warming on blue skies is even needed more.

yellow filters are good for black and white film, but even leica recommends pure post processing for black and white on digital... from my understanding it processes it in color and converts it to b&w... so the filter would be of zero use.

My dad pushes warming filters on me like he used to push fish oil on me as a child.. he's relentless
He loves his leica rangefinder cameras and god bless him.

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 think the point is, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, please, that any alteration of colour induced by a filter is going to be "corrected" by automatic white balancing.
Of course, if a custom, or fixed WB is in use, then filter induced changes would be visible, but that doesn't seem like the scenario in this case.

Edit: Sorry - I now see that this point has already been made.

I used an 81A filter on all my lenses way back in the film days (early 90s through about 2004). I even had a "Moose" polarizer that was a combination of an 81A warming filter and polarizer. I shot Nikon back then and did a lot of portraits. When I started, I even attended "Nikon School" and had an opportunity to meet Moose Peterson.

Then I sold all my film stuff and got into digital. I saw no reason to use the warming filters since I shoot RAW and prefer to have neutral image data so I can correct myself. My lenses are all bare now, unless I am in the rain or the beach - then I use a Hoya HD "protector" filter just to keep out the occasional water droplet or grain of sand.

As for Kirk's experiment, I don't think the sensors process the WB the same each time. I think there are variations and acceptable margins built-in to these sensors and they don't always behave the same way when the conditions are similar. However, it's fun to see these experiments, so keep 'em coming.

KirkS518 wrote in post #16672504
Ok, here's two more comps. Super-Takumar on left, Canon 50mm f/1.8 MkI on right. First set SOOC, second set with Auto WB applied in LR5.

Instead of using auto WB use the eyedropper tool on the shirt. I'd imagine they'll be quite a bit closer.