without opening a whole big can of worms, i am just wondering what some of your thoughts are on using filters on your camera. a while back i remember someone here telling me they never use filters. is this opinion shared by others here? can anyoen give me reasons why i should or why i shouldn't?
thanks....
amnon

haze or UV - no unless for protection in exceptional circumstances, eg shooting near saltwater.

circular polarizers - unqualified yes

Neutral Density - yes, sometime no alternative to get the slow speed you need for softenng flowing water

SND's or GND's - open for debate

I'll double that, word for word.

If you are all digital, then I third the two previous motions.

If you are shooting B&W film then judicious use of filters can improve your images. A medium or dark yellow, and a 25 red are my most used filters. I have also used blue filters occasionally for portraiture; they mimic that interesting swarthy effect previously obtained with ortho film.

And I'll fourth the previous comments.

I'll add that if you do digital B&W, there is absolutely no need to use the conventional (25 red, medium yellow, etc.) filters when shooting, since you can simulate the effect better in postprocessing (especially using the Convert-to-B&W-Pro plugin for PS). But there is no way to simulate a polarizer accurately after the fact.

Eric

do we have a concensus???

thanks guys
amnon

I disagree. If I spend 2 grand on a quality lens of course I'm going to put something on it to protect it. I've seen the friends with the broken and scratched filters to prove it too.

I don't disagree, but I think conscientious use of the lens cap suffices.

It depends what you are shooting....anywhere I'm running around a lot, I'll stick on a UV filter - taking off a lens cap takes time and I've missed shots before due to this. With a UV filter, the cap stays in my pocket until the action's gone. My cameras live on my shoulder and sleep in a bag for much of my work.

UV filters are needed in the mountains too.

I always wanted a tabacco grad when I shot film but then I discovered scanners and photoshop. Never used one but I heard they were difficult to make look natural.

Ok, I am going to wade in here although it's well above my head.

Julia and Iliah Borg of the RawMagick-Team argue that the use of colour filters will help to reduce noise and increase dynamic range. See for example this dpr thread: Link or this one from nikoncafe: Link. I think the general idea is to prevent in particular the noise-prone blue channel from being underexposed and, thus, in need of signal enhancement. In other words, they are saying

Similarly, they argue for the use of an IR-blocking filter for more accurate white-balancing.

Karsten

I've heard lots about filters for digital use. I always use UV for protection and I have one for each of my lenses. They never come off, except when I stack a ND and a polarizer.

So, pretty much agree here: ND filters, polarizer, and UV protectors--all good.
Color filters? Do some research. You can set color balance in RAW with no loss in quality, from what I understand because the information is still in RAW form. All you are doing is the same thing a filter does, when using digital cameras, and you can do it after the fact in a RAW program. Is this accurate? If so, it is one of those things that makes digital so nice--White Balance is no longer a real issue, even when you are shooting with strobes. You can simple use small adjustments in camera RAW to get the balance you need.