[Terry]

With my film camera I always left the UV (skylight) filter attached primarily as a lens protector, does this also hold true when using a DSLR. Also other than getting a polarising filter can anyone recommend a range of filters that I would find useful for a newbie.

[Black Pearl]

Lots of arguments around the net about using UV filters, I'll let you Google them and decide.

I always have done and yes I use them on my D-SLR. I have worked for Jessops coming on 22 years now and have seen countless people come in close to tears because there lens is smashed and then withered with relief when I have unscrewed their ruined UV and, after a quick clean, put a new one on. Regardless of the actual filtering effect it is that reason I would recommend them on all lenses.

You are bound to come across some old duffer who says "I've been taking pictures since before you were born and never dropped a lens yet" well good for them but is it worth the risk for a few quid?

[Alex]

I don't use them but that's a personal decision. Though I would definitely recommend them just for the fact that they protect the lens glass, like Black Pearl has said, better to spend a few £ than £££ for a costly repair or new lens. They will still reduce some haze when taking out door photography.
Cokin and Hitect have good sets of filter for you to try out. The Cokin are OK but when you use two together you get a purple colour cast to your shots and are easily scratched, I find the Hitect filters much better. Lee filters are the best out there at the moment but will cost you over £100 for the starter grad set.

[katew]

I always use a UV filter to protect my lens. Since I'm an accident looking for somewhere to happen, I think it's a wise choice for me.

Besides the UV filter, the other ones I have are:

Close-up: now I have a macro, I don't use this one. I found it quite hard to get used to as you tend to get chromatic aberration, so it takes some skill to avoid that.

ND Grad (soft): worth its weight in chocolate. Given how often the sky in the UK is white and washed out, this one is a really useful addition if you do landscape/townscape etc.

Red: I haven't used this yet as I've only just bought it, but apparently, looking through it can help you see tones better, which is good if you're composing for black and white.

Circular polariser: again, worth its weight in beer! I use this one quite a lot, not just for avoiding reflections, but also for general deepening of tones.

HTH.

[Richard]

I have a cirlcular polorizer a couple of ND grads, a sunset filter, a blue filter and a skin tone filter dont use any of them hugely but the circular polorizer is the most used but the sunset filter is very good too

[Tonyphotoplus]

I always use them, always have and its a great lens protector. At least you have that as a security and peace of mind.

[Terry]

Thanks everyone for your advice. Looks like the ND grads need adding to my list.
Terry

[Evil 8 Ball]

One thing to bear in mind, Terry, is that if using an ND filter it could be a bit tricky to use on a lens that turns as it focuses.

I use both clear and UV filters to protect my 3 lenses.

[DaveW]

It has even been claimed UV filters are no longer needed for film, since modern emulsions are no longer as UV sensitive as they used to be. Digital sensors are usually not that UV sensitive either, so the only purpose some would claim for those filters is now as a "transparent lens cap". However adding any extra layer of glass to a lens not originally computed in its optical design can slightly degrade it's image, even if most would not notice the difference. One of the problems of sticking a flat slab of glass in the front of a lens is flare, so it is best to always use multicoated filters not cheapo's, and preferably a lens hood with them as well.

In fact as UV ones are no real advantage to the image on digital cameras Nikon now produce perfectly clear but multicoated filters for protection, but at around £40 they are pretty dear.

http://www.bhphotovi...EG&A=details&Q=

As a cheaper alternative there is probably little disadvantage in using a UV filter as a "transparent lens cap" instead.

http://www.great-lan...let-filter.html

DaveW

[Black Pearl]

Aye, aye Dave

You might be able to answer this one for me..

If a D-SLR is set to Auto White Balance, then how come when you put a 81a (for instance) warm-up filter on the resulting picture is warmer? Why doesn't the WB bit in the camera see the filter and think 'Hmmm the scene is a little warm, I'll correct that?'

[DaveW]

It depends how effective your camera auto white balance is I suppose? If it was perfect most higher end cameras would not have user custom white balance settings, and consumer cameras Scene Modes. However lacking, digital auto white balance is it is far better than any camera using film because that has no automatic correction for light variations at all. So as the ambient lights colour temperature varies throughout the day theoretically you would constantly need to be changing any colour correction filter to a different colour, or density, to compensate as the light constantly changed for consistent results.

The point is you do not need the filter for the warm up effect anymore since this can be applied in post processing. Opinions vary as to how effective auto white balance is at removing the filter effect, but obviously it will try and that in itself may degrade the image more than applying warm up effects in post processing. To quote from the following link:-

"Optical filters are quicker to use, although where they filter out a lot of the light in one particular RGB channel, the lack of detail recorded in that channel by the sensor will tend to reduce the sharpness of the image - the demosaicing software has less information to reconstruct image detail from."

Some also claim a Skylight filter costs you about half a stop of light, so you in effect reduce the value of your lenses maximum aperture by that much.

See:-

http://photo.net/can...ra-forum/00EHAC

http://www.digicamin...hitebalance.htm

There are in fact a few white balance correction aids for digital cameras, so evidently some acknowledge that in camera white balance does not always automatically get it correct. If it did it would of course fully correct for your warm up filter and restore the lighting to around 5500K

http://www.ppmag.com...te-balan-1.html

However if you look at any in depth camera review you will see their auto white balance correction is not perfect in all situations, but you usually can manually correct it for the circumstances. But a warm up filter permanently on the lens never varies it's correction, even though the ambient lighting is constantly changing, as it does throughout the day. In that respect correcting the cameras white balance using the custom setting on the odd occasion it gets it wrong wins every time in my opinion. In the past professionals used to use a separate hand held colour temperature meter to assess the lighting and use a Gel holder over the lens to correct in the small increments desired.

http://www.ephotozin...sure-meters-134

We all bring many hang overs from film to digital, but a digital sensor is not film and behaves differently, so digital cameras may diverge radically from film cameras in future. The present digital camera is merely a film camera with a digital sensor grafted on. The SLR film camera developed the way it did through having to use roll film. That constraint is no longer there with digital so the next generation who never knew film camera usage may never buy UV or Skylight or any other colour correction filters in future, expecting to do any tweaks in post processing.

DaveW

[Black Pearl]

Never use them myself now but I tried one the other day out of idle curiosity. I might have a fiddle with a few differnt grades at work as there are loads of them lying about.